The John West versus Nigel Farage saga continues.
Taken from Greg Lance-Watkin’s blog: http://caterpillarsandbutterflies.blogspot.com/2009/02/269-john-west-to-ma-zucherman-03-feb.html
Regarding your letter dated 21/1/9
Dear Mr Zuckerman,
1. I have never received a copy of J. Titford’s complaint. The first letter I received from you concerning this matter was dated 27th November 2008.
To this day I have still not received a copy of J. Titford’s complaint. How can I possibly defend myself when I don’t even know the charges? Are you not aware that the defendant has a right to see the charges made against him? I suggest that you read the Party’s Complaints Procedure 2.6 as you seem unaware of current party rules.
2. In your letter dated 4th December 2008 you state that a certain Ian Smith was a member of the Discipline Panel that decided that J. Titford’s complaint against me was ‘substantive’. I understand that this Mr Smith is the same Ian Smith who attended a UKIP meeting held in Newmarket on 27th October 2008. This meeting was organised and chaired by Martin Harvey.
At this meeting Mr Smith publicly accused me of attempting to sell my story about Jeffrey Titford to several national newspapers. This allegation was and is completely false.
Mr Smith was clearly prejudiced as far as I was concerned. He should have declared an interest when J.Titford’s complaint was discussed by the Discipline Panel and immediately stood down from the panel. His failure to do so completely invalidates the whole disciplinary process.
I think that you find that rule 1.6 of the Discipline Panel rules states that ‘discipline panel members shall be disqualified from dealing with any complaint in which they are required to give evidence, or where there is a close connection with either the complainant or the respondent’.
3. In your letter dated 19th December you stated that I had until 31st December to give you a list of dates to avoid in February. You were informed in my letter dated 24th December that I was unable to attend any meetings in February. I note that you now claim not to have received this letter. However, despite being told that I cannot make the meeting ( I am attending a NHS Trust Governor’s meeting on 9th February) you still insist on going ahead with it.
It is against all natural justice to refuse to adjoin the hearing if the defence cannot attend. The guiding principle when deciding upon an adjournment should be to observe fairness to both sides and in not offering me an adjournment on my first application seems to fly in the face of fairness. As a solicitor I am surprised that you are unaware of this.
4. On 28th January I spoke to Neil Thomson of Olaf. He has confirmed to me that Chelmsford Police have passed on Jeffrey Titford’s police file to his office for evaluation. The case number is OF/2008/0764. Mr Thomson also confirmed that I can expect to be called as a prosecution witness if Olaf decide to proceed with the case.
Mr Titford is now using UKIP’s internal disciplinary process to intimidate a potential prosecution witness. He has also used the solicitors Gepp & Sons in another attempt to intimidate me over this issue -I can show you their letter if you wish.
As a solicitor you will know that intimidation of a witness is a very serious matter. As you appear to be aiding him in this attempted intimidation I shall be making a formal complaint about you and J.Titford to The Law Society if this matter continues.
5. You are already the subject of a serious complaint made by me to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You and the other NEC members were told by me at November’s NEC meeting that I intended to make such a complaint. I personally handed a letter to Paul Nuttall informing him of this.
In view of this complaint it is my submission that you are not sufficiently unbiased to supervise J. Titford`s complaint against me and you should hand over the conduct of the proceedings to an unbiased party.
I put you on notice that I reserve the right to take action against you through the disciplinary processes of the party if you continue to supervise and take part in these proceedings.
6. As a member of the NEC you are the subject of serious complaints to The Information Commissioners Office ( case number RFA0208845) and Suffolk Police (OF/08/427) This concerns my MEP video interview which was illegally placed on Youtube. You were aware that these complaints were taking place as they were raised by Del Young, Eric Edmond and David Abbott at several NEC meetings. You were present at these meetings. You were also informed of my complaints via email.These complaints were made prior to J. Titford’s complaint.
Again these matters would automatically raise the question of your impartiality.
7. As a member of UKIP’s NEC you are also the subject of another serious complaint made by me to the Information Commissioners Office. The case number is RFA 0221840 This concerns the failure of Paul Nuttall and the NEC to supply me with documents as requested under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act. This again automatically raises the question of your impartiality.
8. On 17th February I will be attending a pre-hearing at Ipswich County Court. This concerns my request for the return of my £250 deposit. As a member of UKIP’s NEC you were jointly responsible for the decision to refuse to return my deposit. Again you have failed to declare an interest in this matter and raises the question of your impartiality.
In conclusion I formally request that the Disciplinary Committee be made aware of the various complaints I have made about you, Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall and UKIP’s NEC to the Police, Law Society, Information Commissioners Office and Ipswich County Court.
The Disciplinary Committee should also be made aware that their involvement in such a hearing could be regarded by the courts and the police as attempted intimidation of a witness and a litigant. As a solicitor I trust that you will warn them of the possible legal and financial implications if they continue to involve themselves in this matter.
I require that a copy of this letter by given to each member of the Disciplinary Panel.
End of letter.
When will they ever learn? Does the leadership of UKIP really want another damaging court case and even more bad publicity?