Bob FM: You are confusing so many issues, it is difficult to know where to start. If you want it posted with more details, I trust that this will be to your satisfaction. Remember I am merely complying with YOUR request.
Ashford Employment Ltd (Registered with Company House 9th October 2003, No. 04927291) was a privare limited company, a sole provider of labour to the UKIP Call Centre, which operated from the same address.The sole shareholder (owner) was Alan Bown. The secretary was John Moran, while the director was Terry Quarterman. Within the two Financial Years 2003-2005; £155 714 and £92. 324. produced a total of £248, 038. The turnover for both those years, exceeded that amount which was required to register for VAT. We must presume, therefore, that VAT was identified on the A.E. Ltd invoices sent to the Call Centre. Should that not be the case, they were either claiming a lawful exclusion from that obligation, or it was not being levied.
The manager of the call centre, was Terry Quarterman, the same gentleman who was a director of the recipient compamy. This immediately raised the question; what was his employment status? What were the Terms of Business between A.E. Ltd and the Call Centre, and who agreed them? The instruments which justified those capital transfers, would normally be Invoices, subsequently consolidated on Statements. Presumably, those documents exist and are capable of retrospective inspection by authorised personnel.
There should be no difficulty whatever, in justifying capital movements of that magnitude
and it is reasonable that such evidence should be produced on request. The money was raised lawfully from members and supporter of UKIP, to advance their cause. The disbursement of those donations, particularly when there is an ambiguous relationship between a private company and the Party, must be meticulously documented and justified. In this country political parties can only survive from donations, both private and corporate, being freely given. Donations, therefore, assume a pivotal importance within the very electoral process itself.
Concerning the other matters which you raise, I cannot discuss them in detail for want of information and knowledge of Electoral Law; which I do not possess. However, I think that we can safely forget, 'wicked plots' emanating from the Electoral Commission. I think that I would be correct in assuming that identifying the donor, and deciding the permissibilty of the donation would be the first step. Next, perhaps; is it a private donation or a corporate one? They are distinctly different to require different criteria.
It hardly seems reasonable, that the Electoral Commission should be given extra-territorial powers, to investigate the genus of the donation itself, and the character of the donor. Those things can only be known with subsequent knowledge. Think for a moment about what you are saying. A party receives a permissible donation, and spends it on those things for which it was given. Then it transpires that the donation, although permissible, was originally illegitimately acquired by the donor. The recipient party must then, perhaps, incur debt to repay, the originally dispossed individual or company. That is not in the Realms of the real.
|