Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
You may recall that Gregg Beaman was a UKIP MEP candidate in the North West. He resigned in disgust after the odious Nuttall and McManus fabricated complaints against him in an attempt to remove him as the lead candidate.
Here is a recent entry from his blog:
There are few, if any, more honest politicians than Nikki Sinclaire, UKIP MEP for the West Midlands. Whereas many MEPS get to Brussels opposing the EU, or its ever increasing interference in our lives, only to be seduced by the lifestyle, I would bet my house on Nikki never, ever 'going native'.
In these days of MPs and MEPs constantly appearing in the media for being on the fiddle, it is nice to highlight an elected representative who is open and transparent. But don't just take my word for it.
Here is where Nikki details her MEP allowances on her website.
Here is where she details her staff and their roles. No family members you will note.
Nikki said she would be open and transparent during her campaign earlier this year, now elected she has kept to her word. How refreshing.
Needless to say, if I were still a member Nikki would get my vote in the leadership election.
Alan Wood is a decent man and a patriot. We have met very few ordinary members who have a bad word to say about him.
However, his election statement did raise a few eyebrows in the Farage/Pearson camp.
Here is the part that had Farage spitting feathers:
I do not approve of Lord Pearson's intended election strategy of making "the threat of radical Islam the major focus". This is the wrong approach to winning an election. It will automatically make UKIP candidates unelectable for its negative 'hate' message. Radical Christian Tony Blair, who went to war in Iraq on a lie and helped to kill thousands of innocent civilians, might be a better target. Let me make it clear that if Lord Pearson is elected as Party Leader I will leave the party after 13 years of service. He will lead us into the wilderness.
Our enemy is the EU and I will have a 'Manifesto for Government' of the British for the British.
Most importantly, the anti-EU parties in UK have to work together rather than splinter the vote. I am already in discussion with others outside of UKIP to explore where all anti-EU people other than BNP can work together for the benefit of the 'cause'. The BNP have hijacked the anti-EU cause and we have to show the people affected by EU immigration policies that its the EU and not ethnicity or religion which is the problem.
End of extract.
Attacking Farage’s chosen successor in your election statement is not a very wise move.
It is just as well that Mr Wood has said he intends to quit UKIP if Pearson wins - Farage never forgives and never forgets!
You may recall that Peter Reeve - Eastern Region RO - became a UKIP councillor earlier this year. He is also a school governor.
Lisa Duffy, on the other hand, failed to get elected to even her local council.
It has been brought to our attention that Mr Reeve has resisted at least two attempts to undergo a full CRB check.
This could be to do with the allegation that he has received a caution for assault. We understand the assault took place in Ramsey about 18 months ago.
He also seems strangely reluctant to supply his previous address in the North West.
His fellow councillors are now beginning to wonder if his reluctance to supply a full CRB is deliberate. Is he hoping for an earlier offence to time out under the conditions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?
This clearly has serious implications for Mr Reeve. Should a man cautioned for assault be allowed to work with children or represent his fellow citizens on a council?
It may also interest you to know that many members of UKIP’s NW Cambridgeshire branch are very concerned about his attempts to bully and remove Robert Brown as their selected PPC.
Is Lisa Duffy waiting in the wings? Or does Mr Reeve want the job himself?
Peter Reeve also made himself look rather stupid after he clearly abused his position as RO to promote David Bannerman in the leadership race.
It was also amusing to note that Bannerman 'forgot' to tell his number one supporter that he had decided to withdraw from the race. This decision to quit followed 'instructions' from Nigel Farage.
So it appears that Mr Reeve is no longer part of the coveted Farage inner circle. What a shame! It appears that all his arse licking was for nought!
You will remember GLW was banned by the British Democracy Forum after he mentioned that Peter Reeve had been reported to the Police for assault. Despite confirmation of this from another source his ban still remains in place.
Tempers are flaring amongst the disciples, it would seem.
Farage, as we know, likes to surround himself with idiots, on the basis that they can never be a threat to him. Farage, of course, never completed his education, a source of great embarrassment to him and to his father, as is the fact that despite his obsession with the Great War, he himself never actually served.
But it is not just the MEP list that he seeded with imbeciles, it is his staff in Brussels. Ralph Atkinson may be gone, but McManus is back, and the drunken Andrew (Steve) Reed, famously given a humiliating kicking by Tom Wise's assistant Gary Cartwright in his own office, remains, as does a certain French lady. This latter one was a former staffer with the "French Hunters", a jolly good bunch of chaps, who have sadly departed from the EP. She did not get on well there, so they decided to sack her. Making up a disgusting story about how she was locked in an office and abused by her boss, a lovely chap whose main concerns in life were the preservation of liberal democracy and his own family interests (he dotes to this day on his disabled child) she brought scandal upon an otherwise sound right of centre euro-sceptic group, and was unwittingly brought into the UKIP fold. That was, we must now admit, a fearful mistake.
Described by those who know her as "best suited to doing the photocopying", she seems to have a bit of a hold on Farage. You can probably guess what that is - he does have a weakness for those fat bottomed gals!
But Madame is getting a bit outside of herself, and is now taking upon herself the right to make political decisions that affect the UKIP delegation. More than one MEP has expressed concerns about this state of affairs.
Junius also learns that OLAF have expressed an interest into the syphoning of money to Madame and her brother, who it would appear was put onto an Ind Dem "contract". This came to light when previously unasked questions were raised by OLAF investigators to witnesses in other recent investigations in the UK.
It just gets dirtier and dirtier. Good luck, Lord Pearson. You are being lined up to take the fall for all of this.
GLW has asked us to post the following statement. We are happy to oblige.
At the time and date Croucher’s faked ‘e’Mail was made John West had not received any monies from what was called the defence fund. Regardless of the malicious and all too frequently dishonest and childish taunting and twisting claims and inferences of such as Mark Croucher his incubi and succubae, Brendan Padmore, Michael McGough and various cowards too ashamed to put their name to their postings.
Usually Croucher is quite good with his weasel words and computer fakes and set ups.
May I point out that he has shot himself in the foot by attributing the time line on TWO counts.
Firstly this item does not provide proof of anything relative to the point he is trying to make it is a mere snap shot taken out of context to try to prove matters long subsequent.
Secondly he has categorically stated the posting from West was made on the 18th. Feb 2009 – Croucher has foolishly failed to recognise that the thread he attributes this to was locked on the 17th. Feb 2009.
It is noted that Brendan Padmore is wriggling and squirming to supply ways to support the duplicitous and untrustworthy Mark Croucher a vile little failure of a man without honour, integrity or morality and proven on substantive matters to be both a liar and a cheat. Brendan Padmore yet again displays his dishonesty as he desperately tries to do as he is told by EUkip to suppress the truth.
I note the moderator C-Steam would seem to have the measure of Croucher and comments he has not received the screen capture Croucher CLAIMS to have the implication being that he is somewhat smarter than Padmore and does not trust the false evidence provided by Croucher. To comment the item has not arrived would indicate it was requested!
Here is the posting that shows Croucher’s dishonesty – but we can expect weasel words to try to wriggle out of the facts from him once he realises he has been exposed.
The bottom line is that Croucher CLAIMS to have evidence of a statement made by John West which somehow proves 8 months later that subsequent to the 18th.Feb 2009 John West did or did not get money from some private source or other!
This is no more than vexatious and spitefull mischief making of absolutely no relevance to the fact that there are those who have proved beyond doubt that there is every possibility that upwards of £10 Million may well have been industrially skimmed from UKIP by the corrupt individuals who have dishonestly and corruptly seized control of the party.
It is appreciated that as an official spokesman for EUkip from time to time and as a serial liar there is every reason to believe that Croucher is being used yet again to try to muddy the waters so as to shelter the undeniable lies, corruption and dishonesty of EUkip and its leadership.
You will note a poster ‘Barboo’ forensically exposes the dishonesty and duplicity of Mark Croucher.
First here is Croucher’s unsound claim followed by Barboo’s detailed evidence.
Mark Croucher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dartford, Kent Posts: 1,643
Sorry, I would have posted this in the proper complaints thread, but West ensured it wandered so far off topic that the thread was closed. I'm hoping all interested can find it here. It was posted on the 18th February 2009 and the time looks like 4:32pm, but as it was a screen print and the date and time text is in reversed print, it hasn't come out very well on my printer. The significance of the date was that it was after his case was thrown out at Ipswich court as an abuse of the court process, which was the only reason I printed it. You may recall there was a whole load of threads which were deleted at that time. To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted. I don't have all of my original post - just the last few lines of it, but I distinctly remember it.
Originally Posted by johnwest
I have not received a penny from any fund. You are a liar. You do not need to worry about my legal advice as Nigel and his cabal will find out how good my legal team is soon enough when certain other matters come to court as this is just the starting point. Already a national newspaper is interested and there will be more to come so you can mock now but your boss wont be pleased when the full story comes out and you will be laughing on the other side of your face when your corruption is exposed.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, West. And stop abusing the complaints system for your own ends: you know you said it, everybody else knows you said it, and yet you make a complaint after thinking that nobody had a copy of your comments. I'm surprised the moderators don't ban you for being such a glib onanist and making such a blatantly false complaint.
End of Croucher's statement
Barboo’s statement shows Croucher for what he is:
Yesterday, 05:18 PM 647 Barboo Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 597
Originally Posted by B.A.Ware
Thread re-opened as MC has provided his evidence.
Where is this evidence, BA? Have you retrieved a deleted thread and found John West's alleged statement? Can we see it, please, because what Mark Croucher has provided so far is an embellishment of his existing claim which does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not 'evidence'.
Mark Croucher informed us at post #592 of this thread So what did happen to the defence fund money? that John West's alleged statement, "I have not received a penny from any fund" was in a posting on a deleted thread
Clicking on that link from #592 brings up an 'invalid thread' page, the full address of which shows that the deleted thread MC referred to was entitled 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process'.
Mark Croucher enlarged on this at #641 of this thread by giving the date and time of John West's alleged post on the deleted thread as 18 February 2009, 4:32pm, and saying, "To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted".
The problem with this is, the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process' was deleted on 17 February, as Mark Croucher himself complained at the time he started a new thread to replace it, so John West could not have made the alleged posting on the 18th. The sequence of events can be checked as follows:
In the Complaints section (P.25) at 02:11pm on 17 February, John West reported a post Reported Post by johnwest Mark Croucher had made to the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process', on the grounds that MC had given a link to a blog which had published what JW claimed to be an untrue version of his court case.
At 4:18pm on 17 February Mark Croucher started a new thread So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?, in which he referred to the previous thread as having being deleted, and restored the blog link.
At 07:43pm on 17 February John West made a further complaint Reported Post by johnwest saying, "Despite complaining about Mark Croucher's original posting I now see that he been allowed to repeat the allegations under a new title . . . . What is the point of removing a thread if you then allow the allegations to be repeated by the same person using a new thread?" Following this, moderator B.A.Ware allowed the new thread to remain open but removed the link to the offending blog.
Also, it was at post #3 of this complaint that John West made what is so far his only proven comment on the funding of his legal action: "I also noticed that in one of Mark Croucher's posts he accuses Geoffrey Collier of helping to fund my legal action. This is also not true". Geoffrey Collier has since confirmed at #464 of this thread that JW's statement was correct.
The new thread 'So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?' continued and Mark Croucher did make the mocking comments about John West's legal advice that he describes above, but his barbs (at #23, #30 and #67) were aimed at Geoffrey Collier, not John West. JOHN WEST DID NOT CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO THIS THREAD so, despite all his spinning, Mark Croucher has still not provided the evidence of John West's alleged statement required by the moderators.
Will you repost it, please, if you have found such evidence in a now deleted thread that forum members can no longer access?
End of Barboo's statement
It is worthy of note that the thread Mark Croucher relies upon was started by Croucher as another malicious and spiteful thread to attack someone (John West) seeking to expose the truth of the corruption of EUkip.
The interesting FACT is that the thread was locked because of the undeniable FACT that Mark Croucher had in contempt of Court attributed a comment to a Judge firstly which was never made and was thus a lie and a libel a fact compounded by the fact he attributed the comment to a Judge who was absent from the court and had NOT attended The Court concerned.
The thread was locked because Mark Croucher had lied – yet again and for malicious purposes. This being not just a misrepresentation but and outright lie.
Interestingly Brendan Padmore in a desperate attempt to aid Croucher in his dishonesty again fails to seek the truth and makes the utterly implausible claim that he remembers the details of a posting from 18th. Feb 2009 – a posting we have shown beyond doubt did not exist and even if it had provides Croucher and his little help mate Padmore with no substantiation of their claims merely substantiation they are dishonest and untrustworthy.
I once again state that beyond any doubt, however Croucher his incubi & succubi may seek to rewrite facts to suit themselves – John West at no stage in time received a single penny piece as cash or cheque, nor any other sum of money, from the so called defence fund, Niall Warry or myself towards ANY legal costs he may have incurred in seeking to expose the corruption of EUkip nor UKIP nor any individual therein – either for past cases, current cases or ongoing cases. There was NEVER an intent to fund his costs, particularly in the light of the Sanders findings!
I can also confirm that none nor any donors to the fund in question have voiced or made any complaint as to the handling of the fund and having spoken to all the donors known to me all bar one has stated they were entirely happy with the handling, were aware of the dishonest implications of Croucher and have offered further monies if required.
Mark Croucher - left wing extremist, Searchlight supporter and Farage sock puppet - has been using the British Democracy Forum to attack and smear all those who dare to expose corruption in UKIP.
You may recall that Mark Croucher formally worked in UKIP’s press office and was the editor of UKIP’s Independence magazine. He was later sacked by Farage after it became increasingly obvious that Croucher was incompetent.
Croucher then threatened to make public a recording which he claimed to have in his possession. Annabelle Fuller was said to be the subject of the recording. It is alleged that she was not aware that Croucher had made it.
In this recording she is alleged to have made some rather intimate comments about her relationship with Farage.
Farage and Croucher quickly patched up their differences and Croucher later started running his own pub.
Where he got the money to do this is still the subject of much debate. It is believed by many that he got the money due to his ownership of the tape. Would Nigel Farage like to comment on this?
And now back to the BDF.
Croucher has accused John West - a former UKIP member and currently UK First Party Secretary - of lying about a defence fund.
This fund was first adverstised by GLW on his blog. The aim was to help all those who had suffered injustice at the hands of UKIP’s leadership. It was very much like the defence fund started by UKIP MEPs to help all those who had fallen foul of the EU.
Croucher has claimed that John West and others have lied about the nature of this fund. He also accuses John West of having denied receiving any money from this fund in an earlier statement on that forum.
John West has accused Croucher of being a serial liar. Here is his rebuttal.
It was published on the BDF but was apparently pulled within minutes. Fortunately, it was copied by GLW and we at Junius would like to publicly thank him for sending us a copy.
Start of statement
That you are able to fabricate a so-called screen print is of total disinterest to me as you have a track record as a serial liar with a record of dishonesty from lies to the media, lies to the Press complaints Commission, lies to radio, lies to members, lies to readers of The Independence – lies about candidates, lies about supporters and lies about members live and dead. An odious and untrustworthy individual who has deliberately lied by omission and commission to mislead people.
You even see fit to repeat the lie that my small claims was thrown out as an abuse of the court process going so far as to claim dishonestly to quote a Judge who was not even present and fabricating a quote never made.
You are a past master of abuse, smears, misrepresentation and half-truths. You have a track record of tampering with computer records hence your lies about Piers Merchant when you knew, as a terminally ill man, he would not expose your vile behaviour and obvious dishonesty.
That B. Padmore can justify your latest insults as ‘banter’ speaks volumes for his impartiality and integrity, not to mention the gutter level he finds acceptable for this forum a standard which clearly suits you Fuller and other staff and supporters of EUkip.
Croucher’s behaviour has been consistently distasteful and the way he has abused this forum in order to smear and lie about good people has been disgraceful.
You have repeatedly brought the eurosceptic cause into disrepute with your constant lies. That this has been done for your own self-interest is clear.
You are a low grade fixer for a collection of self-centred, self serving, fifth rate, pretend politicians. The recent £¾ million Elcom fiasco confirms their utter incompetence and third rate status.
You even went as far to smear a man dying of cancer. You are beneath contempt and belong in the gutter with the other EUKIP vermin who have done so much damage to UKIP and euroscepticism. Clearly dedicating your energies and malign talents to attacking anyone who tried to expose the corruption and bring integrity to the fight to get Britain out of the EU.
Mr. Croucher you are a liar, a cheat and a disgrace to euroscepticism even stooping to fabricate false evidence as you try to smear people who have tried their best to clean up UKIP. Tried their best to introduce decent values, tried their best to expose the corruption.
The statement you claim as your proof falls on the first count as a fabrication – on the date you used it is no more than proof of the fact that on that date I had received no money from anyone relating to any defence fund or similar.
Let me state one more time for the dishonest and the corrupt: What money or monies were or were not received and who from in a private manner is absolutely none of your business or anyone else save those who are directly involved. However what happened to possibly as much as £10 million which seems to have been all but industrially stolen by a small cabal of crooks who have lied, cheated, dissembled, misled and squirmed to cover-up their crimes endlessly attacking the messengers to hide their own involvement.
These thefts and frauds and serial dishonesties, in abuse of trust and public office, are a matter for each and every one of us both as members, past and present, and as tax payers, supporters and donors. I can understand as the errand boy of the corrupt they need someone more vile to front their cover-up and it does seem that Croucher, McGough and their cronies are ideal for such serial bullying and dishonesty.
End of statement.
John West was apparently banned from the forum for making this statement. Clearly you are not allowed to defend yourself from attack if that attack comes from an EUKIP supporter.
Croucher - on the other hand - has been allowed to continue his attacks on West and others.
You may recall that Anthony Butcher - owner of the BDF - was recently threatened by the odious Paul Nuttall. Nuttall said that he would take legal action against him if he continued to allow criticism of EUKIP on the forum.
Butcher shamefully agreed to this. However, if Mr Butcher had bothered to contact Junius or GLW we could have told him that Nuttall’s threat was a bluff.
1. UKIP could not have won as the threat was based on lies and dishonesty.
2. UKIP's MEPs were not prepared to finance a costly legal action against Butcher.
3. Several MEPs were also worried that the case could generate a lot of bad publicity as UKIP would be seen as trying to suppress freedom of speech and thus stifle any criticism of Farage and the leadership. Not a good idea for a party that claims to believe in freedom!
Now back to the BDF.
Since Nuttall’s threat Anthony Butcher has abdicated almost all responsibility for the way the Forum is run.
He has allowed certain UKIP moderators to abuse their positions of trust. They try to stifle any criticism of UKIP’s leadership and have even banned several members for doing this - including GLW and Junius. They also lock threads if the critics of UKIP raise too many unpalatable questions - even when these questions are based on hard facts.
Their agenda is set by UKIP’s leadership. The UKIP moderators have little choice but to comply as failure to do so will hardy improve their career prospects within the party.
One of the worst offenders is B.A. Ware. His real name is Brendon Padmore.
Mr Padmore is a typical example of the disgusting filth used by Nuttall to do EUKIP's dirty work. Mr Padmore is well known in UKIPPER circles as someone who will eagerly collude in covering up UKIP corruption - a man who will always put his own sordid self-interest before the common good.
We predict that he will go far in EUKIP!
We should also add that at least one BDF moderator has been passing on the ISP numbers of certain forum members to a UKIP staff member. This is a total breach of trust and a breach of the Data Protection Act.
This number is then used to identify their critics. We can confirm that the Junius ISP was also given to UKIP. However, they were unable to identify us as we post from various locations.
This is done in order to protect our identities, our jobs and our sources. Failure to do so would result in UKIP’s leaders being able to hide their dishonesty and corruption from the general public.
There has been much discussion about Farage's intention to re-position UKIP within the context of a pan-European party. This would, of course, undermine UKIP's withdrawalist principles, and several MEPs are privately fuming about this. But Farage won't care about that, he knows that he has successfully surrounded himself with "Yes" men, who would never dare to question him to his face.
UKIP's principles can go hang, of course, because that party is possibly facing bankruptcy, whilst a new pan-EU party will bring in even more money, and that is what really matters.
These parties, like EU political groups, require a certain number of elected representatives from a certain number of member states. They don't have to be MEPs, they can be members of national parliaments, or of regional assemblies. Each one they sign up brings in a cool 16k per annum for the party. That's another quarter of a million, near as dammit, for Farage to milk from his disciples each year. Of course, in accordance with the rules they will have to agree to promote the aims and values of the EU in order to qualify for the dosh, but they will shut up and do as they are told. Just as they always do.
But now it gets juicy...
As is often the case during plenary sessions in Strasbourg, and one took place this week, drink tends to loosen tongues. And so, we learnt something very interesting indeed. It seems another British MEP is preparing for membership of a pan-European party. A certain Dan Hannan, no less.
Are we talking about the same party here? This might bring a number of unclear issues into focus.
If there is a new alliance forming, I am sure that UKIP's MEPs will be the last to know. As always.
The uproar following Nick Griffin’s appearance was sadly predictable - a media frenzy the like of which we have not seen for years.
The programme was a farce. There was no serious debate. The audience was clearly handpicked in order to ensure Griffin got a hostile reception. Rent a a mob would be a fitting description.
Mr Griffin should have been challenged in a professional manner. Instead, we got mockery, hostility and little else.
The panellists were little better. Jack Straw was one of the worst offenders. His pathetic attempts to defend Brown and Blair’s wilful failure to protect our borders fooled only the gullible.
The undoubted winner was Nick Griffin who has already said that his party has been inundated with requests for membership packs.
Indeed, a poll taken after his appearance on QT indicates that one in five could now vote BNP.
And is this so surprising? The British always love the underdog and many now regard him as a victim. The BBC scored a massive own goal and only have themselves to blame.
It seems to have escaped the attention of Jack Straw that the rise of the BNP is largely due to the wilful failure of the mainstream parties to listen to the concerns of the British people.
The vast majority of British people want uncontrolled immigration halted. So what did the mainstream parties do? Did they listen? No, they voted for EU expansion and uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe.
UKIP is currently no better. We should have been a voice for the millions who are disillusioned with the old party system. But did we listen? No, the vast majority of our MEPs became obsessed with the EU Gravy Train and the Brussels and Strasbourg nightlife. The electorate were soon forgotten in the scramble for cash.
The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP are all responsible for the rise of Nick Griffin and the BNP.
Want to stop the BNP? Then we at Junius suggest that Cameron, Brown, Clegg and Farage stop putting their own self-interest before the interests of the British people and maybe, just maybe, they will succeed.
But we seriously doubt that any of them will have either the humility or good sense to listen.
Still wonder why Elcom decided to throw the book at UKIP?
They were going to accept the judge’s ruling until Farage decided to do this.
Taken from a UKIP press release and originally published on the UKIP website in 2007:
Tuesday, 7th August 2007
Plans by the Electoral Commission to forfeit over a third of a million pounds from a political party have been overruled today. The Commission had demanded that the UK Independence Party forfeit £367,697 claiming the donations were impermissible.
But a judge has ruled that the party need only pay about 5% of the total requested: a £4000 cheque from a company based in the Isle of Man and the last seven donations, totalling £14,481, from Mr Alan Bown, who was inadvertently not on the electoral register in 2005.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he was absolutely delighted at the ruling by the judge, but condemned the Electoral Commission and said that if they had been sensible, the case need never have seen the light of day in the first place.
"The Electoral Commission used this case as a way to make up for their complete failures over the cash for honours scandal and the £2.4m donations to the Liberal Democrats by a man now in prison" said Mr Farage.
"They decided to kick the smallest boy in the playground to justify their own existence, thinking that we would not be able to fight back. There was no element of proportionality in their decision which would have been disastrous to smaller parties had they had their way.
"We have always admitted that we made mistakes over these donations, but they were human error, rather than evasion.
"Other parties have full time treasurers and receive money from the tax payer towards running costs, but a small party like UKIP does not have these luxuries.
"If Mr Bown's company had given the money there would not have been a problem, and a good regulator would have seen this case and discussed it properly with us.
"Unfortunately, we do not have a good regulator, only the Electoral Commission who, instead of behaving sensibly, decided to throw all their toys out of the pram. If they had been less intransigent a lot of time and money would have been saved."
The party expresses particular thanks to the legal team of Alan Newman, QC. and Danny Dionissiou from Moreland solicitors, who were recruited by party secretary Michael Zuckerman.
End of statement.
Does anyone in UKIP still think Farage is an asset? His big mouth has so far cost the party over £700,000. And if Farage goes ahead with another appeal you can take that figure beyond £1 million.
You know that you have no chance of winning as you lack ANY of the qualities needed in a political leader. You lack the integrity, honesty, charisma and intelligence needed for such a job. You would do better to run away from it!
What were you doing visiting the former Yugoslavia with your ‘friend’? What relevance can your recent visit have for the people who re-elected you in June? Was it just another excuse for a freebie at the taxpayers expense?
Would you like to comment on Olaf’s impending visit to Britain? Worried about the allegation that you have misused your EU allowances?
And who is that rather shy woman who goes with you to Brussels? Why does she never come with us to Strasbourg?
And what about this statement?
'What the **** do you think we should do - if he goes down we all will. How the hell do you think we get our money'.
It was made by you at a UKIP NEC meeting. Tom Wise was under discussion at the time. So do you expect to share the dock with Tom?
News reaches us that the the UKIP NEC have been summoned to an urgent conclave, in order that they might vote on the following motion:
"That pursuant to section 4.1 of the UKIP constitution, we rule herewith that the UNITY Party is henceforth "an organisation . . . membership of which is incompatible with UKIP".
"Further we rule that the leadership candidate Winston McKenzie has 48 hours to confirm that he is no longer a member of said UNITY Party, and moreover, that he is not intending to contest the vacant leadership of any other party, such as Veritas (which we note he has done in the past).
End of quote.
With thanks to GLW for making us aware of both this website and the fact that John West had posted the quote on the British Democracy Forum.
Both Greg Lance-Watkins and John West must be commended in their efforts to expose the corruption that lies at the heart of UKIP. Long may they both continue to fight the good fight.
I really do wonder whether Farage still has the brains he was born with?
This is UKIP's response to the news that the Court of Appeal had ruled in Elcom’s favour. A copy was sent out to all UKIP members on email:
The UK Independence Party is stunned and disappointed by today's Court of Appeal judgement in favour of the Electoral Commission.
UKIP had already achieved a partial victory in the case, as Judge Tim Workman ruled in August 2007 that the ommission of donor Alan Bown's name from the electoral register of 2005 was "a genuine and inadvertent error".
The Party will now be seeking leave to appeal.The financial ramifications of the judgement will be significant, with the legal costs on top of the £350,000 forfeiture an added burden to the Party which does not have the funds available to meet the debt at this time.
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said: "Something extraordinary is going on here. It is acceptable under the rules for Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian businessman, to give millions of pounds to the Labour Party and for the Liberal Democrats to be allowed to keep £2.4 million from an impermissible donor who has since received a lengthy prison sentence, yet the Electoral Commission goes on kicking the smallest boy in the playground!"
End of statement.
So once again Farage blames everyone but himself.
Farage may not like it but UKIP’s leaders were given EVERY chance to comply with electoral law. Elcom contacted them several times over inadmissible donations. Their warnings were ignored.
And yet Farage still has the nerve to attack Elcom and blame them for the mess he is in! I wonder if Cameron will still want him as a Tory MP after all this?
Thank you Geoffrey for organising the meeting. We need to give the Electoral Commission every reason to believe we are serious about compliance, in order to provide the next Party Treasurer with a good story to tell when we next fail to meet the statutory requirements.
They should be invited to any big regional meeting and to Party Conference to speak at least to a break-out meeting to Treasurers.
It would have been a suitable event for prospective Party Treasurers to learn a lot about what the job entailed. Were any of them there?
I thought the practical points which emerged, in the absence of the Electoral Commission, were a lesson for the NEC on what their priorities should be. The branches are crying out for better admin and they are full of good ideas.
I hope the NEC takes good notice of your report of the meeting.
Farage and Smith ignore multiple warnings from the Electoral Commission. They are advised that donations from Mr Bown are illegal under electoral law. They ignore these warnings.
It finally goes to court and UKIP are told to pay £18,481 in costs.
Farage does not accept this.
In 2007 Farage attacks Elcom during a speech at a party conference and accuses them of acting like a playground bully. Elcom takes offence at this and throws the book at UKIP.
Here is the BBC’s report on the whole sorry affair. The UK Independence Party has lost the latest stage of its battle to avoid having to repay donations of £363,697.
The Court of Appeal said the gifts from retired bookmaker Alan Bown between Dec 2004 and Jan 2006 were illegal because he was not on the electoral register.
Party leader Nigel Farage threatened to appeal against the ruling, saying: "There is a very real danger that this could put UKIP out of business."
The money would go to the Treasury, not back to Mr Bown.
UKIP estimates its total bill, including legal costs, could reach £750,000.
Mr Farage said the party had nothing like that amount of money in its funds.
Mr Bown says he was mistakenly taken off the electoral register in December 2004 and did not find out until December 2005 he was not on it. He was reinstated in February 2006.
In 2007, the Electoral Commission said it wanted UKIP to forfeit all Mr Bown's donations.
But Westminster Magistrates' Court had said the breach of rules was accidental and ordered the party to pay back only £18,481.
The commission then took the case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that all the donations should be forfeited.
Three judges have now ordered the magistrates' court to change its original decision.
Political party donors must be on the electoral register if they give more than £200.
This rule was enacted mainly to stop foreign donations, but judge Sir Paul Kennedy said:
"Parliament having decided that the test of acceptability of a donation from an individual should be whether that individual was registered in an electoral register, it seems to me to be irrelevant whether an impermissible donor is or is not making a foreign donation."
He added: "The fact that UKIP accepted donations from Mr Bown without realising that he was no longer in an electoral register is also, to my mind, immaterial."
'Simple and easy'
Following the judgement, Electoral Commission chief executive Peter Wardle said that "all parties also need to follow the rules. And these rules need to be clear, simple and easy to follow.
"Parliament decided that political parties should only be able to accept money from individuals if they are on a UK electoral register.
"This provides a straightforward test of whether they should accept money or not. They simply need to check the electoral register. The United Kingdom Independence Party did not take these simple steps."
Mr Bown had been on the electoral register in Thanet, Kent, but was removed apparently by mistake without his knowledge in December 2004.
UKIP, which has 13 MEPs, admitted breaking the law, but said it was because of a clerical error and that to order forfeiture of Mr Bown's donations would be disproportionate.
At long last the media turn their sights on UKIP's two biggest hypocrites.
Taken from the Telegraph
British MEPs exploit loophole to pay relatives to work for them
British MEPs are paying relatives hundreds of thousands of pounds to work for them by exploiting an exemption they forced into new rules banning the practice.
By Jon Swaine and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 4:32PM BST 16 Oct 2009
Regulations introduced earlier this year prevented newly elected MEPs from using their £184,000 staffing allowances to employ family members.
However, amid threats of legal action, a so-called “British clause” was inserted, allowing serving MEPs already paying relatives to continue doing so until 2014.
At least 17 British MEPs – including the Labour, Conservative and UKIP leaders in Europe – are still paying relations tens of thousands of pounds a year from public funds, the Daily Telegraph has found.
The disclosure threatens to embarrass all parties but particularly the Conservatives. About half of those involved are Tories. David Cameron, the party leader, promised a “deep clean” of his MEPs following two high-profile scandals in their ranks.
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP and anti-sleaze campaigner, said: “It’s impossible to justify. A relationship between the MEP and the staff member means we can’t know whether they are suitably qualified or working 100 per cent of the time, as people would expect.”
The new rules were agreed last year after being proposed by Ingeborg Graessle, a German MEP. She said a "very serious conflict of interest" was being allowed under the previous system.
While the practice was unheard of among MEPs from Germany, Austria and many other countries, 34 out of 72 British MEPs employed a relative during the last parliamentary term.
Several British MEPs were known to be furious at the new rules. Senior members from all the main parties told officials last summer that a ban on employment of family members would mire the parliament in expensive unfair dismissal litigation.
A compromise allowed family members already employed by MEPs to continue working until 2014. No new employment contracts for relatives were allowed to be drawn up from July 2009.
“Incumbent British MEPs blocked the ban with the threat of legal action unless they were given at least five years grace to make other arrangements,” said an official.
“It is known as the ‘British clause’ because it is only really the British MEPs who can get away with employing their relatives in public office.”
Diana Wallis, a Liberal Democrat MEP who pays her husband up to £25,000, said last night: “This was specifically included in the rules because the European Parliament could have been faced with a lot of unemployment cases and claims”
Of the 17 MEPs continuing to employ family members, eight are Conservatives – including Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in Europe. Mr Kirkhope pays his wife Caroline between £20,000 and £29,999 to work for him in Britain.
Also among them is Giles Chichester, the party’s former European leader, who was forced to resign the post after it emerged he paid £400,000 for office services to a company of which he was a director.
Mr Chichester was put in charge of ensuring the probity of his colleagues’ expenses before being stripped of the role after news of his arrangements surfaced. He continues to employ his wife Virginia as a “part-time local assistant”.
Four are from Labour, including Glenis Willmott, the party’s leader in Brussels. Mrs Willmott pays her husband Edward between £10,000 and £20,000 to work as her “full-time parliamentary assistant”.
Brian Simpson, a Labour MEP for the North West, employs two members of his family. He lists his son Mark as “Political Head of Office” in Brussels, on a salary of between £26,000 and £36,000, and pays his wife Linda £10,000-£12,000 to work as “part-time accounts manager”.
Three of the 16 are Liberal Democrats, including Graham Watson, the leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. Mr Watson pays his wife Rita Giannini-Watson between £10,000 and £20,000 a year to manage his “office premises and staff employment”.
Two UK Independence Party members have continued employing relatives. Nigel Farage, the party leader, employs his wife Kirsten at an undisclosed salary.
Godfrey Bloom, a UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside, states on his website that he “employs no immediate members of his family on his secretarial allowance unlike most other MEPs”. However Victoria Skowronek, his 21-year-old secretarial assistant, is his niece.
Miss Skowronek also works for an investment company in which Mr Bloom is a major shareholder.
Mats Perrson, a spokesman from Open Europe, the pro-transparency campaign group, said: “It doesn’t look good. This should not have been allowed and a code of conduct should have prevented it.
“It’s much better if MEPs do not employ family members, in terms of public perception and avoiding suspicion, whether justified or not.
“The British pride themselves on taking the lead in Europe but on this they are trailing far behind.”
All the MEPs told the Telegraph that their relatives provided excellent value for taxpayers because they worked longer hours than other staff and were available at any moment.
MEPs who employ family members:
Brian Simpson – Lab – Son Mark £26,000-£36,000, wife Linda £10,000-£12,000 Sir Robert Atkins – Con – Wife Lady Atkins £30,000-£39,999 Nirj Deva – Con – Wife Indra £30,000-£39,999 Stephen Hughes – Lab – Wife Cynthia Beaver £30,000-£40,000 Charles Tannock – Con –Wife Silvia Janicinova £30,000-£39,999 Michael Cashman – Lab – Civil partner Paul Cottingham £30,000 Timothy Kirkhope – Con – Wife Caroline £20,000-£29,999 Diana Wallis – Lib Dem – Husband Stewart Arnold £20,000-£25,000 Roger Helmer – Con – Wife Sara £10-£20,000 Graham Watson – Lib Dem – Wife Rita Giannini-Watson £10,000-£20,000 Glenis Willmott – Lab – Husband Edward Willmott £10,000-£20,000 Giles Chichester – Con – Wife Virginia £10,000-19,999 Martin Callanan – Con – Wife Jayne Burton £0-£10,000 Geoffrey van Orden – Con – Wife Frances £0-10,000 Baroness (Sarah) Ludford – Lib Dem – Husband Steve Hitchins Nigel Farage – UKIP – Wife Kirsten Godfrey Bloom – UKIP – Niece Victoria Skowronek
What a pair of plonkers! To view the original: Link
Members of the European Parliament receive money for a number of different purposes. One of these is for "Information and Communication" - a budget line known as "4000". This is a tidy sum, currently 60,000 euros per annum. There are restrictions on how this can be spent, but it can fund research projects, websites, public meetings, newspapers and leaflets, and a whole lot more. These are all things that an MEP will be very interested in, as these are the means by which they communicate with the electorate, and with the press.
MEPs who do not sit in political groups exercise a great deal of control over this budget. Inside the groups it is different, with the money being allocated to each national delegation, which then decides how much an individual MEP can spend. In the EPP, for example, the British Conservatives could spend 10% of their own budget, whilst in the Socialist group, Labour MEPs had to negotiate hard for their money, but between 10 - 30% was the norm. In the Ind Dem group, during the last parliament, it was 25%.
But the money on the table is more than it was in the last parliament - a lot more.
In the new group in which UKIP sits, MEPs are allowed exactly 0%.
The whole sum, all 780,000 euros per annum, is in the control of one man. Guess who that might be.... correct, it is Nigel Farage.
As one Tory MEP asked: "Are they mad to accept that? Are they scared to stand up to him?"
The answer, clearly, is "Yes".
UKIP members might ask, at the end of the year, "What was the 780 grand spent on, Nigel?" They won't get an answer, of course.
Mike McGough - pictured above - is one of those rather sad individuals who - like Croucher - are seemingly unaware that the majority of UKIPPERS hold them in utter contempt.
You may recall that Mr McGough got into hot water after claiming in his MEP selection address to be the PPC for Harlow.
Here is the quote in question:
'am currently the prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Harlow'
This was a lie.
Unfortunately, McGough made himself look even more foolish by failing to correct this error at ANY of the hustings held in the Eastern Region.
When challenged McGough vainly tried to defend himself by claiming that “he thought” he was the PPC for Harlow.
Apparently, he “thought” he had formally applied for the position. He also “thought” he had gone to a hustings where he “thought” members had elected him the PPC.
Clearly, McGough lives in a fantasy world where the normal laws of electioneering do not apply.
Numerous complaints were made to Piers Merchant - UKIP’s returning officer for the election - about this deliberate attempt to misled members.
Here is a quote from Pier’s official report to UKIP’s NEC:
“I also received complaints about Michael McGough, who, it was claimed, described himself as a UKIP PPC when he was not, thus seriously misleading the voters”.
His concerns were ignored. Making a false declaration and attempting to misled members was obliviously not a problem as far as Nigel and the NEC were concerned.
Fortunately, McGough did not get elected as a UKIP MEP. Unfortunately, he did manage to get himself onto various committees - including the CIB. He even intends to represent the Freedom Association at a conference organised by Ian Anderson - ex-National Front member and editor of The Flag newspaper.
Has Mr Anderson gone mad? Has he ever seen McGough make a speech? Watching paint dry or even listening to Godfrey Bloom’s views on women is less painful in comparison.
But I digress.
On Monday members of UKIP Harlow selected their PPC. A certain John Croft is the lucky man. I wish him the best of luck.
It was interesting to note that Mr McGough was not invited for interview. Indeed, it was made clear beforehand that he would not be welcome at the selection meeting. This was due to his widespread unpopularity in the branch and the fact that he had misled branch members about being their PPC.
What a shame! So what will he do now?
Will Mr McGough return to the British Democracy Forum where the little man can entertain us all with his profound stupidity?
Or will he return to standing in local elections where due to his political genius he managed to get an astounding 1% share of the vote?
Or will he become a sideshow freak at the Essex Showground? I can picture it now ….….
Roll up, Roll up. Come and see a failed UKIP MEP candidate, fraud, idiot and liar!
But please don’t laugh at the hairy one. He may just start to cry!
With thanks to GLW for updating us on all things McGough.
Ralph Atkinson - UKIP researcher and former MEP candidate- recently found himself out of a job.
Farage - who controls ALL UKIP staff appointments - made the decision not to renew Ralph’s contract.
Mr Atkinson has not been in Nigel’s good books for a VERY long time.
After the MEP selection process he was threatened with removal from the list - as was Batten - after the pair became embroiled in a row over allegations of dirty tricks during the London MEP selection process.
The row became so bad that it almost resulted in the collapse of UKIP London as both Batten and Atkinson sought to gain allies in the various branches across the city.
Farage never forgives or forgets. I would strongly advise Batten to watch his back. He has punished Ralph and Gerard's turn is next.
Farage hates Batten with a passion and often refers to him in Brussels as “that f**king BT salesman”. Nigel was even hoping that UKIP would lose in London. Such is his hatred of the man!
I am also afraid that Gerard’s decision to go for the leadership has just made matters worse.
Farage wants Pearson as his successor and has already expressed anger that Batten could split the Pearson vote and let in Sinclaire.
And yet another leadership candidate. This is just getting silly. At this rate half of UKIP's declining membership will be standing!
I just hope the media spotlight doesn’t fall on the Prince of Wales pub. Winston will know what I mean!
From his Wikipedia entry:
Winston McKenzie (born 23 October 1953 in Jamaica) is a British politician and former amateur boxer.
He ran as an independent in the 2008 election for the mayoralty of London, having failed to secure the Conservative nomination. Of the 10 candidates in the 2008 London mayoral contest, he finished 10th, with just 0.22% of votes cast.
McKenzie has previously been a member of Labour, the United Kingdom Independence Party and Veritas, for whom he was the spokesperson for sport and policies for the black community and for whom he ran in the 2005 general election in Croydon North, finishing seventh with 0.7% of the vote.
He also ran as an independent (but under the self-proclaimed title 'Black Voice for Great Britain') in the Brent East by-election in 2003, finishing seventh, with less than 1% of the vote.
McKenzie joined the Conservatives in 2005, after David Cameron was elected leader.
He had left Veritas after the 2005 election, blaming Veritas leader Robert Kilroy-Silk for costing him thousands of pounds by not offering enough support to his Croydon North campaign.
He is the brother of former three-weight world champion boxer Duke McKenzie and former British and European champion Clinton McKenzie, through whom he is uncle of Coventry City striker Leon McKenzie.
Farage is going ahead with his plan to form a "pan-European political party".
The important thing to note, is that in order to qualify for funding, such a party must present a constitution that:
"supports the aims and objectives of the European Union".
By making this move, he will undermine UKIP's raison d'etre and open the door for the Tories.
This makes sense of the claim in the Tory delegation in Brussels that Farage will cross the floor if he wins in Buckingham.
Nigel Farage’s patriotism is only skin deep. He is using UKIP for personal gain.
As an MEP he has claimed over £2 million in expenses. He also employs his wife using EU money and is set to get a massive EU pension when he finally stands down as an MEP.
Remember when he said he would publish a list of all his expenses?
"We are the only people who are intending, annually, to publish so that the public can inspect them, our expense accounts, our allowance accounts, and the excess that we get – the excess that we are forced to take – particularly on travelling allowances."
And remember the promise to start a fund for all those who had suffered at the hands of the EU?
He soon forgot those promises, didn’t he?
Farage has done very, very well out of the EU. So why would he want to derail it?
It is about time UKIPPERS realised this. He is set to betray UKIP in order to satisfy his greed and desire for personal advancement.
Farage’s ultimate ambition is to sit in the House of Lords. Becoming an MP is a means to an end. Getting Britain out of the EU has nothing to do with it!
Junius has heard from a contact in Brussels that a team of investigators are to visit Britain at the end of October in order to interview and take statements from a number of people in connection with certain potential frauds.
They are VERY interested in a number of UKIP MEP's and at least one former UKIP MEP.
A 'Giles Nattrass' appears in certain documents. I can confirm that OLAF is very interested in this particular name.
The investigation into computer 'spamming' by certain UKIP staff has also proved fruitful.
This concerns a virus that sends literally thousands of e-mails to computers in order to render them useless.
A police force has reported electronically tracing it to a very interesting source.
In the next few weeks you can expect some very INTERESTING developments!
We at Junius will keep you fully informed of all future developments. Greg Lance-Watkins will do the same.
We can well understand why Nigel decided to stand down as UKIP leader. After all, would you want to take the flak for what’s yet to come? However, standing down won't save his skin!
We at Junius have a bit of a soft spot for Jill Seymour. She means well and really does want the best for our country. And to her credit she was extremely unhappy with the treatment dished out to the likes of Martin Haslam, Robin Page, John West, Petrina Holdsworth, Del Young and the rest of those pesky ex-UKIPPERS.
Unfortunately, she could never quite manage to pull herself away from Nigel’s immense gravitational field and so lacked the will to speak out against some of the more unsavoury aspects of UKIP.
We knew there would be trouble when she started to work for Nikki Sinclaire. Lady Jane - as she is known in friendly UKIPPER circles - is sadly not as good as some when it comes to the written word. Problems soon arose between the two and Jill finally left the fold.
Jill also resigned from the NEC and various other official positions in the West Midlands.
Sadly, she is now regarded by some UKIPPERS as a traitor and a turncoat. Join the club, dear!
And to make matters worse she has been accused of being involved with the True UKIP bloggers!
“Jill, we all thought you were better then this!!!”
“Jill you were always the running joke in the west midlands, you’re one massive joke and this blog proves it, get a f*** life”
End of quotes.
Poor Jill! However, my good friends at ‘True UKIP’ tell me that Jill is not involved with their blog. And having read some of her recent emails I can assure you it's not our Jill!
Here is one of True UKIP’s most recent offerings:
Jill Seymour, one of the West Midland’s most active and prominent UKIP members appears to have thrown the towl in. First she resigned from the NEC, resigned her positions at her local branches and then as ‘Regional Liason Officer’. A title she probably found out was made up and had nothing to do for anyone, which meant that the money offering couldn’t have been too good.
This news will probably come as a shock to anybody who has met Seymour as she has always been a high spirited and dedicated UKIP member and activist. What can she have seen or heard that so disgusted her to leave the continuing sinking ship? Her UKIP Twitter account which used to be updated at least weekly was last updated in August.
Jill Seymour lists one of her hobbies as assisting disadvantaged people, perhaps she’s gone over to help Gerrard Batten in that case? The fact that he’s considered a career as a Hitler and Charlie Chaplin look-a-like isn’t his only disadvantage, his biggest is the fact that his arch enemy Ralph Atkinson has far more people on his side then him and his egotistical cronies Paul Chicken Wiffen and Lawrence Webb-of-Lies thinks.
What has caused Jill Seymour to throw in the towl? Did she think she’d be getting more money from Nikki Sinclair? Or did she learn that Nikki will probably be defecting very soon as a result of the European Parliament grouping, with her leadership bid being a front to con everyone?
The Lisbon Treaty has been voted through by the Irish, as everybody knew it would be.
The Poles are set to ratify, as everybody knew they would do, and Vaclav Klaus will soon wave through Czech ratification, just as we knew he would.
Klaus' posturing over Lisbon was never anything more than just that; if he fails to agree to ratification he will be going against the will of his own parliament, which would be totally unacceptable. UKIP (and the Tory right) have slavishly and misguidedly worshipped this man, anticipating that he would "derail" the treaty.
This demonstrates their total lack of understanding of the political process. This is tragic, as our country, and indeed all of Europe, needs powerful voices of dissent - politically astute and informed to the most minute of details - instead we get a bunch of drunks, dogmatics and climate change deniers, masquarading as Eurosceptics whilst they strut on the Brussels stage lapping up the expenses, and in the most deplorable of cases, employing wives who do no work at all.
Klaus played a blinder for his country, ensuring that the Czechs were able to punch above their weight during the Lisbon negotiations - what a pity we never had a single MEP in Brussels with the intelligence to understand how the game was being played out. Our so-called "Eurosceptics" have let us down badly through a combination of political ignorance, laziness, and bad leadership. Brawling in bars, consorting with prostitutes, and falling down drunk in public. That is, sadly, what UKIP MEPs will be remembered for.
David Cameron is now off the hook, and will not have to deliver on his pre-election promise of a referendum; he will be a happier man now than he was a week ago. He will no longer have to "out-dissent" UKIP in order to hold on to votes, UKIP's raison d'etre just flew into the history books.
After much deliberation Mike Nattrass has finally decided to throw his hat into the ring!
Mike, do yourself a favour and withdraw now. You have neither the leadership skills nor the intelligence for such a job.
You lack tact, charisma, integrity and even the ability to make a decent speech. I have watched you in the Brussels Parliament and it’s NOT a pretty sight! I had to leave before I did something that I would have later regretted - probably!
And what about OLAF’s interest in you? Don’t you regard that as somewhat awkward? And what about the Police and their interest in certain aspects of your career? Should you have really signed that document? You know what I mean!
I would suggest that you withdraw from the leadership race now. Failure to do so will just make you look even more foolish than your election poster.
I have been asked to promote a new blog dedicated to exposing EUKIP. It's run by a team of UKIP members and is dedicated to exposing “the ugly side of UKIP”.
Here is their first post:
Gerard Batten, UKIP’s life long teetering founding member has announced to his London comprade’s that he has desired for a long time to be the almighty ruler and leader of UKIP.
Gerard, known for his obsession with Islam, Muslims and all things foreign represents the looney far right within UKIP. It can not be confirmed whether his idol Geert Wilders inspired his decision, but from his previous debacles with the anti-Muslim politician one can only assume Gerrard saw what Geert was able to conjure up and like a greedy child decided that was what he wanted.
It has been no secret that Batten has been a big thorn in Nigel Farage’s side. Both polar opposites. Farage a friendly, charming, sociable and more liberal individual whilst Batten is a difficult, unsociable and downright xenophobic individual who has been known to make old pairs of worn shoes show their charm.
Batten is probably hoping that he will suck up the anti-Farage vote within UKIP which represents the more looney wing of UKIP, the wing of UKIP which are only in the party because they oppose immigration but see themselves as too polished to be in the BNP. The London branch of UKIP is known by the party to be one of the worst run. Its chairman being the poorman’s uglier equivalent of Michael Moore with the filmography skills of a blind and depressed great white rabbit. Paul Wiffen is believed to be delighted that his fuhrer Batten may some day become leader, especially since he realised that he himself would have more chance of becoming leader than Lenny Henry becoming leader of the BNP.
No doubt, Lawrence Webb, Batten’s poodle has been rallied in to Batten for leader mentality, despite having his salary savagely slashed by Batten.
If Batten becomes leader of UKIP it will be a magnificent result for the Europhiles as UKIP will hand over plenty of ammunition to opposition and media for it to be branded a looney racist party. Those in Young Independence are terrified at the prospect that UKIP’s ugliest side will come out and have threatened to walk out of the already sinking ship that is UKIP if he is elected leader.
You will be aware that the fat, slimy and odious David Bannerman has withdrawn from the UKIP leadership race.
Here are the reasons behind his resignation:
He stood no chance of winning. Too many UKIPPERS rightly regard him as a proven liar and an enthusiastic supporter of EUKIP corruption. He only became a lead MEP candidate after the Eastern Region selection process was rigged in his favour - at Farage's insistence.
He was told to stand down by Farage. This was done after Farage became extremely worried that Bannerman could split the Pearson vote. The result would be Nikki Sinclaire's election as UKIP leader.
Bannerman agreed to do this as he is desperate to keep his snout in the EU trough and so can't afford to upset his glorious Fuhrer.
Pearson has 'promised' the leadership to Bannerman after the General Election. Pearson does not want the job and is only standing at Farage’s insistence.
Farage rightly regards Pearson as someone who will do as he is told. Farage is now content to be a back seat driver and is MORE than happy for Pearson to take the flak for future UKIP scandals - OLAF, the Tom Wise case, Elcom and various police investigations.
Lord Pearson is a Farage stooge. A vote for Pearson is a vote for Farage. Don’t waste your crucial vote on him!
I am coming round to the conclusion that a vote for Ms Sinclaire is the best option for all concerned.