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

Saturday, January 31, 2004 

The London Meeting (again).

Another report, this time very much confirming our original understanding of events has now been forwarded via Christina Speight:-

I regret to say that this report is true as I too attended the meeting, but what happened did not surprise me. What was worse was that at the end Roger Knapman crowned an abysmal performance (which managed to combine all the
worst aspects of his tired old speeches with patronising claptrap), with a clear "inexplicable statement" which was exposed and led to the premature end of the meeting in mild uproar and people getting up to leave. The
chairman had to really shout very loud to restore order (we never knew Gerald could shout that loud...).

Knapman started talking about the need to work together etc etc and Tim Parker said "Does that mean ending the kangaroo court discipline hearing against Damian Hockney".

Knapman then clearly said "I know nothing about the Damian Hockney case and will make a judgement when I see the paperwork"

Damian Hockney then stopped him and said: "I'm sorry Roger but we all know that is a lie, and a bare-faced one at that. You spoke to at least two people in this room three days before my kangaroo hearing and disclosed to these people confidential details of my case which even I did not know and which the NEC should not know either." Gerald Roberts who was chairing the meeting and was one of those who had received Knapman's information then confirmed that that indeed had been the case. Uproar followed because it was clear that everyome though that that was a clear lie.

And it was interesting that they did nothing at all to mix with the membership and would not leave until all the members had left the hallway.

The whole meeting was a litany of cover-up, smoke and mirrors and indeed lies. Two members present have now uncovered a further real whopper and having the facts intend to challenge.


posted by Martin |5:12 PM

More Thoughts on UKIP/BNP Connections

Ten months ago this writer was disqualified as an MEP candidate, shortly after alerting members of the NEC to press reports regarding links between the BNP and UKIP, which seemed to him to carry considerable weight. This analysis from a party member was placed on an internet discussion group last evening and therefore comes as no surprise to the editor of this blog. The reasoning seems spot on and the evidence appears to be becoming ever more irrefutable:

If there is one thing that I have learned from my many successful years in business management it is that it pays dividends to regularly step-back and systematically reappraise all the factors in play impacting the enterprise.
All too often good management and sound decision making suffers simply because of information overload - the inability "to see the wood for the trees" and, importantly, to react accordingly.

Applying the same technique to UKIP "PLC" I have arrived at a number of interesting, if not controversial, conclusions - conclusions that I defend as entirely justified in the light of recent events and revelations!

(1) Taken as a whole there are simple too many inferences from too many unconnected sources, which taken together with a great many "coincidences", argue in favour of the existence of a UKIP/BNP deal.

(2) It is incontrovertible that moderates/liberals are being purged, or otherwise driven, from the Party.

(3) Our stance on immigration/asylum-seeking and other policies has noticeably hardened - as has the rhetoric of our leadership. The overall effect is a gradual and deliberate repositioning of UKIP from the centre of the British political centre to the centre-right.

(4) From what I can discern, and have been told, the BNP is also gradually repositioning itself from the far-right of the British political spectrum to the centre-right.

(5) If we accept (1) and (2) to be correct then it can be inferred from (3) and (4) that a process of "convergence" is underway between the two parties. "Convergence", in the world of business, is usually regarded as a necessary precursor to merger!

Some people claim that a UKIP/BNP merger is a non-starter as it would not be acceptable to the membership. But we are talking merger and not take-over which implies and requires a common raft of acceptance! And I would add that there are a great many Chairmen who have no time for the current NEC but tolerate them out of political expediency - the same political expediency that would facilitate a merger I wonder?

So the question isn't whether there is, or isn't, a UKIP/BNP deal, I think we can take that as read - but, rather, where is the deal taking us?

posted by Martin |12:05 PM

Two Quotes for the Weekend


I seek not revenge. I wish for a declaration of a persons suitability to hold senior office in UKIP based on some serious mistakes. The evidence is impressive and I am sure those whose deliberations it shall be will do the best for the future of the party..................Nikki Sinclaire, NEC member, seeking to justify her bringing of yet another new disciplinary proceeding through the totally discredited UKIP Disciplinary Procedures


We must affirm anew the discipline of the Party namely:
(1.) the individual is subordinate to the organization
(2) the minority is subordinate to the majority
(3) the lower level is subordinate to the upper level
(4) the entire membership is subordinate to the Central Committee.
Whoever violates these articles of discipline disrupts Party unity.........Mao Tse-Tung October 1938 page 479 of the Red Book!

posted by Martin |11:47 AM

UKIP London to 'Collapse'

A very senior party figure has taken the trouble to inform me that UKIP Party Leader Roger Knapman and Chairman David Lott, left last Monday's London meeting under no illusion that should Damian Hockney be forced out as a result of the disgraceful charade that was the recent diciplinary panel hearing, then the entire party organisation within the capital will 'COLLAPSE'.

If these fools believe that this can be allowed to happen in the nation's capital, without consequences elsewhere in the country, then they must indeed be living in cloud cuckoo land!

posted by Martin |10:40 AM

Friday, January 30, 2004 

One more view on Monday's Meeting

We have received a further report on the above, which seems to summarise aspects not yet brought out. Our informer has asked to remain anonymous.

Having attended the London meeting on 26th January, I'd like to give you some facts about the meeting, to balance the strange account put forward earlier this week by Rob McWhirter:

Roger Knapman and David Lott were asked to give assurances that the leadership would properly inform and consult with the NEC in future. They refused to do this.
They were asked to give their full support to London election candidates and NEC members. They refused to do this.
They were asked to urge Jeffrey Titford to reconsider his unreasonable withdrawal of funding from the regional organiser. They refused to do this.
They were asked to cease all further communication with Greg Lance-Watkins. They refused to do this.
They were asked to state that the party would not be diluting its message of complete British withdrawal from the EU in its election literature. They refused to do this.

posted by Martin |1:56 PM

Could Terrorism be an Electoral Turn-Off?

While the likes of Robert A McWhirter, UKIP Chairman Southwark and Bermondsey Branch, might believe support for terrorism is a sure-fire vote winner, results from the real electorate would seem to indicate otherwise.

This by-election seems to bare this out, albeit one that appears to have been forgotten by UKIP Press Officer, Mark Croucher. Namely, last week's result of Canterbury's North Nailbourne Ward by-election. As pointed out elsewhere, 'neither has, Nigel Farage, UKIP's uncrowned Leader and South East England MEP, strutted forth from his doom-laden Ashford bunker with a big smile on his face.'

The reason, sadly, is plain for all to see - UKIP polled just 26 votes (2.4%) of the poll - just five votes ahead of the Labour Party candidate who now, incidentally, holds the unenviable record of having achieved Labour's worse ever result in Kent.

In October UKIP polled 4.1% (37 votes) in nearby Margate Central ward - a result that was described at the time as "unrepresentative" and "a glitch" - how right they were! How Nigel must be looking back nostalgically to the
heady days of October last!

Full result: Canterbury, North Nailbourne Ward.

Conservative 544, Liberal-Democrat 478, UKIP 26, Labour 21.

posted by Martin |10:16 AM

NE Disciplinary Disgrace Debated

After many months of lying apparently forgotten, the disgraceful events over the sacking of the NE Regional Committee officers has again been raised on UKIP's main party discussion forum, thanks to a similar travesty of justice now having been perpetrated against the party's one-time Vice Chairman, Damian Hockney.

Before quoting the post on that matter, this seems a good opportunity to remind readers of my purpose in running this blog. My own appeal against candidature disqualification was, if anything, even more appallingly handled. To start it was a purely vindictive act designed to stain my reputation as I had already publicly stated that I was not cotinuing with my MEP candidature under the party's present corrupt leadership, and had been so quoted in the NE daily press. No date for any appeal hearing was ever set and, of course, never was I able to obtaing the names of the six members of the panel, four of whom supposedly arbitrarily threw the matter out without consideration. The only name I ever had was that of the acting chairman, Malcolm Woods, presently notorious for his reported claims regarding a UKIP pact with the BNP.

Herewith the posting from UKIP's ind uk:

Well, er, I already have been hauled up before the beak (on bent charges), but of course if anyone WERE to bring discipline proceedings against David, they would just be ruled out of court under the rule "no case to answer" ((rule 2.4). and then the person who had the temerity to bring them would be disciplined under rule 5.2 for bringing a "malicious" complaint.

But on a more serious note, the discipline process has been brought very low.

One of the reasons why I have caused ruffled feathers relates to discipline of someone else. Eight months back, there was a discipline case against the former North East chairman who had uncovered the membership corruption which led to a candidate being forced to stand down. The North East chairman was the whistleblower and of course it was him who was disciplined because he upset friends of the person caught.

The case, in which Nigel had a clear interest having been the one to suspend the NE committee in the first place, featured Nigel's secretary on the discipline panel! What was worse, it was done in secret and Party Sec Derek Clark refused to disclose who was on the panel to the NEC "for confidentiality reasons". I discovered what had happened and Derek became angry and threatened to discipline me for finding out and for bringing it up at the NEC.

Why not check these facts with Derek himself derekclark@.........

Others on the NEC remember that very well. The fact that Derek Clark could not see how corrupt that appears was worrying, but the bovine tendency won through and nothing was done because Nigel and Roger clearly wanted it to
stay that way. Very handy isn't it to have your own staff bring cases and your own staff judge them?

Does anyone think that is right?

And of course the same applies with my case. It was brought by an employee of Nigel's - a case which Nigel had said should be brought during the days preceding and in exactly that way. And then it was open to the Party Sec to include three other employees of Nigel's for the discipline panel itself. The bizarre claim they now make under pressure that they didn't include employees on my case is itself an admission that the principle is wrong, but itself is unconstitutional because you should not be announcing who is and isn't on a panel and you shouldn't do what Roger Knapman did the other day (as you remember ***). He claimed to the London meeting that he had no information about my case at all, and then it was proved (as the London chairman confirmed it after I brought it up) that that was not true and that
Roger had called the chairman and disclosed confidential details of my case to him three days before the thing was heard. You will remember Rob the uproar that that disclosure caused, and quite right too.

I am sorry but the discipline system is rotten and needs immediate reform. It's easy too (you don't need EGMs and large amounts of time and effort), but of course only if you have the will.

And we need to define properly what constitutes "confidential". Otherwise "confidential" means "what the party leader or chairman or Nigel or indeed anyone else in a position of power, finds inconvenient to be known", or "what we want to conceal". A 'corrupt and self-serving definition' to quote my own lawyers on the matter...
As ever

posted by Martin |9:43 AM

Thursday, January 29, 2004 

Farage and the Bombers

We earlier offered to publish on this blog, any comments or disassociation from Farage's remarks that any UKIP European Election Candidate might wish to make.

Nothing was received until today, when we got an e-mail from the author of the 'balancing report' that we earlier generously posted regarding Monday's London meeting, one Robert MacWhirter (see below for all reports), who amazingly has now also chosen to associate himself and his entire Southwark and Bermondsey Branch with those remarks.

Rather than thanking us for having posted his sycophantic report in full, he rather chose to dispute the press statement of Richard Corbett MEP (which we merely quoted here this morning) and then continue to defend the Farage/UKIP Leadership position on the parcel bombs and terrorism, as follows:


"As for Nigel's comments on terrorism, both myself (as EU elections candidate) and my branch committee (N. Southwark and Bermondsey) are behind him 100%

In short, grow up and get real!

Robert A. McWhirter
Chairman, UKIP (N. Southwark & Bermondsey)
EU elections list candidate (Scotland) "


Note the trade mark gratuitous insult, thrown in for no clear reason whatsoever! Scotland with Peter Troy as lead candidate and this character somewhere down the list, look unlikely to gather many votes come June!

posted by Martin |8:34 PM

A Letter from Damian Hockney

We received a copy of this letter to UKIP Party Chairman David Lott earlier today which is in response to a communication recently circularised by him amongst party officials and members.


Dear David

I am appalled at the letter of 26th January 2004 which you have sent to large numbers of people in the party. It is seriously defamatory and much of the content is untrue and clearly designed to prejudice the forthcoming
elections for places on the NEC.

You have wrongly stated and embellished the nature of the discipline case and you have falsely claimed that I was properly informed that there was indeed to be a hearing on the date in question. You know full well I was not
informed, and it is clear that you have made the unnecessary statement in your letter knowing this. If, as you claim, a discipline panel did meet, it has seen clearly fraudulent evidence and has made a recommendation to the NEC of expulsion on the basis of that fraudulent evidence. I am not guilty of what was claimed and had no opportunity to defend myself from what has become known as a Kangaroo Court. I have made clear in private correspondence with you and with the Party Secretary that this was the case, but you have failed to respond to all of my letters and have refused to
address my comments even when we met face to face.

You have broken the party's strict rules on discipline by publicising an emotive and untrue version of this matter. Rule 5.4 makes quite clear you may not publicise rulings in this way before an appeal and before I have even been allowed to comment. David, this is seriously questionable practice and sets a very bad example to the party.

You have also failed, as has the Party Secretary, to provide any proof that you gave me notice of the hearing. You have stood guilty several times before of attempting to hold hearings while those being attacked are not available, and we all know of at least two occasions when this was specifically planned.

What is stranger still is that you continue to deny me and others on the NEC knowledge of who was on the Discipline Panel. If there was a valid hearing of which I had been properly notified, and if it was genuinely intended by you that I should actually be there, I would have set eyes on the members of any panel on arrival. I cannot believe you would have set up some Northern Ireland style security hearing with the panel hidden behind a steel wall.

Your comments in the NB section at the foot of your letter are contemptible and clearly imply that I have done something illegal, have planned to or should not be in possession of party information which I have. I therefore have to put you on notice that I demand your immediate retraction of this letter and your apology for it, failing which I must take immediate action.

I am sending this to every branch chairman which I have every right to do, and ask you to note that fact. I am allowed to use this list, in spite of your false claim that I may not, and am doing so. I shall issue a further statement using it tomorrow if I need to.

At a meeting of London activists on Monday night, members repeatedly condemned the leadership's lack of response and the lack of information being provided over a number of issues, and still the Party Leader and Party Chairman failed to provide any satisfaction.

I would conclude that it is unwise to issue legal threats to branch chairmen in the postscripts of your letter, and to blacken the name of individuals who you are in any event putting through a very questionable 'discipline' process.

Damian Hockney


posted by Martin |4:35 PM

Labour MEP's Refusal to Debate UKIP.

As pointed out in our post immediately beneath this, we find it strange that UKIP seemed to seek positive publicity from a Labour MEP's refusal to debate with a UKIP candidate. We have now traced the Press Release put out by Richard Corbett MEP, the Labour European Parliamentarian in question which we quote below. What breathtaking incompetence on UKIP leadership's part to hand such wonderful ammunition to the party mainly facilitating our country's total immersion within the Franco/German dominated non-democratic EU conglomerstate. The press release also dated 23rd January follows:-

Corbett rejects "wholly unfounded" UKIP allegations

Richard Corbett, Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, has unequivocally rejected claims by the far-right UK Independence Party that he “chickened out” of a regional devolution debate in Grimsby.

Richard said that the UKIP press release severely misrepresented his views.

“In principle I am always delighted to take part in public debates with anti-Europeans, as indeed I have been doing frequently.

Terrorist sympathisers
“But I would not feel happy sharing a platform with an extremist faction which sympathises with anti-democracy terrorists, as UKIP recently did after elected MEPs were subjected to letter bomb attacks.

“Also, the subject of the debate was UK regional devolution – nothing to do with Europe at all. This does not tally with the involvement of UKIP, whose sole aim is to seek British withdrawal from the European Union.

“Far from keeping my reasons secret, I in fact explained all this to the debate organisers at the time of the invitation.”

Underlying reasons for UKIP attack
He added:

“Frankly, I'm amazed that UKIP has the cheek to accuse me of being ‘on the run' from political debate. The underlying reason for their smear campaign is simply that I have been active in putting the pro-European case in the public arena – something they would rather have kept quiet.

“The anti-Europe extremists are clearly getting desperate.

“Recent UKIP blusterings have been less and less related to any semblance of political argument. They seem to be reduced entirely to making unfounded personal attacks on people whose views differ from their own.”

Abusive e-mail campaign
In response to another attack from UKIP, Richard added:

“A poll on the European constitution was withdrawn from my website when my office was targeted by a campaign of personally abusive e-mails on the subject.”

posted by Martin |10:03 AM

UKIP! A Pariah Party?

This item taken from the UKIP Press Release section of the party's web-site dated 23rd January, appears to have excited little comment:-

The U.K. Independence Party today said that Labour MEP Richard Corbett was on the run after he refused to attend a public debate if UKIP Yorkshire and Humberside Euro candidate Godfrey Bloom was also invited.

What the UKIP Press Office does not reveal are the reasons for Mr Corbett's refusal.

We hear that it was a matter of principal, in protest at the highly publicised and outrageous remarks recently made by Nigel Farage MEP, backed-up by the party Press Officer and then even more astoundingly, four other senior party figures: the Leader, Chairman and its two other MEPs.

It will be surprising if members of many other political parties do not soon to take similar action.

UKIP will not have much of a Euro campaign if it is only the BNP, (which growing rumours indicate has some kind of deal with UKIP anyway) becomes the only other party prepared to share a platform or enter into debate with those shameless enough to pin on a UKIP rosette while its present leadership is still at the helm!

We imagine those linked with Farage's name in the EUobserver report linked from the post below, cannot be feeling entirely comfortable this morning.

posted by Martin |7:03 AM

Making UKIP Illegal in Europe

THis morning's EUobserver carries a report on steps to separate secessionist political parties from their EU perks.

The regulation is not new and has been commented upon at some length in the past in our sister blog Ironies. One effect of the ruling is that funding can be withheld from any party that does not respect the "principles on which the European Union is founded".

The much respected Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, who represents the East Midlands, and his recently re-disgraced colleague Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP for South East England, now best recalled for his stated understanding of parcel bombers and worrying allusions to the IRA, are both mentioned in this linked article as among those resisting this new regulation, which will be effective from next July.

One must presume that UKIP's MEP's at least are not confident of gaining any changes based upon their recent reported attempts to have references to 'EU Withdrawal' removed from the UKIP's pamphlets!

The EU Regulation is linked in pdf format from here

posted by Martin |6:18 AM

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 

Save Our Party - Update 5 "More on BNP/UKIP"

We have received (somewhat belatedly) the latest report from 'hamish inglis', quoted in full herewith. Note particularly the disturbing pointers indicating that Malcolm Woods' claim of a BNP pact is true and that such pact, it appears, is already in operation.


Jackboot 'Justice'

We told you so!

It is said that Mark Croucher, the Cabal's man and a Party hireling, is to recommend the expulsion of Damian Hockney following Saturday's so-called 'disciplinary hearing'. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or an exceptionally highly qualified Eastleigh Branch secretary, to understand the 'thought processes' behind this decision. The Cabal and their greedy friends fear Damian both as an individual and as a focus of organised opposition to their de-facto coup over control of the Party.

Damian, unlike the fascistic Cabalists, has more integrity and decency in his little finger than they possess between them. Saturday's Kangaroo Court had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with preventing Damian from standing in next month?s NEC elections, something that is now clear to everyone - including those previously prepared to give the Cabal the benefit of the doubt.

Having 'neutralised' Damian, as they put it, they intend turning their attention to those NEC hopefuls believed supportive of him. Therefore, on past form, we can shortly expect a campaign of poisonous character assassination emanating from Birmingham and, perhaps, South Wales with NEC candidates, Cornwall &London Chairmen, Frank Maloney and others 'in the

Unfortunately, for the Cabal and their acolytes, Damian and those who support him in wanting the restoration of democracy, decency and accountability to our party are made of sterner stuff and are not going to be intimidated by these tin-pot Hitlers or their hired help.

Much fuller coverage of the events of the last two days can be found at

There can be no doubt left, even in the most naïve of minds, as to the nature and political ideologies of those who have usurped control over our party - you need only look at their previous affiliations!

Curiouser and Curiouser......

In December, we contested a by-election in Bournemouth, which was notable for two very different reasons. The first being that our percentage of the poll declined by a third compared to that obtained last May; the second being that the BNP, who are very active in Bournemouth and widely expected to stand a candidate, didn't!

We have since learned, from one of our Bournemouth correspondents who is on speaking terms with a BNP activist, that their local decision to contest the ward was overturned by their National Agent who, apparently, has the last word on what elections may, or may not, be contested. In other words, they were told by their national Leadership not to contest the by-election! Why?

Last Thursday two by-elections were held in Swindon, Wiltshire. Both vacancies were contested by our people resulting in less than encouraging 4.5% and 1.5% of the poll.

Strangely, the BNP, who had been consistently campaigning in the Central ward, at least until the start of the year, abandoned their campaign just three weeks before polling day.

The reason for this remains unknown but is doubly strange in that they were expected to do well. An indication of just how well is that a Left Wing candidate was so concerned at the inroads they were making on the housing estates that he went to the expense of producing and delivering a leaflet condemning their racist activities to every household in the ward!

A little over a week ago, Malcolm Woods, our top man in the South West (which includes both Dorset and Wiltshire) was widely reported as "raising eyebrows" at a branch meeting when he allegedly said "UKIP won't be fighting any by-elections prior to June where the British National Party are putting up candidates".

This was widely interpreted (misinterpreted in our opinion) as meaning that UKIP would avoid going "head-to-head" with the BNP and would "give way" to them in by-elections within the South West, if not further afield.

However, in the light of the events previously described, a quite different interpretation can be placed on Wood's alleged comments. This interpretation achieves exactly the same outcome but requires the BNP "giving way" to UKIP! This begs the question - why are they doing so??

Indeed the comments ascribed to Woods in themselves raise another very pertinent question - "how would he know what the BNP's by-election plans are so as to be able to avoid 'going head-to-head'?"

UKIP has a 'BNP Mole' claims Farage!

According to today's Financial Times Nigel Farage (NF), Party Leader in all but name, denies the existence of any UKIP/BNP pact and instead says. "we think we know who the BNP infiltrator is but I shall say no more about that."!

'A', as in 'just one', BNP infiltrator Nigel?

Can this be the same NF claimed, in a Guardian newspaper article a couple of years back, to have associated with BNP members and to have made racist remarks about Black people?

Can this be the same NF whose Cabal has repeatedly refused to discipline Yorkshire's Peter Troy. A man who 'recruited' a leading BNP activist and candidate, amongst others, to the party in an alleged bodged vote rigging exercise? The same Peter Troy for whom Farage's Cabal subsequently closed down the greater part of our branch structure in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the North East last year? An action that has NEVER been properly explained!

Can this be the same NF who is said to be a long time associate of Greg Lance-Watkins, a man widely believed to have 'paved the way' for the Cabal's take-over of the party, and yet another disruptive character suspected of BNP involvement?

Can this be the same NF who sits around the table with Nattrass and Titford, both former members of the fascist New Britain Party?

NF would have us believe that UKIP has 'a' BNP mole! And there were we thinking that the Cabal was nothing other than a BNP sub-committee!

posted by Martin | 6:06 PM

Four Letter Filth

The latest information we have heard on Monday's London meeting is that the atmosphere was indeed hostile towards the Party Leader Knapman and Chairman Lott. Indeed among the few supportive of the leadership were some members from Bexley who left early, reportedly mouthing some four letter words.

This report jogs our memory to post the following exchange, which vividly illustrates the character of David Samuel Camps, variously described as advisor or spokesman and certainly employee of Nigel Farage MEP:

From: "Dave Camps"
Date: 2003/12/19 Fri PM 07:24:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Statement


Your e-mail above is so full of lies I cannot believe that any one with any modicum of intelligence would believe it. You and Hockney have been lying so much to destroy the Party, for motives which remain a complete anethema, to leave one breathless. In future I will be responding to Hockney's shit in kind and will look forward to him, and you, taking me to court, because I and my members are sick of the pair of you!


David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip PA
Chairman Eastleigh Branch


----- Original Message -----
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: Statement


From: Mr Tony Scholefield,
National Executive & founder member, UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Date: 17th December 2003

Subject: Break-in at UK Independence Party HQ

For the second time in five years the UK Independence Party's leaders have broken into their own offices, dismissed all staff and volunteers and spirited away Party records.

On Wednesday 17th December Michael Harvey, the General Secretary, and Miss L Antoine, Head Office Administrator, together with other office staff and volunteers, arrived at the Party's Head Office, 54 Broadwick Street, London W1, to find that they had been locked out by the Party Leader, Roger Knapman, and Party Secretary Derek Clark, with assistance from associates of John Moran, Nigel Farage MEP's chief assistant at his Ashford Telesales operation.

This followed a controversial decision by a majority of the Party's ruling National Executive Committee to move the Party's Head Office to industrial premises on the fringe of Birmingham rather than Westminster offices identified by London members. This triggered a protest by all the London staff and volunteers who work at Head Office, and many UKIP Branch Chairmen.
The General Secretary, Michael Harvey (tel 01483...... ) had been seeking confirmation that the new "office" has the necessary planning consents, fire certificate and employers liability insurance cover. Derek Clark refused to answer these concerns. Instead he dismissed Michael Harvey yesterday.

This follows a campaign by Roger Knapman, Party Leader, Party Chairman, David Lott and Nigel Farage MEP to centralise power in the Party. Initially legal threats were used to disband the Yorkshire and North East Regional Committees of UKIP. Later there was a failed attempt to dismiss the Party Treasurer, the widely respected John de Roeck. At a hastily summoned meeting of concerned Branch Chairmen, Nigel Farage attacked the National Executive, claiming it was frustrating the leadership's initiatives and should be slimmed down. This was a reaction to criticism of the spending of the Party's entire cash reserve (£100,000) by Roger Knapman and David Lott without authorisation in futile campaigning for the Welsh and Scottish elections.

This is a case of history repeating itself. In October 1999, just after the European Election, Nigel Farage personally led a raid on the Party's Head Office in London in conjunction with the then leader and the then MEP, Michael Holmes and removed the Head Office to Salisbury, sacking the party's staff. This had to be reversed some three months later.

Meanwhile UKIP MEPs have been abandoned by their research Director, DrRichard North, (........) a close collaborator of Christopher Booker, both regular contributors to the Sunday Telegraph and Daily Mail, who wrote a blistering attack on Farage's management, including the remark "If you are ever to succeed in attracting and retaining high grade staff, you must give
them a clear idea of their roles, allow them to use their skills, and then protect them from arbitrary and perverse demands and irrational changes."

A true flavour of the sort who gather round those at the head of UKIP?

posted by Martin | 11:35 AM

Thoughts on a UKIP/BNP Pact

Unhappily from internet exchanges it seems not all are quickly able to grasp the dangers to the eurorealist cause the BNP represents. In one discussion on this topic we found ourselves in particularly strong agreement with this contribution from Nick Martinek, who has kindly agreed to our re-publishing it here:-

"The BNP are nationalists like the EU is on a bigger scale. Their creed puts the state before the individual. Yet the ideology of nationalism - the state before the individual - has created misery wherever it is implemented.

The EU is corrupt, riddled with fraud, undemocratic, incompetent and cheats us of our self -determination. There is enough to oppose there without invoking the BNP's irrelevant obsessions with race and nationalism.

The BNP's opposition to the EU is incidental, a by-product of their nationalism, whereas ours is principled and based on civil liberties and tradition. I had thought that the liberal UKIP was diametrically opposed to the BNP."

posted by Martin | 8:00 AM

Tuesday, January 27, 2004  

Nice Work if you can Get It!

For a smile visit IRONIES

posted by Martin | 6:32 PM

A Balancing Report on Yesterday's London Meeting

I quote, unedited and in its entirety, an e-mail received from Robert A McWhirter, another attendee at last evening's meeting, in accordance with our constant striving for both balance and truth:

Martin, I was there, two rows from the front, albeit 10 mins late. I offer the following counter-comments, as chair of London's Southwark Branch, and as EU elections candidate.

Many of us were dismayed to hear of the unexpected removal of Chris Pratt as London chair last week. I quote my ind-uk mail:


I have just heard that at a committee meeting last week, Chris Pratt was removed as London Chair, and replaced by Gerald Roberts. I gather that no advance warning was given, no branches were consulted, and seconded members, such as Gary Cartwright, suddenly discovered that as
seconded members they had no voting rights. [...and they complain about the way the NEC carries on...]

Whilst wishing Gerald all the best in his new role, I say this on behalf of Southwark Branch, to all voting plotters of the London Committee: Stop acting like a load of Richard IIIs and get your act
together! It's make or break time, 21 weeks to go; do we really need this now???


Whilst I accept seconded committee members have no voting rights under the London constitution, why was this not noticed before?
There were no inconsistencies on the office move. Originally, David Lott had believed that there would be "no rates". Yes, he admitted getting some figures wrong, e.g. removal costs, but there were multiple quotes obtained. The discussion on HQ went on and on, and I didn't take minutes, but IMHO David gave reasonable answers to all points.
David apologised to London region for not realising how much they had relied on having the admin office based in London.
On accessing info, it was pointed out that the new party website, due to launch next week, with daily updates, should improve matters.
Re the regional organiser sacking. Jeffrey sadly wasn't there, so we had to rely on David Lott's summary of a phone call he'd had with him, but two points became clear:
Roger and David claim to not have seen the original letter (I believe this; they must get tons of letters with ideas etc., and it's easy to lose stuff - I'm hopeless).
Much more seriously, Jeffrey found that one third of the "salary money" was being diverted to London Region costs. That's a no-no, and could have resulted in a very heavy fine for Jeffrey.
As to whether Jeffrey tried to consult adequately with London, I've no idea, but Chris was on holiday... I subscribe to the cock-up in combs theory...
It was suggested that the party treasurer was sort-of sacked because of a cock-up: they had been forgetting to re-mandate officials every year. It was proposed at the NOV(?) NEC that J-DR's mandate should be backdated to last May. That was voted down, for some reason, and people assumed, mistakenly, that the follow-on was that he had never been validly appointed. Another cock-up, gents? Get your act together!
Evasive about G L-W? Roger specifically said that he would come down like a ton of bricks on ANYONE who leaked NEC business or similar. No equivocation there, but he reserved the right to converse with Greg, in the future, if needbe - say Greg phones Roger with a valid question... Seems ok to me...
Birmingham costs in two months more that a year in London? News to me! We've much more office space, directly employ less staff, and so make savings there... I'm not to bothered about rates, but I am bothered about idiots dancing Squirrel-Nutkin-like in from of Birmingham planning officers...
New phone system... I've done time in the old HQ on many an occasion, indeed have bought new handsets with my own money as needed. If it's a good system, then it's money well spent. WE NEED to invest in kit, and I'm 100% behind this decision.
There was moaning over the appointment and subsequent FT coverage of Max Clifford. People need to realise that our enemies are out to attack us. Peter Mandelson is apparently dismayed by Clifford's move (he told him so) - that must be good news for us as we're riling 'em! The FT piece was 4 years old, and London folks (yes you, Fabian) should have the wit to realise that they are going to dig up dirt - the older the better - and not print our refutations. Get real, and live with it folks. The FT's never going to like us, so don't waste breath on 'em. And if you're unsure, there's always the press office...
"We in London are united" indeed! the meeting was dominated by some 12 or so vociferous members, who frequently heckled and interrupted speakers. Roger and David were perfectly approachable at the interval - I myself spoke to Roger for 5 mins about the Scottish elections etc., and others spoke to him and David too. As for "slinking off", they were the last to leave, chatting to me and Gary Cartwright about POSITIVE things (remember them?) such as Frank Maloney's manifesto launch on Fri. They were happy to talk/ listen to anyone at any time. Please also remember that the meeting broke up after 10pm, having started at 6:30 - I am sure they would be eager to head-off home or wherever, after all that whingeing...

These comments are offered in the hope that they will redress the balance of your informants highly one-sided reporting

posted by Martin | 2:08 PM

Yet Another Plea for Decency to UKIP's Ruling Cabal!

We have received the following open e-mail to be addressed to the Leadership of UKIP by any continuing members concerned over recent events. We post it for the convenience of continuing members who may not yet have received an e-mail copy.

Dear UKIP,

The verdict against Damian Hockney is the clearest sign yet that the Disciplinary Committee system is bankrupt. An institution must earn respect if its decisions are to be recognised as legitimate. UKIP's Disciplinary Committee system, as constituted, has shown beyond doubt that it is unworkable. Therefore, members should call for it to be terminated as an institution immediately and its panel members disbanded.

The complaint against Damian Hockney, so far as one can tell, accused him of breaching NEC confidentiality and publicly opposing plans to move Head Office to London. In short, he is to be expelled for endorsing values of:

1. Openness
2. Transparency
3. Constructive Enquiry and Opposition

But these are values that are essential for the proper working of any organisation or team. By rejecting Damian, the plaintiffs and Disciplinary Committee of UKIP reject the values of openness, transparency and constructive enquiry & opposition.

Could you imagine how we would feel if Tony Blair's government was not required to disclose policies to Parliament for debate? Outrage. As a matter of fact, most government policies developed undergo a lengthy consultation process with relevant stakeholders during development, and then require public debate. Look at the current fight over tuition fees. Would Nick Brown be expelled for causing trouble and talking to the media about his opposition to
them? Hardly.

UKIP, in contrast, just decides what it wants, considers whether it needs to tell anyone later, and crushes opposition in any way it deems appropriate.

Damian's public opposition and exposure of the intended policies of the Leadership were necessary and right. Confidentiality and lack of debate are only required in the most extreme cases where confidential Party campaign strategy and legal matters are involved. The Head Office move does not fall under either; it is not a secret matter!

The absence of commonsense on the Disciplinary Committee and its Panel means it should be suspended until a new system and mechanism for its composition can be determined. To go on
with the current system is more dangerous than not having one at all for a few weeks. (Also, NEC confidentiality rules should be revised.)

People might object to this proposal because the Constitution requires a Disciplinary Committee. But the Constitution, while important, should not bar commonsense. The spirit behind the establishment of the Disciplinary Committee in the Constitution was as a means of protecting the integrity of the Party and ensuring sound governance procedures were safeguarded. This spirit has been ignored by the current Committee and Leadership; the Committee now has perversely
become the very risk to UKIP's integrity and governance.

If you agree with this statement, forward a copy of this text to Party members. Before sending, add your details to the bottom (full name and local branch), underneath the previous recipient.


"I Support the Call for the NEC to Suspend the Disciplinary Committee Until Such Time as New Rules Can be Devised to Produce Genuine Impartiality, Reasoned Decisions and Fair

Supported by:

Full Name; Local Branch

posted by Martin | 1:39 PM

Where is UKIP getting the Cash?

As reported in the posting immediately beneath this, questions were raised at last evening's London meeting regarding the payment of rates on the new Head Office. Party Chairman Lott had earlier written that these would be met by Mike Nattrass.

Apparently it was pointed out that non-payment of rates by the party would be illegal. Roger Knapman's response to this, was incredibly enough, to tell the audience that UKIP will only have to pay if someone informs Birmingham City Council! The UKIP leader thus seemed to be advocating breaking the law.

Entirely unnecessarily so, as far as we can see, for if indeed it ever was true that Nattrass intended to pay the rates (this topic has been raised before, as we recall, and there always appears to have been some question as to whether or not this was his intent), what is to stop Mike Nattrass making an offsetting contribution to the party, duly reportable to the Electoral Commission. Why should any attempt to deceive ever be necessary?

A perusal of the Commission's listings of donations for UKIP still seems to have no mention of the donations which, according to Chairman Lott, are supposed to be funding Dick Morris's fees. Now UKIP has added the notoriously expensive, Max Clifford to their consultants, who in view of his reported Europhile views, would seem unlikely to be providing his services at a politically inspired discount!

posted by Martin | 12:14 PM


This report just received:

50 London members stood firm against the Party Leader, Roger Knapman, in London last night, when he attempted to downplay their concerns, by patronisingly saying that they should not be concerned about internal problems and instead should get on with campaigning.

He also made a clearly untrue claim about the kangaroo court which has been set up to throw Damian Hockney out of the party for restoring order and stopping the leadership breaking the law. He claimed that he knew nothing about the case, when in fact he had confirmed to the London Chairman and others days before the hearing, that he knew details about the panel -
details which are supposed to be secret.

The leadership had wanted the meeting to whitewash over a series of resolutions passed overwhelmingly at a specially convened London Chairmen's meeting in December. As is usual, the leadership had failed to respond to concerns in writing, either from the London Region or from individuals. So incensed were the London members that they prevented the leadership from
staging a whitewash meeting and insisted upon the discussion of their resolutions.

The leadership failed on all counts - from explaining the inconsistencies in the office move, to the illegal sacking of the Party Treasurer, to the venal and petty sacking of the London Region Organiser by Jeffrey Titford without even consulting the Chairman or Committee. On the matter of the lies and smears put about by Greg Lance-Watkins, they were evasive.

Extraordinary details of payments being made to Mike Nattrass emerged, which had not been agreed when the NEC first made its decision over Birmingham in November over a supposedly "free" office. The meeting heard that Nattrass's "free" office had now in two months cost more than a whole year's office cost in London. In the letter sent out in November announcing the move, David Lott made clear that the NEC had taken the deal on the basis that the deal was "free of rent and rates". It has now emerged that Nattrass is charging the rates to the party through a lease which most of the NEC do not have a copy of. And it also became clear that the November NEC minutes saying that Nattrass had agreed to pick up the removals bill
had simply been ignored, and that the party would now be paying an incredibly large £3,800 bill. Both bills have since been charged to the party by Nattrass, along with an unnecessary telephone system for £5,000 which Nattrass is being paid.

The leadership failed to explain why the NEC had not been told of all this properly, and why these inconsistencies had taken place.

The explanation for sacking London Regional Organiser Daniel Moss was regarded as simply fanciful, and nearing a joke if it were not so serious. Daniel Moss was sacked by Jeffrey Titford because his branch wrote a private letter to the leadership criticising the manner of the office move and asking questions. In spite of documentary evidence in the way of letters to and from, Jeffrey Titford's explanation given to David Lott to read veered away from the truth alarmingly and failed to address the facts.

The fact that he has failed to even contact the London Chairman and Committee with any of this was, it was felt, indicative of the arrogance which was developing and which needed puncturing.

London Region will run a great campaign for its three big elections and its message to the leadership was very clear - "you may want to indulge in petty infighting and attacks on members, but we are getting on with the job of trying to get Britain out of the EU. We in London are united."


As an aside on the atmosphere of the gathering we hear: "It seems that Knapman & Lott didn't enjoy the experience last night, and slunk off at the end. Rather than stay to join a large group of activists for a drink! Indeed, even during the halfway break, they didn't mingle with members, but stayed glued to their chairs. Maybe they were afraid to get too close to real London members!!!!"

posted by Martin | 11:44 AM

UKIP's Alleged Leaders London Meeting 26th January

We say 'alleged leaders' in our title for this post, as reports we have received so far make no mention of Nigel Farage MEP having attended.

Ahead of the meeting, rumours were buzzing round the internet that Roger Knapman knew the names of the disciplinary panel members, who had recommended the party's once Vice-Chairman, Damian Hockney, be expelled, apparently for having informed the membership of his serious doubts over the move of the party's Head Office to Birmingham. This knowledge is itself, by all accounts, not considered proper information, even for the leader of this ever more bizarre political party. (Internet chat this morning have the costs of this move already exceeding one year's rental on the old London offices!)

Knapman, when asked whether he would vote against this expulsion at the next NEC meeting took refuge behind the need to hear both sides, as our informant points out, not something that was apparently deemed necessary by the disciplinary panel itself. We separately learn that he denied knowing the names of this shadowy group.

This blogger received a mention we hear, when David Lott, Party Chairman, was asked to justify the continuing leaks of NEC proceedings to the murder-encouraging, Greg Lance-Watkins. We understand the contrast between the party's attitude and treatment of Greg Lance-Watkins and the many he has attacked was pointed out.

The question of Max Clifford and the fact that this master of press manipulation has so far had to rely on Farage to interpret his thoughts on the EU to the press, also drew comment. Further highlights on the meeting will be blogged as received and if appropriate. As always when mentioning rumour we remind readers that we are always happy to correct inaccuracies when factually informed.

posted by Martin | 10:34 AM

BNP Infiltration? (continued)

The Financial Times Observer column returns to UKIP baiting this morning, having picked up on the possible UKIP/BNP electoral pact, which according to this item Farage is claiming as BNP infiltration.

The piece titled 'Mole hill' opens by pointing out how much more effective UKIP would be at fighting Brussels were it not always so busy fighting itself and goes on to report that another internal mole hunt has been launched following BNP claims of the pact. It continues:

The report of remarks allegedly made at a weekend meeting in Somerset "is nothing short of a lie", according to UKIP MEP Nigel Farage.

He adds: "We are used to them saying this because they think it will give them votes. Our voters are radically different from theirs."

He adds: "We think we know who the BNP infiltrator is but I shall say no more about that." A mountain out of a mole hunt, then?

The entire column can be read clicking here

UKIPUncovered has been following the the BNP/UKIP links most closely for many months and has always suspected that the origins can be traced back to a visit to Sedgefield Racetrack in December 2002 by Party Leader, Roger Knapman, and his Deputy, Mike Nattrass, which was curiously explained by Party Chairman Lott as follows:

"When the party leader travelled to the NE he attended two meetings - neither of which was to promote the UKIP but to obtain general publicity but without mentioning the name of UKIP."

As this writer asked on hearing this, 'How can one obtain publicity without mentioning the name of what you are promoting?' Further when I directly queried Roger Knapman about this meeting in mid-March 2003 he sounded somewhat perturbed that I knew of the Sedgefield December barbecue as my e-mail records for the period immediately before my MEP candidature suspension reflect.

We now have former UKIP MP candidate for Hexham, (the town in which co-incidentally we understand Chairman Lott made his UKIP debut) Dr Alan Patterson, launched as BNP Lead Candidate for the North East of England Region. We will, of course, be returning to that matter very soon.

posted by Martin | 7:59 AM

Monday, January 26, 2004  

Kangaroo Court Rules

Andrew Edwards has received confirmation of the earlier rumour reported on the posting below, this was passed to us as follows:-

News has just reached me about the result of the Disciplinary case fronted by Mark Croucher against Damian Hockney.

A disciplinary committee [Kangaroo Court] sitting last Saturday, has recommended that the NEC should EXPEL DAMIAN FROM UKIP!

Clearly this is a move prompted by a desperate despicable group of self-serving people who have completely lost the plot. The only rational explanation for this is that the Cabal is deliberately trying to destroy the party! Who needs enemies outside the gates when this nest of vipers are

So blatantly wrong is this decision that it is one of the paid officials of the Party who has passed this to me rather than my usual sources.

posted by Martin | 12:00 PM

Farage's Role in the Croucher Disciplinary Complaint and Rule 7.16

The following is an exchange of e-mails between Mark Croucher UKIP and EDD Press Officer and Damian Hockney on the topic of the Disciplinary Complaint brought by the former against the latter, which was supposed to have been heard last Saturday. Beneath that for those interested in the technicalities of the Constitutional Rule involved is a short history and explanation of UKIP's Rule 7.16:-

E-mail sent to DH by MC - in which he threatens Damian on 23/01/04 11:26 am, Mark Croucher at wrote:

Firstly, why is this being bandied about to non-NEC members? Have we not learned any lessons at all?

Secondly, I have repeatedly told you that the desciplinary case you are facing is brought by me, and me alone. I resent the implication that I am a puppet of anybody, and suggest, no, demand that you apologise immediately or face the consequences.

Finally, please remove me from the circulation list of this tripe immediately after you have issued your apology.

Best etc

The Reply from DH to MC


As I have already told you, Nigel was reported at two UKIP meetings in the immediate run-up to the discipline case you have brought telling people that "Damian should be disciplined under rule 7.16". Thus it was no surprise when one of his employees did so. Now all that remains is for three other MEP employees to find me guilty on a secret panel and the circle is complete.

In light of remarks made by Richard North over the internet claiming that if you work for Nigel you have to do what he asks or you are out, I feel sorry for you having to be stuck in the middle and continue with this farce but I stand by my point.

Irrespective of whether you have colluded with Nigel, this case is exactly the one that Nigel has suggested should be brought.

Employees of individuals who find themselves on juries where their employer is on trial would hardly be accepted as jurors, and any allegation made by an employee against an individual which suits an employer's case is discounted accordingly. Except of course in our completely corrupt discipline process where, the Chinese walls which separate all of these elements are pretended to be made of concrete.
As ever

UKIP's Rule 7.16 of the Party Constitution prohibits "public opposition to measures duly approved." We have received this explanation from a former party member who fought against its original insertion:-

The NEC is the ELECTED governing body of the Party. Those elected may wish to hold themselves to particular divisions (parties within a party??) or to change allegiances from issue to issue - just like those elected to Parliament. Democratically there cannot be any restriction on any public opposition they have to any NEC policy, either before or after it has been passed.

7.16 of the UKIP Constitution appears to confuse what is the "Parliamentary" body of the party with "Cabinet" Government. In Cabinet Government all members are "appointed" - in accepting that appointment they agree to confidentiality and combined "cabinet responsibility" for all decisions. That cannot be the case for elected members - for how would ordinary members/voters know on what basis they should ever re-elect individuals!

In considering the implications of Rule 7.16 it seems the only time there should be any confidentiality is in cases laid down by law or, rarely, in cases agreed with any "third" parties who agree to contract/assist/ or otherwise do business with the NEC on the understanding that the business would be confidential.

We understand some gave as a reason for the secrecy the fatuous fear of "them" finding out about what "we" are up to. This strikes us as absurd!

Our source on the original insertion of this Clause into the UKIP constitution puts it down to the members' inexperience and stupidity. From what this blog has learned of UKIP's operations it seems to this writer that it was deliberately included to dispose of future troublesome NEC members, as seems to be the case with Damian Hockney.

Its very existence would seem sure to encourage the disruption and authoritarianism now being witnessed.

As we write we are hearing rumours that Damian Hockney has been recommended for expulsion from the Party by the so-called Disciplinary Panel. Any with solid facts are invited to send them on to the blog!l

posted by Martin | 10:44 AM

Sunday, January 25, 2004  

UKIP's Malcolm Wood announces BNP Electoral Pact

This according to a report from BNP in the South West of England linked here :-

Malcolm Wood, UKIP's SW Regional Organiser and a paid employee of the party, told a UKIP SW Branch meeting on Monday night.

"UKIP won't be fighting any by-elections prior to June where the British National Party are putting up candidates."

As mentioned in the posting immediately below, it was this same Malcolm Wood who as acting Disciplinary Panel Chairman refused to hear my appeal against disqualification as an MEP candidate, which followed my alerting the UKIP Party's National Executive Committee members of press reports in the North East of England of possible BNP/UKIP connections and the deliberate recruitment of a known BNP activist, Trevor Agnew, by another MEP candidate. Full details are available in the April/May postings on this blog with the most relevant in UKIPUncovered's very first posting on 14th April, linked here.

It was also on 26th April that we first alerted readers of this blog of reported electoral connections between BNP and UKIP in the South West, which posting is linked from here.

This latest revelation, therefore, comes as no surprise to us.

posted by Martin | 10:35 AM

Another Clark Kangaroo Court

We have received a copy of a recent e-mail regarding a disciplinary hearing to have been undertaken yesterday against Damian Hockney. This e-mail, from Hockney to Clark and copied to all UKIP's NEC members, has received widespread circulation on other internet fora so we believe it beneficial to post here as illustration of the outrageous practises now the norm within UKIP (as we have been stating for many months).

Dear Derek

Your e-mail and the letter I received from you this morning is the first indication I have had of your intention to stage a discipline hearing on 24th January 2004 (apart of course from Greg Lance Watkins' e-mail of last Saturday which told me the hearing date and led me to write to you). If your letter of 4th December enclosing a copy of the complaint did not reach me until 15th December as you claim (when in any event I was out of the country), I clearly could not have seen the papers for the Croucher case before we all attended the December NEC on 8th December - I have inadvertently described this meeting as being on the 4th December in my
earlier e-mail to you.

You claimed at this 8th December meeting that the Discipline Panel had all seen the papers and had time to make a judgment that I should be suspended from the NEC. Indeed, even with my foreknowledge of the case from Mark Croucher himself, and through receiving copies of some of the papers on the Monday morning just before the December NEC, I could not have had time to have read through and examine the case and prepared any form of rebuttal.

The case itself claims to be about 7.16 of the Party Constitution related to "public opposition to measures duly approved" and is simply a welter of incomplete e-mail correspondence, together with circumstantial evidence and untrue statements. The complainant encloses, as evidence of public dissemination, documents clearly identified as being sent by me only to party members and officials.

The office move was not duly approved, as was evidenced by the need for another vote in December. Without the NEC minutes before them, how could the Discipline Panel make a decision as to what was or was not duly approved? On the matter of the Party Treasurer, for example, my lawyers were instructed in September to overturn what you no doubt would describe as "duly approved" NEC policy, and branch chairmen became involved in resolving the law-breaking which that would have led to. Anyone who would seriously contemplate disallowing an NEC member through the discipline process from speaking to branch chairmen and candidates about leadership law-breaking, on a pretext that his comments represented "public opposition", would stand accused of a very serious form of corrupt practice.

You have provided no evidence in the documentation supplied of "public opposition", so there is no case until and unless you supply it.

You persuaded four unnamed members of the Discipline Panel to agree a suspension because it suited you, not because of any case. They clearly did not have time to analyse the matter or consider more than your hurried request to suspend me. If they did, they clearly had the paperwork well in advance of the date on which you mailed it to me.

If you are to be honest, all these cases are based on the fact that what I have said, the questions I am asking - initially privately just to the NEC, latterly including branch chairmen and candidates as well - have caused problems of accountability for the MEPs and the party leadership and have exposed some seriously questionable practices by them, some of which we know to be illegal.

I have specified before the breaking of the law over the Data Protection Act and the attempt to discipline me for stopping the MEPs from continuing to break the law.

It seems extraordinary that on your own admission you received a complaint and papers dated by Mark Croucher on 3rd December, turned them round to me on 4th December and by 8th December achieved agreement with the Discipline Panel on suspension, having (as you claimed at the 8th December NEC) achieved verbal legal advice that you could do this and supplied it to them to allow you to take this extraordinary and unprecedented step. It was an intervention by NEC member Nikki Sinclaire to demand actual written legal advice to confirm the claimed verbal advice which stopped you from achieving this suspension.

Can I please ask what steps you have taken under the Discipline rules to resolve the issue/dispute between the date you received the complaint (presumably 4th December 2003) and the date you sent it on to me (4th December 2003 according to you)? The Chairman and Panel simply could not have carried out their constitutional obligations.

For the fourth time of asking, can I please also have the name and address of the lawyer who you claim gave you verbal advice that allowed you to persuade the discipline committee to recommend suspension, and an outline of that advice? Your previous repeated failure to provide your claimed legal advice can lead to only one real conclusion.

And once again can you also please let me have the names of the Discipline Panel members who you persuaded to agree an illegal suspension?

I have asked all these questions before and have no record of any reply.

Additionally I cannot accept your own personal involvement in any discipline case involving myself, as you simply have to look back at the correspondence between us to appreciate my view that you are biased and acting on the orders of the employers of the complainant. I have made this clear to you before in your attempts to stage other discipline hearings. On previous attempts to bring discipline proceedings, all of which have either collapsed or been withdrawn, you have attempted to speed through a process against the rules, or attempted to bring cases when I was specifically out of the country. The very act of you agreeing cases, arranging them to be heard and attempting to speed them through the process is seriously questionable when these cases subsequently fell before any hearing. You have failed at almost all times to respond to my letters. Indeed you tried to arrange this hearing for 5th January 2004 when you knew me to be out of the country.

Indeed I understand you yourself took advice in October which indicated you should not handle my cases, which is why Craig Mackinlay and Gregg Beaman were appointed to chair all the cases that the leadership or their employees wanted to bring in the run-up to the European Elections. Now that they realise that these NEC members will probably not deliver what they want, I understand that you have been pressed to re-involve yourself, having been persuaded that I will not carry out my threat of legal action.

You must understand Derek that I always regard legal action as very much the last resort, but that I cannot carry on with your repeated attacks upon my reputation and standing in the party, misinforming the Discipline Panel, with the MEPs employees attacking me with impunity over the internet while you allow publicly aired discipline cases based upon fraudulent assumptions and flimsy evidence to do the rounds in the party.

The MEPs have a track record of bringing intimidating and frivolous complaints against me, initially because I challenged their attempts to remove "Leave the EU" from all our party policy documents. You may remember that their first attempt to discipline me was when they attempted to alter the new enquiry form to remove "Leave the EU" from it and I successfully opposed this serious censorship of the leaflet. You have not supervised these cases properly or fittingly. You have made clear that your role is to "do their bidding" and that is what you are doing. Their frivolous and intimidatory complaints have been withdrawn in circumstances which were very
embarrassing for the party. And public statements on the internet attacking myself by another MEP employee/consultant David Samuel Camps remain unpunished and unremarked.

It is clear that the haste over this was due to the plan to suspend me from the NEC and stop me from standing as a candidate for the NEC elections, which is clearly corrupt and is well understood by members of the NEC. You failed to achieve this due to the need to get the written advice to back up the claimed verbal advice, but this is followed by a clear statement in the
9th January Torbay NEC minutes that "Damian Hockney would not be allowed to take up his place on the NEC if the Disciplinary Hearing finds against him", thus indicating clearly the intention. Having been thwarted in December, this was a clear statement that the intended aim could still be achieved.

I have asked again and again for answers to these questions below, which I have copied to the NEC. The only reply I have received is from Mike Nattrass in capital letters telling me to stop asking questions. Your only reply has been to say that you have not heard from me, which is surreal.

I sent you an e-mail asking these questions, and you sent me one back saying that you haven't heard from me.

I do not have a copy of any letter or e-mail from you claiming a 24th January 2004 date - I was on my way back to England on the weekend you mention you sent it. Can you please confirm whether you sent this letter to me by post and whether you sent it recorded delivery - you sent the initial notification by recorded delivery as well as other letters to me on discipline matters by recorded delivery. This one giving a hearing date was clearly important so I need to see proof of postage.

I cannot in any event make a Saturday meeting which you have now informed me of following my e-mail to you about Greg Lance-Watkins remarks giving dates of my discipline hearings.

I am prepared to attend a fair discipline hearing, of which I have been given proper notification, but this does not qualify as a fair hearing. I have also made clear to you that my lawyer needs to be at the hearing.

I need you to confirm that you will not be involved in any future hearing, that those you persuaded to break the rules of the party or act unconstitutionally by recommending my suspension are not involved in the hearing, and that you immediately cease the process of using party/MEP employees to hear such cases. It seems extraordinary that you can secretly use party employees to hear cases brought by MEPs through their employees, having failed already with several frivolous cases of their own. It is quite simply corrupt.

Should you carry on with your intention of staging this clearly fraudulent discipline hearing, then I give you my assurance that I shall take legal action against you personally and against those whose actions have been clearly intended to damage my reputation and my chances of election to the NEC, and to the Greater London Assembly where I am the lead candidate and need only 5.1 per cent of the vote to be elected.

I understand that this matter was commented upon at length outside of the NEC in Torbay and I have received e-mails from two people present who state that it was made clear I must be stopped at all costs from being elected in London on 10th June 2004. Indeed, the leadership contact Greg Lance-Watkins has made this quite clear himself in two recent e-mails.

In any event, if you go ahead with this hearing and fail to confirm to me that you have placed the members of the Discipline Panel on notice of the seriousness of this, my lawyers will be writing to them. In October you failed to inform them when I made clear to you that the alleged party indemnity to discipline panel members is invalid, but on that occasion the proposed proceedings eventually fell by the wayside anyway.

I understand from a number of sources and indeed from Greg Lance-Watkins that you have been told by the leadership not to worry about me taking legal action as it is 'all talk'. I give you my assurance that I will take action and I would strongly advise you not to continue along this path.

I need you to confirm to me that this hearing will not take place on Saturday and that appropriate arrangements will be made with regard to this matter.

Damian Hockney


Newer readers of this blog may be unaware that its author Martin Cole was treated in a similar fashion over his appeal against disqualification as an MEP candidate. Being advised by Party Employee Malcolm Wood, simply that it had been disallowed and requests for information as to the names of the supposed six members of the panel refused. See our posting of 27th May 2003. (See also the links on our side bar for much more on the outrageous practises of Derek Clark's disciplinary committee).

We will post further on this hearing as soon as more information is received.

posted by Martin | 8:50 AM

Saturday, January 24, 2004  

Farage Defends Hiring pro-Euro EU-Federalist

A belated link to this item from The Scotsman commenting on another banana skin for UKIP's grossly incompetent leaders, we quote a small portion, but recommend a read of the whole article linked here:

“UKIP has been torn apart by internal feuding in recent weeks and the leadership of that party must have been hoping that hiring a few big names would rally the troops.

“UKIP are heading for a thrashing in the European elections. Last time they scraped in because of a low turnout, but this time round I doubt if even the most hardline anti-Europeans will be backing a party that has degenerated into a farce.”

Once again delayed, but nevertheless amusing, this latest item from the Financial Times 'Observer' column, which has been managing almost as much coverage of UKIP as this blog so far this year:-

To the Max

No repentance on Wednesday from the UK Independence party after Observer revealed Max Clifford, its recently hired PR Svengali, was a fan of the euro and would vote Labour in a general election.

Ignoring a Labour call to "back or sack Max Clifford", UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said: "Max agrees [with us] 100 per cent on one thing: power should lie in Westminster not Brussels. I know what he was trying to say."

Farage did promise Clifford would generate headlines for "Britain's fourth biggest political party". He's certainly done that.

posted by Martin | 6:11 PM

Leadership's Endorsement of Farage Fuels Fierce Attack

icCheshire reports that Halton's Lib Dem Euro MEP has seized on the UKIP Leaderships' support for Farage in a report dated 22nd January, from which the following is a quote:-

Mr Davies said the words would bring comfort to terrorists.

Mr Davies said: 'It is despicable that a party that claims to speak for British values should now position itself side by side with violent anarchists.

'I call upon UKIP members to condemn the violence absolutely and disassociate themselves from Mr Farage's comments.'

Can anybody witnessing these unfolding events within UKIP be left in any doubt that UKIP now solely appears to exist to degrade and undermine the efforts of those genuinely opposed to the European Union.

The quotation is obtained from this linked report.

posted by Martin | 6:03 PM

Save our Party - Update 4

This blog will now return to its regular more frequent updates.

Here is the latest circular e-mail from Hamish Inglis, dated Wednesday 21st January.


Rethink on the EGM.

We have, with much reluctance, decided to abandon our demand for an early EGM in favour of supporting those candidates in next month?s NEC election whom we regard as true Euro-sceptics and known to be opposed to the Cabal.

We accept, with reservation, the advice offered by a number of Chairmen that the NEC election provides a practical means of frustrating the Cabal in such a way as to minimalise the risk to party unity.

We will therefore be doing our utmost in the weeks ahead to promote genuine Euro-sceptic candidates, such as Damian Hockney, and all others who voice their intent to expose and exorcise those on the NEC who abuse the party as a vehicle for their personal enrichment.

Knapman and Lott come to town.

Yes, London Chairmen are indeed in for a treat when Knapman, escorted by Lott, arrives in town on the 26th! Ostensively they are there to win over those very many London Chairmen who simply have no faith, trust or confidence left in the less than dynamic, but handsomely remunerated, duo.

London Chairmen should, however, be wary! Woe to they who fail to recognise the meeting for what it is - an exercise in triage!

Regardless of what the London Chairmen consider to be the working agenda, the actual agenda is something else entirely. There are but three items on Knapman and Lott?s list - identifying those who can be counted on for support, those who can be won over or bribed (ala young Nikki) and those who are to be cast out - to join the likes of Hockney, Maloney etc, awaiting the pleasure of Clark, the dispenser of Cabal ?justice?! Mr. ?S? in particular should take note!

Has the Cabal done a deal with the BNP?

This question was first asked of us back in November, has been raised with increasing frequency ever since and simply refuses to go away! Until very recently we have discounted it, almost out of hand, on the basis that there is not the slightest piece of solid evidence to support such an assertion.

However early last week we received a worrying titbit from a reliable London source that has given us cause to look at this a little more closely.

The source in question claims that a paid employee of the party, a person who until very recently enjoyed the confidence of a Cabal member but who has since ?blotted his copybook? over his failure to rein-in a dissident voice, intimated that not only has a deal been struck but that it was struck as long ago as last summer!

From what we understand the alleged pact requires the BNP to pursue token campaigns in the three southern England European constituencies in which we have MEPs and which are our most promising in terms of further gains; in return for our party reciprocating in the north of England where the BNP, apparently, fancy their chances. The first part of this is, of course, a matter of public record, as is Knapman?s publicised rejection of the BNP offer.

Intriguingly (perhaps fantastically) both sides have, it is claimed, exchanged a ?liaison officer? to monitor each others compliance to the pact. We understand this to mean that the Cabal have facilitated the placement of a BNP official, masquerading as a UKIP official, into a position of authority where such monitoring is possible. The BNP leadership, presumably, facilitating the same in respect of a UKIP placement.

Well that?s the rumour! As previously stated we are in no position to verify the accuracy of this allegation and it could all be just another example of Cabal orchestrated ?smoke and mirrors? aimed at discrediting this bulletin (yes, they really are that worried about us!)

However, having said that, the following is worthy of consideration:-

Although any open association with the fascistic and loutish BNP would inevitably bring the party into discredit the fact remains that a discrete deal along the lines rumoured would be beneficial to those candidates seeking election in the southern England constituencies concerned; if for no other reason than to neutralise a competitor for the anti-EU vote!. That would, at the risk of accusations of paranoia, be particularly beneficial to Farage, Titford, Booth, Knapman and Lott!

And, it has to be said, the existence of such a pact would be totally in keeping with the disproportionate distribution of financial resources towards the south in general and the south-east in particular.

Unfortunately we have to accept that we have no way of distilling the truth, if any, from this disturbing rumour; that is until June when, if our worse fears are realised, it is simply going to be too late to do anything about it!

The Sword of Damocles - part 3.

In previous Updates we have suggested that the reason why the media have ?kept their powder dry? and avoided attacking us for the corruption, sleaze, vote-rigging, intimidation, financial irregularity and illegality that has, under the Cabal, become the hall-mark of our party is simply that they are awaiting the opportune time to use it (in the run up to a major election perhaps?)

It is naïve to pretend, as some do, that the media hacks are either ignorant or indifferent to the many scandals currently surrounding our party and the damage that would result from the exposing of such! After all they have only to visit to get enough material to fill half-a-dozen Sunday scandal sheets ten times over!

But the Cabal doesn?t listen and instead of ?cleaning up their act? they simply add more fuel for the conflagration that is to come, for example:-

Not content with engaging the expensive and financially unaccounted ?services? of disgraced Dick Morris (of prostitute scandal ?fame?) we have now been informed, through the columns of the Financial Times no-less, of the recruitment of disgraced former Tory MP, Piers Merchant.

No cause for celebration there we fear! If the public remember Piers at all then it will be for a much publicised scandal involving him in an adulterous affair with a barely 17 year-old Soho ?hostess?. How the 46 year-old MP happened to gain the acquaintance of the, not long out of school, Soho ?hostess? is another question entirely!

While it may be conducive to business for Washington, London (and Brussels?) ?hostesses? to boast prominent UKIP members as former clients or ?partners?, it is nothing short of scandalous that the Cabal should be providing a political home for sleazy rejects from other political parties! ?We accept what the Tories reject? - how?s that for a campaign slogan?

So what is this fascination the Cabal has with disgraced political ?has beens?? Can they seriously believe that such people are going to endear us to the voting public or increase our credibility in the eyes of the media?

The damaging Financial Times article concerned is reproduced under the January 14th entry on

And, despite all pleas for common-sense, the embarrassing press release containing Farage?s moronic comments relating to the bombing campaign against leading Europhiles, which place us in the same league as Sinn Fein apologists, has still not been withdrawn! Indeed, and incredibly, it has been publicly endorsed by Knapman, Lott, Titford and Booth! We quote:-

?Contrary to comments made by Gary Titley MEP on the PM programme, rather than feeling embarrassment at the remarks made by Nigel Farage MEP concerning the recent spate of letter bomb attacks on EU officials, we wish to congratulate him for bringing the potential dangers of closer EU intergration to the attention of the wider public. Mr Titley's assertions that Mr Farage had been 'disowned' by the UKIP leadership are untrue and without foundation.


Roger Knapman, Leader, U.K. Independence Party
David Lott, Chairman, U.K. Independence Party
Jeffrey Titford MEP, UKIP Eastern Counties
Graham Booth MEP, UKIP South West Counties"

The saying ?those whom the Gods would destroy they first drive mad? comes readily and powerfully to mind!

And finally.

Chairmen, have you sent in your email lists yet? If not do so today - the more members we reach the more likely the success of the anti-Cabal candidates in next month?s NEC elections. The future of our party really is in your hands.

posted by Martin | 2:19 PM

Sunday, January 18, 2004  

Some Sense Still Stands in UKIP (just!).

The web-site for UKIP's London Mayoral Candidate, Frank Maloney, continues to carry the disclaimer from Farage's disgraceful letter bombing statement, that managed to imply he had comprehended the minds and/or instinctively understood the motives of the Bologna letter-bombers and then seemingly involved all existing UKIP members in appearing to condone these actions. Regretably this does not seem to have been grasped by others in UKIP's Leadership, who signed the disgraceful statement that appears in the posting immediately below this.

We reproduce below a copy of a letter sent by an NEC member of UKIP to his colleagues, that indicates at least another in the higher ranks of the party is still fighting to avoid its complete self-destruction following its clear degradation:-

To : NEC
Date: 8th January 2004

I have only today seen copies of the two press releases put on 6th and 7th
Obviously, the enemies of UKIP will make capital out of these unfortunately phrased press releases and accompanying press comments.
The first point is to get the facts right. It is worth remembering that Greg Lance Watkins put out an email featured on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph at the time of the murder of Anna Lindh which said "I hope that there will be patriots in Britain with the courage to deal with traitors that has been shown in Sweden". It is now reported that, far from the action of a Swedish patriot, the person accused of murdering Anna Lindh is a Serbian refugee with a history of mental illness.
Similarly, how could Nigel Farage say he could "understand the reasons behind them [the letter bombs]" when no-one at present knows who sent them. There are no grounds for assuming that the perpetrators acted "because they were denied democracy" in the EU. They were probably Italian anarchists who use violence as a matter of routine. Similarly, the
parallel with Denis Healey is strained. He spoke of "riots in the street" not letter bombs.
The statement about "understanding the reasons behind the bombs" should be withdrawn:
(a) It is untrue because we don't know.
(b) It is out of the Sinn Fein lexicon.
(c) Suppose a letter bomb was sent to a UKIP person by an enraged europhile, we would be outraged if a europhile MEP said he understood the reasons behind it.
1. A dignified statement along the lines of Frank Maloney's should be put out.
2. An investigation into how the 6th January press release got composed with its perfunctory condemnation of the bombers in the fourth paragraph should be made.
3. I do not know who issued the email stated by Gary Titley to have been sent to Party members.
4. We should obtain from Gary Titley the details of who sent him offensive emails and, if they are truly offensive and if they are UKIP members, they should be expelled.

posted by Martin | 2:23 PM

UKIP Press Statement

Continuing members of UKIP, (who must by now surely be seriously considering their membership status if democrats) and particularly prospective MEP Candidates are invited to e-mail UKIP Uncovered should they wish to publicly disassociate themselves from the Press Statement reproduced below that appears on the UKIP web-site:-


Friday, January 09, 2004 - 03:19 pm
"Contrary to comments made by Gary Titley MEP on the PM programme, rather than feeling embarrassment at the remarks made by Nigel Farage MEP concerning the recent spate of letter bomb attacks on EU officials, we wish to congratulate him for bringing the potential dangers of closer EU intergration to the attention of the wider public. Mr Titley's assertions that Mr Farage had been 'disowned' by the UKIP leadership are untrue and without foundation.


Roger Knapman, Leader, U.K. Independence Party
David Lott, Chairman, U.K. Independence Party
Jeffrey Titford MEP, UKIP Eastern Counties
Graham Booth MEP, UKIP South West Counties"

posted by Martin | 2:03 PM

Western Morning News on Farage

Christina Speight kindly called our attention to this item from the West Country's daily paper of 14th January, and we apologise for it having been slow to appear:-

From Western Morning News 12/1/04 Kate Ironside Column

Explosive views on letter bombings

They have come down on him like a ton of bricks. And deservedly so. Nigel Farage has lost his marbles. At least that's the charitable explanation. In fact the leader [sic] of the UK Independence Party was guilty of a stunning error of judgement when he ventured to suggest that. While deploring violence, he understood the motives behind an anti-European Union letter bomb campaign.

The leader of Labour's MEPs, Gary Titley, whose wife had been injured in one of the attacks, said he was almost speechless with anger. "This is the worst thing I have heard in my entire political life" Mr Titley raged. "The party which makes excuses for would-be murderers in the middle of a terrorist campaign on the European Parliament deserves to be shunned by all democrats."

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, fumed: "Nothing, but nothing, justifies actions of this kind and politicians committed to the democratic process should be unequivocal in their condemnation".

Trapped in a corner Mr Farage chose to fight back. He accused his critics of hypocrisy.

Why, he asked, was it all right for the Labour peer Lord Healey to predict that European monetary union would lead to riots in the streets when it was not all right for him, Nigel Farage, to say he understood the reasons behind the bombs sent to a succession of senior EU Officials and MEPs over Christmas and the New Year?

Mr Farage just doesn't get it, does he? There is a world of difference between the two cases.

Shall we explain?

Lord Healey was speaking theoretically of a discontent which had not happened and, indeed, may never happen.

Politicians do from time to time, on subjects of great importance predict popular opposition of the most colourful form. Very rarely do their predictions prove correct. In 99 per cent of the cases it is mere hyperbole and everyone else understands that.

Opponents accuse the politician in question of exaggeration and the world moves on with a yawn. Mr Farage has attracted such yawns for years with his own repeated predictions that the EU's extending activities could lead to popular unrest and violence.

But these hypothetical warnings are a very different matter to the UKIP Euro MP's sudden decision to latch on to this specific spate of criminal attacks.

Mr Farage needs to be very careful to whom he extends his understanding. He also needs to think much more deeply about what sort of popular unrest a democracy should take note of.

Lord Healey and indeed Mr Farage himself would deserve to be listened to if the EU was provoking Middle England to take to the streets in protest; if ordinary, law-abiding people were taking part in mass demonstrations and peaceful campaigns of civil disobedience; if the EU was attracting the depth of anger that, say, the poll tax did in the 1980s or which the hunting bill does today.

But to argue that the democratic nations which make up the European Union should radically review the scope of their activities together simply because a small group of dysfunctional criminal weirdoes have crammed explosives into a set of books beggars belief.

The bombs are believed to be the work of a group of Italian-based anarchists who had earlier claimed responsibility for two small explosions in rubbish bins near the Commission' president's Bologna home.

In a letter to an Italian newspaper this self-styled Informal anarchist Federation said it was targeting the "repressive apparatus of control" of the European order.

Since then a succession of letter bombs have been sent to MEPs and leading EU figures, including the head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, and EC President Romano Prodi. Three of them exploded.

Mr Prodi, recipient of the first, narrowly escaped injury at his home as he opened a parcel addressed to his wife.
Mrs Titley suffered burns to her hand when opening the parcel addressed to her MEP husband in his constituency office.
A third addressed to a German MEP exploded without causing injury.

Is Mr Farage really saying the EU should collapse like a pack of cards because a handful of criminal delinquents have got their hands on some explosive and some postage stamps?

To insist, as Mr Farage does, that "the only way to ensure that this terror campaign ends is to give the people a say in their own future, not just with a referendum here but with similar polls across the EU" is a ludicrous response to terrorism.

What's the UKIP slogan for this year's European Parliament elections? Vote for us, we understand letter bombers?

Mr Farage has done neither himself nor his party any favours.


posted by Martin | 1:26 PM

Wednesday, January 14, 2004  

Publicists over Policies!

The following is the latest report from the Financial Times Observer Column regarding UKIP:-

Clifford to kiss and tell for UKIP

The Eurosceptic UK Independence party is a natural home for disillusioned Conservatives. Now they are collecting unhappy New Labourites. For Observer can reveal that PR man Max Clifford has agreed to help the party's election campaign.

Clifford, 60, who helped to turn the tabloids on to Tony Blair by providing a diet of Tory sleaze, has now pledged to do the same for UKIP. While it remains a fringe party, it does boast three MEPs and dozens of councillors.

It has already recruited Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's former pollster, who believes it can triple its 1999 vote of 8 per cent in June's elections.

Nigel Farage MEP announced the news about Clifford to European and local election candidates meeting in Torquay this weekend, though the party refused to comment yesterday.

He claimed Clifford would place stories in the press and ensure any dirt on UKIP members did not see the light of day. It could be a tough task as ever-feuding UKIP makes Labour look like a happy family.

Indeed, an old Clifford adversary joined the party just last week. Ex- Tory MP Piers Merchant, 53, resigned from the Commons in 1997 after Clifford helped expose his relationship with Anna Cox, 17, a Soho hostess.

After the story appeared, the antagonists had a heated public debate at Merchant's alma mater, Durham University. "Clifford said 'We all know what kind of man you are'," records the Newcastle Journal. Should be quite a reunion.

posted by Martin | 1:25 PM
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
contact us
my other blogs
nigel farage
landmark links
fired treasurer
glw incitement
glw & farage
a complaint
a neutered nec
graham booth
derek clark
mark croucher
michael harvey
roger knapman
mike nattrass
buy my book
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.