Bruce Lawson on UKFP and that money!

I have been approached by one of my numerous contacts in UKFP and have been asked to post the following information:

"Bruce Lawson, former National Treasurer, confirms that he never handled any Ind/Dem money during his tenure as UKIP National Treasurer between May 2006 and October 2007.

At least he turns up for business meetings unlike others!

The Welsh Assembly election expenditure of £160,997 (although badly over budget) was transparently accounted for ”.

He has made this statement to refute the allegations made on the internet.

Both Robin Page and Petrina Holdsworth are happy to accept his statement regarding his time as Treasurer and are liasing with him as a member of the UKFP Steering Committee.

Bruce Lawson is a very energetic and useful member of that committee.

UKF is getting lots of new members -see Democracy Forum (LINK)

Await further developments soon.

End of statement.

I hope you get that website sorted out. It needs a total revamp!

Fascism in UKIP: And now they even appoint chairmen without bothering to consult the members!

The other week I revealed that Peter Baden had resigned as chairman of UKIP Corby and East Northants. See LINK

It has now emerged that Don Ransom - Derek Clark’s regional organiser - has been appointed their new branch chairman by UKIP HQ. In an astonishing display of arrogance this was done without anyone at UKIP HQ bothering to consult the committee of that branch!

Needless to say they are outraged and have refused to accept him as their chairman.

I should also add that last year Ransom (pictured above with Steve Allison) was reported to the Police for assaulting Ian Gilman - a UKIP member and former East Midlands MEP candidate.

Mr Gilman’s statement now forms part of a file that has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Derek Clark is under investigation by OLAF - the EU’s anti-fraud office.

Derek Clark OLAF Case Number: D/007/033/04.09.08

Derek Clark OLAF Investigation Number: DD/FD-D2008.A1/7133/OF/2008/0240

Is Derek Clark - a man accused of fraud - the sort of person you want representing Great Britain for another five years?

And yet ANOTHER UKIP branch folds

Peter Cole has revealed that UKIP UKIP South West Beds Branch has folded.

It appears that no one was prepared to be appointed chairman, secretary or treasurer after the people holding those positions resigned.

UKIP East is clearly in crisis. Stuart Wheeler's £100,000 donation will not stop the rot as most of that money will go to the South East to finance Farage's campaign.

Look at the facts:

Bob Spink MP has left.

Branches are closing and membership is falling.

Funds are down.

Peter Reeve - the Regional Organiser - has been reported to Cambridgeshire for assaulting a fellow member.

Well publicised meetings featuring UKIP's leadership only manage to attract 5o people.

The MEP list was rigged.

David Bannerman - a proven liar - is their lead MEP candidate.

Need I go on?

John West's legal action against UKIP

It looks like UKIP will be facing a very costly court case. I would suggest that they don't spend Mr Wheeler's donation just yet. They may need it to pay their legal costs!

Taken from GLW's blog:

After a 45 minute conference with one of the top Silks at Matrix Chambers and some excellent details to study, plus answers to a number of questions that I had the opportunity to put together with John West's clarifications and his solicitor - now comes the time for our own deliberations.

The Silk was able to show various ways forward, each with its own benefits and its own costs - there is no problem on funding merely a question of just how far it is worth pursuing EUkip and which aspects provide the best course of action.On the principle of if one conjoins in a mud wrestling competition with pond life one must expect duplicity, dishonesty and corruption it is MY PERSONAL judgement that although, as the Judge in the allocation hearing advised a Judicial Review - the standards of provenance and timing are more critical and although the penalties for EUkip may prove greater the case can proceed with greater certainty of a conclusively beneficial outcome through other means.

EUkip can always use the defence that they have a reputation of dishonesty and corruption easily proven and irrefutable for our prosecution case, therefore to expect honesty or integrity from them when entering an agreement contractually is unreasonable. This defence of implied expectation of dishonesty might stand up in a Judicial Review leaving the matter to fall on a timed out basis.

Delaying still leaves the possibility of what is normally known as a writ of mandamus though now dumbed down in nomenclature so that even the thickest of the plod will recognise it as 'A Mandate' though a term which does not convey its ability to those with more than 3 brain cells. A policy changed by the present Government to more readily align with the dumbed down education system they force upon us - just as, although against the will of the Lord Chancellor, the scope of Judicial Review has been much broadened in the last couple of years to include many more bodies than the formerly narrow field of public bodies, now including more aspects of the structure of Governance even including the some 7,500 QUANGOs mainly created by the present Government as a mop of and sop to the unemployed and unemployable new middle class.

Therefore let us consider the other alternatives where the probabilities are greater and where the verdict is a near certainty, leading to more substantial compensation, rather than a more consequential outcome!

It is also worth considering that the QC's time is costing at £500/hour research/opinion and £1,000/hour conference and considerably more in Court time although if we went to a Judicial Review as the Judge suggested the costs may outweigh the gains, thus it is potentially wise to make the matter self liquidating by taking the damages from the lesser case to pay the costs of the greater albeit the clear probability is that costs will be awarded in view of the extensive and irrefutable evidence held.

That the possibility of a Judicial Review is in no way harmed by current abeyisance EUkip will be in receipt of a letter concerning the first steps on Monday or Tuesday, which will leave them in no doubt that their position is parlous and perpetuation of their crano rectally retentive avoidance will harm their position yet further.

It is clear that EUkip is aware that it has created for itself problems beyond their wit and competence and is resorting in the short term to an attempt to discredit those it has created as enemies - this of course will prove massively damaging when the cases come to court.The unleashing of a series of naive kids and useful idiots masquerading with silly names will serve them ill as the linkage of their lies can be clearly established and no amount of further dishonest slurs can do other than exacerbate EUkip's already notable problems.

UKIP East Midlands is in serious trouble

On 18th March UKIP held a meeting in Nottingham to discuss the forthcoming Euro campaign.

At the meeting Derek Clark revealed to a concerned audience that UKIP East Midlands has just £8,000 to fight the Euro elections. This is clearly not enough to fight a decent campaign (in March 2004 they had well over £23,000).

Many UKIPPERS are now resigning themselves to the fact that UKIP is extremely unlikely to win any seats in the region. They also believe that the BNP are likely to do very well and will undoubtedly take many UKIP votes.

Across the region leaflet drops have failed to generate support. On many occasions the response from the public has been quite hostile.

But should UKIPPERS be so surprised? After all, Clark betrayed the people who elected him by signing UKIP up to the principle of "subsidiarity". By accepting the principle of subsidiarity UKIP was now accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

At the same time Clark also signed up to the principle of "reforming" the Common Agricultural Policy, something which UKIP had previously refused to recognise at all.

At a single stroke of a pen he betrayed everything that UKIP was supposed to be against.

OLAF’s investigation into Clark is also moving forward. They will be interviewing Niall Warry - UKIP's former office manager - about Clark next month.

Is Derek Clark the sort of man you want representing Great Britain for another five years?

Derek Clark OLAF Case Number: D/007/033/04.09.08

Derek Clark OLAF Investigation Number: DD/FD-D2008.A1/7133/OF/2008/0240

Graham Dines: Jeffrey Titford’s 'useful idiot'

I would seriously question the impartiality of Graham Dines - the political editor of the East Anglian Daily Times - when it comes to writing about Jeffrey Titford and UKIP.

Over the last week Mr Dines has been indulging in a particularly nauseating Jeffrey Titford love fest

On March 20th in an article (LINK) entitled ‘ UKIP is alive, well and raring to go’ Dines boosted of his ‘strong relationship’ with the MEP and said that it was ‘regrettable’ that Titford was retiring.

The article clearly illustrates why Dines is bad journalist. At no point in the article does he even attempt to question Titford about the numerous UKIP scandals that have surfaced over the last few months. Indeed, rather than present a serious assessment of UKIP's electoral chances he simply parrots what he is told by Titford.

On March 25th Dines was back with yet another piece praising his buddy. In the article in question he presents a airbrushed account of Titford’s political career.

In Dines’ fantasy UKIP world unpalatable facts and awkward questions are conveniently ignored.

For instance:

He makes no mention of the fact that Jeffrey Titford used to be a member of the extremist New Britain Party.

He makes no mention of the fact that Jeffrey Titford no longer lives in the Eastern Region. He also neglects to inform his readers that Titford failed to tell UKIP members or the public that he had moved to the south coast.

He makes no mention of the fact that in recent months Jeffrey Titford’s visits to Brussels have become very few and far between.

He makes no mention of the fact that Jeffrey Titford is under investigation by OLAF.

He makes no mention of the fact that Titford’s former office manager has made a statement to OLAF about Titford's alleged misuse of EU funds.

He makes no mention of the fact that Titford has been accused of witness intimidation.

He makes no mention of the fact that UKIP’s own returning expressed concerns over the MEP selection process in the Eastern Region.

He makes no mention of the fact that many UKIPPERS have resigned in disgust over the way UKIP is run. He also forgot to mention that Bob Spink MP has left UKIP and now wants nothing more to do with the Party. Any competent and sincere journalist would have raised this with Titford and demanded answers.

One has to wonder why Dines is so keen to hide the truth about UKIP from his readers? One also has to wonder why Archant Newspapers continue to employ a man who is clearly incapable of telling fact from fiction?

For more information on Dines see GLW’s blog: LINK

Ralph Atkinson to be removed from UKIP MEP list

The shameful and undemocratic way in which the UKIP leadership is ignoring the wishes of the membership by purging the MEP lists of candidates who have not demonstrated sufficient subservience to Farage, is likely to bring the Party to court in more than one region.

We have already witnessed the removal of Dr Eric Edmond and Victor Webb. Trevor Colman also faces removal from the SW list.

The next region to be hit will be London. Ralph Atkinson - second on the list - is set to be removed by the NEC in a matter of days. Whilst his use of the database to phone London members to canvass support was deemed OK at the time, Farage has now deemed Atkinson's actions unacceptable, and is seeking to clear him out, in order to make way for Zuckerman.

There is also an as yet unspecified charge relating to Atkinson, which I can confirm relates to his alleged anti-social behaviour whilst under the influence in Brussels.

Atkinson was elected to second place on the London list by the members, and any decision concerning his candidacy should be made by them, not by the dimwits of the NEC acting on Farage's orders. He is a hard working, if somewhat eccentric, activist, and that Farage should repay his loyalty to the party and to the leadership in this way tells us something of the man and his morals.

Derek Clark‘s betrayal of the British people: The proof

In a previous article I revealed that Derek Clark had sacked Tony Ellwood - Clark’s political researcher - following disagreements between the two.

The disagreements started after Clark went to Bucharest - at the behest of Farage - and signed a declaration espousing the principle of "subsidiarity". Prior to this UKIP has always been in favour of total withdrawal from the EU. By accepting the principle of subsidiarity UKIP was now accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

At the same time Clark also signed up to the principle of "reforming" the Common Agricultural Policy, something which UKIP had previously refused to recognise at all.

Mr Ellwood naturally felt that this was a betrayal of everything UKIP stood for.

Above is a copy of the Bucharest Declaration. Derek Clark is the last name on the list.

In a single moment Derek Clark betrayed both his country and his people. Is this the sort of man you want representing Great Britain for another five years?

Derek Clark is under investigation by OLAF - the EU’s anti-fraud office.

Derek Clark OLAF Case Number: D/007/033/04.09.08

Derek Clark OLAF Investigation Number: DD/FD-D2008.A1/7133/OF/2008/0240

Douglas Denny is a liar: That's official folks!

Last week I posted an article on the British Democracy Forum. It was also posted on here ( LINK).

This article concerned the disgraceful treatment of John West. In this expose I pointed out that both Douglas Denny and Michael Zuckerman had accused Mr West of being mentally ill.

Within an hour of posting Denny - Farage sock puppet, UKIP NEC member and useful idiot - posted the following comment:

“It is a lie to say I have accused Mr. West of mental illness”.

At 4.48 he again denied that he had said that Mr West was mentally ill:

“My "story" is that any claim that I have accused Mr. West of mental illness is a lie. Direct and unequivocal”.

He then accused me of lying:

“I will not allow that Mr. 'Junius' is confused, as he is simply a liar”.

And has been proven to be a liar on a number of occasions here on this forum time and again. Why do I call him a liar - because he has promulgated "information" here on this forum which he says is true and I know with certainty to be otherwise ... and obviously done with the intent to deceive.

In other words, it follows therefore he is a LIAR".

Unfortunately for Mr Denny these words came back to haunt when Greg Lance-Watkins published an email written by Douglas Denny in 2008:

From: douglas denny

To: Geoffrey Collier

Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:03 PM

Subject: Re: Politics and the need for wisdom.

Geoffrey,

As I have said before - I quite like you as a person - always pleasant and cheerful, full of bonhomie and quite fun / in fact highly amusing to listen to your ramblings, but you are the Tommy Cooper of politics: great fun but no substance.

You have been telling me for far too long about the demise of UKIP; the demise of various leaders of same; dire happenings to and about individuals and events which were going to be the downfall of UKIP. (Like Ashford ...I recall was going to become the Achilles Heel of UKIP with the Income Tax people down on our necks like a ton of bricks you once said ad nauseum.... {wot happened to that then?}.......)

None of which has happened yet. You are the boy who cries 'wolf' - and have done so too many times for me to take you seriously anymore.

UKIP will continue like a planet in its orbit just the same with or without your protestations of doom and despondency.

For my part I am heartilly sick of the obvious machinations of the group of malcontents (of which you are one) who are trying to consistently bring down the leader, and UKIP in general with your bleatings about "probity" and "cleaning-up" UKIP. It is all (sorry for the expletive which I know you do not approve of but is appropriate here on a one to one basis with someone I know) - a complete load of bollocks !

I am big enough, old enough and ugly enough to know the difference between reasoned, reasonable, antipathy and prolonged unreasoned attack. You are into the latter category.

I do not know your background sufficiently well to know whether you are merely a willing dupe in this process, as a small bit-part acolyte of another outside conspiracy/agency involved; or whether you are just suffering from OCD with an obsessive fixation with UKIP and Farage/Ashford in particular; either way you display an overly obsessive disposition to what is only a small political party hammering its way into the British political scene with minor difficulties which by comparison with the major parties are piffling.

This obsessive condition seems to be a common disorder too with some in (and out of) UKIP, in that John West displays the same kind of disposition; and GLW too; and Edmond ....in fact all the "malcontents" ... could it be that the commonality is an anti-UKIP network? or are you all mad?

I do know you are part of a network using the internet e-mail system for co-respondence which appears to have the objective of how you can coordinate attacks on UKIP. You have made mistakes in the past handling information I gave you on a one-to-one basis which I know with certainty link you with GLW ...and yes I know your protestations about never having any contact with him - which is bollocks too - as indirect contact is still viable through your anti-UKIP network and you well know that.

The tragedy of it is, I used to look up to you and your elevated seniority in UKIP in the early days of knowing you, when you were sensible, and you used to speak great sense at the Chichester meetings and think you were a great person, a philosopher who looked deeply into the issues and came out with profound wisdom..... then you went away somewhere and had a lobotomy and returned full of bile and spittle and a burning hatred to bring down Nigel Farage and UKIP along with it. Everything then on from you was nonsense. You now appear to everyone on the forum as a figure of fun ..and it is of your own making with your outrageously silly ideas - especially about Ashford. Most unfortunate.

I look on with amazement at the antics of the idiot John West; and others... and have had sent to me in an e-mail the latest unmitigated drivel of GLW about D.Campbell-Bannerman (and who in the public domain gives a toss what his name is? no one is the answer, and certainly not I ! ); and then there is your contribution every now and then - like the one to me just now - and I think to myself.. these people are either completely mad, or are a part of a conspiracy.I go for the conspiracy.

I think you (all) are linked to BNP or the Conservatives through an organised network to destabilise UKIP. You can deny it as much as you like - but I consider the signs are there clearly enough to indicate that, and using the Serlock Holmes technique .. when everything else has been eliminated and you are left with only one alternative, then that has to be the truth of it. You are part of it Geoffrey, whether you actually know it - or not.

As for all your doomsday scenario you have portreyed .... we shall see. None of your predicitions has come to pass yet. Maybe you might get lucky and something might come of it. I doubt it very much; and if it does, I doubt any of it will be a problem to UKIP.

The world situation with the banking sytem in dissarray, and the Euro close to collapse, our job in UKIP might just be superfluous anyway as we watch the whole thing collpase in recriminations between the EU member states arguing about how to save the financial system from collapse and hanging onto their money and economies.Your bleatings/protestations and those of the other malcontents pale into insignificance.........

Best regards,

Douglas.

P.S. ignor spelling/typos canot be bothered to check... you'll get the meaning of it all. P.P.S I am not bothered if you want to promulgate this, it will be interesting to see what you do ...

End of email.

For some strange reason Mr Denny has declined to comment on the publication of this damning email!

Denny’s rambling email clearly illustrates that he is of limited intelligence. His obsession with ridiculous conspiracy theories is particularly sad. The poor man has become so paranoid that he is now convinced that anyone who disagrees with him must be working for the BNP, MI5 or the Tories! He even believes that MI5 are bugging his house. Why MI5 would bother to spy on such an insignificant little man is anyone's guess!

However, his lack of education can never excuse his dishonesty and lies.

Denny is prepared to endorse corruption, sit on kangaroo courts and support Farage instigated witch-hunts. He lies about decent, honest members and is quite prepared to use mental illness as a term of abuse. Indeed, anyone who questions him is 'mad'.

Douglas Denny is a disgrace to the Euro-realist cause.

It is a great pity that he cancelled his planned move to New Zealand. Their loss would have been our gain!

More information on Denny can be found on Dr Edmond’s blog: LINK

And on GLW’s blog: LINK

Farage let off the hook by inept BBC reporter

The person who ‘interviewed’ Farage on Westminster Hour was truly pathetic. Mr Norman Smith had obviously not done his homework and so a golden opportunity chance to put Farage’s ‘leadership’ under the spotlight was lost.

No mention was made of the well publicised resignations/defections from UKIP.

No mention was made of the OLAF investigations.

No mention was made of NEC expulsions.

Farage was not asked to justify his ridiculous claim that the BNP had infiltrated UKIP.

Farage was not questioned about Libertas UK - a political party that was set-up by his own Press Officer.

Farage was not questioned about the posting of a UKIP candidates MEP interview on YouTube.

And so on.

In the interview Farage made comments about UKIP members who had made ‘criminal accusations’ and therefore should be ‘chopped off at the legs’. This was clearly a reference to John West who had complained to the police about Jeffrey Titford. Unbelievably this statement was allowed to pass without comment from the interviewer!

Presumably the interviewer approves of a party leader making threats of violence against a member who did his civic duty and reported a crime to the Police!

Farage then went on to attack candidates who were alleged to have told people not to vote UKIP. Again, this comment was allowed to pass unchallenged.

Dr Eric Edmond was also less than impressed with the interview:

I worked on forecasting techniques and forecasts for many years. One of the things I learned was that the average forecast ex-ante invariably out performs the previously single best forecast measured ex-post and that the reason for this was that even the worst individual forecast contains nuggets of information that can add something to the overall picture. BobFM writes worse than anyone else on the British Democracy Forum and he always parrots the Farage line. This morning he did include the link to Mr Farage's latest interview on the BBC programme Westminster hour . I was not aware of this interview. I am grateful to BobFM for posting it. I give the URL below. Click on it if you wish to listen to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/7958329.stm

Mr Farage was bleating on about party discipline, a favourite theme of his. After all, why use valuable radio time to put forward UKIP policies when you can indulge in some internal navel gazing? He claimed that UKIP candidates on their blogs had been decrying the party and advising voting for other parties. As far as I know I am the only UKIP MEP candidate writing a blog so I presume Mr Farage's comments refer to me. I know Mr Farage claims he has de-selected me but as due process has not been followed I reject Mr Farage's actions as illegitimate and clearly unconstitutional. Mr Towler did write a blog for a while but stopped when his paymasters in the EU asked him to. I believe Mrs Towler also had a blog but only for a very short time.

I would be grateful if anyone can point out to me where on my blog I advised voting for another party. My views on voting UKIP are available for all to see and here on YouTube and I give the click through link below. I hope Mr Farage will watch it. He might learn something useful from it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-PdSiooRss&feature=channel_page

The charge of decrying the party is also bogus. As I made plain yesterday there is a higher loyalty than blind obedience to, and support for, the UKIP's hierarchy actions. Where these actions conflict with long established British principles of justice, fairplay and decent civilized debate we all have a civic duty to speak out against them otherwise we lose what we are fighting for and what generations of our ancestors fought and died for.

Mr Farage made reference to some members of UKIP making criminal accusations against other party members. The process of reporting suspected criminal behaviour to the police is not a criminal act. It is a civic duty! The police will investigate and act accordingly. Whistleblowers are always decried using the specious and self serving arguments of loyalty deployed by Mr Farage. If honest decent people turn a blind eye to what they know is wrong then eventually the bullies will come for them as the Germans found out in the 30s.

I have not had a chance to put my case, cross examine the evidence against me or appeal against this arbitrary decision to de-select me. I have been tried in absentia by a prejudiced court just as happens in the EU. If UKIP behaves like the EU then what are we fighting for? That was my branch's view and it is my view.

Dr Edmond's original article can be seen at: LINK

Farage to field Libertas UK candidate in Redbridge By-election?

Nigel Farage was overheard in Strasburg discussing UKIP’s recent appalling local election results. He was heard to complain that the rise of the BNP, OLAF investigations, reports on the internet and the highly publicised resignations of certain UKIP members had seriously damaged his chances of getting re-elected to the EU gravy train.

Farage has now become so concerned about UKIP’s bad reputation that he is thinking of fielding a Libertas UK candidate in the Redbridge Council By-election on 23rd April. If Libertas UK perform well in this election he may well decide to field Libertas UK MEP candidates in June.

Libertas UK was registered by Bridget Rowe, UKIP Press Officer and very close friend of Nigel Farage, after Declan Ganley - founder of Libertas EU- rejected Farage’s offer of an electoral pact with UKIP. Ganley also rejected Farage’s request for a £6 million donation.

Rowe is listed as “leader” of Libertas UK on the electoral commission’s website register of political parties. The party’s address is given as 400 Main Road, Westerham Hill, in Kent, which is Bridget Rowe’s home.

Petrina Holdsworth on Douglas Denny and John West

Petrina Holdsworth - a former UKIP Party Chairman - was not too impressed with the latest inane ramblings from Douglas Denny.

Taken from the British Democracy Forum:

Denny has endlessly revealed himself as a follower, not a leader, one who is content to cover up ,distort and dissemble . HE failed in his duties as Party Secr and now he spends his time on this blog endlessly whining away calling anyone who disagrees with his supposed recollections as liars.

I note with interest his backing for a disciplinary hearing on West who went to the Police with information which he believed should be investigated,which I understand the Police have now sent to OLAF .The letter from OLAF which was sent to Titford ( as per Junius`s blog ) states that OLAF is assessing the information, a case number of ; OF/2008/0764 has been assigned to it.

West received a email 28th Jan 2009 from OLAF I understand confirming that a case number had been given and that he may be called as a witness if any action was taken in the future . So what does UKIP do -yes it sacks the whistle blower instead of standing well back from all of this ,unbelievable. Not only does it do that but it puts a colleague of Titford's in as Chairman of the Disciplinary committee! I am not alone in finding this sort of behavior extraordinary but clearly it is fine and dandy as far as DED et al are concerned. Nuff said.

End of post.

Denny is one of the more obnoxious members of UKIP's NEC. He is quite prepared to accept and endorse UKIP corruption and lies. He approves of witness intimidation, kangaroo courts and the expulsion of democratically elected NEC members who, unlike him, refuse to turn a blind eye to Farage's dishonesty.

Denny is a disgrace to the Euro-realist cause. He, along with his fellow NEC members, have betrayed everything UKIP used to stand for. It is clear that UKIP are heading for electoral disaster under these incompetent and, above all, dishonest people.

Anyone fancy Godfrey Bloom's flat?

Is Godfrey Bloom not expecting to get re-elected in June?

From: BLOOM Godfrey

Sent: 27 February 2009 16:55

To: MEP & ASSISTANTS

Subject: Flat to rent

EU/Louise/Flagey/Chatelain: completely renewed flat, fully furnished, for 6 month (April to September)

Superb apartment near the European Institutions (5/10 minutes), completely renewed, in a top neighbourhood just off Avenue Louise (between Chatelain and Flagey). Good public transport, close to restaurants, shops, …

Tastefully furnished 55m² flat, completely renovated with brand new American kitchen, living, dining, bedroom (double bed), bathroom, new gas heating system, full parquet throughout, double glazed windows, with Cable TV, Internet.

The flat is available from April 2009 to September 2009 (6 month contract, renewable) €800 + €150 per month all in (including cable TV, Internet, water, heating, electricity)

Contact:

Stéphane

+32 477 52 8000

And now even Farage's supporters are calling on him to resign!

The following letter was sent by Harold James to Nigel Farage.

Despite being somewhat concerned with the naivety displayed in certain passages I am nevertheless pleased to see that even Mr James has finally come to the conclusion that Farage must go.

Harold James
ADDRESS & TELEPHONE
NUMBER REMOVED BY JUNIUS

Mr Nigel Farage MEP
c/o ASP
7H 146
Rue Wiertz 60
1047
Brussels
Belgium

13th February 2009

Dear Nigel

As already advised, I went along to the UK Renewal Association Limited meeting in Swindon on the 7th February.

I attach a copy of the programme to which there were very minor - but not significant - amendments.

I told Bruce Lawson that I would like to have an opportunity to speak. That I would be pressing for any action to be delayed until after the 4th June because, otherwise, there would be very severe damage to the UKIP image before the electorate and therefore the end result. That so far as the public are concerned, we have already have a leader who is recognised.

Including the panel there were about 50 people present and I found myself a lone voice.

I did not pull my punches or mince my words.

It was very evident that there was a great deal of animosity towards you personally. This ran from absolute hatred down to total mistrust. From the programme and the speakers, you can no doubt readily identify the worst offenders.

I said that at the Exeter Hustings I had assured you of my total support, that I would go through hell and high water for you but always retain the right to take issue with you on any matter. That this had happened. That I had always received the utmost courtesy from you and that I had no problem with you. Perhaps the difference between me and the antagonists on the panel (and within the hall generally) is that there was no need for you to look over your shoulder at what I may be up to.

I am very pleased to say that at the end of the meeting I seemed to have won over all the dissenters and there was a commitment from everybody to use their best endeavours to further the cause of UKIP in the European Parliamentary Elections and with a view to securing the best possible result.

On the issue of yourself as leader I did state that a leader needed to be a good orator, charismatic and inspirational and from what I heard from the panel to the point of time when I spoke, I had seen none of these qualities displayed.

My endorsement and support for you was held up to ridicule. Why. My answer very simple. You had been democratically elected as Leader of the Party. I believe strongly in democracy and until such time as you were replaced democratically, that would continue. That I could not see anyone else on the horizon who could remotely take your place within the Party and become, to the people at large, Mr UKIP. Reference was made to the fact you seemed to be very reluctant for any of our other members to have a public image.

Much comment was made, which I heartily endorsed - the Country comes before Party. I would add that the Party becomes before the leader and by the same token the Party also comes before any other individual or groups of individuals.

There was strong reference to the need to have the Party fully represented in this Country. Heavy questions as to whether we needed MEPs. I put a strong case for needing the MEPs and drew attention to what they had achieved and particular as regards the Irish Referendum. However, I found myself in sympathy with - and can certainly endorse - the idea of the strong representation in Brussels and also this Country.

For some time I have been advocating that MEPs should not have any voting rights on the NEC but would be entitled to attend and be present as individuals but with no voting rights. I stand by this and would like to see the two tier structure of the Party - in Europe and in this Country.

It is obvious that you do not command the support of a lot of the senior people in the Party. After the meeting I did speak to some of the leading antagonists and I said that I would write to you in the following terms:-

That I thought the time had come for you to make preparation to retire as leader of UKIP. That this was KEPT UNDER WRAPS until after 4th June.

That the announcement was made in advance of the 2009 Annual Conference or perhaps even at the Conference but that you may find this very difficult.

That there would be a strong case for having a new leader elected, recognised - in both the Party and the Country - in advance of the next Annual Conference.

There had been a lot of criticism of you personally, linked to certain happenings and events. Also against other MEPs, with John Whittaker and Godfrey Bloom particularly mentioned.

I personally will always value the opportunity to have supported you. Thanking you for the tremendous amount of work you have done both for the Party and the country and I would hope that the passage of time will enable even your strongest antagonists to reflect and appreciate this point.

I am sure that you will take this letter in the spirit in which it is written and that we will retain our very good relationship.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Bruce Lawson.

I believe in total openness. I have always considered that what people see of me is what I am and I dare to believe that the decision by everyone present to fully support the 4th June Campaign resulted from my total openness and frankness.

Perhaps I can consider that I have saved the party’s European campaign. Who knows, I may be able to claim - if you accept my recommendations regarding your retirement as leader - to have also saved the Party.

Yours very sincerely

Harold James

End of letter.

I should point out that Mr James did not win over the audience to his point of view. This has been confirmed by several members who were there.

I can confirm that Farage was less than impressed with Harold’s suggestion. Indeed, the comments he made after reading the letter are too blue to be published here!

I am afraid that Mr James is now regarded by Farage as one of the malcontents who will have to removed from UKIP in the very near future.

Fascism in UKIP: The disgraceful treatment of John West

It has now been confirmed that John West was thrown out of UKIP on Monday.

Derek Clark - under investigation by OLAF - was shamefully allowed to chair the hearing!

As Mr West has pointed out in an email to Zuckerman:

‘As a member of the NEC Derek Clark is the subject of complaints to the ICO and the Police. I am also taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process and the Youtube leak.

Mr Clark could very well be called as a defendant in this case.

Derek Clark has an interest to declare and cannot be considered impartial’.

Jeffrey Titford - also under investigation by OLAF - was unbelievably allowed to use UKIP’s disciplinary panel to intimidate Mr West despite being made aware that West could be called to give evidence against him in a court of law!

I would urge Mr West to contact the Law Society and his solicitor about Zuckerman’s disgraceful involvement in this matter. Witness intimidation is a very serious matter as I am sure UKIP will shortly discover.

Mr West has been the victim of a concerted smear campaign that dates back to late 2007:

Mr West’s MEP video interview was placed on the internet. It was given the mocking title ‘How not to do politics’. To this day UKIP has refused to apologise to him for this.

Jeffrey Titford used UKIP’s email database to attack Mr West for holding a conference on Law and Order. This was done after he failed to give Stuart Gulleford - Titford’s favoured successor - a slot on the panel.

Mr West was denied the right to take his elected place on the NEC.

David Challice put Mr West’s NEC nomination papers in an envelope posted in Liverpool. Challice then claimed that West had missed the deadline for nomination papers.

Mr West was suspended from the Party for reporting an alleged crime to the police. He was forced to do this after UKIP’s leadership refused to investigate the matter.

Mr West was assaulted by Peter Reeve - a UKIP Regional Organiser - at a UKIP meeting in Cambridge.

Michael Zuckerman and Douglas Denny accused Mr West of suffering from mental illness. Both have refused to retract their statements or apologise.

Predictably Farage’s sycophants such as Bob Feal-Martinez have applauded Clark’s decision to remove Mr West. Apparently he ‘got what he deserved’.

Geoffrey Collier summed up the feelings of many when he wrote:

Bob FM: With your usual generosity of spirit; without knowing the facts, presented by a MEP being investigated himself, you have no doubt as to the justice that John West deserves. You are an unpleasant, crude, semi-literate individual, who has greatly harmed this Party.

You may recall, that that John West has other matters outstanding, which he has been advised by a judge to transfer to a Judicial Review. Let us see what now evolves.

I would suggest that the likes of Jeffrey Titford, David Bannerman, Stuart Gulleford, Derek Clark, Michael Zuckerman, Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall make the most of their pyricc victory.

In less than three months UKIP will be a spent force in British politics. All their efforts to prevent Mr West being selected as an MEP candidate will have been for nothing.

Another anti-EU party is launched

Bob Crow - one of the UK’s leading trade unionists - has launched the NO2EU Party. They intend to field MEP candidates in every part of the UK. If elected they will not take their seats or take EU money.

Their website can be seen at: LINK

Also see: LINK

Roger Knapman on Derek Clark’s betrayal of the British people

You will recall that in a previous post ( LINK ) I confirmed that Tony Ellwood - Derek Clark’s political researcher - was sacked by Clark following disagreements between the two.

These disagreements started after Clark went to Bucharest and signed a declaration espousing the principle of "subsidiarity". Prior to this UKIP has always been in favour of total withdrawal from the EU. By accepting the principle of subsidiarity UKIP was now accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

At the same time Clark also signed up to the principle of "reforming" the Common Agricultural Policy, something which UKIP had previously refused to recognise at all.

Mr Ellwood naturally felt that this was a betrayal of everything UKIP stood for.

As this topic is once again news I have decided to reproduce Roger Knapman’s letter which condemns Derek Clark’s betrayal of the British people.

It was sent to NEC members in 2007. Copies were also sent to his fellow UKIP MEPs:

13 May 2007

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear (NAME REMOVED BY JUNIUS)

Nigel will no doubt be reporting to the NEC meeting that we have a serious disagreement among UKIP MEPs on an issue of principle and policy. I feel the NEC has a right to know the issue that is at stake, to discuss the matter and indeed to express an opinion and this letter is designed to assist that.

A few weeks ago my colleague Derek Clark went to Bucharest where he signed up to a statement of policy which, among other things, accepted the principle of subsidiarity and the Common Agricultural Policy. I do not know whether this was a personal decision or at the suggestion of others.

The full document was then published on the official IndDem Group website, where it remains as the policy of the Group. By bearing Derek’s name there is a clear implication that UKIP supports this position. Yet UKIP MEP’s did not meet to give sanction to this and there was no consultation whatsoever over the matter.

I, and a number of my colleagues, cannot in all conscience accept something which represents a major departure from what we believed to be UKIP’s policy – withdrawal from the EU, a complete rejection of its authority (and subsidiarity) and of the Common Agricultural Policy. To be clear, subsidiarity is an EU doctrine which first assumes EU sovereignty and then allows certain matters to be devolved to member state level. Accepting subsidiarity accepts ultimate EU sovereignty.

We should not temporise on these issues. This is precisely what the Conservative Party does and it is why I left it.

In 2004 I stood on a clear platform of withdrawal, with no equivocation. I believe that is what I was elected to do. I am NOT prepared now to compromise on this principle. This is a conscience matter for me and I believe others.

The UKIP constitution is also very clear on our party’s basic position of principle. As guardians of the constitution, I believe the NEC has a responsibility to uphold this and prevent any fudge. I hope the NEC will insist that this document be removed now from the IndDem website, distant UKIP from it and ensure that no future agreements of this sort are made behind the party’s back.

Shortly after the 2004 elections, UKIP MEP’s met and agreed a statement of practice – first that we would not go on “junkets” to other countries and secondly that we would not employ our wives. This was to prevent us getting dragged into the comfortable EU world that leads down the path to “going native.”

I am now very worried that this agreement is being ignored and that the attractions of the European Parliament as a career may beckon to some; where the delights of plush new office suites, Brussels titles and internal parliament or IndDem Group politics are more attractive than our original purpose.

We are not going to get our country back by wasting our effort in Brussels or Bucharest or by sucking up to political parties in foreign countries when the battle is here at home.

I joined UKIP, not the IndDem Group. I was elected as a UKIP MEP to fight for withdrawal from Europe, not as an IndDem MEP trying to reform the EU from within.

I hope this matter can be fully resolved from within and, despite my strong feelings, I have carefully refrained from public comment. However I cannot stand quietly and idly by forever if our basic principles are sold down the river.

I look to the NEC to assert its authority and use its best offices to overcome this unfortunate problem which I wish had never arisen.

Yours sincerely

Roger Knapman MEP

End of letter.

The letter was ignored.

Derek Clark is under investigation by OLAF - the EU’s anti-fraud office.

Derek Clark OLAF Case Number: D/007/033/04.09.08

Derek Clark OLAF Investigation Number: DD/FD-D2008.A1/7133/OF/2008/0240

Petrina Holdsworth: She still has Farage rattled!

Last week the following post appeared on the British Democracy Forum :

Hi Everyone,

This is my first post here, just to let you know I will be posting here every Wednesday to let you know whats going on inSIDE the UK First Party. As you know they are a new party but they already have a leaker thats Me

I am Junius of the UKFP.

Report one: Membership is now at 76

UNITED KINGDOM FIRST PARTY - INTERIM CONSTITUTION

1. Name of party The Party is legally registered as United Kingdom First. However this may, where appropriate, be abbreviated to ‘UK First’ or‘UKF’. For the purposes of this document it will referred to as “the Party”

2. Aims. The Party seeks to reduce the power, scope and intrusiveness of the State into the lives of its citizens. It will campaign to reduce thesize and scope of, and increase the accountability of government, including by the increased use of binding referenda. This by necessity includes

the re-establishment of the Parliament at Westminster as the sovereign and sole legislative body for the United Kingdom and to this end the Party will seek the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The Party will also give priority to ending large-scale immigration, and will seek to protect and enhance the traditional culture and social cohesion of the British people, including the historic right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Party may from time to time adopt other policies provided that they do not contradict those stated above#

3. Activities. In furtherance of the above aims the Party may take part in all European, national, regional and local electoral processes within the UK . (Insert paras 3.4 to 3.3.4.6 from UKIP constitution)

4. Fundraising. In furtherance of the above aims and policies the Party may raise funds and receive contributions from any person or corporate body whatsoever by way of loan, subscription, donation or otherwise, within the limits established by electoral law; may publish, with or without charge, any item it sees fit; may employ and pay persons to supervise, organise and carry out work for the Party; may purchase, lease or rent property; and make arrangements for the management of any property acquired. May invest any monies not immediately required in accordance with the Trustee Act of 1925; and do all such other lawful things as are necessary for the attainment of its ends.

5. Membership is open to UK citizens and resident foreign nationals overthe age of 16. The Steering Committee has the right to reject any application for membership within 21 days of that application being received by the Party.

Members must maintain their subscriptions.

Members shall accept the Party’s constitution and any rules made in accordance with the constitution.

Members shall not act in a manner which brings the party into disrepute or is likely to bring the party into disrepute. If a member is suspected of behaving in such a fashion he/she will be requested to appear before the Steering Committee or a designated sub-committee to explain his/her actions .

The membership may be suspended or removed by the said committee

6. Management of the Party .

A Steering Committee of normally 5 persons will be set up to govern the party for a maximum period of 9 months fromthe date this constitution comes into force .The Steering Committee consists of Peter Cole , Tom Wise , Petrina , Bruce Lawson , E.J Parker

Thereafter an elected Board of Governors will take over from the Steering Committee.

7. The party`s structure, funds and publicity will be the responsibility of the Steering committee. They shall appoint a Treasurer and MembershipSecretary. ( Peter Cole)

They may establish temporary or standing committees to deal with any matters which they deem fit.

The Steering Committee shall be the body which establishes all the rules governing the party management, conduct and administration and conferences save where such rules are already covered by the constitution.

8. Candidates .The Steering committee shall establish an approved list of candidates from the membership who have applied to represent the party in any election. This constitution comes into force on xx March 2009.

Any changes to this constitution can only be made by a majority decision of the membership.

End of post.

Sadly for 'ukfirstpartyleaker' this ‘leaked’ document was nothing of the sort. It was copied from a document made freely available to all those who attended the UKFP meeting in West Sussex.

‘Ukfirstpartyleaker’ had rather crudely added several names to the document, including that of Tom Wise. According to this new version they are members of UKFP’s Steering Committee. Unfortunately for the ‘leaker’ they couldn’t be sure if Petrina used her professional name or her married name. To be on the safe side they left it blank!

Petrina Holdsworth was quick to expose this crass attempt to smear the new party:

‘The steering committee membership quoted here is a load of rubbish as are the membership numbers.The poor dears behind this stuff are clearly ruffled and frankly very amateurish’.

Paul Wesson of the British Democracy Forum was also less than impressed:

'Leaker' (bed wetter), if you're going to be the new Junius you should at least make an effort to present credible evidence’.

Nuff said!

Jon Snow on UKIP

Jon Snow has confirmed that UKIP is now regarded as a spent force in British politics.

Here is an extract from his article:

But what I did learn whilst I was at the EC’s headquarters here in London was that they fear that the next European elections will throw up many more politicians from the political extremes.

There is anyway a widespread belief, both here and in Europe, that the UKIP phenomenon (passionately anti-European) is all but dead. To quote one correspondent in Brussels, they have been “a complete shambles”.

The expectation here is that the BNP could take three or four of their seats, and the rest, if current trends continue, would largely go to the Tories.

The original article can be seen at: LINK

Predictably Farage’s sycophants on the British Democracy Forum have seen fit to denigrate Mr Snow rather than address the obvious fact that UKIP is falling apart.

They have also failed to understand that Mr Snow was simply reporting the view of the EU Commission rather than his own personal views - something that is quite obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to read his article in full.

Farage’s sycophants really need to remember that under his ‘leadership’ support for UKIP has plummeted.

High profile members such as Tim Congdon and Bob Spink want nothing more to do with UKIP.

Branches are closing down faster than Woolworths.

Membership is falling.

Funds have dried up.

Several UKIP MEPs are under investigation by OLAF.

Members are accused by Farage and his supporters of being in league with the BNP, MI5 or the Tories if they dare to question Farage's leadership skills.

Democratically elected NEC members are thrown off the NEC for trying to raise the concerns of ordinary members.

UKIP is now a laughing stock but sadly people such as Bob Feal-Martinez, Michael McGough and Douglas Denny lack the intelligence or the integrity to realise this.

When UKIP is wiped-out in June they will only have themselves to blame.

Farage Sycophants 4 UKIP or why Nigel Farage is getting very worried about Petrina

Nigel Farage is extremely concerned that Petrina Holdsworth is standing against him as a UK First Party MEP candidate in the Euro elections.

In desperation he has ordered Stuart Parr and Bloggers 4 UKIP - also known as Farage Sycophants 4 UKIP- to attack UKFP at regular intervals.

In two separate articles Parr and Bloggers 4 UKIP have attacked UKFP for being fascist. In one article they state that:

‘The motto of the UK First Party is "Country before self" - a rallying call for fascists everywhere, very Musollini-esque.

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.

Perhaps someone should ask Mr Parr to take a closer look at UKIP before making such rash statements about another political party.

Under Farage UKIP has become a centralised, fascist style party.

The NEC is filled with compliant nodding donkeys who do as they are told.

David Abbott and Eric Edmond were thrown off the NEC for criticising the leader and for raising concerns about the MEP selection process.

Martin Haslam was thrown off the NEC after calling on Farage to authorise an independent audit of Ind Dem finances.

MEP selection rules were ignored in order to get favoured candidates onto the lists.

Any member who dares question Farage’s leadership is denounced as a BNP supporter.

Attempts were made by the leadership to introduce new disciplinary rules that would have given Paul Nuttall the right to suspend members without explanation.

Complaints are ignored by the leadership. Those making the complaints are then either hounded out of the Party or leave in disgust.

What have you to say about that Mr Parr? Are these not the actions of a fascist style party?

I also note that when Bob Spink first joined UKIP ( London Region - UK Independence Party ) he said that he would “put his country before his career in joining UKIP.” This is very similar to the slogan of UKFP.

But this use of ‘fascist’ slogans doesn’t end there for Nigel Farage also used a similar phrase in a report on a BBC News website. In the report he is quoted as saying "that the time has come to put country before party". For the full article see: BBC NEWS Politics Tory peers in UKIP support row

According to Mr Parr’s criteria both Bob Spink and Nigel Farage must be fascist.

Mr Parr and ‘Bloggers 4 UKIP’ should remember that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

More on Jeffrey Titford's attempted intimidation of John West

Please read Greg Lance-Watkins blog to see how Jeffrey Titford (pictured above) and Michael Zuckerman have continued to use UKIP's disclipinary process to intimidate John West: LINK

NEC members pose for new portrait

UKIP Enterprises in association with Bloom/Fuller Productions is pleased to announce the official UKIP NEC portrait for 2009.

This fantastic limited edition print features all of your favourite NEC clowns in glorious living colour. From left to right: Douglas Denny, Nigel Farage, George Curtis, Mike Zuckerman, Lisa Duffy & Paul Nuttall.

Copies can be bought from UKIP HQ. Make cheques payable to David 'Don't mention the underpants' Challice. Price £3.99.

John West writes to Michael Zuckerman

As I write these words John West’s kangaroo court is taking place in London. In a total disregard for justice Jeffrey Titford has been allowed to use UKIP's disciplinary rules to intimidate a man who may be called to give evidence against him in a court of law.

It is Jeffrey Titford and Stuart 'Gollom' Gulleford - Titford’s odious sidekick- who should be brought before a disciplinary panel for witness intimidation.

Titford should also be suspended from UKIP as it has now been confirmed that he is under investigation by OLAF. See GLW’s blog for confirmation of this undoubted fact: LINK

Here is Mr West’s last email to M. Zuckerman. I have no doubt that it will be ignored by UKIP's corrupt leadership:

Subject: RE: Derek Clark & Disciplinary Hearing

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:28:01 +0000

Dear Mr Zuckerman,

Your last email is unacceptable.

1. As a member of the NEC Derek Clark is the subject of complaints to the ICO and the Police. I am also taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process and the Youtube leak.

Mr Clark could very well be called as a defendant in this case.

Derek Clark has an interest to declare and cannot be considered impartial.

2. Para 1.6 of the Disciplinary Rules states that no-one can sit on the panel where there is a close connection between them and the complainant or respondent.Derek Clark is an MEP and so is the complainant. This is a close enough connection to disqualify a member of the panel but apparently not enough to disqualify the chairman!

3. At no point have you stated which rules you are following and why or whether the NEC were consulted in choosing Clark as replacement chairman.

4. Neil Thomson of OLAF has confirmed that I can expect to be called as a prosecution witness if OLAF decides to proceed with the complaint against Jeffrey Titford. Mr Titford is aware that OLAF is looking into the case and yet he is still using UKIP's complaints process to intimidate a potential prosecution witness. As a solicitor you must realise that intimidation of a potential prosecution witness is a very serious matter.

5. Despite claiming to have removed yourself from the disciplinary process you have continued to send me emails about this matter. Under the Discipline Rules 1.3 and 1.4 it is clear that you should have handed over the conduct of the case to another member of the Discipline Panel. I would remind you that I put you on notice on two occasions that you were the subject of a complaint to the SRA. Despite this you declined to remove yourself from the process.

I am sorry Mr Zuckerman but once you withdraw from the proceedings you cannot continue to arrange the hearing and the paperwork . You can`t have your cake and eat it!

As a solicitor you should know that justice must be seen to be done. In this case justice is not being seen to be done.

I put you on notice that I will be making a formal complaint to the SRA about your role in this affair.

I will be also speaking to my solicitor with a view to taking further legal action against UKIP over this issue.

Yours sincerely,
John West

For more information see: LINK

John West to be thrown out of UKIP on Monday

John West ( pictured above) will be thrown out of UKIP on Monday.

The Disclipinary Hearing will be held at the Farmers Club in Whitehall. It is set to start at 11.00.

The panel has been hand picked in order to ensure that Mr West is removed.

The panel members are Yvonne McGuire, Michael Bedford, Yvonne Larg and Daniel Stowell. Three are from the South East. Mr Stowell is from the East Midlands.

Mr West was suspended after Jeffrey Titford complained about him to Michael Zuckerman.

Mr Titford is now under investigation by OLAF. The case number is OF/2008/0764. The document at the top of the page confirms this.

The four panel members are known Farage supporters and have all been told to 'do the right thing'.

John West has refused to attend the hearing as it is clearly a kangaroo court and is in breach of UKIP's own rules. Here is his email to Zuckerman:

Dear Mr Zuckerman,

I am in receipt of your email dated 11th March informing me that you have withdrawn from your involvement in my case due to having been put on notice of my complaint against you by the SRA. I am surprised that you have seen fit to withdraw only at this very late stage in view of my previous objections to your role in this matter .

You will recall that in two of my previous letters to you ( 3/2/9 & 23/2/9) I put you on notice that I had complained to the SRA about your conduct. I pointed out that because of this complaint you had an interest to declare and should withdraw from the proceedings. You declined to do so. In view of the above I am astonished that you are still clearly involving yourself in this matter by requesting further information from me concerning the case. You have either withdrawn from this matter or you have not .

You cannot purport to do so and then continue with your inquiries on behalf of UKIP. It is now quite clear to me that the conduct of this case has been so badly handled by UKIP`s representatives that I have no faith in these proceedings. I have therefore decided to withdraw from them and I will not be attending the hearing.

Yours sincerely,
John West

Clearly UKIP will bend rules and ignore basic legal rights in order to get Mr West thrown out of UKIP.

Zuckerman's kangaroo court would not have been out of place in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany!

For more information see GLW's blog: LINK & LINK