UKIP Uncovered

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

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Could Ashford operations be next in Serious Fraud Office sights?

I posted this morning on The Strasbourg Cesspit blog, linked here, an article in The Hindu, read here, about the progress of the complaint by Ashley Mote and Marta Andreasen against the EU.

It is interesting to see someone closely connected to UKIP, thinking outside the box and taking a problem beyond the immediately obvious channels. If I was UKIP's Leader or the party's present or immediately preceding Chairman, or indeed any ordinary member of its National Executive Committee, which is due to meet tomorrow two weeks ahead of the date originally planned, I would be more than a little concerned at such a thought. The Electoral Commission has proved itself disinclined to treat complaints against UKIP seriously. Other bodies, however, might show more concern for the interest of the public whom they exist to protect!

The furore of the Democracy Movement's removal of John Moran, its Kingston Branch manager, for the unconstitutional donation of DM funds to Nigel Farage has been enthralling certain eurosceptic chat-rooms for weeks. That Robert Kilroy-Silk's Research Assistant this week raised a complaint about the involvement of the Ashford operation should set alarm bells ringing loud.

In response to an earlier query raised by Tony Bennett the Party Secretary, Tony Stone, had replied on 21st October:-

“You will have to ask Ashford if they intend divulging the results of the straw poll.”

On 29th October, as part of a series of follow-ups came these:

QUESTION 5: By 'Ashford' do you mean UKIP Ashford or a private telesales company based at Ashford?

QUESTION 6: Who instructed 'Ashford' to carry out the Chairmen's poll?

Unspoken, but clear is the suggestion of involvement by John Moran, a matter of some rumour, in the unconstitutional telephone poll, presumably ordered by Farage. Such suggestions can only once again highlight all the doubts and suspicions over Ashford that so confused and concerned the NEC over much of last year. As this blog chronicled those events quite closely, I have linked below some of the highlights, which might be particularly useful for any NEC member attending tomorrow's meeting who may wish to be fully informed although still at potential risk from these events.

'When money is tight look out for a fight 25th September 2003" (See also Danger to Wealth and Legal Liabilities just below). Firing of the Treasurer (12/09/03), Michael Harvey memo linked here which stated:- "Also he (the Treasurer) has been attempting to ensure that proper financial and database protection controls are implemented over the new operation in the South East region."

In October last year, following the flop of the Branch Chairmen's meeting in not calling for an EGM, I posted this on the June National Petition being used by Ashford for fund-raising, titled 'Fighting for funds'. It is linked here. Immediately above that posting on 6th October, the Vice Chairman Damian Hockney's long list of complaints includes this statement:- 'In recent months, the NEC has become increasingly concerned at actions being carried out by the leadership which involve the party breaking party rules and the constitution, and in some instances the law. In most situations, the NEC has been specifically denied information, and kept in ignorance of important matters. This is a serious breach of the Constitution'.

Damian returned to the problem of the ineffectiveness of the NEC here. By mid-month following a non-informative AGM a post titled 'Misappropriation of Funds?' linked here, raised a long list of concerns directed at Party Chairman David Lott. These were inadequately answered, read here, and re-stated here. The latter set of grave accusations concluded as follows:-

It would appear from the above that a rogue financial unit has been operating within the party for some months, with no commitments to the party whatsoever, while being the recipient of various fund-raising activities, and that an attempt has been made to keep the Party's NEC in ignorance of this operation.

A further frank exchange of views then took plac and was blogged on 19th October, linked here.
The following day I posted a report from The Kentish Express on the Ashford activities of which this is a quote:- The move is just the start of expansion plans with another 20 staff expected to be working in town on their campaign for the European elections next June.

On 24th October I posted more demands for an explanation regarding the Ashford operations from the Party's Vice-Chairman to Chairman Lott. This is linked from here and included these quotes:

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

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

On Tuesday 28th and Monday 27th October 2003, just over one year ago the facts became clear. In a posting titled simply Nigel Farage, linked here, in which I accurately summarised:-

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

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

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

The day before the real rogue nature of the Ashford operation had been revealed in a posting, titled 'Proof Positive' linked here which included thess statements from the Party Treasurer:-

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

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

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

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

I wonder if those indemnities were ever given and if the commitment to provide monthly statements has ever since been fully met?

posted by Martin |7:35 AM