GLW has asked us to post the following statement. We are happy to oblige.
At the time and date Croucher’s faked ‘e’Mail was made John West had not received any monies from what was called the defence fund. Regardless of the malicious and all too frequently dishonest and childish taunting and twisting claims and inferences of such as Mark Croucher his incubi and succubae, Brendan Padmore, Michael McGough and various cowards too ashamed to put their name to their postings.
Usually Croucher is quite good with his weasel words and computer fakes and set ups.
May I point out that he has shot himself in the foot by attributing the time line on TWO counts.
Firstly this item does not provide proof of anything relative to the point he is trying to make it is a mere snap shot taken out of context to try to prove matters long subsequent.
Secondly he has categorically stated the posting from West was made on the 18th. Feb 2009 – Croucher has foolishly failed to recognise that the thread he attributes this to was locked on the 17th. Feb 2009.
It is noted that Brendan Padmore is wriggling and squirming to supply ways to support the duplicitous and untrustworthy Mark Croucher a vile little failure of a man without honour, integrity or morality and proven on substantive matters to be both a liar and a cheat. Brendan Padmore yet again displays his dishonesty as he desperately tries to do as he is told by EUkip to suppress the truth.
I note the moderator C-Steam would seem to have the measure of Croucher and comments he has not received the screen capture Croucher CLAIMS to have the implication being that he is somewhat smarter than Padmore and does not trust the false evidence provided by Croucher. To comment the item has not arrived would indicate it was requested!
Here is the posting that shows Croucher’s dishonesty – but we can expect weasel words to try to wriggle out of the facts from him once he realises he has been exposed.
The bottom line is that Croucher CLAIMS to have evidence of a statement made by John West which somehow proves 8 months later that subsequent to the 18th.Feb 2009 John West did or did not get money from some private source or other!
This is no more than vexatious and spitefull mischief making of absolutely no relevance to the fact that there are those who have proved beyond doubt that there is every possibility that upwards of £10 Million may well have been industrially skimmed from UKIP by the corrupt individuals who have dishonestly and corruptly seized control of the party.
It is appreciated that as an official spokesman for EUkip from time to time and as a serial liar there is every reason to believe that Croucher is being used yet again to try to muddy the waters so as to shelter the undeniable lies, corruption and dishonesty of EUkip and its leadership.
You will note a poster ‘Barboo’ forensically exposes the dishonesty and duplicity of Mark Croucher.
First here is Croucher’s unsound claim followed by Barboo’s detailed evidence.
Mark Croucher
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dartford, Kent
Posts: 1,643
Sorry, I would have posted this in the proper complaints thread, but West ensured it wandered so far off topic that the thread was closed. I'm hoping all interested can find it here. It was posted on the 18th February 2009 and the time looks like 4:32pm, but as it was a screen print and the date and time text is in reversed print, it hasn't come out very well on my printer. The significance of the date was that it was after his case was thrown out at Ipswich court as an abuse of the court process, which was the only reason I printed it. You may recall there was a whole load of threads which were deleted at that time. To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted. I don't have all of my original post - just the last few lines of it, but I distinctly remember it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwest
I have not received a penny from any fund. You are a liar. You do not need to worry about my legal advice as Nigel and his cabal will find out how good my legal team is soon enough when certain other matters come to court as this is just the starting point. Already a national newspaper is interested and there will be more to come so you can mock now but your boss wont be pleased when the full story comes out and you will be laughing on the other side of your face when your corruption is exposed.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, West. And stop abusing the complaints system for your own ends: you know you said it, everybody else knows you said it, and yet you make a complaint after thinking that nobody had a copy of your comments. I'm surprised the moderators don't ban you for being such a glib onanist and making such a blatantly false complaint.
End of Croucher's statement
Barboo’s statement shows Croucher for what he is:
Yesterday, 05:18 PM 647
Barboo
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.Ware
Thread re-opened as MC has provided his evidence.
Where is this evidence, BA? Have you retrieved a deleted thread and found John West's alleged statement? Can we see it, please, because what Mark Croucher has provided so far is an embellishment of his existing claim which does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not 'evidence'.
Mark Croucher informed us at post #592 of this thread So what did happen to the defence fund money? that John West's alleged statement, "I have not received a penny from any fund" was in a posting on a deleted thread
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post613761
Clicking on that link from #592 brings up an 'invalid thread' page, the full address of which shows that the deleted thread MC referred to was entitled 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process'.
Mark Croucher enlarged on this at #641 of this thread by giving the date and time of John West's alleged post on the deleted thread as 18 February 2009, 4:32pm, and saying, "To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted".
The problem with this is, the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process' was deleted on 17 February, as Mark Croucher himself complained at the time he started a new thread to replace it, so John West could not have made the alleged posting on the 18th. The sequence of events can be checked as follows:
In the Complaints section (P.25) at 02:11pm on 17 February, John West reported a post Reported Post by johnwest Mark Croucher had made to the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process', on the grounds that MC had given a link to a blog which had published what JW claimed to be an untrue version of his court case.
At 4:18pm on 17 February Mark Croucher started a new thread So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?, in which he referred to the previous thread as having being deleted, and restored the blog link.
At 07:43pm on 17 February John West made a further complaint Reported Post by johnwest saying, "Despite complaining about Mark Croucher's original posting I now see that he been allowed to repeat the allegations under a new title . . . . What is the point of removing a thread if you then allow the allegations to be repeated by the same person using a new thread?" Following this, moderator B.A.Ware allowed the new thread to remain open but removed the link to the offending blog.
Also, it was at post #3 of this complaint that John West made what is so far his only proven comment on the funding of his legal action: "I also noticed that in one of Mark Croucher's posts he accuses Geoffrey Collier of helping to fund my legal action. This is also not true". Geoffrey Collier has since confirmed at #464 of this thread that JW's statement was correct.
The new thread 'So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?' continued and Mark Croucher did make the mocking comments about John West's legal advice that he describes above, but his barbs (at #23, #30 and #67) were aimed at Geoffrey Collier, not John West. JOHN WEST DID NOT CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO THIS THREAD so, despite all his spinning, Mark Croucher has still not provided the evidence of John West's alleged statement required by the moderators.
Will you repost it, please, if you have found such evidence in a now deleted thread that forum members can no longer access?
End of Barboo's statement
It is worthy of note that the thread Mark Croucher relies upon was started by Croucher as another malicious and spiteful thread to attack someone (John West) seeking to expose the truth of the corruption of EUkip.
The interesting FACT is that the thread was locked because of the undeniable FACT that Mark Croucher had in contempt of Court attributed a comment to a Judge firstly which was never made and was thus a lie and a libel a fact compounded by the fact he attributed the comment to a Judge who was absent from the court and had NOT attended The Court concerned.
The thread was locked because Mark Croucher had lied – yet again and for malicious purposes. This being not just a misrepresentation but and outright lie.
Interestingly Brendan Padmore in a desperate attempt to aid Croucher in his dishonesty again fails to seek the truth and makes the utterly implausible claim that he remembers the details of a posting from 18th. Feb 2009 – a posting we have shown beyond doubt did not exist and even if it had provides Croucher and his little help mate Padmore with no substantiation of their claims merely substantiation they are dishonest and untrustworthy.
I once again state that beyond any doubt, however Croucher his incubi & succubi may seek to rewrite facts to suit themselves – John West at no stage in time received a single penny piece as cash or cheque, nor any other sum of money, from the so called defence fund, Niall Warry or myself towards ANY legal costs he may have incurred in seeking to expose the corruption of EUkip nor UKIP nor any individual therein – either for past cases, current cases or ongoing cases. There was NEVER an intent to fund his costs, particularly in the light of the Sanders findings!
I can also confirm that none nor any donors to the fund in question have voiced or made any complaint as to the handling of the fund and having spoken to all the donors known to me all bar one has stated they were entirely happy with the handling, were aware of the dishonest implications of Croucher and have offered further monies if required.
No comments:
Post a Comment