British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Andrew Constantine · 23-10-2007, 09:43 PM

Andrew Constantine has reported a post.

Reason:

Quote:

Andrew Constantine objects strongly to this extract from a post by cassie. It implies that I am corrupt. In my opinion this comment is libellous. It has been copied to a legal firm that advise on libel. You should delete it now.

"This is just a taster ~ I emphasise a taster ~ of the facts involved in this matter. Even so, I think there is sufficient here for the objective and impartial observer to form the opinion that the EDP and its systems of reporting are corrupt."

Post: EDP still need big changes to win over voters
Forum: English Democrats
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: cassie
Original Content:

Quote:

First, I take full responsibility for my postings here.

Second, I do not retract my comments.

Third, Andrew Constantine uses general terms such as "various baseless and most serious allegations" and "untrue and unpleasant comments" etc. which, themselves, are defamatory unless substantiated. (I am surprised that his solicitors have not advised Andrew to avoid making such public allegations himself!)

Fourth, Andrew says he is going to challenge my assertions but by use of solicitors. Therefore it might be reasonably concluded that this is yet another attempt to shut down legitimate discussion ~ this time by the threat of legal action.

I prefer to deal in facts, if permitted to do so. Here are some of the relevant facts:

1. The EDP's published 'Manifesto & Constitution' can be seen and downloaded here in pdf format: http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/d...ifesto2007.pdf The Constitution itself is towards the end of the document from page 20 on.

2. These matters are set in the context of a registered political party, the English Democrats Party, which has as one of its recorded objectives [at Rule 2.1] "to gain sufficient electoral support to form the executive (government) of England". Indeed, Andrew has stood as a candidate for the EDP and at one time indicated that he was to do so again in next year's GLA elections. Therefore, there is a public interest.

3. Rule 10.6 of the EDP's Constitution requires the Treasurer's reports to the NC to "be in writing and must include details of the Party's bank accounts and income and expenditure". During the period 01 January to 31 July 2007 no such reports were made to the NC.

4. Rule 10.8 requires the Treasurer to prepare an annual budget "showing the projected income and expenditure for the Party" for agreement by the NC. No such action had been taken during the period 01 January to the time of my expulsion in August 2007.

5. Rule 10.3, requires that the financial accounts for 2006 should have been prepared before the 30 April 2007. However, no report of these accounts was presented to the NC in the period 01 May to 31 July 2007 to accord with Rule 10.6.

If the requirements listed at serials 3. to 5. above had been satisfied, it would be a simple matter to refer to the relevant entry in the EDP National Council's (NC's) minutes and to produce copies of the relevant reports as issued at the time. However, I was the EDP's National Secretary for most of the time and certainly a member of the NC until August 2007 during which I did not receive any such reports. If it is now contended that the relevant reports were issued, the question arises about why I was not supplied with a copy of the same?

Andrew claims to have acted in respect of his duties on the National Council as both Party Treasurer and London Chairman in a "competent, careful and most honest manner". Others are entitled to make their own judgement in the light of facts rather than mere assertion.

This is just a taster ~ I emphasise a taster ~ of the facts involved in this matter. Even so, I think there is sufficient here for the objective and impartial observer to form the opinion that the EDP and its systems of reporting are corrupt. Given the EDP's stated objectives, this is a matter of public interest, if not public concern.