It would appear that disgraced former MP Neil Hamilton is threatening Marta Andreason!
Your e-mail about MEP selection, apparently sent to SE UKIP members, contains a false and defamatory statement about me and Christine:
"While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about ....the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in....... the South West."
Firstly, Christine has no intention whatever of being a candidate in any elections.
Secondly, it is completely untrue that either of us has been 'given top positions on the list in the...South West."
I should be grateful to know why you have chosen to spread false rumours about Christine and me, without either identifying your source or having the courtesy to check the facts with either of us.
As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your e-mail is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations both within and beyond UKIP in its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage.
(1) the source of the 'rumours' to which you refer;
(2) who made the alleged offer of top positions on the SW list and
(3) where, when and by what means such alleged offer was made;
(4) Please also supply me with a list of every recipient of the e-mail containing the false statement of which we complain.
Unless you can answer the above questions to our satisfaction, we require you immediately by e-mail to apologise and retract your false statements about us.
We also require you to send an apology and retraction (in terms to be agreed with me) to all recipents of the offending e-mail. You should also warn them that if they, in turn, repeat your false statements, they would also be exposing themselves to the threat of legal action.
I am copying this e-mail to the Party Chairman and Party Secretary for obvious reasons.
I have received the email ABOVE from Mr. Neil Hamilton which is self-explanatory.
He asks for apology and retraction: Well, the fact is that I heard the rumours I mentioned in my prior email. However I did not refer to the veracity of the rumours as I cannot verify if they are true or not, nor did I intend to portray them as true. I just wanted to point out how they became more credible to me when I learned about the new selection process. Whilst the rumours are in the public domain, I have not found any rebuttal from any of the parties mentioned.
Furthermore Mr. Neil Hamilton establishes a link which I did not certainly raise in my email when he refers to " its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage". I have to say that I was not aware of his or his wife's involvement in the make over of the MEP selection process when I wrote the email to you. I was told NEC members wanting to stand as MEP would not be involved in defining the selection process or any part of it. I now feel I might have been misinformed.
Overall I feel that Neil´s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making in mine. He has not referred at all to the proposed gagging of MEPs in flagrant disregard for the terms of their mandate. Nor has he attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.
Please note his warning to you, the recipients of my email, at the end of his message.
In any case I think it is disgraceful that as an elected representative of the British people I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters and UKIP executive should not tolerate this behaviour....but, in this respect, I only get silence from that corner.
While you will now hear that the procedure I forwarded to you in regards MEP selection is " only a draft" for discussion...to be modified...inaccurate, etc., the fact is that if I had not made you aware the decision would have been taken in the next few days and be presented to all of us as a "fait accompli".
Clearly, with the new party constitution, the decision on who will eventually become a UKIP MEP in 2014 has been left in the hands of the Party Leader, which is very different from saying that it is in the hands of the Party (its members). And there lies the problem.
Marta Andreasen MEP
Standards Committee Recommends 30 Day Suspension for Tory MP Owen Paterson over Consultancy Work - Guido is combing through the long ruling, however the conclusion is clear and unforgiving: *“This is an egregious case of paid advocacy. Previous instanc...
25 minutes ago