UKIP Uncovered

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

Monday, January 26, 2004

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:-

Quote
E-mail sent to DH by MC - in which he threatens Damian on 23/01/04 11:26 am, Mark Croucher at mcroucher@ukippressoffice.demon.co.uk 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
Mark

The Reply from DH to MC

Mark

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
Damian
Unquote

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