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

Sunday, February 29, 2004 

Neil Herron to run as an Independent Candidate in the Euros

According to Christopher Booker's notebook in this morning's Sunday Telegraph Neil Herron, co-ordinator of the Metric Martyr Campaign and leader of the North East's fight against the EU inspired democracy destroying Regional Assemblies is to stand as an Independent candidate in the upcoming sham-European Parliament Elections. Brilliant news for the people of the North East.

The full item may be read from here ;A battle lost, a war to win' and the following is a brief quote:-

Neil Herron was so fired up by this fight that he has, in four years, become one of the most effective grassroots political campaigners in the country. He is leading the campaign against John Prescott's plan to have a vote in the North-East later this year for the first elected regional government in England outside London. A series of local victories won by Mr Herron have thrown the Deputy Prime Minister's scheme into serious disarray.

Now Mr Herron plans to make the chaos of metrication a centrepiece of his campaign to be elected as an independent for the European Parliament next June. "I shall give the people of the North-East," he says, "the chance to vote on just one issue: who should govern Britain, Westminster or Brussels?"

This will destroy the pretence of a campaign that UKIP have been play-acting at running in the North East and hopefully knock the BNP thugs, hoping to capitalise on ant -EU sentiment to promote their racist agenda, hopefullycompletely off their feet.

posted by Martin |7:08 AM

Saturday, February 28, 2004 

Strangers to the Truth

Hardly had Nicole Sinclaire been appointed Acting Party Secretary than her real virtue in the eyes of the cabal (for as pointed out earlier she clearly lacks any proper qualifications for the post) became strikingly clear. Her extremely chequered party history is one matter, but the lie described in the post below and her increasingly frantic attempts to defend it via internet disputation, is quite another. Now we have further evidence, as mentioned earlier, that she lies without thought or conscience and when discovered blithely sets out to attempt to alter the evidence as if such could retroactively change the truth.

Someone made a statement on a party internet discussion group that Nikki Sinclaire (in discussion with Party Leader Roger Knapman) wished to add a statement to one NEC candidate's election details which go out for voting that such candidate had legal actions pending. (Such a notation had been correctly placed against Ms Sinclaire's details in the 2003 NEC elections where she won only 765 votes or 5.02 per cent of the poll putting her in 11th place). Nicole Sinclaire in response to this sent the following message:-

"... your message is grossly inaccurate and libelous to me. Please withdraw. I have made no demands on the party re additions to the election addresses."

The NEC candidate whose details were to be the subject of Ms Sinclaire's suggested addition then entered the discussion with the following:-


Then I was clearly misinformed when told that you proposed a motion at the February NEC that an addition be made to my CV for the NEC election stating that I had threatened legal action against the Party. Please confirm that no such motion was proposed or voted on.

For the record, I have no legal action outstanding against the Party. The only people who have sued the Party in the last 5 years are Michael Holmes (although he dropped his case) and Nikki

The new Acting Party Secretary then, with no attempt to answer, shot back with this demand:-

"Who informed you of this matter?"

Which was met with this perfectly proper response:-


You fail to answer a very simple factual question. Either you did propose the motion at the February NEC meeting or you didn't.

If you did not, just say so and the matter is closed.

If you did, you are in trouble because you stated categorically on this list that "I have made no demands on the party re additions to the election addresses". Deliberately misleading Party members is a serious matter, especially for an Acting Party Secretary.

I look forward to your prompt clarification."

And this was how the Acting Party Secretary reacted to being thus caught out:

"This is a matter of NEC confidentiality. The current minutes relating to this are incorrect and will be amended. I repeat, I did not propose or second the addendum to your CV. I will not be drawn on hearsay. How are you aware what transpired at the NEC meeting?"

Reasonable people will no doubt conclude that while Nicole Sinclaire seems perfectly suited to fill the shoes of Derek Clark, she now seems totally unfit to be trusted in any position of authority where straightforwardness, transparency and integrity would generally be considered as assets.

posted by Martin |8:00 AM

Friday, February 27, 2004 

Unconstitutional Status of the Acting Party Secretary

Nicole Sinclaire recently posted an item to an internet discussion group in which she stated: "my term did not begin until 27th October 2003. Therefore, I have not served 3 years. I am voluntarily standing for election next year."

This is completely untrue, of course, and here is why.

1 The judge in the Sinclaire case made quite clear in late October 2003 that he was "re-instating her on the basis of the election of 2001 and that her term expires in February 2004". He was clear about this.

2 And of course, the killer point is this, and it's a quote from the November NEC minutes:

"Nikki Sinclaire stated that...Her three-year term expires in February 2004. It would therefore be reasonable to extend her term to February 2005. JdR [John de Roeck] questioned whether it would be valid to extend NS's term this way. Andy Moore proposed that Nikki Sinclaire's tenure be extended to February 2005, seconded Mike Nattrass".

That's it. Absolutely clear. The NEC voted to extend her term. And of course she is therefore now unconstitutionally on the NEC because she cannot just be voted on for another year by the NEC.

More startling developments regarding the veracity of statements made by the new acting Party Secretary are being brought to our attention and will be blogged when confirmed.

posted by Martin |6:25 PM

NEC Split - News from the North West

I briefly met Lesley Brown, at the farcial Middlesborough hustings, before she resigned from the NEC in what I took to be complete disgust at the antics she found going on. Later the similarly highly respected and upright NEC member from Yorkshire, Judith Longman, also left that body. These departures while fully understood were great losses in the fight to restore some respectability to the party, which the immediately preceding posts beneath this clearly show, is still being lost.

I was glad to receive this confirmation that these stalwarts have not yet abandoned the fight for the soul of the party to which they both devoted so much time, effort and energy, when the following report arrived:-


Gregg Beaman told the NEC two weeks ago that when he announced to the North West area the starting of a fighting fund to keep up the fight against Damian Hockney, the members cheered.

This, of course, from a new leadership acolyte, is completely untrue. In fact the news was met with astonished silence. And the news of the leadership even attempting to expel Damian Hockney was regarded as a very worrying trend. Damian Hockney had achieved the highest vote in the North West for the Referendum Party in 1997, and had kept strong links there.

So the note below from former North West NEC member Lesley Brown is perhaps not a surprise. It was just such a sadness that Lesley Brown felt so angered by the leadership's antics last year that she felt she had no option but to resign from the NEC.

26th February 2004


As a fellow party member I urge you to read carefully the Returning Officer's report on the delayed NEC elections.

The report is not secret and its contents are deeply disturbing. There are very serious issues which need to be addressed by all members and it is simply no good sweeping them under the carpet for the sake of 'party unity' or their supposed impact on the Euro elections.

At NEC meetings I have seen and heard Damian Hockney's fight to defend the core principles upon which this party is based. By doing so he is defending the beliefs of the ordinary members of our party and yet he has been attacked and undermined for his efforts. I have never, in public or in private, heard Damian attack other party members - despite the personal vilification he has had to endure - and I am proud to offer him my support.

Lesley Brown

NEC Member 2002-2003
NW Chairman 1999-2002

The Returning Officer's Report may be read by clicking here, or scrolling down the page to the post 'Statement on Stalled UKIP NEC Elections'.

posted by Martin |12:02 PM

What Happened to UKIP's Constitutional Safeguards Against Racists

Obtaining an up to date edition of the constitution, proved beyond me even when still a party member. Thanks to the researches of Barbara Booker, however, I can throw this much light on the subject.

The orginal constitution was explicit, unambiguous and totally clear:-

"No party member who has been a member of an extremist party of the right or left . . . may hold office or stand for election on behalf of the party"

"He (the party leader) will also have the power . . .to expel members from the party who are bringing it into disrepute or who are infiltrators from other parties or bodies".

It was the constitution adopted under the leadership of Michael Holmes and chairmanship of Nigel Farage that watered down the fundamental principles and safeguards:

The above firm statement became the feeble:-

"Potential candidates shall make full disclosure of any fact, political or personal, that may have a bearing on their suitability for selection as a candidate"

- the original "The party will seek to build a free Britain in a free world by remaining, always, a non-sectarian, non-racist body with no prejudices against foreigners or lawful minorities"

was replaced by this meaningless

"The party will be guided in its activities by the principal of non-discrimination"

- and the original:-

"The party recognizes the legitimacy of the Westminster Parliament only and will not send representatives to the unconstitutional, self-styled European parliament",

became a gravy train ticket with:-

"Although the Party seeks to free the United Kingdom from all the institutions of the
European Union, by bringing about its withdrawal from the European Union itself, it may, until that aim is achieved, contest elections to the European parliament and its successful candidates will take up the seats it has won".

Happily the declaration to be signed by Party Officials and Candidates is still consderably stronger, (see post beneath this) and if now properly enforced could at least serve to remove those MEP candidates and officials already revealed in the national press as having past far right associations.

We hope the new Party Secretary will set about the huge task ahead with vigour!

posted by Martin |10:34 AM

Questions for UKIP's New Party Secretary

I happen to belong to an internet forum on which the new UKIP Party Secretary is also a member. I have taken that opportunity to put some questions to her, which I believe might be a start to restoring the party's dreadful reputation referred to last evening in the posting immediately beneath this.


We have been told by Nikki Sinclaire on this forum, how much she abhors racism and extremist parties. I would remind her of parts of the declaration to be signed by all MEP candidates in the upcoming European elections on 10th June, 2004.

2. I have never engaged in or advocated or condoned racist, violent, criminal or anti-democratic activity nor have I ever been a member of or had any links with any such organisation or group association with which the National Executive Committee considers is likely to bring the Party into disrepute.

5. I shall notify the Party immediately should any circumstance which affects this declaration arise during my time as a Candidate/Elected member and I understand that failure to disclose any material fact may result in removal from the Party's list of approved candidates.

Yesterday evening I blogged this quote which appeared on another internet forum:

"Pensioner poverty and the council tax shouldn't be highjacked by an odious Rightwingers like UKIP or the mail!"

We can identify at least some of those named by the press as falling into that category. In a report dated Sunday 21st May 2000 written by Jay Rayner in 'The Observer' entitled 'Far Right invades anti-Europe party' the following is stated and remains today to be read on the internet:-

"Dennis Delderfield, leader of the avowedly racist far-right party New Britain, states that 'suburb after suburb and town after town across the land have been taken over by Asians, Africans and Afro-Caribbeans ... In the not too distant future they will have direct control in many areas.'

And further on continues: "four of the party's current senior officers had once been members of Delderfield's New Britain, which advocated repatriation of immigrants. The four are the party's new leader, MEP Jeffrey Titford, chairman Michael Natrass, party secretary ......."

The first two mentioned are of course lead candidates in the upcoming election. Did they make known their previous membership in the New Britain Party, and if they do not consider that organisation racist, why have they not taken steps to have the above statements retracted by the newspaper. Does the NEC not consider one-time membership of the New Britain Party inconsistent with the above pledges?

If UKIP wishes to make a start at rectifying the odious image it now carries within the British press and increasingly the general public, first steps might be to remove those MEP candidates with past associations such as those above.

Any wishing to read 'The Observer' article will find it from this link:

'Far Right invades anti-Europe party'

If we receive a reply we will post it on this blog.

posted by Martin |10:08 AM

Thursday, February 26, 2004 

UKIP's Battered Image

The Guardian's1 pm update says the following: Ms Hardy denounced the way groups such as the British National Party and the UK Independence party were piggybacking on the council tax protesters' cause, which she fears may damage the single issue campaign. Such attacks and associations could always have been expected from that newspaper, but these assaults are now coming from all sides.

Today's Daily Telegraph this morning, linked from here, had this quote:

Fellow campaigners have deserted Miss Winkfield, 83, alleging that the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which she is a member, was using protests by the Devon Pensioners Action Forum to promote its anti-European views.

They were incensed to discover that Max Clifford, the publicist, who handles public relations for the UKIP, was representing Miss Winkfield.

This quote appeared in yesterday's The Times:-

Christine Melsom, the founder and head of IsItFair, a non-political group organising the protests, told The Times that she was very unhappy.
"I felt sick when I read about it in the paper. I would like to distance my group from UKIP and any attempt to associate us with them."

Internet fora are of course abuzz. One comment we found particularly striking:-

"Pensioner poverty and the council tax shouldn't be highjacked by odious Right-wingers like UKIP or the Mail!"

When will the odious rightwingers this commentator sees in the party finally step aside and return the party to its moderate members? UKIP now corrupts all that it touches! How can it promote any cause with its present leaders and their spinners still at the helm??

posted by Martin |5:47 PM

Contradictions Concerning the New Party Secretary

The only certainty surrounding UKIP is that it is in a complete stae of chaos and confusion. We will endeavour to today prepare a summary of the situation.

One thing is clear no-one is in charge. The only public statement from its supposed leader Roger Knapman of late that we have traced, being a public protest that he had been tricked into shaking hands with a BNP member in York.

Barabara Booker raised these points regarding the appointment of Nikki Sinclaire as new party secretary in replacement of the deplorable Derek Clark. As can be seen from the tone of the response, the new Party Secretary almost unbelievably seems determined to continue the autocratic style assumed by her predecessor. We quote Barbara's queries with Ms Sinclaire's reply beneath:-


Re: Guess who's the New UKIP Party Secretary

Well, this should be interesting.

UKIP now has a party secretary in legal dispute with it over its party treasurer (Oct 11, Nikki Sinclaire: "I have also instigated another High Court action re the Treasurer's actions on the NEC which prelims' on 11/11/03"), and who will be disbarred from chairing her first disciplinary hearing, against the former General Secretary, on the grounds that she herself is the complainant.

She cannot perform her function of administering the NEC elections because a) there appears no likelihood whatever of them taking place in the foreseeable future and b) because someone else has been nominated to do it. She may well find that her duty of ensuring administrative and other arrangements of the party comply with all legal requirements brings her into conflict with a fellow NEC member whom one of her predecessors, Bryan Smalley, described as having "no regard for the truth or the law".

It is hardly surprising she flew off to America - there would appear little here for her to do!

To which the following was the reply:-

I have no legal actions outstanding against the party. All matters were amicably settled. The NEC chose another NEC member months ago to chair my complaint against Michael Harvey as Derek Clark is a witness. I am in the States to fulfill a prior professional engagement and I will be back in the UK shortly. The party has, is and will continue to act within its constitution.

I will not be drawn on this further.

posted by Martin |8:04 AM

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 

Latest Skirmishes

We have received this report from the Front Line:-


Panic in the Bramshott Bunker (the new South East HQ where Chairman Lott, Del Boy Farage and their little squad plot and scheme against anyone who tries to find out what's going on).

Following the publication of the Returning Officer's report here earlier, Chairman Lott has been panicked by Del Boy into putting out a false report in response, trying to once again to claim that it was due to Damian Hockney's legal actions that the NEC elections have been delayed.

Of course this is demonstrably false as it is the Returning Officer whose report has been made and who is legally responsible. He made quite clear that Damian Hockney was prepared to compromise so that the elections could go ahead - indeed, Damian Hockney would obviously want the elections to go ahead on a level playing field as four of his fellow "Reform UKIP" candidates are likely to win the seats, and some of the nasties could well lose out. Indeed, the Cabal increasingly fear that the Reform UKIP candidates will sweep the board and that is why they are so anxious to paint them blacker than black. Nigel Farage made some monstrous accusations against them in conversations with branch chairmen at the South East Branch Chairmen's meeting the weekend before last.

So unbelievable were these accusations that those told laughed and said that he must be joking.

It is David Lott who wants the elections NOT to go that they could get rid of Damian Hockney on the false "time-out" principle you note in his statement below, and get rid of Derek Clark who has made a complete Horlicks of the Discipline case that they were desparate to bring against Hockney and which now increasingly lies in ruins around them.

Bramshott Bunker is about to see another load of flak come over the trench...


"Due to the delay over the NEC elections which the Returning Officer Craig Mackinlay found to be necessary after threats from Mr Hockney's Lawyer's, Kerman & Co, to take out an injunction if they were to go ahead, two members of the NEC, Derek Clark the Party Secretary and Mr Hockney completed their three year term - the maximum allowed by our constitution unless re-elected - on 24th February. As a result, at the NEC meeting on 9th February, Nikki Sinclaire was appointed by the NEC as Acting Party Secretary from the 24th until the completion of the NEC elections when the appointment would be reviewed."


posted by Martin |9:55 PM

Statement on Stalled UKIP NEC Elections


At the 9th February 2004 NEC meeting, David Lott attempted to claim that the NEC elections were delayed by 'Damian Hockney's legal actions'.

We could not see how that could possibly have been true and of course, now have the necessary proof to hand. Party Chairman Lott had suppressed the Returning Officer's report about the real reason for the delays; even though it had been provided to the meeting for distribution.

Well, the Returning Officer's Report did make quite clear that it was David Lott who was to blame.

And now, of course, they are trying to get rid of the Returning Officer! No surprise there then!

Here is the Returning Officer's report that has just been sent to candidates...


Report of Returning Officer to Candidates for the NEC Elections 2004

You will obviously be aware that the elections to the National Executive Committee have been delayed. Upon my instruction as Returning Officer, the NEC election supplement was not posted out with the February newsletter. I had delayed writing to you as I had hoped that by now, matters would have been resolved and that the mailing to members would now be underway with the election proceeding to a near normal timetable; this I now appreciate was way too hopeful. The initial decision to delay had to be made on Thursday 5th February following a full 8 days of negotiations over a number of comments about candidates made by Party Chairman David Lott, in particular a letter sent to branch officials on 26th January 2004 and an e-mail to the NEC of 4th February 2004.

Chronology of events

David Lott sent out a letter dated 26th January to an unknown number of members headed 'Notice of Disciplinary Hearing Verdict', concerning Damian Hockney. The distribution seems to be predominantly to branch officers. David did not consult with me prior to his posting and we subsequently had a more than a heated discussion on Wednesday 28th January. I felt it to have been grossly unwise to distribute such a letter on barely the eve of NEC elections, especially as Party rules dictate that Disciplinary actions subject to appeal, or in the case of an NEC member, subject to NEC scrutiny, should not be made public. This interpretation holds even if you take the position that the Disciplinary meeting of January 24th was wholly sound, a position that is in itself held out to question by many, not least Damian's lawyers.

As Returning Officer I felt that the 'level playing field' under which I am willing to conduct an election had been undermined sufficiently for me to require a rebalance to be issued. At this time I was also under increasing pressure from Damian Hockney's lawyers to offer redress. I undertook an initiative whereby I would write a letter to the mailing list used that in my mind would level the playing field and allow the election to proceed. Damian was happy with this initiative, as was David initially, with David sending me his form of words and Damian his, which over the next day I married up into what I felt was a fairly soft and reasonable report that allowed no 'loss of face' to either David or Damian whilst being adequate in my mind to level the field and clear the matter. David Lott unfortunately dug in and would not allow my form of words to be issued. This stubbornness was difficult to comprehend given that legal threats were in the air, and in my view, my words did not impinge on David's authority as Party Chairman.

Matters took a turn for the worse upon the issuance from David to the NEC of a document on 4th February, written by Mark Croucher making very serious accusations against a number of NEC candidates; for these implications to be disseminated on the eve of an election is even more serious without incontrovertible proof. I cannot repeat these allegations as they are subject to legal action.

My ability to allow the NEC election to proceed diminished still further as I was receiving reports of telephone calls being made by at least one NEC member and an MEP employee to various branch officials further embellishing the findings of the Croucher 'report' and adding additional negativities about Damian Hockney in particular.

As you will now be aware, Damian has issued High Court writs against David Lott and Mark Croucher regarding what he considers to be serious defamations in this report. A writ has now also been issued against Mike Nattrass following a letter to West Midlands members which lawyers also claim is seriously defamatory. I do not consider these writs to have been issued lightly, as we are all too aware of the costs involved with such actions. Despite pressure from David Lott upon me to continue with the election, I would have been most unwise with this backdrop to have proceeded with it. This would have laid myself and the Party open to action. David Lott assured me that the Party would support me at law if I were to proceed. Without NEC resolution to confirm this I was not prepared to proceed, but more importantly, I could not in any event allow the election to proceed due to my own conscience telling me that the playing field had been distorted irreparably by the actions of the Party Chairman in particular and others in the background through the distribution of reports and phone calls being made.

Constitutional position of the current NEC.

Because of the delay to the election, there have been arguments put forward that members who have served for three years are now 'timed-out' for service on the NEC. I do not agree that this was the intent of our Constitution as drafted when hiccups such as this could not have been foreseen. The Party obviously must have a functioning and quorate NEC at all times. Matters are
moving swiftly with an emergency NEC timetabled for the coming week and an appeal by Damian Hockney to the Party's Disciplinary appeal panel, which I hope will remove barriers to the ongoing delay of the election. I will then make another statement to the Party as Returning Officer which will hopefully be more detailed.

Please be assured that the action I have taken would have been the same and similarly proportional had any NEC candidate been similarly treated and that I have no favour, bias or feelings on this matter. I did not at any time wish this election to be delayed and hope that events will allow it to go ahead as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Craig Mackinlay

Party Vice Chairman

posted by Martin |3:37 PM

Party Secretary Changed

As we believe exclusively forecast on this blog: it is now reported that Derek Clark has been replaced as UKIP Party Secretary. The new appointee, as also extensively rumoured, none other than Nikki Sinclaire who last year won an expensive High Court case and damages against the Party and then had her term of office inexplicably extended for an extra year.

Nothing is straightforward in UKIP and further detail will be blogged as it arrives. The Party's brand new web site still reports the Party Secretary post as being filled by 'Kangaroo Court' Clark, though it has finally moved 'today' from being shown as Monday to Wednesday!

posted by Martin |2:15 PM

Metric Martyrs Lose Appeal

(This posting from Ironies is being repeated here in protest at the lack of media coverage on this set back for the freedoms of everybody in Britain being allowed to pass unnoticed. We trust those interested in the goings on within UKIP will also be more than concerned at this lack of press and broadcast coverage. The morning post regarding UKIP follows directly beneath this post.)

The Metric Martyrs have lost their appeal in the European Court of Human Rights according to this BBC Report linked here.

Final proof, as if any more were needed, that there is no justice for the British from the European system. The very suggestion that we should be legally prohibited from buying our vegetables in pounds and ounces and measuring our children in feet and inches is so absurd as to beggar belief. One more nail in the coffin of the EU, and more backbone in the fight for justice from the British people I hope!

Amazingly the News Headlines at 8 o'clock on the BBC's flagship 'Today' Programme leads on Fat Britain, Free Fertility Treatment and the allowability of secretly taped conversations as evidence in court..

In the main bulletin we were also informed about a policy review on arms sales, the statements of the Libyan PM on Lockerbie and the US reaction and Democratic contender Kerry's latest primary success. We then learnt of moves to intercede in Haiti with a report from Port au Prince, leading on to an item on a 12 year old death in Glasgow. A new warning about the safety of child car seats by the AA was followed by an item on the reform of the Law Lords in the House of Lords - Lord Falconer then had a sound bite - justying the changes (no mention being made of the EU imposed necessity changes). The BBC winning 7 awards then followed with absolutely no mention of the loss of the appeal in the Metric Martyrs case.

Is the BBC censoring our news on behalf of the EU? Given their own web site carries a full report on the lost appeal that conclusion is inevitable!!!

posted by Martin |7:49 AM

UKIP and its Links to Right Wing Groups and Parties

The Guardian in its edition of 18th May 2002 reported on the expulsion of Michael Smith from the Conservative Party, linked from here, from which we quote:

In a blunt letter, Michael Smith was told that he was being thrown out for "conduct bringing or likely to bring the party into disrepute".....

Mr Smith, the chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, was expelled on the technical grounds that he was planning to field candidates against official representatives of the Tory party.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph last week, he said: "There is a scenario that is being discussed by myself and my colleagues that we could run candidates against the Conservative party as Real Conservatives."

AS revealed here yesterday Mr Smith has now admitted to being a long-standing member of UKIP and suggested that Nigel Farage could vouch for that fact. He has apparently attended Branch meetings in Portsmouth, Chichester and Guildford.

To support candidates to run against one's own party seems to this observer quite extraordinary, but probably not a great deal more so than belonging to more than one party at any one time, something now allowed under the amended UKIP constitution(corrected 2230 GMT 25/02/04) and presumably made use of by Michael Smith. In the 30th January update of "The Flag," the magazine of the 'National Democrats', linked here,we find this quote regarding last May's elections:-

The claim of many UKIP members that they are the way forward for sensible patriotic policies must now be seen as false. Their inherent problems are preventing them from making any impact despite reasonable levels of funding, a substantial membership, even a party political broadcast failed to prevent them from getting a real trouncing in the polls. In stark and awful comparison the extremist BNP achieved good results and made real impact.

What is clearly needed is a centre right party or alliance that can address the real concerns of the British people while keeping out the lunatics, thugs and racists. The attempt by the Conservative Democratic Alliance last month to start this process is laudable but seems to be stuttering. However we understand that a new attempt is now being made to start the process of launching an alliance of independent groups and parties and that a number of interested parties have already agreed to a conference at the end of this summer, not to discuss policies but to talk of startegies and tactics. If you are interested please contact us and we will put you in touch with this group. (Email:

It might be remembered that it was an Ian Anderson of the 'National Democrats', (also, he claims, formerly of the National Front) from whose letter of 21st July 1999 to Mr Farage, published in 'Notes from the Borderland', that we quoted in our post of 21st February regarding the problems that might be caused by UKIP's anti-racist pledge, linked here, or by scrolling down this page.

It appears increasingly incongruous that Andrew Edwards should have been instantly permanently terminated from his party membership for apparently having forwarded a circular e-mail which included two BNP members, while the lead candidate for the South East Region of UKIP in the 1999 European Parliamentary elections was allowed to stand, with far greater question marks outstanding over his past associations.

At the very least it now seems time to inquire whether all the requirements for his UKIP candidature were indeed fully met in 1999 and if not, in view of the new higher standards regarding the avoidance of any communication with BNP or former BNP members now established by the Party Secretary Derek Clark, his candidature and possibly certain others should be withdrawn for the coming June elections.

posted by Martin |7:30 AM

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 

Righter than right

On the morning that The Guardian, quite rightly in our view, describes the UKIP as 'right-wing' and later adds, 'some of whose members have been linked to extreme right-wing organisations, disturbing further evidence of how far right some in that party really are, has emerged.

Mike Smith, Chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, has this morning admitted that he has been a long-standing member of the United Kingdom Independence Party and suggests Nigel Farage MEP can confirm this fact. For a flavour of Mike Smith's views on a variety of topics we recommend this link to Quick Topic where he seems to be a regular contributor. 'Searchlight' magazine, alleged to be a communist source by Mr Smith, while others inform us it is probably run by the security services, has this to say on his organisation linked here:-

Describing themselves as the "Real Conservatives", the Conservative Democratic Alliance was formed in late 2001 as a response to the Tory Party severing links with the Monday Club.........

The CDA fringe meeting at the Tory Party conference in October 2002 was addressed by Roger Knapman, leader of the UK Independence Party, and Ashley Mote, a UKIP member, alongside Derek Turner, editor of Right Now, and Adrian Davies, the barrister who represented the Holocaust denier David Irving and chairman of the Freedom Party.

Last November Mike Smith addressed The Freedom Party AGM in Wolverhampton, as can be read from this link.

We wonder why reports of such connections are now emerging, so soon after the revelation that BNP's National Treasurer was a UKIP Branch Chairman in Yorkshire? We are told that as of last weekend, David Wright, one of those involved in that appointment remains in the party as contact for that Branch. Why??

posted by Martin |11:53 AM

Clifford, Croucher, Farage and Winkfield

The Guardian this morning runs a full expose on the connections between UKIP and council tax rebel and OAP Elizabeth Winkfield. The National Press should realise as the Euro campaign gets underway, that if it's news of what is going on in UKIP that they need, this blog should be the first stop. The article may be read from here:...with a little help

We posted on how the lady was most probably being used and manipulated by the party, last Friday, here and, of course, first mentioned the case by publishing John Kelly's UKIP Press release last Tuesday. Read from this link.

posted by Martin |7:15 AM

Monday, February 23, 2004 

Stalled NEC Elections

At the Branch Chairmen's meeting in London last September, Nigel Farage MEP stated that the Party was paralysed and called for a slimmed down NEC. Is that what has effectively been achieved by the stalling of the NEC elections and present court action? Or is the whole NEC now effectively neutered, leaving Party management entirely in the hands of the cabal?

If we can discover answers to these and the many other questions as to just what exactly is now underway within the UKIP, we will publish them as they become known.

posted by Martin |8:14 AM

Sunday, February 22, 2004 

Sinister 'UKIP'

The Independent on Sunday exposes pension rebel Elizabeth Winkfield as being almost sinister because of her membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party, which it describes as 'minority right-wing'.

Who can really be surprised with its present leadership and list of lead MEP candidates? I feel sorry for the lady in question who must never have guessed that she might end the week being branded an extremist, purely due to her having joined UKIP to resist the EU . No more did I when I briefly joined the party. Maybe that is why I keep blogging on, as getting rid of Farage, Titford, Nattrass, Clark, Lott, Knapman etc., may be the one chance l have to regain some self-respect!

The full newspaper article is linked from here. Ordinary members should reflect that it is their toleration of the corrupt cabal that neuters their cause and brings such personal vindication in its wake. Continuing UKIP members who have regularly read this blog and are not now pushing to remove the cabal should reflect that it is their inaction that has allowed such articles to be written and carry some truth!

posted by Martin |5:34 AM

Saturday, February 21, 2004 

UKIP's Anti-racist Pledge - a tool for outside extremist control?

On UKIP's new web site the only reference to the once strong commitment of the party to the absolute exclusion of all who might at one time had connections with racist organisations that I can now find, is this, taken from 'The Party' page, linked here :-

All prospective candidates and constituency office bearers must sign declarations confirming that they have no criminal record, no record of serious mental illness and no previous association with extremist political groups of right and left.

Although weaker than earlier pledges, this commitment is still sufficient to confront an elected candidate with some such past association (even if comparatively innocent in his own view) with the daily fear of exposure, resulting in the possible loss of office, and in the case of an MEP, also an exceptionally lucrative livelihood.

Just as the illegality of homosexuality in Britain once provided the KGB with the means of control of some of our civil servants in the past, so could this stipulation of the UKIP constitution, with its draconian consequences of immediate expulsion from the party, potentially provide extremist groups (perhaps merely holding some inside knowledge or evidence of possible youthful folly), with the ability to make UKIP dance to their own tune.

We have often posted on the previous association of senior UKIP members with the far right New Britain Party - on 27th September 'How Far Right?' -28th September Racism and Corrupt Practises - 4th October New Britain Partyand on 9th October 2003 New Britain Re-visited. In spite of the leftish press having clearly labelled New Britain extremist, one ex-member maintains that it was not so and demands legal proof to the contrary while permitting such descriptions as avowedly racist party to apparently remain unchallenged. In my view this is in clear conflict with the intent of the declaration at the very least and a poor example to others signing this pledge.

Other questions arise. In 'Notes from the Borderland' referenced here yesterday, a letter from Ian Anderson of the 'National Democrats' to "Mr Farage" makes reference to three of UKIP's MEP candidates in the last European Elections having been former National Front members. We presume that, if true, they have since been found, rooted out and will not be appearing on next June's candidate list.

posted by Martin |8:29 AM

Legal Requirements and Consequences of the 'Rotten Branches'

Following our post below regarding the creation of artificial branches to prevent a successful call for an EGM, a comment regarding the legal and reporting implications, was contributed to an internet forum last evening. As some of those involved and affected would have been unable to read that posting we reproduce the most relevant parts herewith:

Mike Nattrass may refuse to say whether these new branches have been properly constituted, but the party treasurer will be breaking the law if he does not, within twenty-eight days, notify the Commission (using form RP3) of changes to the details of UKIP's entry in the register. I quote from the 'Notes on completing Form RP3' to be found on the EC's website:

7) Addition or removal of Accounting Unit
This section should be used to notify the Commission if your party intends to register or de-register an AU. If you wish to add an AU, you should specify:

- the name of the AU
- the headquarters, or correspondence address of the AU
- the full name and address of the person to be registered as treasurer of the AU
- the full name and address of the person to be registered as second officer of the AU

You should also indicate whether or not you have enclosed a revised draft financial scheme showing the change to your party's list of accounting units. The Commission can only make amendments to your party's register entry if the amended scheme is approved.

It is particularly important that the named treasurers of the new branches, paper or otherwise, fully understand their responsibilities because we have now entered the 'Regulated period for European Parliamentary elections' which runs from 11 February to 10 June, during which campaign spending has to be recorded and reported to the Electoral Commission.

Also, I hope all branch chairmen are dusting off their copies of the party constitution in readiness for the call requiring them to split their branch into smaller ones. They will then be able to remind the caller that a UKIP branch is not under the control of head office, NEC or Cabal, but "has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs" (constitution 5.2). It is affiliated to the national party, not owned by it, and cannot be forced to split if it doesn't want to.

posted by Martin |6:31 AM

Friday, February 20, 2004 

Latest UKIP Ultimatum: Artificial Branch or Clark Kangaroo Court

Two days ago we posted about the creation of new branches to forestall an EGM, linked here, with a follow-up yesterday here. The UKIP leadership strategy to accomplish this appears to be to break- up existing branches and create artificial ones under the control of the leadership and its paid appointees. These new - essentially non-existent - branches are being created to ensure that an Emergency General Meeting of the party will effectively be impossible.

By controlling large number of "rotten borough" branches, the leadership will be able to make sure that genuine branches will not have the required quorum to be able to rescue the party in the event of an emergency.

The leadership is now terrified of an EGM, and trying every which way to stop one being called.

We have just received some details of how in one case this is being conducted.

In the West Midlands, where Mike Nattrass holds sway, a whole host of new branches has just been established, and Nattrass himself will not say whether they have been properly constituted. The 'failure to properly constitute' is, we are told, what effectively led to a BNP member becoming chairman of Vale of York branch a few months back. There are strict rules on branch formation, and our information clearly points to these rules being breached.

These are paper branches, and some pertinent questions:

Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Solihull, Stoke on Trent,Stone and Sutton Coldfield are all newly formed branches. Birmingham Hodge Hill, South Staffordshire and West Bromwich & Wolverhampton appear to have split from other existing branches. Who are the Chairmen, Secretaries and Treasurers of these ten new branches, have they all signed declarations, and when were the inaugural general meetings held?

And now the inevitable has begun. A chairman who refused to split his branch up in this way has been threatened with - you've guessed it - Clark's Kangaroo Court (CKC). The now-fabled CKC discipline process in which Nigel Farage's employees bring Nigel Farage's discipline cases which are then judged by, er, Nigel Farage's secretary Jill Clarke. Derek Clark waves them through with nary a concern for the rules or regulations.

But with Derek Clark set to fall and High Court cases just around the corner about the discipline process, it may well be that the poor branch chairman in question might be the first to avoid the CKC. Are we near the UKIP sunlit uplands yet? Time - and the courts - will tell...

posted by Martin |1:40 PM

UKIP's Dual Standards over Contacts with Racists

Andrew Edward's UKIP membership was recently 'permanently terminated' by Party Secretary Derek Clark for circulating an article about the probation service to two BNP members on his e-mail recipients list.

We highlighted the discrepancy between his treatment and that of Nigel Farage and Peter Troy in similar circumstances. We have received several e-mails about Peter Troy since our return to his case and for the first time since this matter was publicised in The Northern Echo almost a year ago, an attempt has been made to explain and justify his actions. One friend of Troy's has asserted that he has 'a memory like a sieve' and in carefully reviewing all the events, particularly the crazy financing system devised by Party Chairman Lott in respect of the Hartlepool Office rentals, I am prepared to accept that Troy might have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Agnew had been a BNP member, when as Agnew said, he received a UKIP membership card 'out of the blue' from Peter Troy. It is a possibility, therefore, that Troy did not knowingly recruit Trevor Agnew as a known BNP activist, though of course it was indeed well known within UKIP, by many party members in the North East, that such was indeed the case.

In our view this does not excuse the actions of Party Secretary, Derek Clark, who acted so disproportionally in the case of Andrew Edwards, while having turned a totally blind eye to what was going on in the North East one year ago.

The fact of complete contrasts is even greater in the case of Nigel Farage, who having been photographed with two BNP members and failing to provide a proper explanation of such, was allowed to top the South East Region MEP list in the 1999 Euro elections with many other questions also outstanding. Fuller details of this incident, where the photograph in question is reproduced can be found in Notes from the Borderland Issue 4 Winter 2001 - 2002 from Politicos Bookshop or via their website Notes from the Borderland, click here.

posted by Martin |10:53 AM

'Elizabeth Winkfield' the Type of UKIP Member Daily Betrayed by Farage & Co.

The true spirit behind the UK Independence Party was on full display in Barnstaple yesterday. What a contrast to the blinkered self-interest and scramble for the EU trough which is all that has been on display from the party's corrupt ruling cabal, highlighted on this blog, over the past many months.

AND HOW the media came out in support. Most, however, avoided mention of UKIP; we assume because of the stigma now attached to the party's name. But this report from which we quote was an exception: ITV News:

Back at her Westward Ho! bungalow this afternoon Elizabeth Winkfield showed Westcountry News how she'd recalculated her council tax bill. The eighty three year old UK Independence Party member blamed Britain's membership of the EU for the huge rate rises.

"They're telling us what to do, they're practically ruling us. We're paying out money to them just to be thrown away".

If Miss Winkfield still refuses to pay the remainder of the tax then she'll return to face the magistrates again. A committal hearing could see her facing the possibility of being sent to prison for non-payment. Seth Conway in North Devon for Westcountry News.

The story was extensively covered by all the broadcast media and this morning's press coverage can be seen from theses links: The Sun, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent.

Where is the help and assistance for this doughty campaigner from UKIP? Nowhere to be seen. Evidence once again that all the party's efforts and assets are solely devoted to the South East Region and the ruling necessity of the re-election of Nigel Farage.

Certainly there was no sign of any UKIP presence in the press photographs. Did the decent and stalwart members of the Pensioners' Action Forum want nothing to do with a party whose name and reputation has rightly become completely besmirched?

posted by Martin |8:18 AM

Thursday, February 19, 2004 

Howard's Speech, UKIP, Farage, Lecomber and The Times

We have touched upon Farage's photograph with Mark Deavin of the BNP many times on this blog, most recently just two days ago with a post titled 'Should Farage have been 'Permanently Terminated' for the Deavin Lunch?. In the photograph taken following that meeting, was Tony Lecomber, today singled out in Michael Howard's Burnley speech (both obtainable by scrolling down the page), as follows:-

He is not alone in his Party in having criminal convictions. Tony Lecomber, the Director of Group Development, has convictions under the Explosives Act. He was also imprisoned for wounding a Jewish teacher whom he beat up on the day of the BNP's annual conference in 1990.

We can quote the correction issues as obtained from the paper regarding Farage and Lecomber:

The Times article of 8th June 1999 Page 20 'I would advise people voting on Thursday to help the Tory revival. It may be the one useful thing to emerge from this useless election';Comment;Opinion ALAN SKED FEATURES

Headline: Nigel Farage; Correction Issue Date: Wednesday July 21, 1999
Page: 2 In an article (June 5) we said that Nigel Farage, chairman of the UK Independence Party, and Member of the European Parliament for the South East Region, had been in contact with political extremists in the British National Party. We now understand that in 1997 Mr Farage briefly met a former UKIP member who had defected to the BNP, at that individual's request, to discuss his defection. We are happy to take the opportunity to set the record straight.

The paper then continues with the Sked article which still contains this section:

All this, however, pales into insignificance compared with the other charge now overshadowing UKIP, namely that its national chairman, Nigel Farage, has been in contact with political extremists in the British National Party, including one who has written an anti-Semitic tract, and one who has served two prison terms, one for stabbing a Jewish gentlemen. Mr Farage it emerges was actually photographed with both, one of whom I personally expelled from UKIP. However, Mr Farage, from the report in Saturday's Times, can give no credible account of how the photograph was taken. It remains, he says, "a mystery" to him. When this photograph was circulated to the UKIP national executive last November, it decided to take no action. Instead, it placed Mr Farage - who at one point had attempted unsuccessfully to get former National Front members accepted as UKIP candidates and office-holders- at the very top of its candidates' list for the South-East region in the Euro-elections. In my day he would have been expelled for failing to supply a credible explanation.

Also from the archives of that newspaper is this correction and relevant passage:-

Editio 5L SAT 05 JUN 1999, Page 7 BNP link allegation hits Euro party;Election;European ANDREW PIERCE HOME NEWS

Headline: Nigel Farage; Correction Issue Date: Wednesday July21 1999
Page 2 In an article (june 5) we said that Nigel Farage, chairman of the UK Independence party, and Member of the European Parliament for the South East Region, had been in contact with extremists in the British National Party. We now understand that in 1997 Mr Farage briefly met a former UKIP member who had defected to the BNP, at that individual's request, to discuss his defection. We are happy to take the opportunity to set the record straight.

The archived records of the newspaper which again we have purchased then continues as follows:

THE United Kingdom Independence Party, which is expected to win at least one seat in the European Elections next week, was yesterday dangerously split with allegations of far right infiltration. Michael Holmes, the wealthy leader of UKIP, has rebuked Nigel Farage, the party's best hope of winning a seat, for being photographed meeting the head of research of the extreme British National Party. A copy of the photograph was passed anonymously to The Times. It showed Mr Farage, 35, a commodities broker, in conversation with Mark Deavin who was exposed on Central Television's Cook Report as the author of an anti-Semitic pamphlet, Mind-Benders. It listed the names of Jews working in the British media. Mr Deavin, who had apparently infiltrated UKIP to pass on information about its work to the BNP, was forced to resign his teaching job at Buckingham University. A third person in the photograph, taken in June 1997, is Tony Lecomber, a BNP member, who has served two prison sentences. He was jauled for three years in 1986 for possession of explosives and for three years in 1991 for an assault on a Jewish schoolteacher. Mr Farage, who confirmed he had been pictured with Mr Deavin, denied he met Mr Lecomber. "I have no recollection of ever meeting Tony Lecomber. I do not know him. I have never met him. I am at a mystery to explain how he got in the photograph. I have been stitched up," he said. The existence of the photograph came as it emerged the BNP, formed out the ruins of the old National Front, has described UKIP as the second best political party in Britain. It also singled out Mr Farage for praise in Spearhead, the party newsletter, a few months before the photographed meeting took place. UKIP's membership application form, which used to include a lengthy section on anti-racism, has been watered down.

WE apologise to The Times for having included such long direct quotes from their paper in this posting and while not wanting to infringe their copyright, felt this was such an important matter to get before the ordinary membership of UKIP, who, as the recent London Branch Chairman's meeting and failure to call an EGM demonstrates, seem to believe that a policy of not 'rocking the boat' until after the European Elections in June will somehow serve the best interests of their party and the country. They could not be more wrong as the Conservative leader so rightly pointed out today.

UKIP members and MEP Candidates should particularly reflect on the date of these attacks in the national press, ie just days before polling in the last Euro elections. What lies ahead for them this coming June with the mass of material available from this blog alone to give every journalist in the land ammunition to launch a barrage of justifiable criticism at UKIP.

Beware the siren voices murmuring, "Don't split the anti-EU vote". The danger for UKIP today is that a vote for them could become to be seen as a vote for racism!

It is Well Past Time to oust Farage, Lott, Knapman, Titford, Clark, and Nattrass! The electorate will otherwise most probably decide that it is deservedly well past time to oust the UKIP!

posted by Martin |3:09 PM

Howard's Message to UKIP Members who might believe BNP deals are Acceptable

I have had it suggested that some within UKIP might believe it necesaary to come to some kind of accomodation with BNP to avoid splitting the anti-EU vote. Nothing could be more dangerous, as has been pointed out by Tory Leader Michael Howard in his Burnley speech today:-


But there is a specific reason why I have come to Burnley. I want to address directly what I see as a stain on our democratic way of life: the British National Party. There are those who say that it is better to ignore their presence on the political stage - that talking about the BNP gives extremists the oxygen of publicity.

I do not agree. It is important for politicians from mainstream parties to face up to extremists in any form, to tell people why we disagree with them and why they should be defeated.

Let's not mince our words. The policies of the British National Party are based on bigotry and hatred. Its approach is entirely alien to our political traditions.

Their leader, Nick Griffin, has described his party as "a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with", as he puts it, "well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes", he says, "power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate". He denies the existence of Nazi death camps and has written that he has "reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria."

I happen to know that he is wrong about that. My grandmother was one of the millions of people who died in those camps.

In 1998, Griffin was found guilty of distributing material likely to incite racial hatred, for which he received a two-year suspended jail sentence.

He is not alone in his Party in having criminal convictions. Tony Lecomber, the Director of Group Development, has convictions under the Explosives Act. He was also imprisoned for wounding a Jewish teacher whom he beat up on the day of the BNP's annual conference in 1990. Other BNP activists have convictions for assault, attacks on bookshops, football violence and distributing racist literature to schoolchildren.

This is not a political movement. This is a bunch of thugs dressed up as a political party. But they have enjoyed electoral success beyond their wildest dreams. They are organised at the local level and capitalise on scare-mongering and distortion. Now, they have set their eyes on a seat in the European Parliament, something they could only hope to achieve because of our system of Proportional Representation for the European elections. PR always magnifies the opportunities for small, extremist parties, as other countries have found to their cost. That is one of the reasons why I am so resolutely opposed to it.

Imagine the shame of this great nation if Britain sends a member of the BNP to Brussels.

The BNP preaches a message of racism, intolerance and brutality that flies in the face of this country's history and heritage. For centuries, Britain has welcomed energetic, ambitious and optimistic people from every part of the world. My father was one of them. We are a stronger and better country, rich in our cultural diversity, because of the immigrant communities that have settled here. People of all races and religions are to be found in every walk of life, doing as well as their individual talents and efforts deserve. Many of them came to Britain and had to start again from scratch. But hard work, ingenuity and determination have propelled them forward. They are a credit to our community.

I do not see our society as a collection of minorities, but rather as a wide spectrum of individuals, all with their own talents, all British. It is in the liberation of these individual talents that society achieves its best.

Britain has an enviable record of racial integration. Over decades and centuries, this country has successfully absorbed many immigrant communities. They have held on to their traditions and culture while at the same time embracing Britain's and playing their full role in our national life.

The entire speech may be read from here

UKIP Uncovered applauds this speech and welcomes the assistance this is bound to provide to our year long struggle to resist the creeping suspicions of BNP incursions within the United Kingdom Independence Party. It is now well past time for the remaining decent party membership to rid the party of those at the top levels of the party who have been less than diligent in searching out the scourge of BNP infiltration, first highlighted in articles in Darlington's The Northern Echo. Links to these are still available from the earliest posts on this blog, archived on the side bar to the right.

posted by Martin |12:26 PM

Join UKIP Once Get Billed Thrice

The following is being circulated on a party internet forum. It shows just what seems to be the present philosophy of the UK Independence Party :

Firstly, I am afraid that the Independence Party deducted my £20.00 joining fee THREE TIMES. (I have just recd my credit card bill). They refunded ONE of those payments but I am still being charged TWICE. As you already made me pay £5.00 more than I needed to if I had registered on-line myself.. I do resent this extra £20.00 charge. Would you please ask them to refund me this amount asap??
Unfortunately, as both payments show on my credit card bill, I am forced to pay the extra £20.00 this month..

posted by Martin |10:51 AM

New Branches to thwart an EGM

As ever Barbara Booker stands ready to throw light on even the most confusing of the cabal's conspiracies. On checking on branches she provided the following advice to members of one internet forum, which we trust she will not object to our re-publishing here:

Branch chairmen should note that it is unnecessary to accept Chairman Lott's word regarding the number of valid UKIP branches, because this can easily be ascertained by visiting the Electoral Commission website at and clicking on: registers>register of political parties>party name>view accounting units. UKIP currently has 193 accounting units registered, from which must be deducted the eleven 'regions', leaving 182 branches.

It may help put into perspective the party secretary's claim of massive growth in number of branches, to note that in May 2001 UKIP had 125 registered branches. Since then there have been some 78 new branches opened, but 21 lost, giving a net increase of 57 branches in
nearly three years.

posted by Martin | 7:32 AM

Wednesday, February 18, 2004  

Consternation in Brussels EDD Office

The group for a 'Europe of Democracies and Diversities' (EDD) was apparently in a state of some consternation this morning as the office of its Leader, Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde, was reported as having received a letter which appeared to be an attempt to drag this European Political Grouping into the bitter dispute now raging amongst the leadership of one of its members: the UK Independence Party.

The EDD employs a Press Officer - one Mark Croucher, whose name will be familiar to regular readers of this blog. An irate UKIP member has apparently taken exception to the recent partisan activities of this effectively EU employee, in particular by circulating a report in which he boasts of having 'gained access' to another person's e-mail account. Similar claims were also reportedly recently made on an internet forum much used by UKIP members and other critics of the EU.

Whether or not the letter writer is genuine or acting on behalf of the UKIP cabal and this is a sign that Croucher has been selected as fall guy for recent reversals amongst the leadership, or in some even more devious and convoluted plot, possibly to gain greater publicity for the defamatory claims still apparently being circulated, presently remains to be seen. Developments will be posted, hopefully shortly after they occur.

posted by Martin | 4:41 PM

Creating Branches to Prevent an EGM

On 6th January and again on 10th February we posted on the proposed EGM Rule Change, the latter is linked from here.

We now learn that in anticipation of that rule change going through new branches are suddenly appearing. This report just in:-

Lott Sets Up Phantom Branches - They Want An EGM To Be Made Impossible!

So terrified are the cabal (Farage, Knapman, Lott, Nattrass and Clark) of the membership, and the growing dissent across the country, that they have proposed an artful constitutional amendment to make it impossible to stage an Emergency General Meeting (EGM) of the party. Members are voting on it now.

Given the fact that no-one has staged an EGM for over four years, why this sudden move to make the threshold higher?

At the moment 20 branches can call an EGM...the new proposal makes it a percentage of the total branches, and a fee of £100 from each branch. And there are a host of other minor changes which will make the planning of one impossible. With the leadership trying to remove anyone through discipline panels who asks awkward questions about where the money is going, and the
appointment of cronies or jellies in their place, the leadership think they will then face no opposition and can take up their highly paid posts after 10th June with no party to speak of to oppose them.

Very clever maybe, but they have now faced a battle for control with a group of reformers who are blowing the whistle on all fronts...and the cabal fear that the reformers will stage an EGM and throw them all out in full public view. Particularly when the legal actions begin to bite and the cabal will want to use party money to pay for them.

An e-mail from the Reform UKIP group went to all branch chairmen urging them to vote against the amendment, rightly claiming it was specifically designed to prevent an EGM...and that David Lott has provided a false (artificially high) number of branches to be in existence - and these include large numbers of paper branches under the control of either them or their employees. Thus the percentage needed to sign for an EGM could never be achieved.

More details of these dodgy branches and an explanation of exactly how they are harrassing members will follow.

But we have a little news for the cabal. Your constitutional amnedment is invalid anyway because of an important legal mistake you have made. Anyone with a mind could simply have it overturned...and this is indeed what will happen if you try to enforce it...

The Ceaucescu moment on the balcony is not here quite yet for the cabal, but it is not that far off.

posted by Martin | 3:32 PM

Expulsion of Troy, NEC Blind Eye to the BNP and an Independent Campaign!

I received the following e-mail in response to my posting of last Monday regarding party expulsions (scrolldown to Monday 16th February 'Andrew Edwards expelled from Party' Post to re-read).
You have posted on your site:
'Rather he was manipulated into becoming lead MEP candidate in Scotland, and was, curiously we hear, addressing a UKIP party gathering in Durham just last week!'

I was not manipulated. There is nothing curious about addressing a branch meeting in Durham that was a joint Durham and Sedgefield & Darlington Branch Branch since I am the Chairman of the latter named branch.
Perhaps you will post my comments.
Peter Troy

Curiously this was copied to Michael Harvey, now ex-Party General Secretary, at

We had been told a complaint had been lodged in Scotland over aspects of the Scottish MEP elections. As Michael Harvey was the Party Returning Officer for that selection procedure we presume this may be an indication his investigations are continuing. When we receive a copy of that report we will be happy to supply any retraction that might be appropriate.

Considering Mr Troy is not even a resident of Scotland, nor as far as we know has no connections with that country (he once told me that he was from Weymouth, just about as far away as you can get from the border) I believe the mere fact that he was accepted as a candidate indicates some manipulation on its own.

As to his speaking in Durham, that as Alice said gets 'curiouser and curiouser'. The party leader described the North East as moribund, the party structure has been deliberately destroyed by the cabal, a one-time senior party activist has described UKIP's campaign as non-existent, yet Scotland's lead candidate for the party chooses to spend his time with three months to go to polling day, speaking in the North East rather than addressing his own future electorate.

Peter Troy does not, of course, address himself to the point of the subject posting, namely that his party membership should be terminated immediately and permanently for his recruitment of well known BNP activist Trevor Agnew.

Derek Clark, who sent Mr Edward's termination letter because of the sending of e-mails to BNP members, is well aware of Troy's activities. I have two e-mails from him on this very subject dated 26th March 2003.

On 1st April 2003 I sent a long e-mail to UKIP's NEC, detailing in six pages Agnew's infiltration and known history, including the photograph (HTML) of Paul Thompson, Trevor Agnew and former BNP boss John Tyndall at a BNP rally, for which activity Agnew had previously been expelled from UKIP.

Included in that e-mail was this statement:-

Troy in whose interests Agnew could only have been re-recruited is clearly now in breach of the UKIP candidate declaration which states:-

Quote nor have I ever been a member of or had any links with any such organisation or group, association with which the National Executive Committee [of UKIP] considers is likely to bring the party into disrepute.Unquote

As Michael Harvey said to me in the e-mail I previously quoted "The BNP falls into this category, so any person with any links with the BNP would most certainly not be welcome in UKIP"!!!!!!!!

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


No action was taken to remove Troy, who remains a member to this very day and Lead Candidate in Scotland. I therefore became convinced that the party leadership knew of and approved these BNP connections. NEC members also offered little to no support, nor seemed prepared to take any action against those in charge; I therefore publicly announced that I would not continue my candidature without a complete change of UKIP's Party Leadership. Within days I was disqualified.

My long e-mail to the NEC on 1st April last, ended with the following :-

I believe Britain deserves a non-racist anti-EU political party and following recent events I am unconvinced this is currently available.

That remains my belief today. On applying to be an MEP candidate with UKIP, my first choice region was South West England as I was born and educated in the West Country. I now propose carrying out a careful evaluation of whether running as an Independent MEP SW candidate, working for the restoration of accountable democracy to our country will be a feasible proposition for the European elections on 10th June.

I plan to tour the entire South West European Constituency region during the second half of March to hear other peoples' ideas and opinions and thereby determine whether such a campaign would have any reasonable chance of success.

Any wishing to offer advice, arrange meetings or help, should e-mail me at the following :

posted by Martin | 8:42 AM

Tuesday, February 17, 2004  

Barnstaple Protest

I call upon my fellow Devonian's, or any others in the area who are able to get to Barnstaple on Thursday morning, to protest on Elisabeth Winkfield's behalf.


Monday Feb 16th For Immediate Use

83 year-old summonsed for £98 council tax

Elizabeth Winkfield, of Westward Ho! in North Devon has been summonsed to appear in Barnstaple Magistrate's Court on Thursday 19th February for refusing to pay what she considers to be an unjustified increase in her council tax.

After making an allowance for inflation from the previous year, Elizabeth, who lives alone, has paid her council tax of more than £700, but excluded the excess of £98 above that amount. She argues that her council is guilty of making illegal payments to the SW Regional Assembly
and a SW Brussels office, for which it has no mandate, and that council tax should be only for local services.

The SW Regional Assembly is a voluntary body of self-appointed people pursuing John Prescott's "dream" of regional government, and which has little or no support from the population in the SW, despite Prescott's desire to "bring government closer to the people". It is a government in waiting with no legal authority, and Elizabeth Winkfield believes that it is wrong for her council tax being used to support such a political experiment.

The SWRA levies "subscriptions" from the counties and districts in the SW, and these, together with the costs of the SW Brussels office amount to more than £1 million of council taxpayers money. It now employs 54 full-time staff in Taunton with a wage bill of more than £2 million.

The EU has a programme of fully integrating the regions across the EU, and the regional assemblies are part of that plan - but they have no mandate for taxing 83-year old pensioners, or indeed anyone - yet.

John Kelly
UKIP SW Press Office 01395 276130

posted by Martin | 3:10 PM

Should Farage have been 'Permanently Terminated' for the Deavin Lunch?

Increasingly the answer to the above question seems to have to be a most loud and definite 'YES', if information now arriving is true, and it certainly seems to be according to all the documentation in our hands. The following is circulating on one e-mail discussion group, appropriately enough that run by the now 'permanently expelled' ex-UKIP member and ace whistle blower Andrew Edwards:-


As a matter of interest, is there any proof that The Times did pay Nigel Farage's costs in that action? The Oct 99 edition of Choose Democracy had this to say: "Times Retraction. Following the unfortunate Times newspaper stories which appeared just before the Euro Elections in June, UKIP Chairman Nigel Farage won a retraction from the newspaper and a promise not to repeat the allegations. He also received costs". Presumably CD's editor got this information from Nigel Farage himself?

In actual fact the Legal Manager of Times Newspapers Ltd wrote to Nigel Farage on 27 October 1999, sharply ticking him off for the fact that at conference Michael Holmes had referred incorrectly to the article in question as being 'scurrilous'. The letter said, "It may be that you did not tell Mr Holmes but The Times's article was not "scurrilous" and it did not apologise" to you. It was merely prepared to accept your word on the strange photograph of you, Mr Deavin and Mr Lecomber and publish a clarification/correction rather than waste time and money on a relatively insignificant matter. That
matter may not be so "insignificant" if Mr Holmes continues to report incorrectly the outcome of that litigation. I do not want to have to revert to this matter but Mr Holmes really should not describe the article in The Times by Dr Sked as "scurrilous" or what we published as an "apology" when it manifestly was not".

As the poster then adds This does not sound to me like a paper that has paid costs. Can anyone confirm?

posted by Martin | 11:13 AM

UKIP's Brush with Bankruptcy

Further review of the overspend by David Lott, Party Chairman, on the Welsh and Scottish elections is underway. Two conflicting views are coming forward.

The first is that the overspend decision could largely have been David Lott just being David Lott. We are told he rather prides himself on being a bit of a maverick - throwing off the petty constraints of committee decisions; unafraid to take risks; touch of the fighter pilot sort of thing. As self styled 'campaign manager' he badly needed an electoral success, having failed dismally in the Romsey by-election which he'd regarded as UKIP's springboard to general election success, but where UKIP actually got less than half the vote Alan Sked won there in '97; had a poor general election in 01;
and local election results in 2002 which even then party leader Jeffrey Titford described as 'disappointing'. Also,
at about the same stage in the run up to the last Euros UKIP had a very good result in the South Yorks Euro by-election (May 98), when Peter Davies won 11.7% of the vote under FPTP. We are told that yet another former UKIP leader, Michael Holmes, had initially been against fighting this, but the NEC voted to go ahead while he was away on holiday, Lott took personal charge of the campaign and rumour has it then exceeded his budget. It paid off, however, and the result was heralded as forerunner for success in the Euros. Lott dined out on this for ages, claiming when he stood for the NEC in 2000, "At the 1998 South Yorkshire European By-election, I implemented a simple campaign that was pitched just ahead of what I judged to be the public mood in this predominantly socialist constituency. The plan was to unlock the cross Party vote. It proved to be stunningly successful. The result in percentage terms - yet to be exceeded - transformed the UKIP's prospects for 1999 and attracted sorely needed new talent".

Given that history it is possible that last year Lott possibly saw the Welsh elections under PR as a chance to replicate the success of South Yorks, and it would seem to have been entirely in character for him to have thrown every penny at it that he could then lay his hands on. His determination to handle the printing orders himself, in spite of lacking any experience in that field has earlier been offered as explanation for part of the cost overrun.

Against this theory is the fact that Nigel Farage MEP, the true power behind UKIP, was already well into his Euro fund raising and given his absolute determination to be re-elected it would seem inconceivable that he would have agreed to all the party's reserves being ploughed into Welsh and Scottish campaigns which would be of no direct benefit to him.

The suspicion that clearly arises therefore, is that the overspend may not all have gone into the elections, but been diverted into something else. As is now somewhat notoriously well known, in May 2003 one member of the NEC is reported to have asked the Party Treasurer for information on the overspend in Scotland and Wales. We believe what then happened was that upon hearing that the Treasurer had quite properly provided that information the leadership cabal made moves to have the Treasurer dismissed. As was later evident such a move was proved both unlawful and unconstitutional and his re-instatement followed. Whether the pertinent questions that should have been investigated then became lost in the resulting furore seems to me a possibility, so we raise a few of them again here.

How were the bills settled? Was it on the basis of Lott's signature alone or was another NEC member the co-signatory. If so, who was that other member. Looking at the e-mail on this subject of the 20th September, linked yesterday, which gives the treasurer's report on costs at 28 April (only three days before the election), and comparing that with the returns made to the Electoral Commission, several questions arise:

1) the treasurer's report shows total election costs of LS107,500; the EC return (adding Wales and Scotland
together) of LS117,682. How is the extra LS10,182 accounted for?
2) the treasurer reports LS8000 in dispute re leaflets, the EC return says LS24,349. That's quite a difference. Lott says the printers made errors and increased their charges, which was being dealt with by UKIP's lawyers. What was the outcome of this action?
3) the treasurer says LS14,000 was spent on broadcasts, Lott says ?15,000, and the EC was apparently told LS12,593. Why the discrepancy?
4) Lott says the Scottish elections were fought as a 'paper exercise', yet overall costs were only LS20,000 less than in Wales, and leaflets cost ?8,000 more.
The NEC voted to give ?5,000 to the Scottish campaign, yet Lott spent LS48,809. On a paper campaign . . .

If answers are forthcoming on any of these points we will put them forward in a later blog. Meantime we must leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions as to the motives behind the actions of the different cabal members during last April and May. We have earlier blogged theories that some of the money may have been diverted to meet legal costs in the Nikki Sinclair court case, or indeed have gone towards paying Dick Morris which source of funds still remains a mystery.

Finally, we have had another theory offered regarding the meeting with the Lord Mayor of Swansea and signing of the visitors book in the presence of an official photographer, which David Lott set such store by. Interestingly, the Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Richard Lewis, just happens to be a UKIP member who had stood for the party as candidate in South Wales West. Could this have been the reason for the invitation, rather than the 'success' of UKIP's campaign in Swansea?

posted by Martin | 10:50 AM

Permanent Termination of Party Membership for having BNP Contacts?

Earlier this month a party member circulated an article regarding the police and probation service to a list of more than one hundred recipients, two of whom it later turned out happened to be members of the BNP. He has now received this letter from Party Secretary Derek Clark:-

Dear Mr Edwards,

Your E-mail of Feb 2nd to two active members of the BNP indicate that you have clear associations with that organisation.

Under the terms of membership this is not allowable and would lead to your expulsion from the UK Independence Party. As it is your appeal against sanction of expulsion must now be considered void.

I shall inform the appeals chairman and your membership is now terminated permanently.

yours faithfully,

Derek Clark

Contrast this action against Andrew Edwards, who recently blew the whistle on BNP's National Treasurer being a UKIP Branch Chairman in the Vale of York, with a previous event when European MEP Nigel Farage was discovered to be lunching with a known and already dismissed senior BNP mole. The comments below are taken from a memorandum on that situation prepared by the then UKIP Party Secretary in early 2000.


About 25th September 1999 various members of UKIP and I received an anonymous package which contained among other things, a photograph of Nivel Farage with Mark Deavin and Tony Lecomber and an affidavit made by Nigel Farage in a case where he was about to sue the Times Newspaper in June 1999.

The photograph had been circulated anonymously before about Christmas 1998. Mark Deavin was a research student associated with Alan Sked at the LSE and unknown to him a member of the BNP. He was found out and expelled from UKIP in May 1997. Tony Lecomber is a BNP member with a criminal record for violence.
Close examination of the lighting values in the photograph seem to show that Lecomber ws present. However the photograph may have been altered so as to move him closer to the other two figures. Further analysis would have to await the exact background against which the picture was taken.
The anonymous material circulated in September 1999 correctly stated that the photograph had been discussed at the NEC in February 1999. There had been discussions there as to where it was taken and whether part of it was faked. Farage stated that it might have been at a garden party in 1997 or earlier. At all events, every confidence was placed in Nigel Farage.

a) It was unwise of Nigel Farage to meet Mark Deavin on his own. This foolishness allowed pictures of him to be taken in compromising situations. A prudent man would not have met Deavin anyway or, if forced to do so, would have been accompanied. He should have realised this in advance. If Farage had taken, say, another NEC member we would not now be in a position where his veracity may be dependent on whether or not Deavin or Lecomber confirm his story.

b) In his affidavit Nigel Farage says he met Mark Deavin "to find out why he had left the UKIP". As mentined in the media this is a "strange choice of words" and also conflicts with his statement a few lines earlier that Deavin had been expelled from UKIP when it was discovered he had links with the BNP. Nigel Farage already knew why he had 'left UKIP'.

c) Further it seems unnecessary to set up a social occasion with Deavin who was not only known as a BNP member but particularly dangerous as a BNP person who could infiltrate and masquerade as something else.

d) There is no explanation in the affidavit as to what Mark Deavin gave as his reason for wanting to meet Nigel Farage bearing in mind it is stated it was Deavin who requested the meeting. Surely the only point in Farage going to the meeting was to find this out but it is not even mentioned in the affidavit.

e) Nor is there any explanation of what Nigel Farage hoped to obtain from his meeting in relation to his dispute with Alan Sked nor what he did obtain if anything.

f) It is not clear whether his then lawyers Bates Wells and Braithwaite were aware of the meeting.

g) No report on this meeting has ever been made to the NEC by Nigel Farage. Having failed to take someone with him, a further precaution by Farage would have been a written report to the NEC.

h) At the NEC in February 1999 Nigel Farage's failure to mention he had met Deavin and that he knew that per para. 6 of his affidavit the photograph had been taken leaving the restaurant was a serious lack of candour to the NEC.

i) The UKIP advanced 4000 pounds from members funds to enable Nigel Farage to take action against The Times. Despite The Times paying Ngel Farage's costs, he has failed to repay 4000 pounds to the Party.
The advance of 4000 pounds was unminuted and in contradiction of earlier NEC decisions. Nigel Farage knew it was temporary finance and it would be expected to be repaid.

j) Nigel Farage never gave a report in the case to the NEC, nor was any NEC member nominated to accompany Nigel Farage to meet lawyers nor has the NEC ever seen any of the legal correspondence or legal bills.

k) Nigel Farage is now an MEP and should finance such legal actions himself particularly when it was brought about by his own foolishness in meeting Deavin alone in the first place and not keeping the NEC in the picture.

The memorandum then continues to discuss the competence of Nigel Farage's solicitors and the implications for the party, and questions whether or not an apology was ever really issued by The Times to which points we might return later. Meantime the last sentence of this damning memo reads:-

Yet no explanation has ever been given to the party by Nigel Farage of the Deavin matter

A clear case for 'permanent termination' if ever there was one under the standards now laid down in Derek Clark's letter to Andrew Edwards. Peter Troy having knowingly recruited an expelled BNP activist should similarly be immediately ejected. What a Party!

posted by Martin | 8:48 AM

Monday, February 16, 2004  

Searchlight Magazine Article on BNP and UKIP

The February edition of the above magazine carries an article about the two parties in the upcoming European election campaign which can be read from clicking on the following title BNP challenges UKIP in bid for European glory

posted by Martin | 2:45 PM

Andrew Edwards Expelled from Party

Andy Edwards who circulated an article which we believe was purely about the Probation Service to many recipents of which we were but one, has now been expelled from UKIP; as we understand it simply because two of those recipients happened to be members of the BNP.

Peter Troy who recruited known BNP activist Trevor Agnew into the party was not expelled, even after his election rigging was exposed! Rather he was manipulated into becoming lead MEP candidate in Scotland, and was, curiously we hear, addressing a UKIP party gathering in Durham just last week!

Those responsible in the leadership for elevating the National Treasurer of BNP to the Branch Chairmanship for UKIP in the Vale of York have also not yet been revealed, but a member and employee lower in the party hierarchy are now both well known but so far seem to remain undisciplined let alone kicked out.

Below is the letter received by Andrew Edwards:-

Dear Mr Edwards

Your E-mail of Feb 2nd to two active members of the BNP indicate that you
have clear associations with that organisation.

Under the terms of membership this is not allowable and would lead to your
expulsion from the UK Independence Party. As it is your appeal against
sanction of expulsion must now be considered void.

I shall inform the appeals chairman and your membership is now terminated

yours faithfully,

Derek Clark

posted by Martin | 11:15 AM

Chairman Lott's Labour for Losses

Just over one year ago I first met UKIP's Chairman David Lott. I had been asked to attend a North East Regional Committee meeting as a potential MEP candidate, and had asked if time could be made availabale for me to make a brief introductory speech as I was a stranger to the region. This had been agreed and as a courtesy I forwarded a copy of the speech to Lott ahead of the meeting. Imagine my amazement when early on in the evening and before I'd had the chance to utter a word, I heard portions of my speech plagiarised in the Party Chairman's rallying words for the campaign ahead. It was not so much the dishonesty of this act that struck me as odd at that time but more the stupidity it illustrated.

Perhaps it was similar stupidity that accounts for what subsequently happened in Wales? A visit to the UK Parliamentary analysis of last May's elections on Wales, linked from here, shows the extent of that fiasco. We quote from the report:-

The United Kingdom Independence Party fielded forty candidates, none of whom was elected in either the regional or constituency ballots. Overall, UKIP received 49,222 votes and the party's share of the vote was 2.9%. In the Gower constituency, UKIP obtained 10.3% of the vote while in Ynys Mon the party's share was just 1.9%. In the regional ballot, UKIP polled 4.4% in South Wales West but only 2.6% in North Wales.

The voting system for the 20 Regional Assembly Members is complex and it is difficult to draw conclusions as to the exact impact of the nearly 50,000 votes UKIP drew from the other parties, but somebody reading this blog might perhaps be able to offer an analysis.

Elsewhere UKIP's efforts in Cardiff North clearly affected the result, as there they gathered 1295 votes and Labour scraped in with a majority of only 540 over the Conservatives. Ahead of the election the UKIP affect must have appeared more worrying for Labour's opponents than it ultimately proved: that anyway is my conclusion from a brief review of the study.

The question remains as to how UKIP came to be so deeply involved, and what drove the Party Chairman to so exceed his authority and spending limits. It certainly caused him a great deal of work and worry as he e-mailed me on 3rd April last year as follows:-

I have masses to do as we are in the critical few days before all the procedures and paperwork for hundreds of local election candidates and all those in the Scottish and Welsh campaigns have to be completed. You will find out what that means next year and you will gain some sympathy for the incredible pressure under which some of us are working.

We posted his excuses on 20th September which can be re-read from here and some details of the overspend on 21st September here. From the first of those links we quote a portion showing the gratitude of one Labour Mayor for Lott's efforts:-

"The success in Swansea led directly to the Party Leader and myself being invited to meet the Lord Mayor of Swansea and to sign the visitors book with an official photographer on hand."

Now the quote above and the theft of my own words before my very eyes give proof enough that Lott is probably nothing much more than a buffoon or a pawn. The question for his fellow NEC members who have tolerated his presence at such a high level in the Party for so long, is this - WHO exactly is Lott's puppet-master? And given that the unauthorised overspend in last year's May elections nearly bankrupted the party, apparently forcing their move from London to Birmingham, and is now neutering the Euro election campaign in large parts of the country, to whose benefit or for whom is such a controller working?

posted by Martin | 8:48 AM
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.