junius on ukip

Exposing corruption in Nigel Farage's UKIP

Archive for October, 2010

UKIP: More on Farage’s fascist friends in the EFD

Posted by juniusukip on October 31, 2010

Further evidence has emerged of collusion between far-right racist elements and UKIP’s EFD group in the European Parliament.

The involvement of the BNP in the EFD’s Turkish Assesment Group has raised eyebrows in the UK and Brussels, but now we can see an even clearer picture emerging.

Vlaams Belang, the Slovak National Party, and the Austrian Freedom Party have all been involved in a 2 day conference to discuss Turkish accession to the EU. Also present were the delightfully named convicted racist and fan of Nazi marching songs Morten Messerschmidt (often referred to by Farage as “Harry Heinkel”) and Fiorello Provera of Lega Nord, the particularly vile racist party whose members espouse the idea of racial segregation on public transport. Both are members of Farage’s EFD group.

Nice company you keep, Nigel. Our country fought a war against this scum just 70 years ago.



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: More on The European Alliance & Nikki Sinclaire

Posted by juniusukip on October 30, 2010

We are extremely heartened to note that a large number of UKIPPERS are backing Mr Congdon’s opposition to UKIP’s involvement in a pan-European party. Farage has clearly underestimated the anger felt by even Farage supporters over this betrayal. See: LINK

Tim Congdon is leading the fight to stop UKIP’s betrayal at the hands of the Spiv Master.

Original Message —–
To: undisclosed recipients:
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 7:57 PM

Subject: From Tim Congdon: more on the UK Independence Party and its possible involvement in a pan-European political party

E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 28th October 2010

Dear friends and supporters,

Two supporters have sent me further information about pan-European political parties (or, inevitably, “Europarties”). I am very grateful to

i. Lawrence Webb for some material on the history of the thinking – the highly integrationist thinking – behnd these parties and

ii. Richard Teather for information on the sums of money involved in their funding.

(Lawrence Webb is UKIP’s London Region Organizer and Richard Teather is Senior Lecturer in Tax Law at Bournemouth University.) I have brought their material together in another note, again attached here.

In essence, UKIP in the UK would gain next to nothing from its MEPs converting their current “Europe for Freedom and Democracy” group into one constituent of a larger pan-European party. Some money would become available to the new “Europarty”, but only for the purpose of pan-European political activity. None of it could be used in the UK. In fact, the relevant EU regulation specifically says that the money must not be directed to fund the collecting of signatures in a referendum on, for example, continued EU membership.

In any case, the amount of money involved is trivial relative to the sums routinely mentioned in British political fund-raising. Does the future of UKIP really depend on one million euros handed to its MEP group, with numerous strings attached, by the European Parliament?

Of course I agree with the 2010 Torquay conference motion, that any decision on UKIP involvement with a pan-European political party (and/or foundation) must be put to the party membership as a whole. In any debate on the subject I will be emphatically opposed to UKIP having an association or involvement of any kind with a newly-formed pan-European political party.

You are not only free to circulate this message more widely to other party members. You are positively requested to circulate it widely to as many party members as possible.

With best wishes

Tim Congdon

And some more from Mr Congdon:

The funding of pan-European political parties

The following notes have been sent to me by Mr. Richard Teather, senior lecturer in tax law at Bournemouth University, to whom I am most grateful.

1) Pan-European political parties (or “Europarties”) are meant to be funded “from the general budget of the European Union”, although funds are actually administered by the European Parliament.

2) Europarties are alliances of national political parties. Although theoretically individuals could join a Europarty directly, they generally do not.

3) Europarties overlap with, but are different from, the “groups” within the European Parliament. (Thus, before 1999 the Conservative Party was not a member of the European People’s Party as a Europarty, but it was a member of the EPP Group within the European Parliament.)

4) The party must meet various conditions to be approved as a “Europarty”, the main ones being:

a) it must have political representation (at MEP, MP or regional assembly level) in at least a quarter of EU Member States [i.e., in seven states];

b) it must “observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law”; and

c) it must “have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so”.

5) Funding of 10.6 million euros per year* is available and to be shared between all the recognised Europarties. Some funding (1.6 million euros) goes equally to each recognised Europarty, but the remaining 9 million euros is divided up according to the number of MEPs each Europarty has. It is therefore very valuable for a Europarty to have MEP members. At a rough calculation, each MEP member must be worth almost 15,000 euros p.a. to the Europarty. (* The number relates to 2008 and is probably much higher in 2011.)

6) Restrictions are imposed on what a Europarty can do with its funds. In particular funds can only be used for pan-European campaigns, not for “direct or indirect funding of national political parties or candidates”, and funds cannot be used “to finance referenda campaigns”.

7) Additional funding of 5 million euros (again, the figure relates to 2008) for European “foundations” where “foundations” are think-tanks linked to each Europarty.

8) A Europarty based on the current EFD group (which has 32 members) would get funding of almost 600,000 euros p.a. plus funding of around 250,000 euros for an associated “foundation”.

These notes make sense given what I have heard elsewhere about the funding of pan-European political parties, but raise further questions. In fact, the whole subject is puzzling.

On the face of it, the EFD group would pick up a little under one million euros a year if all its constituent parties – including the UK Independence Party – decided to form a Europarty. Frankly, this is chickenfeed relative to

i. the larger issues raised by the UK’s membership of the European Union and
ii. the sums of money routinely discussed in British political fund-raising.

I am astonished that anyone involved in the leadership of UKIP could want to convert the party into a Europarty for such a trivial amount.

True enough, the basis of allocation between the notional Europarties is such as to encourage “groups” to convert themselves into “Europarties”. The European Union imposes a limit on the total that can be spent on Europarties. In other words, the trough has only a finite amount of swill inside it. If one group in the European Parliament does not convert itself into a Europarty (such as the proposed “European Alliance”), the amount of swill available for the other groups (i.e., those which do convert themselves) is higher than would otherwise be the case. Hence, the two sentences in the Bonici e-mail (which I sent out yesterday), “The European Alliance will help parties dissiminate [sic – she meant ‘disseminate’] information by using European funds available to us, and if we don’t apply the other Parties/Alliances such as the PES, EPP, Greens etc… will have the money which is allocated to us to share between them. Basically it is like giving ammunition to your enemy for free.”

Nevertheless, it remains unclear to me what advantage UKIP would get from belonging to a Europarty such as the proposed “European Alliance”. The 600,000 euros (plus or minus 250,000 euros) could not be used for a specifically British political purpose in this country, but must instead be part of a pan-European political programme of some sort. Since the UK Independence Party is the only significant political force in the European Parliament committed to its nation’s withdrawal from the EU, how could such a pan-European political programme be to UKIP’s benefit?

Interestingly, Europarty money cannot be used for the purposes of promoting referendums. Indeed, this seems to be specifically identified as an unacceptable destination of Europarty money. There is an obvious – indeed hilarious – discrepancy between item 6 in Richard Teather’s notes above, and item 4, with its assertion that the EU “is founded” on “the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law”. Democracy? Oh, yes, the EU is founded on the principle of democracy, until Europe’s peoples vote against further European integration. When any of Europe’s peoples vote that way, the EU and its related “political class” ignores their democratic verdicts. Remember how the EU’s politicians and bureaucrats overrode referendum results in Ireland, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Since any money arising from Europarty status cannot be used to promote UKIP in the UK, I cannot see any purpose in seeking Europarty status. My view is that UKIP should have nothing to do with Europarties.

Tim Congdon
28th October, 2010

And finally …… a little bit more on Bloom’s harrasment of Nikki Sinclaire:

From the EU Chronicle:

In January 2010, British Deputy Nikki Sinclaire resigned from the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group in the European Parliament. She cited the extreme right-wing views of some of the group’s members.

I cannot sit alongside politicians who call for racial segregation on public transport, or for the etthnic cleansing of gays from Italian cities

Nikki Sinclaire, MEP now sitting as a non-attached member.

However, it appears that she has been on the receiving end of some unpleasant behaviour since she decided to stand up to the far-right.

Yesterday, at a press conference, a visibly upset Miss Sinclaire revealed that she has made a formal complaint to the President of the Parliament over homophobic abuse and intimidation that she has been subjected to inside the parliament’s buildings. She named fellow British MEP Godfrey Bloom, of the UK Independence Party, and a member of the EFD group, as being responsible.

Miss Sinclaire’s action illustrates the fact that even at the highest levels, homophobia is still present in the workplace. Although she is openly gay, Miss Sinclaire has always kept her personal life very private, and has never campaigned on gay issues.

However, the courageous stand of one Deputy against right-wing extremism and intimidation in the workplace shines a light on a dirty problem that society still has to fully address.

To see the original: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire on Godfrey Bloom and the EFD

Posted by juniusukip on October 29, 2010

Nikki Sinclaire giving an impromptu press conference after her meeting with President Buzek

Godfrey Bloom gets even more odious by the minute. Now he feels the need to harass and abuse Nikki and her staff.

Taken from Nikki’s blog:

After I was elected to the European Parliament in 2009 I raised serious questions over the composition of the political group – EFD – that my party, UKIP chose to join.

Immediately, I identified extremist behaviour including homophobia from the Italian Co-Presidents of the group, Liga Nord. I since discovered convicted racists, anti-Semitic and further homophobia. I found it incredibly difficult to accept that my colleagues parties called for racial segregation on Italian public transport, that the gas chambers in Auschwitz were nothing more than disinfecting chambers and its former mayor of Treviso called for the “ethnic cleansing of faggots” from his city.

I tried hard to change the situation, but my protests were ignored. I felt obliged, in order to stay true to my beliefs and values, to resign from the EFD group.

As a result of this I had the UKIP whip removed, and I now sit as an independent MEP. A fellow MEP, Mike Nattrass also left the group for the same reasons as myself. He has not had the party whip removed. I will leave you do come to your own conclusions as to why that may be.

I have recently been subjected to harassment and intimidation from a number of sources. This has now spilled over into the Parliament itself, and I have today met with President Buzek, who has very kindly re-arranged his busy schedule to meet with me. He considers this a very serious matter and launched an investigation in respect of my formal complaint I have made against a fellow MEP, Godfrey Bloom.

I have been abused and intimidated by this gentleman, and my staff have had to publically endure verbal abuse attacking me.

There should be no place for harassment, for intimidation, or for homophobic abuse anywhere in our society.

These events have been deeply distressing. I am now publically calling on Mr Bloom to do the honourable thing and apologise.

see also


And to see the original: LINK

For more on Bloom see:

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP’s Tim Congdon on the European Alliance: Farage’s betrayal of UKIP

Posted by juniusukip on October 28, 2010

This email speaks for itself. It is in response to the email first published by Junius on Wednesday. See: LINK

We also note that Godfrey Bloom is now the subject of an official complaint to the EU Parliament after he made offensive comments to Nikki Sinclaire. More on this later.

Date: 27 October 2010 20:26:01 CEST
To: undisclosed recipients: ;

Subject: Tim Congdon on the UK Independence Party and its possible involvement in a pan-European political party

E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 27th October 2010

Dear friends and supporters,

Since the 1950s the project of European integration has been driven by unelected bureaucrats, with the political leaderships (including some elected politicians) acting as figureheads and accomplices. The bureaucrats (I am thinking in particular of the secretariat of the European Commission) are very clever. They have found ways to bribe, often in rather subtle ways, any politicians that get in their way.

Several members of Britain’s Labour Party were opposed to the Common Market in the 1970s and early 1980s, but today luxuriate in the joys of a European Union position (of one kind or another).

Could even the UK Independence Party be bribed in this way? Of course not, you might say. Well, unfortunately it’s a little more complicated. The last few weeks have seen rumours that a new pan-European political party would be formed, with the UK Independence Party (or at any rate UKIP MEPs) being invited to join. I have been hoping that these rumours were untrue. But an e-mail has been sent to UKIP MEPs by a lady called Sharon Bonici and, if I have read it correctly, it is a clear-cut invitation to participate in the development of a pan-European political party. I understand that it has been sent to UKIP MEPs. Indeed, the e-mail says that Mr. Godfrey Bloom has “confirmed” that he does wish to participate in the new pan-European political party, to be known as “the European Alliance”. (The Bonici e-mail – with some prefatory notes by me – is attached, in both Word and PDF formats.)

I stand open to correction (and would in fact like to be wrong), but my interpretation of the Bonici e-mail is that extra money will be made available to the MEPs of national parties – not necessarily to their salaries, of course – who decide to belong to the European Alliance. Perhaps Ms. Bonici – to whom I suppose this e-mail will be forwarded – might like to repudiate that suggestion, if it is untrue.

For myself, I would like to reiterate what I have said throughout the 2010 election campaign for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, that

1. I do not want to be a MEP,
2. I intend to finance from my own resources (up to £100,000 a year) a London-based office which is to concentrate on the organization of UKIP political campaigning in the UK, and
3. The centre of gravity of the UK Independence Party must be in the UK.

At the Torquay party conference in September I supported the motion, proposed by Steph McWilliam, that the party membership must be consuulted on the question of UKIP’s involvement in a pan-European political party. As is well-known in party circles, Nigel Farage opposed the motion. The motion was in fact carried overwhelmingly. In my view, the party membership must be consulted on a possible development of this kind, which is basic to the purpose and definition of the UK Independence Party, and even in fact to its very name.

Gerard Batten MEP has sent me an e-mail to say that he will respect and abide by the Torquay conference motion.

I hope that all three other candidates in the current leadership election will confirm that they will abide by the Torquay conference vote on this subject and, more generally, will respect the principle of party democracy.

Memo on an e-mail from Sharon Bonici to interested individuals (including UKIP MEPs) about a new pan-European party, to be called “the European Alliance I have highlighted key passages of the e-mail in red. Note that the e-mail refers to:

1. The proposed new party, to be called “the European Alliance”, without clarifying whether – for example – existing Eurosceptic parties, such as the UK Independence Party, are to keep their present names in future elections.

2. The alleged urgency of making a decision about participation in such a pan-European party. (To whom and what are the “paper work” to be handed in? The question is basic.)

3. “European funds” being made “available to us”. (From whom are such funds coming? The European Parliament? Assume that the funds come from the European Parliament. Then – in the event that UKIP MEPs were to participate in “the European Alliance” – their activities would be funded by the European Parliament, an institution avowedly central to the project of European integration.)

4. The possibility of the “consent” of party members, the meaning of which is (to me at least) unclear, but may intended as a fig-leaf to pacify those UKIP members who at the 2010 Torquay party conference voted overwhelmingly that the issue of pan-European parties must be decided by the party membership.

5. Godfrey Bloom, as already confirming his wish to participate in the European Alliance project. (Mr. Bloom is said to be “EFD”, not “UKIP”. EFD stands, of course, for “Europe of Freedom and Democracy”, the existing pan-European grouping to which a majority of UKIP MEPs are attached.)

6. A closing line, in which the European Parliament is acknowledged as having the power “to approve the new Alliance”. This is – almost certainly – the power to approve the Alliance, meaning the power to approve the Alliance in order to establish the Alliance’s eligibility for various monies from the European Parliament because it meets certain criteria of pan-European-ness. (These notes prepared by Tim Congdon on 27th October, 2010.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Pan-European UKIP: The European Alliance

Posted by juniusukip on October 27, 2010

A VERY interesting email has just dropped into our laps. Proof positive that Farage is planning to betray every single UKIPPER and the core values that were once at the heart of UKIP.

Don’t forget that at the last UKIP conference members supported Trevor Colman and Tim Congdon’s motion that any decision to join a Pan-European group MUST be put to the membership of UKIP. Farage and the NEC have ignored the members once again! They hold you in total and utter contempt! See: LINK

From: European Alliance For Freedom [mailto:europeanallianceforfreedom@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 October 2010 12:57
To: xxxxxxx
Subject: European Alliance For Freedom

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx,

We are currently setting up a new European Alliance and most members I spoke to who are joining or joined would really like to see you on board. I would like to set up a meeting with you to discuss and hope to get your interest in being part of this new poject. I will be in parliament today Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week and would appreciate if we can meet up at your convenience. We need to hand in all the paper work and signautres by the end of the week, so this is a bit urgent.

The Alliance will serve to build campaigns across Europe to promote various causes; For example one of the first campaings we can engage ourselves in is to generate 1 million signatures to be able to instigate a pan wide European referendum on Turkey. The idea is to use the million signature clause according to the Lisbon Treaty.

We can build a multilingual website for people to sign up and advertise it in every member state. This will automatically gives us a huge database of Eurosceptics and people across Europe with the same ideology. In time we need to campaign again on another issue we can engage these people on various campaigns and keep the Commission on their toes.

We will print research publication in various languages.

The Alliance will help parties dissiminate information by using European funds available to us, and if we don’t apply the other Parties/Alliances such as the PES, EPP, Greens etc… will have the money which is allocated to us to share between them. Basically it is like giving ammunition to your enemy for free.

The Alliance can finance various campaigns in your country if you are members with billboards, TV adverts,newspaper adverts,leaflets etc…or any other campaigns you decide you want to do in your country.

The Alliance will not get involved politically in any country without the consent of its members.

You can join as a Party or as individual members of the European Parliament. We would like to have you as our Danish representitives on board and our aim is to have representation in every European country including those that are not EU members such as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. We also hope that in the next European Elections we can become a strong voice in the European Parliament in 2014

So far we have the following confirmed –

1.Godfrey Bloom MEP – UK (UK- EFD)

2.Sweden Democrats – Sweden 20 MP’s in the national parliament

3.BIW – Germany – 1 member in the regional parliament

4.Frank Van Hecke MEP- Belgium
Philip Claeys MEP

5. Paksas Rolandas MEP (EFD)
Imbraras Juozas MEP

Still to confirm or be confirmed –

6. PVV – Nederlands

7.Provero Fiorello MEP – (Italy -EFD)

8.Paska Jaroslav MEP- (Slovakia -EFD)

9.Fiorello Provera MEP -(Italy -EFD)

We do have other parties and members who are interested but at the moment we would like to take it step by step until we apply and everything is set with like minded people.

I thank you for your time and attention, should you wish for more info do not hesitiate to contact me by email or on Mobile: xxxxxxxxxx.

Hope to receive a positive reply and to have you on board this new venture.

Attached please find a copy of the statute and an application form. For the moment everything is provisional and subject to change in the first congress if we are approved by parliament as a new Alliance.

Best Regards,
Sharon Ellul Bonici

Please note that Ms Bonici works for Godfrey Bloom.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire on Radio 5 Live

Posted by juniusukip on October 26, 2010

Good to see Nikki doing the job that she was elected to do! She has done more for the Euro-realist cause in one year than Farage has done in 10 years as an MEP!

We note with amusement that the UKIP Members Only Forum has banned any discussion of the Mike Nattrass email. They have also denied Douglas Denny – an NEC member – the right to criticise Nigel on that hallowed site. So much for democracy and freedom of speech. But we can all guess who is behind this misuse of a party forum for personal gain. Hello Nigel!

Thanks for confirming what Mike Nattrass said – Farage is a control freak who can’t stand ANY criticism.

Douglas Denny had to resort to posting on the British Democracy Forum in order to air his views:

“It all adds up to Nigel being divisive not ameliorative – which is one of the main reasons I have spoken out against his being leader. He carries too much negative baggage into the leadership contest and that is the penalty for being top dog for a long time – too long – you make enemies and they accumulate until there is a crisis or tipping point which destabilises you. It happens to all top politicians… look at Margaret Thatcher for example. If he wins (which I am fairly sure he will) it is not going to be an easy ride for him to keep the party together I suspect.”


Not that we have ANY sympathy for Denny. He has been part of the problem for years. His sudden conversion to the light is far from impressive. He had no problem backing Farage in the past. Where was he when NEC members such as Dr Edmond, Del Young and Dr Abbott tried to raise concerns about the widespread corruption in the party? He chose to remain silent or else resorted to attacking them on a public forum as trouble makers.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

UKIP: Mike Nattrass on Nigel Farage

Posted by juniusukip on October 25, 2010

The following email/letter is a truly devastating attack/exposé from someone who has known and worked with Farage for years. Do you still think that Farage should be re-elected UKIP leader? Then read on…..

From: mike nattrass
Sent: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:21
Subject: FW: Nigel an appraisal

Dear All,

It may be too late but after all these years I can no longer stay silent.

In the previous Leadership Election I, together with all candidates EXCEPT LORD PEARSON were rubbished by Nigel Farage on TV and elsewhere. This ensured the election of Nigel’s puppet Lord Pearson and allowed Nigel to continue to be the face of the party. That is Nigel’s view of the election rules and I think it is only fair and high time that his methods were exposed, USING HIS OWN RULES.

Nigel already Leads the parliamentary Group and when he is also elected Leader this will amount to total control. Increasingly I am hearing the word “Spiv” used to describe him, from people who are not members but see his image. I am concerned that the UKIP party brand will be tarnished, even holed below the water line, by his monopoly of power.

Whilst Nigel is a very good speaker, he is also a control freak. He grabs all UKIP publicity to the detriment of any other UKIP spokesperson or MEP. He employs assistants with the MEP’s budgets without allowing those MEPs any say. This, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs demanded a chance to interview those who were being employed with their money. Nigel agreed, then totally ignored that promise. Consequently he has his own “group funded” team around him and all “hiring” takes place via his close friend Godfrey Bloom MEP (this person is said to be banned by 4 hotels for urinating in the corridors)

Nigel’s lack of experience in good staff management and his refusal to allow MEP consultation is complimented by the morals of an Alley Cat (and I will not go there). I have always said that this does not matter, because so long as we are all in the trench together with guns pointing at the enemy all are welcome. But he shot Nikki Sinclaire in the back when she became an MEP, for no Party reason, while she was giving all the effort she could give. She was expelled as a UKIP MEP for pointing out the Group facts. He does not like truth or competition.

I have put a lot of money, time and energy into promoting UKIP in the West Midlands and I watched it wrecked at the General Election by Nigel’s chosen people (Lords Pearson and Monckton) who appeared from nowhere and failed to understand our basic strategy or even comprehend from where our votes are derived. Worse, Nikki, who has vast energy at election time, was stopped from being a UKIP MEP by Nigel and has not been given a chance to defend herself or to state her case (legal matters are pending). She and I were told by Lord Pearson not to get involved in the election and not to fund the campaign. In fact you will see that we both made considerable financial contributions but our campaign was deeply damaged. Also the subsequent enquiry into the campaign, requested by the WM candidates, was “dealt with” by Monckton (who thought I was behind it) and because of this we have had resignations from very keen activists.

All this West Midlands destruction because Nigel hates Nikki and wants to rubbish me!! Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party…next to nothing.

I found allegations of fraud were brought against me when I stood for Leadership. These were in the Sunday Times. They melted away afterwards and had no foundation in truth, but they did the job intended.(My legal case against the Times is pending) Nigel has had a number of very real cases against him.. funny how that word does not get out.

My first major annoyance with Nigel’s manipulations stem from the time when I was first elected in 2004 and all UKIP MEPs had a meeting to agree three very basic points. One was that we could not employ wives (other Parties did) and this was agreed. In fact my wife comes to each Parliament and does not get paid (not even travel expenses) and I said that she wanted to contribute any proper payment to the Party, but no, rules were rules and she could be paid nothing. It was then later exposed that Nigel’s wife was being secretly paid out of his budget, breaking this rule. He did not seek any permission (to change his own rule) from the MEPs. He was simply “caught out” with both hands in the till. I fear that the whole Parliamentary Group in the EU is run for Nigel’s financial and public image. I left that ugly group.

Nigel has derailed every leader since the very first, except peacemaker Jeffery Titford (under whom I was Party Chairman). He is therefore hated by them all (except JT). plus never to be leader Kilroy Silk who must feel that Nigel gave him a wrong prospectus.

I expect that Nigel will be elected leader as no one else is effectively allowed to stand without a spin campaign against them. I can see less MEPs in the UKIP squad when he does win.

There is a false attack on Tim Congdon from Boggers 4 UKIP, this must mean he is a real threat! Good.



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: Listen to Tim Congdon’s Tele-Conference

Posted by juniusukip on October 24, 2010

Listen to Gerard and Tim’s tele-conference

To: undisclosed recipients:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:31 PM

Subject: UKIP tele-conference recording: Tim Congdon and Gerard Batten reply to questions from party members

E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 14th October 2010

Dear friends and supporters,

This is to let you know that you can now listen to the audio recording of Monday evening’s tele-conference, in which Gerard Batten and I answered a variety of questions from the party membership.

The recording has not been edited in any way. I do not believe in “spin”!

The audio file is attached.

If the Congdon/Batten leadership bid is successful, we propose to make these tele-conferences a regular feature. We regard it as of the first importance that party members can make their concerns known to the party leadership; we are committed to establishing clear channels of communication between members and the leadership.

You are not only free to circulate this message more widely to other party members. You are positively requested to circulate it widely to as many party members as possible.

With best wishes

Tim Congdon

To listen to the conference click on Congdon’s campaign website. You will find the tele-conference tab on the top right of the page LINK

More hypocrisy from Farage

In the Sunday Express Farage was given the chance to complain about the EU pouring money into a new space research programme.

“Will the first EU space rocket have gold-plated taps and marble flooring? It seems our eurocrats have finally got off the Brussels gravy train and boarded Starship Excess.” LINK

Talk about pot calling the kettle black! This is the man who claimed £2 million in expenses and has consistently refused to say where the money went. This is the man who still refuses to publish a full audit of his MEP accounts despite promising to do so when first elected as an MEP. This is the man whose wife is funded by the EU to the tune of £30,000 a year. Need we go on?

For more on Farage’s hypocrisy see: LINK & LINK

For an interesting take on this story see: LINK

Never a truer word spoken!

Interesting thread on the British Democracy Forum devoted to why Farage craves the leadership so much. We couldn’t resist these two quotes!

Originally Posted by charlie endell

Why does Nige£ crave the leadership so much? Answer: ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££3

Why does Nigel want to sell out the UKIP membership by taking us into a pan-european political party? Answer: ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ £££££££££££££££££££££££

The man is a disgrace to his country


1.Well as an outsider to the party I think the reason NF wants to be leader is a combination of the following.

1) He only gave it up so as not to be associated with a General Election failure

2) He only gave it up because he engineered his proxy leader Pearson into position to take the flak for the failed election policy of being Tory Lite

3) He wants to gain control again because if someone not of his choosing becomes leader he may get marginalised and removed from control of the NEC

4) (My favourite) Because he is going to form a pan European party

The Pan European Party Leader Farage then becomes a more powerful media figure without the need to expend energy on boring local stuff.

Notice Farage very rarely has anything to say on purely domestic issues. He made a one line response to the financial situation ( and part of what he said was factually incorrect on taxes) about the only issue he has said anything non EU on is Burhkas and he really only got involved in that debate because of the EU angle .

The UKIP response from their media spokesman on the CSR has been er…er….er non existent. although of course he mentioned the EU budget increase ( rightly) but that’s it.

To see the originals: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Another UKIP Round-up

Posted by juniusukip on October 23, 2010

Tim Congdon videos. All are taken from the West Midlands Hustings.

Poor old Derek.

Derek Clark’s rapid physical and mental decline continues…….

Interpreters forget to cut mikes, slag off British MEP

(AFP) – 3 days ago

STRASBOURG — In one of those inimitably embarrassing moments, interpreters who forgot to switch off their mikes in the European parliament were heard loudly complaining Tuesday about a British MEP’s dentures.

“I can’t hear him!”, “Hes got a problem with his denture”, the pair of English-to-French interpreters said.

Heard by anyone listening in to the French translation of parliamentary debate Tuesday, the incident lasted only a few minutes but remained on the parliament’s website through the day.

The two interpreters overheard were worrying over 77-year-old Eurosceptic British member of the European Parliament, Roland Clark.

“That was Clark, wasn’t it, that Briton…” laughed one of the two interpreters before going on to say the MEP rarely turned up for party meetings.

“I couldn’t hear him…”, “he was mumbling”, “he’s got something in his mouth”, “he’s got a problem with his denture,” they went on.

The parliament, which works in 23 languages, employs some 430 interpreters full time, with an extra 2,500 used occasionally.

To view the original: LINK

Stuart Agnew reveals Farage’s true agenda

On his website, Stuart Agnew heaps praise upon Farage in support of his leadership bid. It is full of what one might expect, but it also contains this little gem:

“The decision on whether UKIP should join a Pan European political party is one that we have the option of taking each November. The pragmatic view is that in doing so we will obtain an extra slice of the ‘ funding cake’ for these parties, thereby reducing the amount of cake available to the others. We will also be able to fund and establish a “think tank” to counter the propaganda relentlessly emanating from the EU. The purist argument is to have nothing to do with this as it involves engaging with EU institutions.” See: LINK

“an extra slice of the funding cake”

So that is what it is really all about then, is it Agnew? And how is the OLAF investigation going? Readers will recall that Agnew was caught on camera admitting the both he and Bannerman were illegally paying Peter Reeve out of their EU allowances. See: LINK

As Trevor Colman pointed out in a recent letter to the membership, in order to sign up to one of these parties, UKIP will have to accept the primacy of the EU, and adopt its “founding principles”

Reg. 2004/2003 para (1)

‘political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration’.

Reg. 2004/2003 article 2(4)

‘political Foundations at European level complement the objectives of the political partiesat European level by observing, analysing and contributing to the debate on Europeanissues and on the process of European integration’.

Reg. 1524/2007 para 3

‘Political foundations at European level affiliated with the political parties at European level may through their activities support and underpin the objectives…notably in terms of contributing to the debate on European public policy issues and on European integration.’

Regulation 2004/2003 para 4

‘It is necessary for political parties at European level to observe the principles on which the European Union is founded as set out in the Treaties and recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.


Nigel flying high

Amusing article from the Brussels Jungle:

A couple of minutes before the prank

As the European Parliament prepared to vote for the Maternity Vote measures, several MEPs brought in ballons as a symbolic message. It seems however that after President Buzek asked them to put away the balloons, one of them (not yet identified), attached the helium filled devices to the chair of the UKIP leader in the EP, making them lift into mid-air during the rest of the session, with substantial shouts of protest from his UKIP colleagues (and it seems some cheers from other MEPs). Let’s say that for once he was able to attain higher spheres in terms of EU discussions.

To see the original: LINK

And finally …. the Junius Twat of the Week. There really is just no hope for some journalists.

Nigel Farage deserves better than Ukip

By Kevin Maguire 20/10/2010

I don’t want the swiveleyed, Ukip anti-Europe party to prosper. I hope the foam-frothers disappear down the Channel Tunnel.

But even an ill-wisher like me can see Ukip would be stupid not to elect Nigel Farage as leader a second time.

He’s articulate, entertaining and a frighteningly plausible frontman so I hope they don’t.

Farage deserves better than Ukip. Let’s hope Ukip doesn’t appreciate Farage.

To see the original: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by juniusukip on October 22, 2010

Former CEO of Lord Pearson’s PWS insurance, pleaded guilty to funnelling payments of £1.2m to officials in Costa Rica

From The Guardian:

The former chief executive of a City firm founded and chaired by former Ukip leader Lord Pearson today admitted paying “very substantial bribes” to win contracts overseas.

The 50-year-old chief executive, Julian Messent, pleaded guilty to funnelling corrupt payments of £1.2m to three officials in Costa Rica, although he claimed other senior managers at the firm knew about the bribes.

Messent had run the PWS insurance firm from which Lord Pearson, who stepped down as Ukip leader in September, made his fortune.

Hodge Malek, QC for the Serious Fraud Office, told Southwark crown court in London that the “very substantial” bribes were paid in 41 instalments between 1999 and 2002.

The covert payments were routed through bank accounts in the names of the wives of two of the Costa Rican officials and through accounts in Panama and the US, and a travel agency in Florida.

David Perry, Messent’s QC, said he had not concealed the illicit payments from other PWS staff.

He added that the details were known to the heads of the finance department and the compliance unit, the internal watchdog responsible for monitoring the conduct of staff.

He said it was clear that “the corruption could not have been conducted by Messent alone”.

He also claimed that arrangements for the corrupt payments had been “inherited” by Messent when he became head of the firm’s Latin America department in 1996.

Messent was appointed the firm’s chief executive in 2003 and resigned three years later after investigations into the payments began.

Lord Pearson was chairman of the company when the corrupt payments were made. The peer was not suspected of any wrongdoing by the SFO. Last year, he told the Guardian that he knew “absolutely nothing about the alleged payments”.

Malek told Judge Geoffrey Rivlin that the exposure of the bribery was “one of the factors” in the firm going into administration in 2008. He said that the SFO had decided not to prosecute PWS because the firm, which has been sold, had a “substantial deficit” in its pension fund. The only penalty the firm would have faced was a fine, and the SFO decided that any fine would only have been paid out of the pensions of the staff.

He added that the SFO believed that Messent, of Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, was the “directing” mind behind the corruption. He said the three Costa Rican officials “were in an ideal position” to select which firm would get the contracts.

Messent is due to be sentenced on Tuesday. It is the latest prosecution by the SFO, which is struggling to crack down on foreign bribery and rid Britain of its reputation for being lax over this kind of offence.

Margaret Thatcher made Pearson, an old Etonian, a peer in the 1980s. He and two others founded PWS when he was 22.

To see the original: LINK

Nigel Farage & Jill Seymour

So Farage does have a sense of humour! How we laughed when we heard the news!

Farage told some UKIPPERS at the West Midlands hustings that Jill Seymour would make a good UKIP Party Secretary!

Ms Seymour is a former barmaid who had the good luck to marry a very rich customer. She is best known for being bloody useless on the NEC. Her husband financed the disasterous HMS Belfast UKIP fund raising event.

She did work for Nikki Sinclaire but her inability to write even a single coherent sentence forced the West Midlands MEP to let her go.

Ms Seymour is sadly infatuated with and by Nigel. Nigel regards her as a good nodding donkey.

We sincerely hope that Farage’s suggestion was in fact a joke or just a ‘sop’ to buy leadership votes in the West Midlands!

And yet more dire election results

UKIP’s vote continues to collapse.

Chiltern District – Ashley Green, Latimer and Chenies: C 399, Lib Dem 92, Lab 47, Ukip 11. (May 2007 – C 501, Lib Dem 113, Lab 52). C hold. Swing 1.1% C to Lib Dem.

Chiltern District – Great Missenden: C 306, Lib Dem 281, Ukip 90. (May 2007 – C 536, Lib Dem 214). C hold. Swing 19.6% C to Lib Dem.

Hampshire County – Andover South: C 1183, Lib Dem 1111, Lab 245, Ukip 233. (May 2009 – C 2102, Lib Dem 961, Ukip 916, Lab 303). C hold. Swing 12% C to Lib Dem.

Junius says: 233 votes sounds good until you realise that UKIP’s vote has collapsed since 2009. In 2009, they got 916 votes.

Medway Borough – River: Lab 695, C 631, Lib Dem 92, Ukip 42, Green 36, English Democrats 31. (May 2007 – Two seats Lab 791, C 770, Lab 712, C 660, Lib Dem 161, Ukip 131, Lib Dem 127, Medway Ind Party 119; August 12 2010 by-election – C 617, Lab 544, Lib Dem 104, Green 45, BNP 39, English Democrats 33). Lab gain from C. Swing 1.1% C to Lab.

Mole Valley District – Capel, Leigh and Newdigate: Lib Dem 618, C 558, Ukip 97, Green 61. (May 2010 – C 1193, Lib Dem 1034, Ukip 169, Green 112). Lib Dem gain from C. Swing 5.4% C to Lib Dem.

Oxford City – Barton and Sandhills: Lab 837, Lib Dem 334, Green 119, C 86, Ukip 48, Ind 42. (May 2010 – Lab 1239, Lib Dem 815, C 661, Green 188). Lab gain from Lib Dem. Swing 9.8% Lib Dem to Lab.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »