When will UKIP ever learn?
Another humiliation for UKIP's leadership and yet again another example of their arrogant belief that UKIP is above the law.
Congratulations to Mr West for obtaining this judgement and for exposing the duplicity and dishonesty of UKIP's leadership.
A statement from John West
I am pleased to announce that the Information Commissioner’s Office has upheld my original complaint against the UK Independence Party. Again, I have been completely vindicated.
This complaint concerned UKIP’s refusal to send me any data that mentioned me.
The request was made under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
I made this request to John Whittaker, as I wanted a full record of all documents held by UKIP which mentioned me.
I first contacted UKIP with this request on 3/9/8. John Whittaker, UKIP Party Chairman, was the recipient.
Initially, he arrogantly ignored my request.
I persisted. This started yet another a vicious and dishonest campaign of smears and lies directed against me, a campaign which emanated from UKIP’s leadership.
Finally, on 11th September I received a copy of my membership details!
Nothing else was included. In an accompanying dismissive letter it was dishonestly claimed that UKIP held no other ’discloseable personal data’.
The letter was signed by John Whittaker on behalf of Paul Nuttall.
I knew this to be untrue as I have a listing of a large number of emails, letters and reports that specifically refer to me.
On 18th September I sent a letter to Paul Nuttall requesting his compliance under the law to the Data Protection Act.
On 24th October, I received the following email from him.
After taking legal advice, I am advised to inform you to refer to the letter sent to you by Dr. Whittaker on 11 September 2008.
Best wishes
Paul Nuttall
It was subsequent to receiving this email that I decided to inform the ICO of UKIP’s failure to comply with the legal requirements of the Data Protection Act.
The ICO started an investigation in July 2009. On 23rd October I received a letter from the ICO.
UKIP had now changed their story, clearly showing their first version was untrue and unsound.
UKIP now admitted to holding data on me but declined to comply with my request as the documents were subject to ‘legal professional privilege’, yet failed to give any explanation as to how they had reached such a perverse conclusion.
As I expected, the ICO did not agree with UKIP’s claim as ‘legal professional privilege’ only applies where ‘the communication has been made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice’ and had no legal connection with UKIP’s misrepresentation of the law.
On 20th April 2010 The Information Commission ordered UKIP to comply with my original legal request, something which UKIP had previously made numerous efforts to avoid.
I sincerely hope that UKIP’s leadership will now fully comply with this order and supply me with all the requested documentation.
To date they have mailed me a jumbled muddle of emails which does not include much of the material in my original list.
I hope that UKIP is still not trying to avoid full compliance with the ICO’s order.
UKIP has only 28 days ( dated from the 20th April) to fully comply with the said order.
It saddens me that I was forced to resort to further action against UKIP. All this could have been avoided if Nigel Farage, John Whittaker and Paul Nuttall had not seen fit to ignore my original request and had acted ethically, professionally and honestly rather than abuse the law and the terms of the Data Protection Act.
UKIP aspire to government, though some may ask if this will be as UKIP or as a Pearson led pressure group within the Conservative Party!
UKIP’s leadership clearly believe that the law can be ignored if they don’t happen to agree with it:
Stuart Agnew and David Bannerman can illegally pay Peter Reeve without fear of censure from Farage and Pearson.
UKIP is willing to accept illegal donations.
Thousands can vanish from UKIP’s accounts without any questions being asked.
UKIP allows Mark Croucher to avoid his liabilities to the British Courts by continuing to employ him in Brussels.
Nigel Farage and Annabelle Fuller lie to The Mail and The Independent about the reasons behind her ‘departure’ from UKIP.
The list is endless and is still growing.
UKIP has already lost one court case against me after they were found guilty of a breach of confidence.
I really thought that they would finally come to realise that even their dishonesty will not be ignored by the Courts!
Sadly it appears UKIP have no apparent integrity or visible professionalism.
UKIP is a party led by the untrustworthy, duplicitous and corrupt. It would be a tragedy if such people were elected to Westminster. We need honest politicians, not liars and crooks.
John West
Another humiliation for UKIP's leadership and yet again another example of their arrogant belief that UKIP is above the law.
Congratulations to Mr West for obtaining this judgement and for exposing the duplicity and dishonesty of UKIP's leadership.
A statement from John West
I am pleased to announce that the Information Commissioner’s Office has upheld my original complaint against the UK Independence Party. Again, I have been completely vindicated.
This complaint concerned UKIP’s refusal to send me any data that mentioned me.
The request was made under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
I made this request to John Whittaker, as I wanted a full record of all documents held by UKIP which mentioned me.
I first contacted UKIP with this request on 3/9/8. John Whittaker, UKIP Party Chairman, was the recipient.
Initially, he arrogantly ignored my request.
I persisted. This started yet another a vicious and dishonest campaign of smears and lies directed against me, a campaign which emanated from UKIP’s leadership.
Finally, on 11th September I received a copy of my membership details!
Nothing else was included. In an accompanying dismissive letter it was dishonestly claimed that UKIP held no other ’discloseable personal data’.
The letter was signed by John Whittaker on behalf of Paul Nuttall.
I knew this to be untrue as I have a listing of a large number of emails, letters and reports that specifically refer to me.
On 18th September I sent a letter to Paul Nuttall requesting his compliance under the law to the Data Protection Act.
On 24th October, I received the following email from him.
After taking legal advice, I am advised to inform you to refer to the letter sent to you by Dr. Whittaker on 11 September 2008.
Best wishes
Paul Nuttall
It was subsequent to receiving this email that I decided to inform the ICO of UKIP’s failure to comply with the legal requirements of the Data Protection Act.
The ICO started an investigation in July 2009. On 23rd October I received a letter from the ICO.
UKIP had now changed their story, clearly showing their first version was untrue and unsound.
UKIP now admitted to holding data on me but declined to comply with my request as the documents were subject to ‘legal professional privilege’, yet failed to give any explanation as to how they had reached such a perverse conclusion.
As I expected, the ICO did not agree with UKIP’s claim as ‘legal professional privilege’ only applies where ‘the communication has been made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice’ and had no legal connection with UKIP’s misrepresentation of the law.
On 20th April 2010 The Information Commission ordered UKIP to comply with my original legal request, something which UKIP had previously made numerous efforts to avoid.
I sincerely hope that UKIP’s leadership will now fully comply with this order and supply me with all the requested documentation.
To date they have mailed me a jumbled muddle of emails which does not include much of the material in my original list.
I hope that UKIP is still not trying to avoid full compliance with the ICO’s order.
UKIP has only 28 days ( dated from the 20th April) to fully comply with the said order.
It saddens me that I was forced to resort to further action against UKIP. All this could have been avoided if Nigel Farage, John Whittaker and Paul Nuttall had not seen fit to ignore my original request and had acted ethically, professionally and honestly rather than abuse the law and the terms of the Data Protection Act.
UKIP aspire to government, though some may ask if this will be as UKIP or as a Pearson led pressure group within the Conservative Party!
UKIP’s leadership clearly believe that the law can be ignored if they don’t happen to agree with it:
Stuart Agnew and David Bannerman can illegally pay Peter Reeve without fear of censure from Farage and Pearson.
UKIP is willing to accept illegal donations.
Thousands can vanish from UKIP’s accounts without any questions being asked.
UKIP allows Mark Croucher to avoid his liabilities to the British Courts by continuing to employ him in Brussels.
Nigel Farage and Annabelle Fuller lie to The Mail and The Independent about the reasons behind her ‘departure’ from UKIP.
The list is endless and is still growing.
UKIP has already lost one court case against me after they were found guilty of a breach of confidence.
I really thought that they would finally come to realise that even their dishonesty will not be ignored by the Courts!
Sadly it appears UKIP have no apparent integrity or visible professionalism.
UKIP is a party led by the untrustworthy, duplicitous and corrupt. It would be a tragedy if such people were elected to Westminster. We need honest politicians, not liars and crooks.
John West
So much energy poured into pummelling UKIP. If all the disaffected had got together in a new party and directed their energy creatively, think how much more effective the results could have been - both in attracting voters and in worrying UKIP's leadership.
ReplyDelete