Mark Croucher is one of the more obnoxious supporters of UKIP. He is a supporter of the far-left, pro-EU ‘Searchlight’ magazine and regularly posts lies on the British Democracy Forum on behalf of his boss Nigel Farage.
For more details on this odious individual see: LINK & LINK
For several weeks he has been telling UKIPPERS that I am Piers Merchant - I am not - but still conveniently refuses to provide any real evidence to support his lies.
Fortunately, Croucher’s lies have now been exposed on the Forum for all to see. Perhaps the moderators will now do their duty and ban him.
Here is Barboo’s - aka Barbara Booker - excellent comments on Croucher’s lies.
So by revealing what you now admit was nothing more than a possibility that Piers Merchant might be Junius in a thread which you entitled 'Junius unmasked', you were deliberately smearing Piers with an allegation for which you had no proof.
Added to which, having discovered that Piers could have been receiving blind copies of emails sent to the gensec@ukip.org address, you lied about the speed with which information contained in such emails appeared on Junius's blog, in an attempt to implicate Piers as the source of the leaks.
You stated at Junius unmasked that:
1) you were asked on 14 April to carry out an investigation concerning a UKIP candidate, and within 24 hours of a relevant letter from Dave Challis being emailed to you it appeared on the Junius blog.
This is untrue. Dave Challis's letter, written to Paul Nuttall on 9 April and presumably copied to general secretary Jonathan Arnott at the same time, did not appear on Junius's blog until 21 April, ie. between five and seven days after being copied to you, and twelve days after it was originally sent.
2) having agreed with Paul Nuttall that you should investigate the source of the leak of the Challis letter (bearing in mind that at this date there was nothing to suggest that a leak had occurred at all), you say that on 16 April you emailed Jonathan Arnott false information regarding yourself replacing Ralph Atkinson on the London MEP list, and that again within 24 hours this false information appeared on the internet. In post #40 of 'Junius unmasked' you qualify this by saying the first mention of this false rumour was on Junius's blog, from which you quote: "The big question is, with Fat Boy Dim out of the way . . . . is Farage preparing to parachute his old mucker from the pub into the soon to be vacant slot?"
Again, you lie. Junius's suggestion that you might replace Ralph Atkinson, together with his Fat Boy Dim comment, was not blogged within 24 hours of 16 April; nor was it blogged separately and subsequently to his posting of the Challis letter as stated by you. The letter, the rumour and the Fat Boy Dim remark were all blogged by Junius on 21 April, with the rumour referred to again on 27 April - Junius on UKIP: April 2009
Why did you find it necessary to lie ?
For more details on this odious individual see: LINK & LINK
For several weeks he has been telling UKIPPERS that I am Piers Merchant - I am not - but still conveniently refuses to provide any real evidence to support his lies.
Fortunately, Croucher’s lies have now been exposed on the Forum for all to see. Perhaps the moderators will now do their duty and ban him.
Here is Barboo’s - aka Barbara Booker - excellent comments on Croucher’s lies.
So by revealing what you now admit was nothing more than a possibility that Piers Merchant might be Junius in a thread which you entitled 'Junius unmasked', you were deliberately smearing Piers with an allegation for which you had no proof.
Added to which, having discovered that Piers could have been receiving blind copies of emails sent to the gensec@ukip.org address, you lied about the speed with which information contained in such emails appeared on Junius's blog, in an attempt to implicate Piers as the source of the leaks.
You stated at Junius unmasked that:
1) you were asked on 14 April to carry out an investigation concerning a UKIP candidate, and within 24 hours of a relevant letter from Dave Challis being emailed to you it appeared on the Junius blog.
This is untrue. Dave Challis's letter, written to Paul Nuttall on 9 April and presumably copied to general secretary Jonathan Arnott at the same time, did not appear on Junius's blog until 21 April, ie. between five and seven days after being copied to you, and twelve days after it was originally sent.
2) having agreed with Paul Nuttall that you should investigate the source of the leak of the Challis letter (bearing in mind that at this date there was nothing to suggest that a leak had occurred at all), you say that on 16 April you emailed Jonathan Arnott false information regarding yourself replacing Ralph Atkinson on the London MEP list, and that again within 24 hours this false information appeared on the internet. In post #40 of 'Junius unmasked' you qualify this by saying the first mention of this false rumour was on Junius's blog, from which you quote: "The big question is, with Fat Boy Dim out of the way . . . . is Farage preparing to parachute his old mucker from the pub into the soon to be vacant slot?"
Again, you lie. Junius's suggestion that you might replace Ralph Atkinson, together with his Fat Boy Dim comment, was not blogged within 24 hours of 16 April; nor was it blogged separately and subsequently to his posting of the Challis letter as stated by you. The letter, the rumour and the Fat Boy Dim remark were all blogged by Junius on 21 April, with the rumour referred to again on 27 April - Junius on UKIP: April 2009
Why did you find it necessary to lie ?
End of her post
Since her post was published the odious Croucher has gone rather quiet on the subject of Junius. I wonder why?
No comments:
Post a Comment