Bob FM: There is no evidence whatever that the Electrol Commission have attempted to harm UKIP; should you be of a contrary opinion it is for you to provide the evidence. Indeed, all the evidence in the public domain suggests that ElCom were very tolerant of UKIP, and gave it every opportunity to remedy the wrongs which undoubtedly existed.
Having given UKIP an extension date to prepare their accounts, for example, they still hadn't produced them some seven months later. A former Party treasurer e-mailed certain NEC members advising them to let Elcom believe that we are taking them seriously, and then suggested that the new treasurer would have excuses ready, when next we are late with the accounts. That e-mail was presentd by the prosecution in court; not exactly good publicity you may agree! You are arguing that the Electoral Commission were motivated by malevolence towards UKIP: what is the best evidence you possess to support that charge? What would be their motive? That is the extravagant language from which you would be wise to desist, without conclusive evidence.
A party isn't about, 'it's elected members and officers', as you insist. A party is about it's cause and it's members. Particularly those who provide funds and donations which subsequently cannot be traced. Should those who insist that such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, be dismissed as malcontents, what future is there for an electoral system based on voluntary donations? Don't imagine that the statutory agencies are not aware of our difficulties.
Who used the word 'fraud' other than you? It is not speculation that nearly a quarter of a million pounds were transferred to a private company, from our Call Centre in Ashford.
Company House will confirm that to be true. (Would you like the recipient company's registration number?) Have you seen the invoices from that private company to the Call Centre, which provide justification for that capital transfer? This money was raised under Electoral law, but what eventually happened to most of it, is still not clear. Have you been able to ascertain what the £211,000 (incidental expenses) actually covered?
These question have to be answered if UKIP has a future. The membership want to impose high standards from the leadership. Nigel Farage insists that we have been harmed by poor regulatory control by the Electoral Commission. Let us hope that El-Com. will arrange a forensic audit withour further ado, to allay Mr Farage's fears.
I am sure that this expectation will meet with your total approval.
|