It appears that Mark Croucher -failed publican and serial liar - has been appointed UKIP’s unofficial spokesman on legal matters.
On the British Democracy Forum he has been trying desperately to promote the idea that various data protection complaints against UKIP have been rejected by the Information Commissioners Office.
Croucher, for reasons only known to himself, has neglected to give examples of how UKIP’s leadership has failed in it’s attempts to take legal action against various past and present UKIPPERS or supporters.
In the interests of fairness - and to save Croucher any further embarrassment - here are some of UKIP‘s most recent legal blunders:
Douglas Denny’s versus Greg Lance-Watkins. Complaint made to Police.
Complaint concerned Greg Lance-Watkin’s publication of email correspondence between Douglas Denny and Jonathan Arnott. Denny claimed this was a criminal breach of the Data Protection Act.
Complaint rejected by the Police. No further action.
UKIP versus Roger Knapman, Piers Merchant, Sir Richard Body, Dr Eric Edmond, Dr David Abbott, Del Young, Tim Congdon, Bruce Lawson and Martin Haslam. Complaint made by Paul Nuttall to New Scotand Yard.
Complaint concerned a letter that had been sent to various UKIP members. In this letter they were asked to vote against the proposed changes to UKIP’s constitution. UKIP’s leadership alleged that the party database had been used unlawfully. Nuttall claimed this was a criminal breach of the Data Protection Act.
Complaint rejected by the Police following interview with Roger Knapman. No further action.
Originally the odious Nuttall had gone to New Scotland Yard and demanded to speak to the ‘political unit’. Nuttall was rather embarrassed to be told that it did not exist!
Which brings me to ……
David Bannerman versus John West and various unnamed persons.
Complaint concerned John West’s alleged harassment, defamation and abuse of David Bannerman and other NEC members. Complaint also concerned ‘all those that have been engaged in these vile, selfish and disloyal attacks on the party’.
Last year David Bannerman sent John West the following email:
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:52:34 +0000 From: dcbdcbuk@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: David Bannerman email To: shawforddavid@hotmail.com; alanbown@btinternet.com; cgill36@hotmail.co.uk; davidfabbott@btinternet.com; del1young@yahoo.co.uk; derekrclark@hotmail.co.uk; douglas.denny@btopenworld.com; eric_edmond@hotmail.com; eric.edmond@tiscali.co.uk; ukipse@ukip.org; jill_seymour@btopenworld.com; lisa.duffy2@tesco.net; martaandreasen@auna.com; mazuckerman@bensonmazure.co.uk; ukipbootle@yahoo.co.uk; rjoxley@lineone.net; susan@keymerhaslam.co.uk; johnwest81@hotmail.com
Dear Mr West,
Thank you. I believe you are referring to the confidential document supplied to NEC members only concerning a disciplinary submission against Dr Edmond ? Others have reported this document being shown around, and who by. As a breach of confidentiality can result in instant dismissal from the NEC under the Constitution, I am most grateful to you for your personal confirmation of this breach.
You are well aware of the libellous remarks you made against me, and which you have refused to apologise for ( your statement reproduced below, which was followed by other libellous remarks ). I have never claimed that you reported me to the police, though I understand you made a complaint against Stuart Gulleford and Jeffrey Titford to the Essex Police, which they have found to have no basis whatsoever. This is also referred to in your statement reproduced below.
Your constant harassment of NEC members and other party members, including myself with entirely false accusations of dishonesty, corruption and fraud, and on an almost daily basis, is totally unacceptable.
I therefore inform you that I am taking this matter directly to the Metropolitan Police´s political unit in an appointment next week, on grounds of criminal defamation and abuse, serious offences punishable under the Harassment Act 1997.
I will be asking the police at that meeting to investigate all those that have been engaged in these vile, selfish and disloyal attacks on the party. This a time when we should be preparing for essential elections next year, not being diverted by self-serving rants, and you have to question the motive. You yourself are ( currently ) a UKIP PPC and yet you regard it as acceptable to go to the Secretary General of the European Parliament to protest at my legitimate UKIP activities.
I have your e mail and this is also being supplied to the police.
I confirm I will be providing the police too with copies of all your other e mails, and with all the relevant e mails of Gregg Lance Watkins ( or is it Lance-Watkins or just Watkins ? ), amongst others. The police also have the power to require webhosts to reveal the e mail identity of contributors to such websites.
Yours Sincerely,
David Campbell Bannerman
Taken from GLW’s blog.
Bannerman went along to New Scotland Yard and demanded to speak to the ‘political unit’. He was told it did not exist - if only he had bothered to tell Nuttall!
Complaint rejected by Police. No further action.
1 comment:
Hi,
I was interested in a completely misleading comment posted on Anthony Butcher's Forum, where he seemingly has made a corrupt and dishonest 'deal' with the liars who run EUkip such as Paul Nuttall Nigel Farage's unelected placeman who chairs EUkip.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
The reason 'Junius' knows this is because Piers received a series of e-mails relating to the launch of a poster campaign.I can attest that this is complete bunkum, as I am aware of the sources 'Junius' accessed to give the news - you will note that I cautioned that the info. was bunkum as clearly EUkip would not be competent to organise such an event in a competent manner.
I also stated I believed the info. to be a spoof BEFORE Junius published.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
The e-mails covered the design,Which Junius did NOT publish, despite deciding to go along with the spoof as it was so widely discussed in clandestine tones amongst several senior members and also in Brussels we understood.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
timing,
In the knowledge of THE ANNOUNCED timings of launches 'good guess' was Junius right?
Posted by Mark Croucher:
regional spread and other associated details relating to the campaign, including launch media.
Yes 'loose' details relatively openly discussed.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
The e-mails involved myself, Paul Nuttall, Jonathan Arnott, Clive Page and Damian Wilson.So that is at least 3 proven liars who have shown they can not be trusted - how very impressive!
Posted by Mark Croucher:
Jonathans, of course, were copied to Piers.
& who else? Perhaps Croucher can also invent a partially plausible fantasy to delude people that he can prove Merchant received the matter - then that he passed it on in ANY unauthorised or unlawfull way to ANYONE.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
All of those involved, with the exception of Piers, knew that no such campaign was actually planned,
Untrue when I heard of it I was morally convinced it was a childish spoof and openly said so.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
and it was merely a ruse to see whether 'Junius' would mention an anti-BNP campaign before it was launched
What twaddle and what would that have proved?
Perhaps even as an American citizen colluding with extremist clandestine political organisations like Searchlight Croucher could be expected to be aware that 'entrapment' is morally reprehensible, unsound evidence and unacceptable under law in almost all instances and civilised Countries.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
- such a mention would, of course, damage the campaign and forewarn the BNP.
How could that be likely as the details of the campaign under discussion were not being clearly defined by either Junius or his sources known to me.
Posted by Mark Croucher:
It would also indicate that Piers was prepared to pass on information which would be strategically damaging to UKIP.It really is despicable when 3 or more proven liars conspire together to defame a man without a single shred of evidence, by use of the morally reprehensible practice of 'entrapment'.
This sort of dishonest behaviour that has so damaged UKIP over recent years - often with some of the most distastefull individuals at the heart of the scheming.
Just as Croucher bases his ENTIRE argument on supposition and unconvincing claims even goes so far as to use the statement that
It would also indicate INDEED ie it fails to PROVE.
It could equally clearly 'indicate' that Croucher, who would seem to be an habitual liar and serial business failure and failure in life, has a reputation for bragadoccio and an inability to keep his mouth shut, his zip shut and his wallet shut until empty - thus clearly this indicates Croucher may well have leaked the information himself.
That his partners in this childish plot included proven liars rendered it an utterly implausible story and plane rubbish.
It is also clear that these dishonest individuals may well have consorted to fabricate information in an attempt to try to dishonestly damage those they saw as exposing the truth about EUkip that could keep them from the crumbs falling from their masters at the troughs on the Gravy Train!
Just as it is probable that Croucher may have colluded with others to supply me with 'e'Mails and data bases to try to imply I have in some way acted dishonourably in exposing the corruption, lies and dishonesty of EUkip and The Faragista Fan Club - we do know Douglas Denny is a dishonest and corrupt individual also such that even the NEC of EUkip at one stage fired him from a position of trust as a result of his dishonesty and corruption.
It is my belief that with Croucher leading there is not a single solitary individual Croucher names, with whom he colluded who do not owe Piers Merchant, Junius and I an unequivocall apology accompanied by their resignation from EUkip for having brought the party into disrepute with their fantasies and lies.
We note despite the admission that EUkip's systems leak like a sieve there is still the idiocy of trying to pretend the facts Junius and I publish are in some way 'untrue'.
That Croucher, clearly with the collusion of Nuttall and Arnott, Page and Wilson it seems, has seen fit to publish the proof that The ICO HAS acted, on behalf of John West, under the terms of The DPA despite his lies and implications to the contrary.
The letter, heavily redacted to suit EUkip, has shown EUkip has been most vigerously cautioned and officially warned - It is clear that Croucher has had access to EUkip confidential data in flagrant disregard of the warning - further Croucher advises that subsequent to the official warning EUkip in complete contempt of the warning has been 'e'Mailing EUkip data bases and material covered by the DPA in gay abandon without encryption!
In terms of the ICO chucking the book at EUkip it starts to look as if they will require a substantial library to provide enough books.
Astonishingly these low lifes and liars have as little regard for The Data Protection Act as had Andrew Smith, Nigel Farage, David Lott, John Wittacker and others had for the Electoral Commission and Electoral Law - leading to a Guilty Verdict in the Courts and the very real prospect of bankrupting the party to quote Ma Zucherman!
It is increasingly clear that EUkip and its entire leadership team and direct staff and supporters are unfit for election to ANY public office.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
M
Post a Comment