junius on ukip

Exposing corruption in Nigel Farage's UKIP

Archive for November, 2010

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire featured in Parliament.Com

Posted by juniusukip on November 20, 2010


Nikki’s legal action against UKIP gets more publicity:

An investigation has been launched after UK deputy Nikki Sinclaire was allegedly verbally abused by a former colleague in parliament.

Sinclaire says that former Ukip colleague Godfrey Bloom called her a “queer” during last month’s Strasbourg session.

She says she was so “shocked” by the comment that it took her two days to lodge a formal complaint.

The investigation is being overseen by parliament’s president Jerzy Buzek.

Sinclaire said, “I have spoken to the president and he has assured me that this will not happen again.”

Meanwhile, Sinclaire has announced she is taking legal action against Ukip for alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation.

She is taking the party to an employment tribunal after she was expelled from Ukip for refusing to be part of the multi-national group it has joined in parliament.

Sinclaire had said some of Ukip’s allies in Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) had “extreme views”.

The West Midlands deputy had refused to sit with her own party members in parliamentary meetings for weeks.

Sinclaire cited the breakdown of her relationship with Ukip leader Nigel Farage and the “extreme views” of some of Ukip’s political allies.

While she did not want to quit the party Ukip’s national executive committee removed the whip from her.

Sinclaire is angry because she says another former Ukip member, Mike Nattrass, left the party at about the same time, citing similar concerns but that no action was taken against him.

She told this website, “I can only deduce that action was taken against me, such as withdrawing the whip, because I am a lesbian.”

She now sits, along with Nattrass, as a non-attached member in parliament and claims the disciplinary action has jeopardised her future career prospects.

Bloom, one of the party’s most senior members, was not immediately available for comment.

To see the original: LINK

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

UKIP to feature in the Northern Press

Posted by juniusukip on November 19, 2010

UKIP can expect some bad publicity in the press. We understand that the Northern Echo is to run with Alan Hardy’s court victory against UKIP. See: LINK



Here is UKIP’s response to their defeat:

“UKIP acknowledges the judgement, but are very unhappy with it, and will be reviewing our position carefully.

UKIP is a tolerant, inclusive and non-sectarian organisation and it is important to our members that those values are maintained.”

Oh, really?

So why do UKIP MEPs sit with fascists in the EFD?

So why is Nikki Sinclaire taking them to court over homophobia and her unlawful ban from standing as a UKIP candidate, etc, etc, etc?

So why did Lord Pearson lie about Nikki not having the support of the West Midlands Committee?

So why were Eric Edmond and David Abbott expelled from the NEC for trying to raise concerns about corruption in the party?

So why was John West expelled from the party for trying raise concerns about the same thing?

So why was Del Young kicked out of UKIP after the odious Nuttall claimed that he was a member of UK First? He wasn’t.

So why is Farage happy to have Herman Kelly – a republican sympathiser – working for the EFD?

The list is endless. What hypocrites. Indeed, hypocrisy should be Farage’s middle name!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Hardy V Parkin & UKIP: The Full Court Judgement

Posted by juniusukip on November 18, 2010

Why does Farage still think that UKIP is above the law?

John West beat them in court. Greg Lance-Watkins beat them in court. They were fined for accepting illegal donations from Alan Bown. They treat Nikki Sinclaire like dirt and then seem surprised when she refuses to let them get away with it.
We applaud Mr Hardy’s victory against UKIP. It is interesting to note that Farage and the NEC had no problem with the fact that Mr Hardy was ex-BNP.

From the Judgement:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.


So Farage hates the BNP? We think not. After all, he is more than happy to sit with fascists in the EFD!

Would you trust Farage’s UKIP to run the country when they can’t even respect the laws of the land? Indeed, they have nothing but contempt for the laws of the land!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MIDDLESBROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY

CASE NOS. 9MB03865
AND 0MB00631

BETWEEN

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

GORDON H. PARKIN (DEFENDANT)

……….

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

JUDGMENT

1. This is a consolidated action for damages and for a declaration that the Claimant’s purported expulsion from membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party is null and void.

2. As I shall explain, the narrative of the matter of complaint covers two episodes; hence two actions until they were consolidated by Order. The first episode concerns the actions of Mr Gordon Parkin who at all material times was, as he remains, Branch Chairman of the Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP as I shall call the Party; the second episode concerns the actions by officers of the Party in their central organisation. Because the Claimant has at no time been represented by solicitor or counsel and because the point emerged only in the course of the Defendants’ counsel’s closing submissions I allow the Claimant to add as a defendant in the consolidated action Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP. The reason for and significance of this will become apparent.

3. Essentially this is a hard fought political dispute in Stockton on Tees between Mr Hardy, supported by others some of whom have given evidence before me, and Mr Parkin the constitutionally elected Branch Chairman, no doubt with his supporters and apparently backed by the central organisation. In a nutshell Mr Hardy accuses Mr Parkin of being incompetent; dishonest and self seeking in his political ambitions so that the interests of UKIP are thereby ill served. Mr Parkin denies all this but accuses Mr Hardy of being so disruptive a member that it was impossible for the business of the branch to be done, as well as dishonesty in his attempts to unseat Mr Parkin from his position. Thankfully none of these matters is the concern of this Court which is able to determine the legal issues between the parties on a factual basis virtually of common ground, by which I mean an undisputed history of events and correspondence. I would add however, before turning to such uncontroversial territory, that having seen and heard Mr Hardy as his own advocate in these proceedings as well as a witness, and Mr Parkin as a witness, and given that the dispute between the two men is political, a subject invariably both powerful and sensitive in its nature, it is not difficult to see how temperamentally they could never work together in harmony. Mr Hardy is forceful of manner and frequently irrelevant in speech: Mr Parkin is quietly dogged and determined.

4. The following is, however, not in dispute and page numbering is with reference to the agreed trial bundle. For some time until he resigned in June 2005 Mr Hardy had been a member of the British National Party (BNP). In February 2007 his application to join UKIP was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton branch and was quickly active as such becoming its Press Officer as well as putting himself forward as a potential parliamentary candidate. Although unsuccessful in this latter ambition(Section 2 page 29) he received the commendation of UKIP’s head office in the former (Section 2, page 35). The significance of this factually is the actual knowledge which head office officials had of Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP, as also had Mr Nigel Farage MEP as may be seen from his correspondence with Mr Hardy(Section 2, page 26).

5. The date for membership renewal on payment of the appropriate subscription was 1st February each year. Mr Hardy’s membership was renewed in 2008 and 2009. Yet by this latter date all was not well within the Stockton branch. Indeed trouble had been brewing for some time. As early as 8th November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as Press Officer and by letter of that date (Section 1, page 26.43) wrote to Mr Parkin that he would not serve “the branch in any post so long as you remain as chairman”. At some time during the winter of 2008/2009 a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house or sufficiently on the Roseworth housing estate so that Mr Hardy and his supporter Mr Himmelblau conducted a partial enquiry door to door which in turn Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross accusations of lying.

6. On 8th January 2009 as Mr Himmelblau told me, and I accept, he and Mr Hardy met Mr Parkin by arrangement at the Central Library, Stockton and on grounds of incompetence and the fact that the membership was not increasing in size from a handful or so they asked Mr Parkin to stand down as branch chairman. He refused.

7. Branch meetings were approximately monthly. That for January 2009 was minuted (Section 1 page. 26.3) and held on 20th. That for February 2009 was held on 17th and as it was not minuted there is no record of the minutes for January being approved. There is only the notation (Section 1, page 26.7), “Minutes verified by GP before issue”. GP plainly refers to Mr Parkin and his perspective of that meeting and Mr Hardy’s part in it is clear. Worse was to follow because on 17th February the caretaker of the hall hired for the meeting of that date broke the meeting up and asked everyone present to leave the building on account of raised voices. Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin had each called the other a liar. The row was of such proportion that the building’s owners did not permit the Branch to return for a period of months.

8. On 10th March Mr Parkin wrote to all branch members (Section 1, page 26.20) that “Due to high campaign activity and the loss of our meeting venue we have decided that there will be no branch meeting this month……….. . Matters that were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as is practical”. Mr Parkin told me that “ we “ meant “I”.

9. From 29th March to 26th June Mr Hardy was in Saudi Arabia, teaching. Meanwhile, Mr Parkin having consulted a Mr Allison, UKIP’s regional organiser who had in turn passed the problem to Head Office, the Party Chairman Mr Paul Nuttall wrote to Mr Hardy on 30th March (Section 1, page 26.33) inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14th April. Naturally Mr Hardy did not and could not either receive that letter in time or attend the meeting. Yet from his reply (Section 1, page 80A) it seems very doubtful that he would have gone if he could. Of significance however, in my view is the reply Mr Hardy received from Head Office (Section 2 page 33), “I have decided that this office had better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you”.

10. Upon his return from Saudi Arabia and on 4th July Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr. Goyns (Section 1, page 26.56) asking him to telephone him. On 8th July Dr Goyns replied (Section 1, page 26.57) that on Mr Parkin’s advice, “it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you”. On 24th August Mr Hardy was writing to Mr Parkin (Section 1, page 26.18). On 11th September Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy (Section 1, page 79), “I feel it is time I must set this matter to rest…..I have decided on the following actions …. you will no longer be permitted to attend any branch meeting of which I am Chairman”. His reasons were that Mr Hardy had brought the January and February “meetings into disrepute”, that at the February meeting his “actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return “, that he and his “colleagues decided to withdraw your support from UKIP in January of this year at both local and national levels” and that in his, Mr Parkin’s, opinion that was disloyal. He concluded, “I strongly recommend that you withdraw from the membership of the party forthwith…… . I have advised the branch secretary not to enter into any further communications with you…… . Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through head office”. When he wrote this letter Mr Parkin told me he was aware that Mr Hardy had by then returned from Saudi Arabia. From the e-mails between Mr Hardy and Dr. Goyns it seems to me that Mr Parkin must have known that from early July.

11. There the matter lay until membership renewal time came round. Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office as was usual. He wrote on 30th January 2010 and 11th February (Section 2, pages 7 and 8) sending his subscription. On 19th February Lisa Duffy, Party Director, replied (Section 2 page 16) that when Mr Hardy left the BNP “to rejoin UKIP the National Executive Committee was not informed – as it should have been – and it was therefore unable to consider your re-application. This was an administrative error …… . In the circumstances I feel that before your membership is renewed the NEC must be given a proper opportunity to fully consider the matter. I am therefore referring this to the next meeting of the NEC and in the meantime am returning your £10 membership renewal cheque”. On 23rd March Mrs Duffy wrote again (Section 2 page 17) that the NEC had considered the matter and “would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”.

12. This is at serious variance with the content of a memorandum dated 8th September (Section 2, page 54) from Mr Arnott, UKIP General Secretary, addressed “to whom it may concern”. Its first paragraph plainly refers to Mrs Duffy’s letter of 23rd March. It has not been suggested it refers to any other. Her letter makes no mention of internal disciplinary proceedings being commenced immediately upon Mr Hardy accepting her invitation to re-apply and I have received no evidence that he was so informed. The second paragraph about there being 3 months grace for renewal and that thereafter “Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application” appears again without there having been evidence of any general notice of such a rule or specific notice of it to Mr Hardy. It is to be noted this document is dated only weeks before this hearing. The third paragraph needs citing in full: “It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds”. Mrs Duffy, whose evidence I find to be honest and accurate, tells me that the position is as follows. In November 2009 when she was a member of the NEC, which was until she assumed her present full time post as Party Director, that body made a policy decision that henceforth applications to join UKIP from people who had been members of the BNP should be referred “to the NEC for approval”. This was because there had been “infiltration” from a date in 2008. I infer she meant deliberate infiltration as fifth columnists in order to disrupt the work or besmirch the reputation of UKIP. This would be consistent with her letters to Mr Hardy in March the contents of which she tells me, and I accept, are true.

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage. There has, moreover been not the slightest suggestion made during this hearing that Mr Hardy has turned his political coat once again. I have no choice therefore but to hold Mr Arnott’s memorandum as a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds.

13. Moreover Mrs Duffy tells me, and I accept, that her second letter to Mr Hardy was badly worded and the meaning ordinarily to be attributed to her words does not reflect the true position which was not that Mr Hardy would need to re-apply for membership but that if he would send her back the cheque she wrongly returned to him his membership would continue seamlessly. I take it she now realises her words conveyed a different and adverse impression. Clearly they did in the mind of Mr Hardy and understandably so in the context of what had already passed. It was hardly to be relieved by Mr Arnott’s general communication.

14. Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of branch and party. Was either entitled in law so to do?

15. Although no reference was made to either document during the evidence, during his final submissions Mr Holland, counsel for both Mr Parkin and UKIP, and upon taking instructions, also for the Stockton Branch sought to rely upon UKIP’s written constitution and the Branch’s rules to be found at Section1 pages 66 and 71 respectively in the agreed bundle. No point was taken regarding this by Mr Hardy nor do I think could there be. The following points of fact emerge:

(1) That the party is authorised to raise funds, purchase property and invest monies (clause 3) – it is therefore in law a proprietary club;

(2) that membership is open to people who are not members of any other political party which the NEC has declared incompatible with membership of UKIP (clause 4.1), that if such a member of UKIP subsequently joins such a party his membership is automatically revoked (clause 4.2), that if a UKIP member is a member of such a party such a person will be given 28 days to leave that other party (clause 4.3), that members must maintain their subscriptions (clause 4.4.), that members shall accept the party’s Constitution and rules and do nothing to undermine the party’s reputation or bring it into disrepute, or act in a way intending to cause or causing damage to the party’s interests (clause 4.5);

(3) that by clause 4.6 upon which Mr Holland places particular reliance, where constituency associations are established membership shall be of that association and by affiliation of the association then of the party – there is no issue but that the Stockton Branch equates to a constituency association for this purpose;

(4) that by clause 5.3 the constituency association has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency rule book approved by the NEC – Mr Holland here submits that the Branch was and is for present purposes “autonomous” so that the party is absolved from the potential liability in this matter of either the branch or its chairman – a submission I have difficulty in accepting; it is not in issue but that the branch was affiliated to the party. Branch membership must then be membership “of the party” as well as of the branch.

(5) that by clause 14 the party shall establish a discipline committee;

(6) that by clause 15 the NEC shall establish the rules governing constituency associations, disciplinary procedures and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management; conduct and administration of the party.

(7) that the branch rules should be read in conjunction with the party constitution which shall take precedence;

(8) that all party members are members of the branch in which they live (rule 2.1) – Mr Hardy lives and has at all material times lived in Stockton;

(9) that Rule 3 is entitled Branch Committees

(10) that “branches are responsible for their own actions “rule 3.1) – a provision further relied upon in support of the autonomy argument;

(11) that the chairman “has principal responsibility of the direction of the branch” (rule 3.8.1)

(12) that rule 7 is entitled “Disputes”;

(13) that by rule 7.1 “instances may arise when differences within a branch threatens its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by branch committee or at a full meeting of the Branch. If this does not succeed the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser acting on behalf of the party chairman “- it is impossible to think of what transpired within the Stockton branch as other than a dispute but I have heard no evidence from any member of the branch committee, directly or indirectly or of its involvement in this matter – likewise there has been no evidence of a full meeting or for that matter any meeting of the branch attempting to resolve this dispute;

(14) that by rule 7.2 if the dispute remains irreconcilable the party chairman may suspend or dissolve the committee or dissolve the Branch in its entirety.

16. Mr Holland submits that the law of contract is to be applied. With that I agree – next that as the constitution does not provide for expulsion the Branch rules are to be applied and where they are silent as to procedure the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case. Again I agree that the constitution does not provide for expulsion in the particular circumstances of this case although I find clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are not without relevance when I come to consider Mr Arnott’s general memorandum of 10th September this year. In fact such reliance upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP is in the whole context of this case patently a fig leaf the removal of which discloses an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price. Clearly Mr Arnott had no regard for this clause had it been a real reason to expel. Save for this consideration which is not without its own significance overall I accept Mr Holland’s argument so far.

17. So he contends Mr Parkin’s banning letter of 11th September 2009 was an action he was authorised by rule 3.1 to take particularly when regard is had to his “principal responsibility for the direction of the branch” under rule 3.8.1. Thus the argument runs Mr Parkin had legitimate power so to regulate branch meetings and in doing so what he did was within a reasonable and proportionate range of actions open to him. It is not for this Court, he submits, to prefer an alternative, particularly with the advantage of hindsight which is within such a range. With this last proposition I entirely concur.

18. Yet applying these principles of law as well as the ordinary meaning to be attached to rules 3.1, 3.8.1 and rule 7 (disputes) it seems to me that Mr Parkin did not have the power to act as he did and wholly failed to invoke rule 7. I do not underestimate the real difficulty of chairing a meeting attended by such a strong opponent as Mr Hardy and he could not in my judgment have been criticised for suspending one or any number of meetings summarily, nor for invoking the rule 7 disputes procedure with regard to all or any of Mr Hardy’s complaints. But instead he appears to me to have acted autocratically, taking sole not principal responsibility even if, which I doubt, the proper meaning of the phrase “direction of the branch” includes doing what he did by his letter of 11th September 2009. That speaks for itself and Mr Parkin has not suggested any alternative construction. It was his decision and his alone to banish Mr Hardy from branch meetings. That act effectively at least suspended Mr Hardy’s membership and although a less stringent test is applicable in law compared with expulsion the principles are the same and in my judgment even suspension in such terms, being for at least as long as Mr Parkin remained branch chairman, was for the same reasons as I have already provided in the context of expulsion, without authority, unreasonable and disproportionate. There is no evidence whatever of his having convened a meeting of either the branch committee or of the whole branch to consider the question of Mr Hardy’s suspension or expulsion. Plainly in March he involved Head Office but by July they seem to have left him high and dry. By September he was on his own. The letter of 11th was his and his alone, without further consultation and without giving Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward any case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or expelled. He appears to have been both prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously pronounced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10th September. The only inference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back.

20. Part of the “factual matrix”, as Mr Holland puts it, in my consideration of this matter is he concedes that unlike other kinds of proprietary clubs such as an allotment association or a tennis club the UKIP party is the only political party available to Mr Hardy, given his particular political views and allegiance, that the Stockton branch is the only branch to which by reason of his place of abode he could belong, and further unlike other activities of a sporting or other recreational type, political activity so long as it is conducted within a democratic framework carries its own special importance. Such considerations are in my view germane not only to the question of compensation but also to that of being treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the branch rules. In each respect I find Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton Branch on whose behalf to the last Mr Parkin has, through Mr Holland, maintained he exercised lawful authority, to have failed so to do. Each party is therefore in breach of his and its contractual duty to Mr Hardy.

21. I therefore hold that their purported expulsion of Mr Hardy to have been null and void and upon his payment of his £10 membership subscription for the current year his membership of the party and the branch continues uninterrupted both to the present day, and until either by lawful means he is expelled or otherwise resigns or retires.

22. Before turning to the matter of compensation and for the sake of completeness I hold that Mr Hardy has not been excluded from any public meeting as he once maintained, neither has he a valid cause of action under the Human Right’s Act as he also contended.

23. With regard to damages Mr Holland submits they should be nominal but I disagree. In effect Mr Hardy has for almost exactly 12 months been deprived of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activity to which he has plainly been deeply committed. He would not however have held any office during that time nor I think been elected to either local or central government notwithstanding his clear ambitions. Neither do I find he is entitled to punitive damages in this case because I judge the unlawfulness of the defendants to stem from ill judgment and inattention to their own rules rather than bad faith. I therefore assess damages in the sum of £750.

His Honour Judge P Fox QC
The Recorder of Middlesbrough

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

UKIP News: Gordon Parkin & UKIP lose court case while Bannerman chases the Tories with an offer to ‘destroy’ UKIP

Posted by juniusukip on November 17, 2010

Gordon Parkin: That smile has been well and truly wiped off his face!

We are extremely pleased to announce that Alan Hardy has won his court case against Gordon Parkin and UKIP.

This concerns their decision to unlawfully ban Mr Hardy from attending UKIP meetings in the region. And what was Mr Hardy’s crime? He had the audacity to voice concerns about the collapse of UKIP in the north east and Parkin’s role in it!

It is interesting to note that UKIP has been funding Parkin’s defence. UKIPPERS in the North East – and indeed across Britain – were not even asked if they minded their funds being used in this way!

We will be publishing the full details of this historic win as soon as we can.

This victory for Mr Hardy should prove of great interest to Nikki Sinclaire as she has faced similar treatment at the hands of the Farage cabal.

See: LINK & LINK & LINK

Bannerman offers to “destroy UKIP”


Readers of this blog may recall that Bannerman had approached Eastern Region Tories BEFORE the leadership election with an offer to stand for them as lead MEP candidate in 2014. But there is now much more to this story! See: LINK

Now the dust has settled on UKIP’s leadership election, David Bannerman must be wondering where to turn next. Embarrassing revelations have emerged this week concerning his recent bid to cross the floor.

His interview with the British conservatives left them less than impressed, it seems, and was the subject of hilarity at a boozy dinner in Brussels last night.

Bannerman’s greatest ambition, he announced, is to be a tory MP. He explained that he felt the first becoming a UKIP MEP would help him acheive his dream, The tories were not entirely convinced by this. His greatest mistake, however, was to declare that if accepted into the tory fold, he would give them all the information they would need to “destroy UKIP”. That might be typical hyperbole in UKIP circles, but the tories were not at all impressed with the “treacherous nature” of the man.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: Spivboy

Posted by juniusukip on November 16, 2010

Another interesting email from Andrew Edwards is doing the rounds. It is amusing to note that more than one UKIP MEP has spoken favourably of Mr Edwards and has even endorsed his comments about Farage to certain colleagues in the EU Parliament!

In my last post I claimed that Spivboy was hypocritical for claiming that the Armistice Day service he attended in Brussels was held an hour too early because he would have to be inside of the EU parliament for a voting session later that morning.

HYPOCRITE!

Since when did, Nigel – Spivboy – Farage ever concern himself with attending voting sessions of the EU parliament?

Whether because of laziness, or for some other reason, you frequently miss such things. Don’t you, Spivboy???

So for the benefit of the jury, let me remind you of your latest disdain for British interests:

Spivboy Farage actually walked out of the session early last Thursday, followed by several of his henchmen, including that disgrace to the Aristocracy, William Dartmouth and Mr Invisibility himself, Trev Colman.

Spivboy and co, chose to do this instead of voting on the important Livestock legislation before Europarl that day. BTW, most of those UKIP MEP’s remaining in the chamber also failed to vote.

As most of you know, the CAP absorbs about 50% of the EU budget, so how is it that Farage’s EUkip can pretend to care about the amount of money we pay to the EU without bothering to oversee how that money is spent?

Again, further hypocrisy. Do you dare to differ Spivboy?

Ukip’s claim that it is interested in farming matters, whilst it’s led by Spivboy, is also a load of nonsense and hypocrisy.

This is what Farage negligently and arrogantly dismissed last Thursday – despite his duty to his constituents and his salary and his expenses:

They missed out on important amendments to:

Help stop farmers being squeezed by supermarkets and large multinationals.
Weaken the scope of the Common Agricultural Policy
Stop price hikes in grain due to speculators
Stop price fixing and the squeezing of margins for producers/farmers
Encourage local produce
Weaken restrictions on feeding GM cereals to cattle
Moves to overturn the ban on meat and bone meal which was introduced after the BSE and CJD scandal.

This together with a number of moves that could have given a more sustainable future to British livestock farmers was wilfully and shamefully ignored by Spivboy and his acolytes.

So what was so important to you last Thursday old chap? Surely you didn’t put your own desires before the interests of Britain. Or did you????

Just where were Spivboy, Dartmouth, and Colman, in such a rush to get to last Thursday??? Probably best not to ask!!!!

PS: My thanks to a contact within the EFD group for offering this information to me, and, for supplying detailed copies of the aforementioned votes etc, that Spivboy was too busy to attend.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire vindicated by OLAF

Posted by juniusukip on November 15, 2010


The usual disgusting Farage sycophants and ne’er do wells have constantly claimed that Nikki Sinclaire is under investigation by OLAF. This is a lie.

It is known that a vexatious complaint was made, by a former employee – allegedly one John Ison – but that this complaint was not pursued due to lack of evidence, and because of the circumstances surrounding the complaint. Mr Ison’s employment with Nikki Sinclaire was terminated in, shall we say, unpleasant circumstances, which involved breach of trust and the alleged “disappearance” of petty cash.

We are now releasing the text of an email received by Nikki from a Mr De Readt, an OLAF investigator, dated October 12th 2010.

This clearly shows that Nikki is NOT under investigation by OLAF. So the Farage sycophants can put that in their pipes and smoke it!

It tells us something about the integrity of those who made these vexatious allegations. We understand that these allegations were discussed by Mr Ison and members of UKIP’s NEC immediately before the September party conference in Torquay.

We have evidence of orchestration of these vexatious allegations.

The email from OLAF clearing Nikki is reproduced in full below. Draw your own conclusions about those people who claimed that Nikki was under investigation.

Dear Ms. Sinclaire,

I apologize for not having contacted you earlier.

I understand from your telephonic message to OLAF Free Phone, that you wanted to be informed whether OLAF has opened an investigation into possible irregularites you may have committed as alleged by a former assistant of yours.

I can confirm to you that OLAF has not opened an internal administrative investigation into this matter.

Yours sincerely.
Danny De Raedt
Investigator
European Commission
Europe Anti-Fraud Office OLAF Unit A 1 – EU Institutions.
Office 05/58 – Phone : + 32.2.***.**.** .- Fax : + 32.2.***.**.**

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

UKIP face Court Judgement & John Bufton exposed

Posted by juniusukip on November 14, 2010

Gordon Parkin: UKIP Twat

Alan Hardy’s legal action against Gordon Parkin – UKIP North East Regional Organiser – finally reaches a conclusion. The judgement will be handed down in Middlesbrough High Court on Monday.

This concerns Parkin and UKIP’s decision to unlawfully ban Mr Hardy from attending UKIP meetings in the region. And what was Mr Hardy’s crime? He had the audacity to voice concerns about the collapse of UKIP in the north east and Parkin’s role in it!

It is interesting to note that UKIP has been funding Parkin’s defence. UKIPPERS in the North East were not even asked if they minded their funds being used in this way!

We will be publishing the judgement as soon as we get it.

For more on this see: LINK & LINK

John Bufton goes native



Smiling all the way to the bank. John Bufton’s snout is firmly in the trough!

John Bufton has been the subject of an article in Saturday’s Daily Mail. It concerns a little scam that he has been involved in ever since he became a UKIP MEP. John has been turning up to the EU Parliament every Friday morning to collect his £260 daily allowance.

No crime in that but you would expect him to stay for the day rather than quickly scuttling out of the building as soon as he has signed in!

Mr Bufton defence was rather lame to say the least!

“That’s our system”.

Why are we not surprised? Another shining example of a UKIP MEP gone native!

You may recall that it was Mr Bufton who promised to donate thousands to UKIP Wales if elected to Brussels. He later gave JUST £500 to his Welsh colleagues over the next twelve months. How generous!

UK MEPs – including UKIP – are to be the subject of a documentary on Channel 4 on Monday night at 8.00. It won’t be complementary!

And we can confirm that Nikki Sinclaire is NOT under investigation by OLAF or the West Midlands Police. Nikki is the ONLY UKIP MEP to publish her full accounts. She has nothing to hide.

Certain journalists at The Mail really do need to get their facts right!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: The Mad Monckton

Posted by juniusukip on November 13, 2010

Interesting piece from a fellow blogger. And well worth repeating!

The Mad Monckton

The viscount is an interesting character. He once worked in the policy unit at Number Ten under Lady Thatcher and is now deputy leader of the anti-European UK Independence Party. More recently he has become famous as a vociferous climate-change sceptic and for fighting a Quixotic campaign to gain entrance into the House of Lords. I was seated opposite him at the pre-debate dinner, and initially I found his conversation rather unsettling: a blizzard of statistics and anecdotes on everything from climate to Europe, all delivered with supreme confidence and a slight gleam in the eye. I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases – and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? “Both”, he said, “and prions”. At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate.

To see the original: LINK

For more on Monckton see: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire in the Press

Posted by juniusukip on November 11, 2010

We can confirm that Nikki’s legal action against UKIP has Farage and his sycophants VERY worried!

The story continues to get a lot of publicity.

From the Pink News:

Lesbian MEP accuses UKIP of homophobia

Nikki Sinclaire claimed UKIP had been homophobic

A lesbian MEP for the West Midlands claims that UKIP discriminated against her on the grounds of her sexual orientation.

Nikki Sinclaire was elected as a UKIP MEP last year but fell out with the party in January when she refused to sit with its EFD allies in the European Parliament.
She said that some EFD members had “extremist views” and that her relationship with the then party leader, Nigel Farage, had broken down.

Ms Sinclaire became an independent after the party told her she could not stand for re-election under its banner.

She is now taking UKIP to the High Court for withdrawing the whip from her and preventing her from from standing as the MP for Meriden, which she claims was motivated by sexual orientation discrimination.

She is also taking the party to an employment tribunal.

According to the Birmingham Mail, Ms Sinclaire said: “I think that is homophobic in itself, the fact that they expected me to sit next to such people and engage with such people in the parliament, while taking a holier-than-thou attitude to parties like the BNP in the UK.

“It is unacceptable in the 21st century for people to be marginalised and treated in an offensive and derogatory way on the grounds of their sexuality.”

A UKIP spokesman said it was innapropriate for the party to comment at this stage

To see the original: LINK

And this from the Birmingham Mail:

UKIP were homophobic towards me, claims West Midlands MEP Nikki Sinclaire

The UK Independence Party (Ukip) is to be taken to the High Court by the West Midlands MEP claiming it discriminated against her because she is gay.

Nikki Sinclaire is taking action over Ukip withdrawing the whip from her in the European Parliament and preventing her standing for the Commons as a candidate for the party.

She claimed that her treatment had been in breach of Ukip’s constitution and was motivated by sexual orientation discrimination.

A directions hearing is to be held by the High Court. The MEP is also taking the party to an employment tribunal, with a preliminary hearing on December 28.

Ms Sinclaire was kicked out of the party after she refused to sit with the eurosceptic group Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) which Ukip joined in the European Parliament last year.

She said she quit the EFD because it contained “extreme elements”, including people with “openly homophobic opinions”.

“I think that is homophobic in itself, the fact that they expected me to sit next to such people and engage with such people in the Parliament, while taking a holier-than-thou attitude to parties like the BNP (British National Party) in the UK,” she said.

As well as withdrawing the whip from the MEP, Ukip’s national executive committee also ended her position as the party’s candidate for Meriden at the general election.

She said she still believed in the aims of Ukip, whose principal goal is to take the UK from the European Union, and would be prepared to be one of its MEPs again if it was “more tolerant”.

“It is unacceptable in the 21st century for people to be marginalised and treated in an offensive and derogatory way on the grounds of their sexuality,” the MEP said.

To see the original: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UKIP: More news, more scandals

Posted by juniusukip on November 10, 2010


More Whittaker, more buffoonery

According to its website, UKIP has selected former party chairman John Whittaker as its candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth. With Phil Woolas’s future as an MP still in the balance, there is no certainty about when a by-election might be held or if there will be one at all.

Dr Whittaker stated that, “While court proceedings drag on, people are left without an MP. This is not acceptable.”

Oh really, Dr John?

The same Dr John Whittaker ho never turned up for work as an MEP, saying that if he did go to work the Parliament would have to pay him an attendance allowance, and so he was doing the taxpayer a favour? The people of the North-West had 5 years without one of their MEPs. Now that was unacceptable.

The same Dr Whittaker who stood simultaneously in numerous constituencies in the 2005 general election, making a mockery of our democratic system?

Hypocrite and idiot that he is, Whittaker is the perfect front man for Farage’s UKIP’s buffoonery.


Could a revived UKIP be the British ‘Tea Party?

Another interesting article from one of our contacts:

It’s a question put by Ed West, a journalist writing in the Telegraph on line.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100062863/could-a-revived-ukip-be-the-british-tea-party/

The answer to that question Mr West is, ‘you cannot be serious’! So why pose it, why talk up the discredited shyster, Nigel the Spiv, alias Nigel Farage MEP?

Is it because you are ignorant of the sordid facts about the man? Somehow I doubt it!

Is it because by associating Nigel with the ‘Tea Party’ movement in the USA, you seek to diminish its impact here in the UK? Possibly!

Or did you write it as part of a ‘talk up Nigel campaign’ for some nefarious purpose? Quite possibly!

But just so as there’s no mistake, the only Tea Party UKIP will attend, whilst it’s hamstrung by having Nigel at its helm, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety!

Nigel the Spiv sits on the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament.


Why is that?

Answer: because it involves the least work of any committee. In other words, it is an easy ride for a lazy MEP.

Even so, the degree of indolence displayed by the Spiv goes far beyond mere laziness:

Throughout the whole of 2009 and 2010, to date, there were only 20 meetings of the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament. Nigel the Spiv attended two meetings – repeat, two meetings, or merely 10% of the total.

Do his constituents know this? We suspect not. Do those members who voted him back into the leadership know this? Almost certainly not. A salient fact to use against him the next time he chooses to wax eloquent about the EU stealing our Fish!

In a nutshell, we have someone who is well paid (Nigel the Spiv) but not delivering. In effect, a lazy, indolent and negligent MEP.

If any of you reading this happen to be fishermen, and members of UKIP, perhaps you could write to the Parliament’s speaker – and don’t forget to copy in all the heads of the various political parties in Europarl. – and complain that the very person who should be representing British fishing interests is too busy indulging himself elsewhere! Where is elsewhere? One might well speculate, but it’s probably best not to go there.

Perhaps anyone who writes as suggested could complain that as the Spiv is not doing the job he was elected to do he may as well stay at home, excepting, occasionally, to trade insults with some poor unfortunate!.

Meanwhile, the most important Parliamentary Committee of all, Constitutional Affairs, has no UKIP MEP sitting on it. Could that be because most of them are, like the Spiv, are likewise too lazy to become involved in monitoring the transfer of power from the UK to the EU? Though yet again the buck for this omission stops with the Spiv. He’s the boss, but hasn’t bothered to do anything about it!

In any corporation, this degree of negligence by its Directors, let alone by its employees, would provide them with instant dismissal at the next AGM.

But UKIP can’t afford to wait that long!

Don’t take our word for it, the truth of the matter may be found on this link to the EU Parliament:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/minutesCom.do?language=EN&body=PECH

Nikki Sinclaire in The Telegraph


Nikki’s court action against UKIP has been the subject of much discussion in media circles.

MEP: UKIP kicked me out because I was a lesbian

The UK Independence Party is to be taken to the High Court by an MEP claiming it discriminated against her because she was lesbian.

Nikki Sinclaire is taking action over Ukip withdrawing the whip from her in the European Parliament and preventing her standing for the Commons as a candidate for the party.

She claimed today that her treatment had been in breach of Ukip’s constitution and was motivated by sexual orientation discrimination.

A directions hearing is to be held by the High Court today. The West Midlands MEP is also taking the party to an employment tribunal, with a preliminary hearing on December 28.


Ms Sinclaire was kicked out of the party after she refused to sit with the eurosceptic group Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) which Ukip joined in the European Parliament last year.

She said she quit the EFD because it contained ”extreme elements”, including people with ”openly homophobic opinions”.

”I think that homophobic in itself the fact that they expected me to sit next to such people and engage with such people in the Parliament, while taking a holier-than-thou attitude to parties like the BNP (British National Party) in the UK,” she said.

As well as withdrawing the whip from the MEP, Ukip’s national executive committee also ended her position as the party’s candidate for Meriden at the general election.

She said she still believed in the aims of Ukip, whose principal goal is to take the UK from the European Union, and would be prepared to be one of its MEPs again if it was ”more tolerant”.

”It is unacceptable in the 21st century for people to be marginalised and treated in an offensive and derogatory way on the grounds of their sexuality,” the MEP said.

”This behaviour needs to be exposed, so that the party can move forward and I can get on with representing the people of the West Midlands and their causes, which I am so passionate about.”

Her solicitor Paul Daniels, of Russell Jones and Walker law firm, said: ”Ms Sinclaire has just commenced discrimination claims concerning the prejudices she considers present within certain parts of Ukip and its leadership, as she considers these prejudices need to be challenged so that all members are treated respectfully and fairly.

”Ms Sinclaire remains dedicated to the cause of Ukip, but will fight for equal opportunities for all, including the rights of minority groups as well.”

To see the original: LINK

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »