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.
We have been following the saga of Hamish Howitt with some interest.
Mr Howitt is the UKIP PPC for Blackpool South. He also has 32 convictions to his name.
Mr Howitt has a rather strange take on British law:
You can break the law if you don’t happen to agree with it.
Paul Nuttall thinks very highly of this man. So will he also be encouraging people to break the law?And will it now become official UKIP policy?
Mr Howitt has numerous convictions for ignoring the smoking ban in pubs.
Some may commend his stance, but others would suggest that you have a right to drink or eat without having to breath in clouds of smoke.
But we are more interested in the fact that he was forced on the Blackpool branch by Paul Nuttall.
The members did not want Howitt. They regard him as both an embarrassment and a liability.
They had already found a local GP who was more than happy to stand for UKIP.
But they had not counted on the odious Paul Nuttall!
He quickly went into Mussolini mode and forced Howitt onto them via Fred McGlade. McGlade is Nuttall’s regional organiser/favourite useful idiot.
Here is a copy of a letter that was sent out to various UKIPPERS in the North West and beyond. It is a damning indictment of both the odious Nuttall and his vile RO. That they will resort to any dirty trick in order to get their own way is clear for all to see.
UKIP Blackpool & Cleveleys & Fylde
This letter is written to you jointly from Two UKIP Branch Chairman (with the full consent of their members) and Two other PPCs.
Over 200 copies of this email have been distributed to the branches, the party leader etc. and MEPs “our heads will probably roll but it has to be said” “we believe the membership is the party: not the high ranking officials”
Please read and discuss the contents freely with your branch members, if the similar sorts of problems are happening in your area please let us know. Email:- firstname.lastname@example.org Please do not introduce this matter into the media. Without bold action the matter would be swept under some carpet only to fester.
Recently we have become aware of a number of disturbing facts, which may set back the UKIP cause and detrimentally change the public perception of our party for years. We cannot and will not support candidates (PPCs) who knowingly break, flout and disregard the law.
Initially we list a number of details which we believe to be true facts, proofs to substantiate those details are at the end of this document, our views and comments follow the details.
(1) We sincerely believe the following to be true.
(a) Mr Hamish Howitt the leader of the “Freedom-4-Choice political party”, originally called “UK-FAGs party” which was an officially registered UK political party, has been selected by Mr. Fred McGlade (Regional Organiser RO North West) as the official UKIP PPC for Blackpool South. Selection was made Aug/Sept, well prior the de-registering of his party on the 02-11-09 (proof in (2)(a) Mr Hamish Howitt is a very new member of UKIP Click link to see Hamish Hewitt’s election address/leaflet http://www.fyldeukip.org/ukip/leafletside1.jpg http://www.fyldeukip.org/ukip/leafletside2.jpg
(b) Fred McGlade (RO Northwest) was fully aware of Mr. Hamish Howitt’s position as leader of another UK political party at the time he appointed him as PPC and has forced him on the local UKIP membership who believe him to be an unsuitable PPC
(c) Hamish Howitt may be considered as notorious for his pro smoking campaigns, brushes with the law and subsequent court appearances’. (proof in (2)(b)
(d) Mr. Nick Hogan a good friend and supporter of Mr. Hamish Howitt is another pro smoking campaigner who has had his own problems with the law, subsequent court appearances, cumulating is an arrest warrant being issued for non appearance (proof (2)(c), we believe has been selected as PPC for Chorley and is very likely to have been a member of UK-Fags/Fredom4Choice.
(e) It appears as if it is a deliberate policy to introduce as many pro smoking and drinking PPCs as possible in the Northwest.
(f) The local branch membership in Blackpool voiced concerns at the selection of Mr. Hamish Howitt stating that they did not think him to be a suitable PPC candidate to represent them as he appears to be a single issue candidate and has joined UKIP solely to further his pro smoking campaign.(proof (2)(d)
(g) In order to avoid the branch PPC selection process Mr. Fred McGlade RO has underhandedly, without consultation, or notification, split the Blackpool Branch into two in Aug 2009 and has appointed Mr. Howitt chairman of a previously non-existent branch. (Check UKIP records!!)
(h) Mr. Fred McGlade is trying to gag opposition to Mr. Hamish Howitt, he has de-selected Peter Ball PPC for Preston North probably because he questioned Hamish Howitts suitability, and has replaced him with Richard Muirhead yet another publican selected as a PPC, he was introduced into UKIP by Nick Hogan another pro smoking campaigner and publican who has had many differences with the law courts.
(i) Mr. Fred McGlade has removed Mr. Roy Hopwood chairman of the UKIP Blackpool branch, a long standing member of many years and tireless party worker from his position as Deputy Nominating Officer (5 years) as punishment for his opposition to these what we believe are unsuitable candidates. Now Mr.McGlade is taking Mr Hopwood to the UKIP disciplinary committee to have him removed as chairman of his own branch because he questioned Hamish Howitts suitability (proof (2)(g) Coincidentally Mr.Nick Hogan is on this UKIP disciplinary committee.
(j) At a recent North West Committee meeting Mr. Fred McGlade resigned as RO and walked out of the meeting (in our presence) this was a blackmail attempt to force the committee to allow him his own way which he got.
(k) UKIP is the only main stream party with a Pubs & Smoking Policy (proof (2)(f) this policy reads like a lobbying support document for the breweries talking about tax cuts etc. And does nothing for the image of UKIP.
(l) There are at the moment four PPCs who have resigned as PPCs over the unsuitability of (Mr Hamish Howitt) as PPC for Blackpool South.
(m) A vote of no confidence in and calling for the resignation of Mr. Fred McGlade (RO North West) has been taken and passed in two constituency branches.
(n) If made public this issue may give the impression that UKIP is the political arm of the pro-smoking lobby and may be seen as having commercial interests behind the party.
(o) The above has only scratched the surface of this problem in one small part of UKIP many minor details have been left out. We suspect the high jacking will become widespread and unless checked it may be the downfall of the party, this matter if made public may give the impression that UKIP is the political arm of the pro smoking and drinking lobby and may be seen as having purely commercial interest behind the party.
(p) Many grass root members of UKIP are and will be, deeply concerned at this attempted takeover, and are aware of the bombastic and bullying manner of Mr. Fred McGlade (RO) when he does not get his own way, perhaps he realises he has overstepped his authority and should resign.
(q) This website (Save the Pub campaign - UKIP UKIP pub policy) is promoted by the MEP Paul Nuttall. (proof (2)(e)
We believe it is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic for PPCs to be forced onto any constituency branch, especially when the whole branch membership believe the PPC to be unsuitable and without support. The actions of Mr. Fred McGlade (RO) show there is a deliberate attempt to remove branch chosen PPCs and replace them with the pro smoking campaigners from Hamish Howitts old political party.
Spirits should be running high within UKIP, following excellent results in the Euro Elections, and an excellent new Party Leader. However the membership of both the Blackpool and Fylde Branches have become demoralised by our treatment and by the contempt of our intelligence shown by the North West Regional Organiser (Fred McGlade) and North West MEP (Paul Nuttall).
It is our opinion that the NW region is being controlled by a puppeteer without any consideration for party members, we also wonder whether some commercial interest is being served with so much support being given to the pro smoking and drinking campaign.
If these matters are not checked the British public may soon perceive UKIP as a pro smoking and drinking lobbying party, who must have commercial interests behind them.
The practice of Mr. Paul Nuttall (MEP) to hold his surgeries in pubs is extremely discriminatory in that, it prevents many ordinary people from going to see him because they will not go into a pub on religious grounds, health grounds, social issues such as alcoholism and financial constraints etc. etc.
In support of this, we the undersigned, believe the content of this letter to be true and fair:-
Mr. Roy Hopwood (chairman Blackpool UKIP ex PPC Blackpool North) Mr. Bill Whitehead (branch chairman Fylde UKIP ex PPC Lancaster) Mr. Peter Ball (branch secretary Fylde UKIP ex PPC Preston North) Mr. Richard Whitehead (ex PPC Fylde)
Proofs (a) Copy email from the Electoral Commission:- Dear sir. I trust this answers query The Freedom-4-Choice party was de-registered by the Commission on 2 November 2009 your query. Yours sincerely Martin Carr, Policy Adviser (Advice & Induction) The Electoral Commission, Trevelyan House , Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2HW Howitts political party website as of the 09-12-09 fags statement of accounts showing Mr Hamis Howitt as leader 2007 http://www.electoralcommission.org.u..._N__S__W__.PDF http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...9_11-31-19.pdf Statements of accounts - Electoral Commission
(b) The Smokers Club, Inc. - UK Hamish Howitt BBC NEWS UK England Lancashire Smoke row landlord loses licence Pub landlord fined for flouting smoking ban - Telegraph There are dozens more examples of Mr Hamish Howitts’ disregard of the law, in one court he was given a two-year conditional discharge for the first seven offences committed, £28,000 in fines from 32 convictions
(c) Nick Hogan PPC Chorley, Arrest warrant issued 06-05-2009 see public opinion in blog at the bottom of page. There are dozens of such webpage’s about this matter, Warrant for arrest of smoke-rebel landlord (From The Bolton News)
(d) One of the more gentle blogs Stonch's Beer Blog: Defying the smoking ban - lunacy in Blackpool Local paper site see blog at end Law-hound Hamish vows to stub out MP - Blackpool Today
e) UKIP lookalike website from promoted by Paul Nuttall (see the imprint at the very bottom of webpage)on the Save the Pub campaign - UKIP UKIP pub policy (very slow loading) this site is registered to UKIP at 9 Ravenscroft Close Sheffield S13 8DA UK Is this a recognised UKIP address?
(f) UKIP Official Pub & Smoking Policy (looks like it was written by a brewery accountant) http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/pubs.pdf
End of letter/email.
It is interesting to note that Nick Hogan, UKIP PPC for Chorley, a friend of Hamish Howitt, Paul Nuttall and Fred McGlade, has been jailed for 6 months after refusing to pay fines. See: LINK
Mr Hogan is also UKIP's national spokesman for licensing and the night-time economy.
Was this man a suitable PPC?
And so once again UKIP leaders are exposed as dishonest control freaks. Their total disregard for the wishes of the membership is now legendary.
UKIP is a dictatorship under the TOTAL control of a corrupt and cowardly leadership.
We are reminded of the UKIP MEP who recently said of Farage:
"Never underestimate his stupidity or his talent for self-promotion".
From The Sunday Times:
Nigel Farage is an embarrassing figure who does not speak for Britain
David Aaronovitch once invented the perfect definition for the noun farage. Taken from barrage, out of the French barrer, meaning to obstruct, and from the Latin farrago meaning a mess, a farage is a bombardment of nonsense.
The once-upon-a-time leader of UKIP has been at it again. Addressing Herman Van Rompuy, the former Prime Minister of Belgium and leader of the European Council, Mr Farage began by saying “I don’t want to be rude but . . .” and then continued “you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk.” It would clearly not be wise to cross Mr Farage when he does want to be rude.
Mr Farage, with his characteristic charm, went on to describe Belgium as a “non-country” and then, displaying the full set of prejudices, patronised a Belgian MEP who asked him to apologise by describing her as “very sweet and rather pretty”. The hilarious Mr Farage is not done yet. He has been summoned to see the European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek next Tuesday and is considering wearing shorts and a schoolboy cap when he goes to the headmaster’s study. What a card. It is always embarrassing (but never funny) when unfunny people try to be amusing.
In his rant at Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Farage boasted that “I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don’t know you, we don’t want you . . .” This newspaper did not want a leader of the European Council either. But no, Mr Farage, you do not speak for the majority of the British people. They would not dream of being so pathetically rude and neither do they relish being represented by the political equivalent of Alan Partridge.
Iain Dale is quite keen to promote Nigel’s latest novel on his blog. But why he is so eager to support Farage is something perhaps best left to Iain and his analyst!
Never has a man been so hoodwinked by the greatest spiv in British politics.
The book is called 'Fighting Bull'. A better title would have been 'Spouting Bullsh*t'.
Iain describes the book as being ‘painfully honest’. To describe Farage as being ‘painfully honest’ is about as convincing as describing Paul Nuttall as the next MP for Bootle.
So will we be reading about Farage’s extra-marital affairs, the time he was found drunk in the gutter, the OLAF investigation into his alleged misuse of MEP allowances, his long-term affair with Annabelle Fuller, his drunken outbursts, the time he urged a drunken Bloom to attack a journalist, what his wife actually did for all those lovely euros, his grubby little deals with the Tories, his rumoured alcoholism, his Isle of Man trust fund, what happened to the money raised by the Ashford Call Centre, why he had to resign as UKIP leader, why he secretly claimed a second EU pension, why he sits with fascists and racists in the EFD, why he threatened Nikki Sinclaire, etc, etc, etc.
Not that Nigel wrote it himself. He can't even write an email. Just ask Steve Reed!
Farage also admits to being a fan of lap dancing. But that is hardly a revelation. We all know about his weakness for visiting establishments where the women are more than happy to help ease your tension.
We also look forward to reading about how God cured Nigel of cancer and how he later gave him the power to walk on water and turn water into wine.
But don’t buy it just yet. Give it six months and you will be able to get from a remaindered bookstore for £1.99.
But will it get to a second edition? We do hope so. We can't wait to read Nigel's prison diary. We hear that it will be called 'How I was set up the EU Commission after I attacked Van Rompuy'.
We hear that Mrs Farage has asked Steve Harris for a reference. Don’t tell us that Nigel has sacked her! So much for wedded bliss!
So is she seeking pastures new? And is her departure connected to the OLAF investigation into her husband’s finances?
He used to employ her on a very generous EU funded salary. What she did for all those euros is something of a mystery. But we can confirm that OLAF was more than interested in that particular mystery!
Dr Edmond on UKIP’s NEC elections
Deferring UKIP NEC elections. Reason, "With many of the likely candidates also involved in running as candidates in the general election it makes sense to postpone our internal poll. That way these people can concentrate their time and energy on achieving success for the party without the added burden of contesting NEC elections" says Zuckerman. To stand for the NEC you have to fill in one form and get 10 signatures. It says it all about UKIP NEC that this simple overwhelms them with work. Canvassing is banned in NEC elections unless approved by Farage.
The real reason for this unconstitutional act is so Farage can get his Pan European party agreed by his current nodding donkeys. I am amazed Zuckerman, a solicitor, can put his name to such an abuse of UKIP rules.
I was approached to stand as an anti EU Alliance candidate in the General Election. I declined for personal reasons but I think this party has much to recommend it. Its candidates will be independent of party control and need only agree on one policy, get us out of the EU. The party system does great harm to our country with the general populace's choice of candidates being restricted and manipulated by party machines. UKIP's MEP selection procedure is a good example. Let us have real Swiss style democracy with binding referendums and no career politicians.
Another excellent post from Dr Edmond. To view the original: LINK
The General Election blog on Douglas Denny
As UKIP collapses the level of paranoia within its ever diminishing ranks resembles more and more the last days of the Reich.
Anybody who isn't a fanatical follower of its leader Nigel Farage, sorry former leader, and dares to question the direction of the party is labelled BNP or 'Euro-federalist'.
If you would like a taste of the sheer lunacy withn the ranks of UKIP, especially the leadership, follow this link. It will take you to the British Democracy Forum where you can read the bizarre ramblings, verging on lunacy, of one member especially who claims to be a member of the party's National Executive Council. His name is Douglas Denny, although that could be a pseudonym for somebody trying to embarass the real Mr Denny. The Douglas Denny on the forum is known by many as Dippy Denny.
Is there anyone out there - apart from Douglas Denny - who actually likes this man? Even his branch - what is left of it - don't think much of him.
Godfrey Bloom can’t be bothered to show
The following report is from UKIP’s official website:
Tuesday, 23rd February 2010
The Women's Rights and Gender Equality Committee of the European Parliament will be voting tonight to make it compulsory to give 18 weeks of maternity pay on 100% of wages.
"This is the economics of the madhouse" said Godfrey Bloom MEP. "At this time of economic crisis this proposed legislation is stupid and wrong. I said this years ago and I repeat it now. No small businessman or woman with two brain cells will employ a woman of child bearing age".
"It is stupid because rather than increasing employment possibilities for young woman, it make them scarcer as hard pressed businesses factor in the risk of losing staff - whilst paying them for months on end. And it is wrong because it is the small businesses that create wealth and innovation. Doing this strips them of the ability to invest effectively in staff.
It is sadly typical of a legislature made up of public sector employees, lecturers and charity workers - no concept of life in the real world, yet they have the temerity to dictate to those whose hard work pays their wages", continued Bloom.
End of article.
It may interest you to know that Bloom could not be bothered to attend this meeting. He got his assistant to go.
And can we point out to Godfrey that is not 18 weeks. The correct figure is 20 weeks. But that is what happens when you get your flunky to do the job for you!
And let us not forget that one of the adverse votes only passed by one vote. Had Bloom bothered to attend he could have blocked that part of the legislation!
You may recall that Bloom got into hot water after stating that:
“No small businessman or woman with two brain cells will employ a woman of child bearing age".
But a quick check on his website tells a very different story: LINK
Today's Times excitedly reports that the former Tory donor, Stuart Wheeler, who was kicked out of the party for donating £100,000 to the UK Independence Party, plans to donate another £100,000 to help former leader Nigel Farage unseat the Speaker, John Bercow.
Wheeler, who made his millions through spread betting, apparently believes that if Ukip win any Westminster seat, it will be Bercow's.
In fact, Ukip are particularly unlikely to win Bercow's Buckingham seat, not least because it's the safest Conservative seat in the country. At the 2005 election, he won with a majority of 18,129 and boundary changes mean this has increased to 19,66.
As much as the press are desperate to hype this contest up, there's no chance of Bercow being defeated. Contrary to reports, this isn't one of the seats to watch at the election.
First Farage attacks Nikki Sinclaire on The Daily Politics. During an interview he mentions her spent bankruptcy and tries to link her to the BNP.
He leaks information about her bankruptcy to one of our contacts. He hopes that we will publish it. We decline to do so.
He gets the NEC to ban her from using the UKIP name and also authorizes a raid on her UK office.
He threatens to resign from UKIP if Lord Pearson insists on reinstating her as a UKIPMEP.
And now he gets Mark Croucher - and others - to attack members of her staff. By attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of her staff he hopes to undermine confidence in her as an MEP.
Farage is now getting very desperate!
The thread attacking her staff can be found on the British Democracy Forum. See: LINK
Nigel’s latest victim is Gary Cartwright.
Gary is a staunch patriot and opponent of the EU. Despite this, he is accused of being pro-EU, a fascist, a racist, a Labour Party mole, ex-NF, gay, a cross-dresser, the third gunman in the Kennedy assassination, etc, etc.
He has also been accused of being Junius. The particular lame dog story has now been around for a very LONGTIME!
He joins the ranks of Piers Merchant, Tom Wise, John West, Robin Page, Adrian Muldrew, members of OLAF, MI5, GLW, the Holy Ghost and assorted others. All have been accused of being the face or faces behind Junius.
Croucher had originally accused Piers of being Junius. Piers had now been dead for several months. So would Mr Croucher like to explain how a dead man can continue to write articles for this blog?
Here a few facts for Mark Croucher's intellectually challenged sock puppets:
Gary is NOT the head of Junius, the editor, the author or even the head office boy!
So Croucher makes an ass of himself yet again!
Tim - Gerard Batten’s most fanatical supporter - spoke for many when he/she said:
This thread is just another NF intigated(sic) attack on Nikki Sinclaire.
Rob Mcwhirter - a long-standing UKIPPER - was also not impressed with the attempts to damage Gary's reputation:
Gary is a rock-solid anti-eu euroscpetic, and Nikkis (sic) team will be all the better for having him aboard...
And this is what our colleagues at the General Election blog had to say:
More on UKIP Paranoia
One very funny thing about observing smaller parties in the build up to the general election, is the level of sheer venom directed at each other by certain activists, this seems to be a particular problem within the UK Independence Party. When I say by certain activists I don't mean activists in one party attacking those in another, I mean those in one party attacking each other.
One of the reasons it is so virulent within UKIP is that their leader, sorry former leader, Nigel Farage, hysterically smears anybody who dares to question or disagree with him in even the most minor way, thus setting the tone for the whole party, especially his little gang of fanatical and strangely obsessive followers. His usual smear is accusing his opponent of being a BNP plant. He will then use the BNP attack in other ways. He accused one of his own MEPs, Nikki Sinclaire, of leaving the EFD Group and then sitting in the European Parliament with the BNP's Nick Griffin. The reality being that Griffin and Brons sit in the unattached area where independents sit. It was a bit like claiming that a person on the same train as Griffin, along with a hundred or more other people, actually travelled with him. It is a sly and devious tactic.
There are also the usual security service claims and the odd attempt at sexual smears, not so common from Farage for obvious reasons. But recently a poor ex-UKIP employee, Gary Cartwright, has yet again been attacked and smeared as a secret Eurofederalist. A sin on a par with paedophilia in the minds of many UKIP members. The smears about Mr Cartwright have been so many and so varied that it would be tedious to drag them all up but now, working for Nikki SinclaireMEP, he is in the spotlight again. You see Nikki Sinclaire left the EFD Group finding it a bit unpleasant sitting with homophobes and holocaust deniers, so she and her staff are now "fair game" it seems for all kinds of smears and innuendo.
But the big attack on Mr Cartwright at the moment is the terrible accusation that he is the one and only Junius! To any watchers of UKIP the blog Junius on UKIP is an invaluable source of information, proving time and again to be extremely accurate, to the uncontrolled anger of the stranger members of the UK leadership. We suggest that you take a look by following the highlighted link.
Another excellent source of information on UKIP is the British Democracy Forum. This is where activists, current and former, and the more eccentric members of UKIP's leadership, indulge in fratricidal bouts of backstabbing, smearing and insulting each other. Indeed it became such an embarassment that party chairman, Paul NuttallMEP, set up his own members only forum to keep the infighting in-house. But the last we heard it was so vicious and nasty it was driving members and candidates away, so Nuttall was threatening to close it down. You really couldn't make this stuff up.
All we can say is how grateful we are that UKIP so love to air their dirty linen in public. It gives us all a good laugh and is a constant source of useful information. As we have replied to UKIP complainants before, the reason we give so much coverage to UKIP here is because the other parties are so much more professional that they don't give us anywhere near as much ammunition. So keep up the good work.
To give you a further insight we invite you to read the following, posted by Junius in December 2009:
We at Junius note that the usual EUKIP liars and cheats are still losing sleep over the identity of Junius. Indeed, we have recently been the subject of some discussion on the British Democracy Forum.
The list is getting increasingly longer with John West, Robin Page, Gary Cartwright and Adrian Muldew being added to the ever growing list of suspects.
You may recall that Mark Croucher accused Piers Merchant of being Junius. Piers has now been dead for several months and yet strangely we are still here. We note that Croucher has yet to apologise to the Merchant family for publishing his lies.
Croucher currently posts on the British Democracy Forum as 'Skeptyk'. In a recent post he once again accused Gary Cartwright of being Junius. You may recall that Gary used to work for UKIP as a researcher.
Here is Gary's response:
Exactly what am I being accused of now?
In 2005, before the General Election, I was tasked with doing an audit of candidates. A man I will call "Mr S" had very strong BNP connections. I reported this to Farage. He told me to "drop it". More about this later....
I was accused of leaking information to Greg Lance Watkins once, by David Lott and Nigel Farage. When as a result of my own investigations into the matter I showed them that only they (and Gawain Towler) had that the relevant information at the time it was leaked, it very suddenly became "well, actually, its not something we are here to talk about". Well. at least I had found the leak...!
I was accused of selling a story about Farage's son to the Sunday Times. When I produced a letter from the ST to confirm that I was not the source, the leadership did not want to look at it... the lie had served its purpose. I lost my job as a result of that lie.
Having found a new position in the European Parliament, I was then accused of being a member of the BNP, a cross-dresser, a closet gay, and - most insultingly - of having lied about my service record. This all came from the aforementioned "Mr S" and one of his chums. The allegations turned into threats, and I had to call in the police. The harassment then stopped. Mr S's chum was an ex-con, and so they probably realised it was a good time to stand down on this one.
I was then informed that a certain UKIPMEP had been calling members in his region, and was alleging that I, and others, had been recruited into UKIP to destabilise the party. Apparently, I am an MI5/MI6 agent.
Then, whilst I was subsequently working as a journalist in Brussels, my editor was viciously attacked on the platform of a train station by a young lady working for in the offices of the UKIP Brussels clique, who objected to a story "Gary Cartwright had written". I didn't write that story... it showed me the measure of these folks. Idiots, one and all.
It gets better.
I was present when a young journalist was physically attacked by a UKIPMEP in a Brussels bar.
I was attacked by a young intern for being "Junius". His behaviour was appalling. When Piers Merchant was "exposed" as Junius, did I get an apology? No way... again, it shows us the measure of these people.
Piers is no longer with us, but Junius is still active. Has an apology been issued to Piers' family? You can guess... by now you will know the measure of these vile people.
I walked past Farage's office a while back - his pa, who I once shared an office with, was there - I try to get on with everybody, and so I greeted him. I was verbally abused in the most obscene manner, and jabbed with an umbrella.
So what am I accused of now, Skeptyk?
End of statement.
Gary's excellent post gives just a few examples of the serious problems within UKIP. To state that the corrupt and dishonest gain preferment in UKIP while the decent and honest are driven out by a corrupt leadership would be a colossal understatement!
Nigel Farage has created a bit of publicity for himself after he attacked Van Rompuy in the EU Parliament. Van Rompuy is the EU president. See: LINK
Sky News also mentioned it. During their report they described Farage as being the leader of UKIP. Poor old Lord Pearson didn’t get a mention!
During the rant he also felt the need to insult the whole of Belgium. Is it now UKIP official policy to insult the people of a entire nation?
You may recall that Bloom upset the people of New Zealand after he praised the French for bombing a ship. The ship happened to be in a New Zealand port at the time. See: LINK
Farage also mentioned that democracy was “not popular with you lot’”. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! So would Nigel like to comment on the lack of democracy in UKIP?
For instance, he scraped the latest NEC elections, removed democratically elected NEC members after they dared to disagree with him, rigged the MEP selection process and censored the UKIP members forum after various members spoke favourably of Nikki Sinclaire.
But why did Nigel suddenly decide to make such a brazen attack? His other recent attacks have all been rather muted.
Could it be that in the event of an investigation by the British police, he can say that EU officials are picking on him for political reasons? See: LINK
It is now public knowledge that several UKIP MEPs - including Nigel Farage - secretly signed up to a second EU pension fund. See: LINK
This story is not going to go away. Several journalists are now gathering information on this scandal. Farage can expect a VERY rough ride from now until to the General Election!
We sincerely hope that Farage's opponents in Buckingham make the most of this opportunity to expose this spiv for what he is - a sickening hypocrite and a man more than than happy to stick his snout in the EU trough.
From New Europe:
Our recent article, "MEPs spending spree forces payback, but the names are being kept secret" (see full article below), disclosed that unnamed MEPs have handed back €3.4 million to Parliament and that the secretive second pension scheme is in financial trouble among other related issues. Mr Juame Duch Guillot, Spokesperson for the European Parliament, has written to the newspaper requesting a clarification of the following points:
•The vast majority of the repayments are simply a part of the normal operation of the system... this is a routine accounting exercise and does not indicate any administrative failings, still less any wrongdoing".
•Where there are doubts about any payments, Parliament's services always ask for any additional details requires. If there is reason to suspect wrongdoing Parliament can and does refer the matter to OLAF
•Parliament's rules have, since the 2009 elections, have forbidden the employment of close relations, albeit with a transitional period for those individuals already employed.
•The secondary pension scheme effectively closed at the end of the previous Parliamentary term and now only exists to meet its existing obligations.
•Parliament is not "bailing out"the fund: it has taken steps to address this situation, raising the retirement age and reducing options for withdrawing from the scheme, precisely to avoid the situation where the scheme would need to be "bailed out" by taxpayers.
•The administrators of the scheme have already made clear that reports the the scheme has invested in schemes linked with Bernard Madoff are entirely false.
Richard Balfe, the ex-MEP who is leading a court battle to halt reforms to the pension scheme, has been seen in the Parliament pensions office this week and is described as being unhappy with the naming of four UK Conservative MEPs who are fighting the case alongside him. He believes that this is unfairly singling out his party.
Mr Balfe may well be correct and the MEPs involved in the case appear to come from a cross-section of European politics. If he wishes to prove that this is the case, he is more than welcome to provide us with the full names of all the MEPs fighting the reforms with him.
• In Mr. Duch Guillot's letter, it is stated that the €3.4 million that has been repaid so far, is just normal accounting practice. This amount appears to be significantly higher than in previous years. Why this might be? As the figure only represents monies that have been actually repaid, what amount was requested to be repaid, but has not yet been received, and how many MEPs are involved?
• It was also stated that when doubt arises, the Parliament services request further information. How many MEPs has such further information been requested from? What has been the response?
• It is stated that the Parliament can and does refer MEPs to OLAF. How many MEPs have been referred to OLAF in the last two parliamentary terms? Tom Wise MEP was not referred to OLAF. Why not? Would the same course of action be taken if a similar situation arose again?
• The pension fund had a reported shortfall of €125 million. This is an old figure, what is the current shortfall? Mr Duch Guillot also makes clear that the Parliament is taking measures to reduce liabilities in the pension scheme. By how much would the shortfall will be reduced if these measures are implemented? It is widely believed that the cost saving measures will not eradicate the deficit. If this is the case, where will the rest of the money come from? If the court case goes against the Parliament, how will it prevent a "bail out" by the European taxpayer?
In the EU, the Parliament's role is to represent the public, in an open and transparent way. We are confident that all these questions will be fully answered.
The ongoing scandal of UKIP's involvement in the EFD group, with its hotch-potch of violent convicted racists and anti-semites, should be taken in context. It is not that long ago that the party was rocked by a "holocaust denial" scandal.
UKIP member Alistair McConnachie was expelled for holocaust denial, but his subsequent reinstatement caused a wave of resignations in the party. McConnachie once wrote " I don't accept that gas chambers were used to execute Jews for the simple fact there is no direct physical evidence to show that such gas chambers ever existed... there are no photographs or film of execution gas chambers... Alleged eyewitness accounts are revealed as false or highly exaggerated." See: LINK
Most members are decent patriotic people, and are disgusted by this kind of poisonous drivel. It is notable, however, that McConnachie was reinstated by the NEC, never renowned for its ability to act independently, now or then.
Fast forward to 2010, and another brave member who is prepared to speak out against right-wing extremism, Nikki Sinclaire. She is being subjected to a campaign of vilification from the party leadership (the real leadership not Lord Pearson).
Nikki deserves the support of every decent UKIP member.
Derek Clark has appointed a new personal assistant in his Northampton office.
We wonder if Carron is aware of OLAF’s interest in her employer? Did he ever tell her that he is under investigation for alleged misuse of EU allowances? We doubt it!
But here is a bit of advice. Be very careful what you sign!
And why has Don Ransome - convicted drunk driver and UKIP RO - been appointed the Election Agent for so many constituencies in the region? He can’t even cope with running local authority elections let alone a major General Election campaign. Remember the Derby by-election? He couldn’t even find a candidate!
Why are Ransome and Clark keeping the details of GE candidates from the members. Is it a state secret?
Perhaps all will be revealed when UKIP East Midlands meet in Newark next Monday.
But will Clark dare to attend? He could well face questions regarding the OLAF enquiry, the unofficial electoral pact with the Tories and certain legal matters!
And will members demand to know why Clark is still paying Don Ransome roughly £61,000 per annum? Is this convicted drunk driver really worth so much public money?
Will Don be going on his bike or will the British taxpayer be paying the bill via his EU funded salary?
The last regional meeting was chaired by Peter Baker - pictured above in glorious back and white. Clark was absent. He probably had to see a solicitor.
Peter famously had a falling out with Clark. Poor Peter had to face a disciplinary hearing which quickly descended into farce. The whole sorry saga could have been lifted straight from a Morecambe and Wise sketch. Even GLW was involved! See: LINK
But now it seems that Derek and Peter are the very 'beast' of friends!
Peter Baker is famous for his distinctive bow ties. He regards himself as a bit of a ladies' man and is always seeking to kiss the hand of any woman who has the misfortune to find herself in his presence.
Sadly, many don’t appreciate this. Jane Clark - wife of Derek Clark - is one such victim. She was less than impressed with Peter after he made a sudden grab for her hand. Her subsequent comments were hardly those of a lady!
But Jane must remember that NOW is not the time for disagreements and personal enmities. LOYALTY is essential at this crucial time. Get your stories right and stick together because OLAF will not be interested in kissing your hand. They are more likely to bite!
Derek Clark OLAF Case Number: D/007/033/04.09.08
Derek Clark OLAF Investigation Number: DD/FD-D2008.A1/7133/OF/2008/0240
Will Derek shortly be getting a police crime number to add to these?
Just when you thought that UKIP’s leadership couldn’t sink any lower into the gutter……
Despicable behaviour in UKIP Wales by Niall Warry
When I was Chairman of UKIP Wales in 1999 one of our members Hugh Jones from Swansea was a very active member.
Hugh held forthright views and was a dominant character which is probably how he survived a bout of MRSA, which he caught in Swansea Hospital, after he went in for a routine operation. He was in the hospital for 2 years.
As UKIP Wales grew and regional branches were developed Hugh Jones became Treasurer of UKIP Swansea and stood as a PPC on at least one occasion.
Well as with much of UKIP the Swansea branch whithered on the vine but last year in 2009 Hugh asked the Welsh RO Mahoney to organise a husting for the MEP Candidate John Bufton in Swansea. Hugh said he would arrange the venue etc.
Mahoney (I believe stathan on this forum) replied that he was too busy and couldn't be bothered!!
Next after Bufton's win Mahoney was tasked to resurrect the Swansea branch and the first meeting was called for September. Hugh was unable to attend but did make the second meeting before Christmas.
This meeting according to Hugh, who I have recently spoken to, was a complete shambles with no agenda and little order. I'm sure Hugh made his views known and he also asked that there should be a proper procedure for the appointment of PPCs in the forthcoming election.
Mahoney's main comments to Hugh was that he was not a suitable person to be the Treasurer of the branch.
Hugh was NOT invited to the next meeting and when he spoke to the person who had sent out the e-mail calling the meeting, which had been supplied to Hugh by a friend, the person said no such meeting had been called!
Hugh knew this was a lie as he was staring at the e-mail when he spoke to the person who sent them out!
Anyway Hugh attended the meeting and this is his report on what happened:-
The Battle of Langland Golf Club 2 Feb 2010. (or why are they so frightened?)
Let me introduce myself. I am an 86 year old – rather large 6ft3” severely crippled man who walks with difficulty using two sticks. Maybe, I am considered fairly bright; being during my career a Lt. Cdr. (E) in the Naval Reserves with 5 years of war service, I hold a doctorate from London University and senior membership of major scientific organisations in the UK, Canada and the USA. I was for a period the President of one such national organisation. I was head of applied physics departments in universities in both the UK and Canada. I am the author of over 100 scientific papers and two books. I am still known in my field across the world.
Swansea Branch of UKIP members were called to a meeting by email recently. The meeting was held last night at Langland Golf Club Swansea. The emails announcing this meeting were not sent to me directly , however the omission of my name was noticed by some and the information was sent to me anyway. I wrote to the Acting Chairman of the Welsh Branch of UKIP after being told that I was banned from attending local UKIP meeting – see the copy of this letter attached.
When I arrived at the Club in time for the meeting I was met by the Welsh organiser (described in the attached) and two of his henchmen. They said I was not allowed to go into the Golf Club implying that they were going to keep me out of it. I ignored them and proceeded to the Club . They then sent for the manager who told me I was not allowed into the Club – that it was for members and their guests only. I sat down in a chair and told the Manager that I would wait there until a member signed me in. There was discussion between the Welsh Organiser and his covey and the manager. Eventually the three Swansea members (which included the Gower PPC Gordon Triggs) and the Welsh Organiser retired to the dining room were they had a table for the meeting . The manager , a portly man of later middle age then set himself to the task of throwing me onto the floor by trying to turn the chair over. I sat tight holding firmly onto the arms. He eventually found the task beyond his capabilities and retired breathless. I rang the police regarding the whole affair because I was expecting a further assault.
With the usual promptitude the police did not arrive. After some twenty-five minutes or so I went into the dining room to the assembled meeting - three Swansea members and the Welsh Organiser I threw four copies of some papers and video discs on the table for their benefit and made my way out of the building. A taxi I had called arrived. I left and went home.
About an hour and a half later a policeman came and told me that they had been to the Club and interviewed all concerned. Among the other things he said the was that they had been told that the Welsh Organiser would arrange to have me thrown out of UKIP!
Any UKIP member receiving this note can perhaps tell me why I was treated in this way? They can also tell me why my protest to the Party Chairman, Lord Pearson, the Welsh Chairman and the Welsh Acting Chairman have gone unanswered. I am reluctant to put this affair in the hands of the press but I give notice that unless this matter and its related circumstances is cleared up once and for all then I must let the public know what today’s Swansea UKIP stands for –it appears to be, on the evidence, more of a conspiracy than a political party.
Hugh Jones. 3 February 2010.
So much for Lord Pearson's reconciliation of UKIPs members.
Is it any wonder UKIP is dying on its feet and no amount of clever speeches from Nige£ can disguise this fact.
End of statement
And here is UKIP's offensive response:
Well I will make a very brief response and leave it there.
1) Niall in line with his usual MO gives his own uninformed dishonest version of events that he knows nothing of.
2) I understand from Mumbles police that a police sergeant and a representative of a mental health assessment agency are to interview Mr Jones within the next few days following a complaint about his behaviour from an independent Swansea councillor.
One wonders if perhaps Niall might benefit from a similar assessment.
End of UKIP statement. It was posted on the British Democracy Forum.
So rather than apologise UKIP Wales now seeks to smear and further abuse Mr Jones on a public website. How very EUKIP!
And why are we not surprised that Lord Pearson has not had the decency to respond to Mr Jones' complaint?
This what one ex-UKIP Wales member had to say:
Reminds me of the Battle of Neyland Athletic Club, a battle that the decent honourable members of the Committee won. The Pembrokeshire branch was then split into two but the leadership still managed to undermine and sabotage all the effort and hard work we put into our new branch. They parachuted in a General Election candidate who withdrew at the last minute, telling us "his wife had something on him" which would prejudice his suitability as a candidate. At this point I resigned in disgust and the branch broke up soon afterwards.
End of statement.
Nigel must be SO proud of the sycophants who run UKIP Wales.
So is abusing war veterans now official UKIP policy?
Lord Pearson recently made a quick trip to Strasbourg to discuss the Nikki Sinclaire situation. He also wanted to find out more about the EFD and what exactly 'his’ MEPs were doing in UKIP’s name.
He came away from the meeting a sadder but wiser man. He had expected to see the MEPs working together for the greater good. Instead, he found division, anger and dissatisfaction.
Batten and Farage were at each other’s throats. Batten wants UKIP to be more than just a pressure group. Farage, on the other hand, wants a deal with Cameron.
Farage also hates Nikki Sinclaire with a passion. He even threatened to resign if she was allowed to stay in UKIP. Sadly, this offer has not been taken up.
Pearson stuck to his guns and said that if Farage continued to insist on her expulsion UKIP could look for another leader.
Farage had to back down. He knew that Stuart Wheeler would not give him any money if Pearson went. Farage is not stupid. He needs Wheeler to finance his bid to get into Westminster.
But Farage has not forgotten this knock to his ego. He has been made to look a fool in front of his fellow MEPs. That is something he can’t tolerate.
He was already nursing a grudge against Pearson after being forced to stand down as leader. See: LINK
But now things are much worse. To say that Pearson and Farage’s relationship is strained would be an understatement.
Both dislike the other and both would certainly not weep if the other was not around anymore. They are now UKIP's answer to Blair and Brown. So can we now expect a Mark Croucher video stressing just how much they like one another? The theme to Love Story could play in the background while they exchange kind words and discuss unity.
It should an interesting few months for the pair of them!
The latest issue of Independence News features a short, rambling article from Mike Nattrass.
We have always known that Mike is not the sharpest knife in box. Even his fellow MEPs regard him as a fool. But why is he so determined to advertise the fact to as many people as possible?
Mike’s article is largely devoted to attacking the Sunday Times for publishing an article on OLAF and the allegation that Dennis Brookes was paid through public funds while working as a regional organiser for UKIP. The EU does not allow taxpayers’ money to be used to pay party officials.
The article is reproduced above. Hold your mouse over it and left click twice to read it.
In the article he makes the ludicrous claim that the Sunday Times wanted to damage his leadership bid by publishing the details of the investgation. But why would they care? They knew that Nattrass had no chance of winning. Even Farage couldn’t understand why he was bothering to stand.
He also attacks Petrina Holdsworth. She was UKIP’s chairman but later decided to resign after Nattrass insulted her in an email. This followed her request for information on UKIP’s paid employees. She wanted to know what they were doing for their money.
Mike Nattrass was extremely reluctant to answer the question. We wonder why? OLAF was also rather puzzled by his reluctance to answer this simple question.
And let us not forget that he still persists in claiming that UKIP made a genuine mistake in accepting illegal donations from Alan Bown. So how come Andrew Smith - UKIP's Treasurer at the time - advised misleading Elcom? See: LINK
And how come UKIP's leadership ignored repeated warnings from Elcom?
Here is a letter written by Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of The Electoral Commission. It dates from 2009 and was published in the Sunday Telegraph:
SIR – It is not correct for Christopher Booker (October 25) to suggest that Ukip was guilty of only a “trivial breach of electoral law” due to an “oversight” by not checking whether their donor, Alan Bown, was on the electoral register.
The law is clear: political parties must check that a donor is on the electoral register each time they accept a donation over £200. Ukip chose not to do so on 67 separate occasions, over a period of more than a year, and despite repeated warnings from the Electoral Commission.
Ukip took donations it was not entitled to receive, which gave it financial resources it was not entitled to have under the law. Ukip accepted that these donations – which totalled more than £365,000 – were all impermissible. But the magistrates’ court ordered them to forfeit just £18,481.
The Electoral Commission’s view was that this treatment of one party which had not followed the rules was unfair to the majority that do follow the rules and which have previously forfeited impermissible donations. The Court of Appeal shared that view.
Christopher Booker also claimed that the Commission “seems unwilling to take further action” in relation to donations from 5th Avenue Partners to the Liberal Democrats. In fact, we are conducting an ongoing investigation into that issue.
Peter Wardle Chief Executive The Electoral Commission London SW1
Nattrass is threatening to sue the Times for defamation. We sincerely hope that this is not just hot air and bluster. We would dearly love to see Mike make a fool of himself in the courts!
Here are a few facts. We will make them simple and easy to understand as we understand that Mike has trouble with long words:
You can’t sue a paper for telling the truth.
Nattrass has been under investigation by OLAF for these many months.
Various UKIP officials have been interviewed by OLAF.
Nattrass has been accused of misusing his EU allowances.
The file is now being studied by the relevant authorities.
And finally ……
Here is the Sunday Times article in full:
UKIP MEP Michael Nattrass in expenses fraud inquiry
An MEP for the United Kingdom Independence party is being investigated by the European Union’s anti-fraud watchdog over his use of expenses.
Michael Nattrass, who has represented the West Midlands in the European parliament since 2004, is the subject of an inquiry into whether Denis Brookes, one of his former aides, was paid through public funds while he was working as a regional organiser for UKIP. The EU does not allow taxpayers’ money to be used to pay party officials.
The inquiry into Nattrass, which is part of a wider investigation into UKIP’s finances, comes as one of its former MEPs, Tom Wise, was jailed last week for two years for embezzling funds out of his assistant’s allowance.
It has also emerged that Nattrass was using a company of which he was a shareholding partner as the “paying agent” for all his assistants’ salaries provided by the EU.
Between 2004 and summer this year, all of his assistants’ allowances were channelled through the company account of Nattrass Giles, a chartered surveyors in Birmingham which he founded nearly 30 years ago.
Nattrass was a signatory to the bank account, although he insisted last night that the administration was handled by another partner in the firm who has since died.
MEPs must not act as their own paying agents. The role can only be performed by “third parties”.
New rules brought in since July this year have further tightened the controls and MEPs can now only use accredited people or companies as paying agents.
Nattrass said he had been told by EU officials that he could use his Birmingham company.
He also insisted that Brookes had worked for him in his capacity as an MEP until his employment as an aide came to an end three years ago
One of our informants has contacted us with the news that OLAF has now sent five files to the UK police. Five UKIP MEPs are mentioned in these files.
You may recall that earlier this month we revealed that OLAF had requested interviews with several UKIP MEPs. They were advised to bring their lawyers to these interviews. See: LINK
OLAF has been investigating UKIP for many months. The investigation concerns allegations that various UKIP MEPs misused their allowances.
Last year various OLAF officials visited Britain in order to interview several UKIP staff members in connection with these allegations. Several ex-UKIP members and officials were also interviewed. See: LINK
We can’t confirm the names of the five UKIP MEPs at the moment. However, one is said to be a former leader of UKIP.
Is that why he postponed his appearance on a certain programme?
Just over a month our Nigel asked this question of the Commission.
Written question - EU pensions - E-0025/2010
"A parliamentary answer to Question E‑4975/09 given by Mr Kallas on behalf on the Commission on 19 November 2009 stated that: ‘On 1 October 2009, there were 1 136 British citizens receiving a pension from the Community institutions' pension scheme’ (Answers to written questions).
In light of this will the Commission provide the names, and if not the names then the numbers, of current UK Members of Parliament and the House of Lords that are, or will be, in receipt of a EU pension?"
End of question.
How ironic that he should then be exposed as one of the most prolific exploiters of an EU pension loophole that allows him to top up his pension at the British taxpayers expense. See: LINK
Nigel Farage - UKIP MEP, PPC & First Class Hypocrite.
One of our contacts has kindly sent us the following email. It was sent to UKIP's leadership, including the MEPs. We reproduce it in full as we believe it deserves to be widely circulated:
Yet Another Financial Scandal - Did Farage Help Himself?"
From: Richard Lloyd (email@example.com)
Sent: 17 February 2010 21:15:12
To: David Campbell-Bannerman (firstname.lastname@example.org); Derek Clark MEP (email@example.com); Paul Nuttall (firstname.lastname@example.org); Nigel Farage (email@example.com); Trevor Coleman (firstname.lastname@example.org); Nikki Sinclaire (email@example.com); Michael Natrass (firstname.lastname@example.org); Marta Andreasen (email@example.com); John Agnew (firstname.lastname@example.org); John Bufton (email@example.com); Gerard Batten (firstname.lastname@example.org); Geoffrey Bloom (email@example.com); William Earl of Dartmouth (firstname.lastname@example.org); Lord Pearson (email@example.com) Cc: Gawain Towler (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com;
Whilst no one enjoys receiving bad news, sometimes it is necessary to look at things we do not like so that we can move forward.
This is such a message, below, and I sincerely trust that you will read what is written and then objectively consider what, if anything, must be done to enable Ukip to move forward, presenting an untarnished image of a Party incorruptible, and dedicated to exposing corruption where ever it hides.
I've entitled this post, "Yet Another Financial Scandal - Did Farage Help Himself?" because when all is said and done, it is only Mr Farage who can answer so many of the outstanding questions pertaining to party finances.
So to begin: In a recent round-robin email, sent earlier this month, a Richard English (presumably a member of Ukip)asked what had become of the missing funds in Nigel Farage's SE Region. He also asked whether Farage had stolen the monies but, presumably, neither Farage nor any of his close advisors have answered this question - which does nothing to dampen pervasive rumours.
In this email, I must draw your attention to further irregularities. Irregularities that have the beginnings of a major scandal, and I regret, a scandal in which Mr Farage appears to be heavily involved.
Indeed, such is my concern over these latest financial irregularities, indicative of some very shady goings on behind the scenes, that I have temporarily suspended my support for Ukip. I shall not donate funds to the party for reasons that will become obvious. Nor will I campaign in the forthcoming elections until these serious matters have been resolved in a transparent and proper manner.
I am sending this email to you, the Ukip MEPs, in the hopes that you can shed further light on some or all of these issues. Equally, I am sending it to my own list of Ukip Members, any one of whom may perhaps be able to shed further and better particulars on the matter of the disappearing funds.
To set the background to the latest revelations, and to remind readers who may have ignored the long standing allegations of impropriety:
1. over £1m of supporters' funds disappeared in the Ashford Call Centre from 2005 until its closure. 90% of monies disappeared into a black hole, encompassing 'expenses'. Repeated attempts by members of Ukip's NEC, including the much respected Dr David Abbott (who is also an eminent Christian), to have the Centre audited to discover what happened to the donations were blocked by Farage and his allies.
2. similarly, over £212k disappeared in Farage's SE Region between 2004-5 and these were described as 'other costs' (see Electoral Commission website). What were these 'other costs'? Why the failure to detail the expenditure and to disguise it instead? There were no staff employed by the Region, according to the Electoral Commission website. Again, attempts by Dr Abbott and others to carry out an audit were impeded and vetoed by Mr Farage and his nodding donkeys. I've belatedly come to see that this descriptor is all too apt for what now constitutes the NEC.
Why? Why are members who donated funds not to learn where and how their monies were spent? Why were demands for audits vetoed? Why were the books not presented in a transparent and correct manner, which would have obviated the need for any audit? What is being hidden and why? Why have these questions never been answered despite numerous demands?
How can it be right to censure the EU for its financial irregularities when the same exists in our own party? This is hypocrisy and it will not do.
Once again, following the lead of Richard English, I must ask this question in an open letter: Did you, Nigel Farage, remove any funds for your own private purposes? Did you help yourself to funds? If not, why did you turn down Dr Abbott's demands for an audit?
In the light of the persistent rumours and allegations, it is now vital to carry out audits or make available all the books, receipts, invoices, bank statements and details relevant to the expenditure of a vast amount of members' funds both at Ashford and for the SE Region.
If the above were not serious enough, I am now informed that there are grave questions over the EU monies provided to the Ind-Dem Group, of which Farage was the joint leader.
To explain: MEP's may form an of an EU recognised political group, one that comes into existence if enough MEPs from sufficient countries can form such a group. This group then receives receive vast taxpayer funded allowances from the EU Parliament. The amount was approximately, €60,000 per MEP per year. Excluding Messrs Mote and Silk, this suggests some €600,000/year for the Ind Dem group, of which Mr Farage was leader from 2004-9
One Ukip MEP who served in the last term states in writing that these funds were paid into a collective pot and Mr Farage withdrew funds as he saw fit. Is this true? If so, what we must know is:
1 What annual checks and balances were there to ensure the funds were spent correctly?
2 Were annual accounts prepared for the Ind-Dem Group? If not, why not?
3 Were records kept of the expenditure? If not, why not?
4 Did Mr Farage help himself, benefit in any way, or assist his personal interests from these funds?
5 Did Mr Farage draw cheques or otherwise, without proper oversight as to how the funds were being spent?
These are all matters of the utmost importance from a viewpoint of propriety of conduct. Let us be clear: we are discussing taxpayers' funds, ie money supplied by us.
These matters are of added importance when, as is widely commented upon elsewhere, there is an Olaf (EU anti-fraud organisation) investigation into Mr Farage and the IndDem group.
Finally, on the matter of funds, Mr Farage refused to publish his expenses as an MEP although MEPs from other parties have done so. He also failed to make available the total surplus of his genuine travel expenses to the party, which he promised to do in an interview in 1999. Clearly, he lied at the time and I can now only surmise that he did so in order to hoodwink his members.
We are discussing a substantial amount of travel expenses over 10 years. This procedure has now been banned by the EU because of the scandal that surrounded it and the blatant profiteering that occurred. Readers may recall that MEPs were provided with vast travel allowances which far exceeded the costs of their fares to Brussels. MEPs were therefore incentivised to travel via the cheapest means and pocket the difference. Did not Mr Farage promise to pay the difference to the party? Unlike Derek Clark, he has failed to maintain that promise but, instead, continues to look to us to fund the party - the Party from which he is the chief beneficiary in terms of his career, media prominence and salary. Where is his financial support for the Party to which he owes his career?
There are doubtless a few on this list who will not welcome this email. But you cannot have a prominent leader of a serious political party who is under suspicion and suspected to be fundamentally corrupt, a slave to his own personal ego and failings. Doubt this? Merely familiarise yourselves with the scandal of the selection process for the MEPs in last June's elections.
The leader of a political party, and Mr Farage is its leader in the EU, should be like Caesar's wife (as opposed to Annabelle Fuller) and above board. That is more so with Ukip because we are against corruption and set ourselves apart from the other parties by refusing to indulge in their shameful ways.
It is becoming ever more evident that Mr Farage - supported by his nodding donkeys on the NEC - cares more about 'Farage' and his poor judgement than about the membership. Witness the deal to stand the party down during the General Election if an agreement could be reached with the Conservative Party (which gives credence to claims that the party is merely an establishment steam vent). When were the members consulted? Were you?
Witness the £100k spent by Mr Farage, in his vain attempt to be elected to Bromley in 2006, where incidentally he polled merely 8%. How much of this money did he donate to the campaign?! And yet, three years later, he boasted in a conversation with Denis McShane that he had removed over £2m in expenses from the EU in his 10 years as an MEP - a conversation later leaked out in the Daily Politics Show. I expect you've heard the story.
So I must ask, why should ordinary members and pensioners continue to stump up for funds and wear their shoe leather campaigning for a party that is seemingly made in the image of one man?
Of course, some members will wish to pretend that these issues will go away and will prefer to ignore them because they are uncomfortable. To these people I say, the ostrich syndrome is neither practical nor helpful to this or any other party.
We have to face facts. We have lost more than half our membership since 2004. We have lost our best members. We have lost our most skilled, decent and presentable candidates. Why? The common denominator in most cases is undoubtedly, Mr Farage. A man who has turned out to be a dreadful leader of men.
So long as Mr Farage remains an official of the party or an MEP, the party will never progress to its rightful place. It will remain pockmarked with clones, yes men, little people of limited intellectual stature and capability. I have heard them collectively referred to as 'Faragistas'
If, on the other hand, Mr Farage is to prove so many members and ex members wrong, will he will agree, finally, to an audit of each of the three areas above, or make available the books, invoices and application of expenses to an independent body.
Finally, I cannot help observing with sadness that we have a new Chief Executive Officer of the party who is, I understand, the 'partner' of the Eastern Region's Regional Organiser, Peter Reeve. Exactly what are her qualifications, given - as I understand it - that her experience amounts to working in a pub and supermarket? Nothing wrong with that of course, but it hardly equips someone to be the CEO of a national political party! Is this yet another job for the 'in people'? And after all is said, putting such an unqualified light weight into such an important position would enable Mr Farage to run things behind the scenes? Would it not?
Again this is an issue that Mr Farage must explain to all of us. Yet by his constant obscuration on all such questions, especially those pertaining to financial impropriety he allows the issues at hand to fester. A position that has pushed too many people out of the Party already.
No doubt I will now be accused of being disloyal, of rocking the boat in the lead up to a major election and making wild allegations. To anybody tempted to respond in this way let me say that I would dearly love to have my deep concerns over Mr Farage's financial affairs laid to rest, but the only way that this can be done is for Mr Farage to answer, at long last,all the questions I have referred to above. Well either that, or his removal from any 'office pertaining to Ukip. Only then will many ex members at last feel able to return to the fold.
I shall doubtless receive a large response rate to this email. And I will welcome it and forward to this list any emails of interest, while strictly retaining the identities of the senders, unless they specifically request otherwise.
End of email.
Farage will not respond. How can he? To give honest answers to honest questions is something that he cannot and will not do.
You will recall how Farage secretly signed up to a second EU pension fund. See: LINK
Besides Farage, the list of current UKIP MEPs subscribing to the second pension fund is as follows:
Gerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom and Mike Nattrass.
This pension fund is financed by the British taxpayer.
This is yet again another example of how Farage and the others are quite happy to take advantage of Britain’s membership of the EU.
In public they preach Euro-scepticism but in private they are more than happy to milk the system for every euro they can get. They can't wait to line their own pockets and thus increase the size of their private bank accounts!
To say that Farage, Batten, Bloom and Nattrass are sickening hypocrites would be an understatement!
This is what Petrina Holdsworth - UKIP’s former Chairman - had to say:
If he has been involved in increasing his pension in this way then as the then Leader of an anti EU party he is in dire straights, the humbug of it all is staggering by anyone’s standards. If he is not involved then he should make that clear immediately.
I have to say that at the time I was Chairman I heard that a number of UKIP MEPs were feathering their nests in this way but no proof was ever forthcoming.
End of quote.
This scandal is clearly not going to go away. The British media are already taking an interest.
This is from The Daily Telegraph:
Taxpayers to plug £100m hole in MEP pension fund created by financial crisis and fraud
Taxpayers could be asked to plug a £106 million black hole in a fund providing a second pension for MEPs, to make up for cash lost to fraudulent investment schemes and during the financial crisis.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
The second pension perk, for 478 out of 785 MEPs, already costs taxpayers over £12 million a year, an annual bill that will increase by up to £10.6 million to meet the shortfall.
The Daily Telegraph has also learned that a number of emergency reforms to the pension scheme, aimed at stemming the huge losses, will be opposed by a powerful group of MEPs who both benefit from and administer the fund.
According to senior sources, the European Parliament's authorities are also expected to bypass a decision by its budget control committee not to bail out the scheme in order to "honour legal requirements".
The issue is expected to come to a head during a Strasbourg debate on the parliament's budget next Tuesday.
Up to half the funds loses are said to stem form investments, via a Luxembourg fund, in schemes linked to Bernard Madoff, the disgraced American financier.
Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat MEP who benefits from the scheme, has opposed the bailout.
"Our constituents are being told by their own pension funds to expect a lot less than they had once been promised," he said.
"MEPs must take the same kind of hit as the people we represent. It would be shameful to allow the use of public money to fill the hole created by the recession." The parliament's Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme is a controversial perk that comes on top of national pensions, which for British MEPs is set at the same level as Westminster MPs.
Two thirds of the optional extra pension is paid for in supplementary payments by the taxpayer. MEPs pay £1052(1,194 euros) a month into the scheme. That cash is added to by a publicly funded payment of £2104 (2388 euros).
MEPs, on reaching retirement age, can expect an extra pension benefit, on top of generous national schemes, worth an annual £14,736 for every five year term of office.
An MEP benefiting from the perk can net a combined pension of over £40,000 after just 10 years in office.
Officials have moved to address the pension fund deficit, which leapt from £26.5 million (30 million euros) to £106 million (120 million euros) last year, by seeking to raise the age that MEPs can benefit from 60 to 63, as well as ending early retirement at 50 and lump sum payments.
But an internal letter written by the fund's chairman, the former Conservative MEP Richard Balfe, which was seen by The Daily Telegraph, has warned that the reforms are "not permissible under European law".
"These changes go against the 'vested rights' and the 'general principles of proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations' of the members of the scheme'," he wrote.
The parliament's management of the supplementary pension fund has been repeatedly been criticised since 1999 by the European Court of Auditors for failing to have "clear rules to define the liabilities and responsibilities" of the scheme.
Sources have also predicted that an April 22 vote on the European Union assembly's 2007 budget will be used to overturn a decision not to bailout the pension fund taken by the parliament's budget control committee.
"Someone will try to delete this in votes next Wednesday and will probably win," said an MEP on the committee.
"This will be the opportunity for MEPs to say that their pension fund should have to manage the market fluctuations in the same way as every other pension fund."