Look in on Ashley Mote

Aardvark · 27-05-2005, 08:38 PM

AMs company is being wound up on the petition of people who he owes money to. He hasn't filed accounts. Even if the authorities were out to get AM they would hardly know that he wasn't going to pay his debts; nor would they know that he couldn't be bothered to file accounts.

Likewise the stautory demand that AMs researcher has issued for non-payment under his contract for services could only have arisen if AM had failed to pay the monies owed. AMs researcher, who happens to be well known to me, is the least pro-establishment person you could come across, but he is bitter because AM owes him thousands of pounds. It's not a conspiracy againsy Mote. If Mote paid his dues his company wouldn't be in liquidation and he wouldn't be risking bankruptcy. Neither case is linked in any way to the allegations brought by the DWP.

If AM wants to keep out of harms way he could at least honour the contracts he signs and then he wouldn't end up being dragged through the courts.

Bluemerle · 29-05-2005, 08:43 AM

S Times
May 29, 2005

EU Beanfeast

Nicola Smith (News Review, last week) rightly criticises the waste of
taxpayers’ money in having the European parliament spend four days a month in Strasbourg. But she should have mentioned that not all MEPs accept offers of lavish entertainment from the mayor, or anyone else for that matter. I, for one, refused to go to the asparagus feast * much as I like asparagus. As a matter of principle I accept invitations from pressure
groups and others only when they offer some insight on matters of concern to my interests and duties as an MEP. They are rare events * perhaps three in 10 months, one of which was then cancelled.

On one occasion I was invited to the most expensive restaurant in
Strasbourg. Since the organisation concerned was already in receipt of
European Union funds (that is, British taxpayers’ funds) I vigorously
complained, refused the invitation and asked them to send me any papers
that might be of interest.

Their reply is still awaited, several months later.

Ashley Mote MEP
Independent, Binsted, Hampshire

Aardvark · 29-05-2005, 10:50 AM

Nice to see that Ashley's ukase against publicity only refers to detailed factual articles about him, and doesn't apply to his charming little letters to the press.

According to his own website in January/February this year, he's quite happy to accept invitations from people who have no recollection of inviting him. I wanted to see him debate at one particular meeting so I checked with the organisers (as it would have meant travelling a considerable distance). It turned out that not only was the date of the meeting incorrect, but they'd never invited him to be part of the debate.

This forum is peppered with comments regarding Mr. Mote's inconsistent reporting of facts. You have to ask yourself whether it's smart to trust the printed word of someone in those circumstances. :twisted:

Alex McKee · 29-05-2005, 10:52 AM

Aardvark much of what you say about Ashley Mote is not factual but your opinion. Please can we lay this topic to rest whilst this man is undergoing civil action.

Regards,

Alex

Aardvark · 29-05-2005, 11:27 AM

Opinion?

Firstly civil actions do not affect our capacity to debate since there is a presumption under English law that a judge sitting in a civil case will not be affected by discussion outside the court. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the compulsory liquidation of Franklin Estates Wines (UK) Ltd since the matter is before legal professionals. The information was in the London Gazette, a public access document, before Christmas and the details of the non-filing of accounts are matters that anyone can obtain from Companies' House. AM and his wife were directors, but the documentation available shows that the 400 shares in the company are owned by a Delaware parent company (Delaware is a notorious offshore jurisdiction for non-US domiciled persons and it is not possible to establish who the directors of the parent company are).

The statutory demand is listed in Guildford County Court and you can 'phone up on Tuesday and find out the time and date if you want to see AM cross examined on his non-payment of his researcher - unless of course he settles beforehand. Let's all go!

The matter of AM's fictional meetings was covered in Private Eye and thus far they have not issued a retraction (the item was published on this forum some time ago).

The latest issue of 'Sprout' is available in Borders branches throughout the country - it is a good read on all matters European with regular articles by Dan Hannan and Godfrey Bloom (a very clever self deprecating person). The article on AM is substantial.

The many criminal charges laid against Ashley Mote are indeed sub judice and I for one would not wish to question his innocence. If his immunity is waived he will have his day in court in Chichester and I for one am going to sit in the public gallery and listen.

No UK MP has immunity and none would want it. It strikes me as odd that AM would not just do the decent thing and waive any immunity he might have so that he can prove the innocence that he avers. I have read much of his book 'Vigilance' and he rails against people who hide behind immunity. It might be my opinion that he is a hypocrite should he defend his immunity, but it is a fact that nobody since James II has tried to place himself above the laws of this country. That was the whole point of the 1689 Bill of Rights, another statute that AM refers to regularly.

AM is often quick to fall back on the judgement limiting discussion of his case, since it would place him in a negative light; it seems to me unfair that he should puff himself so publicly as the protector of EU funds when nobody is allowed to gainsay anything he does.

On the 24th May AM's immunity was discussed in camera in the EU's legal Affairs Committee. If the hearing went against him then his immunity will come before either the next plenary session in Strasbourg or the one after that. We shall have to wait for the minutes to be published next week. See: www.europarl.eu.int

Sheila · 27-06-2005, 05:57 PM

.

The EP Legal committee's report was published on the Europarl website this afternoon.

There is a link to it on this page:

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=5235422

.

Bluemerle · 27-06-2005, 06:30 PM

Considering most of the crooks in the EU have immunity, it looks as if Ashley Mote is getting too close to the truth for some of them, hence he will have to be silenced. :shock:

chikrodah · 28-06-2005, 10:36 AM

With all due respect, I'd re-read the report if I were you.

Without spoiling the surprise for those who haven't read it yet (I would, it's fascinating for a number of reasons) it appears that it is alleged that AM was repeatedly, for a period of 6 years, economical with the truth regarding his entitlement to certain government handouts that are ultimately funded by hard-working tax-payers like us. The gist of this was reported in the Daily Telegraph in July 2004.

AM's case appears to be that the nasty government is picking on him because of his political beliefs. Beliefs that he shares with, for example, Idris Francis and Anthony Bennett. Beliefs that have occasionally caused them to fall foul of the law when they stand up for what they believe in. Yet the allegations do not relate to his beliefs; instead the allegations relate to serious transgressions which have nothing to do with his political activities.

He claimed immunity, something no other UK MEP or MP has ever done, under articles 8 and 10 of the "Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities" http://www.eel.nl/documents/ectreaty/privileg.html:

Quote:

CHAPTER III. MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
Article 8.
No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Members of the European Parliament shall, in respect of customs and exchange control, be accorded:

(a) by their own Government, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;

(b) by the Governments of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign Governments on temporary official missions.

Article 9.
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Article 10.
During the sessions of the European Parliament, its members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its members.

The courts, judge, prosecution and Legal Affairs Committee have all bent over backwards to give AM & his lawyers the benefit of the doubt. It's taken over 6 months for a decision on his claim for immunity to be made, bearing in mind that it's well known that UK MPs (and by default, MEPs) are not normally entitled to immunity from prosecution.

By comparison, there are single parents out there with suspended sentences for benefit fraud committed over a shorter period and for 1/35 of the sums that AM is alleged to have misappropriated. They too, might be ardent eurosceptics, but I doubt if they were prosecuted because of their beliefs either.

I am sure that AM is a good friend to those who are loyal to him, such as Bluemerle. I know for certain that he is typical of a certain breed of businessman in his business dealings; I prefer to conduct my business with honourable men. :?

Aardvark · 28-06-2005, 10:55 AM

Had AM not been a MEP his court case would have concluded by now and, had he been found guilty, he would be facing between 18 months and 3 years in prison. The investigations INTO phpbb_AM precede his election to the European Parliament and, if you have read the report, the alleged crimes go back many years. AM should not have stood and caused UKIP the embarrassment that he has. David Lott was the next person on the UKIP list. I am sure that he would have fought for the UK's interests in Brusssels and we wouldn't all be faced with the prospect of spending August watching our public support ebb away and having to justify the actions of a maverick.

AM is not being silenced. He is free to say and do what he likes at the moment. To be fair though, since he sacked his researcher, the quality of what AM says has become very pedestrian and repetitive. There is little new coming from him and although he speaks publicly it is impossible to find out from his website where he is going to be.

The point is that AM has argued that he has immunity and has sought to evade prosecution in the English courts when no other citizen of this country has sought to do so since 1689. It is pure cant for AM to assert that he is being victimised because of his views. There are people who have caused the establishment more stress than AM, but have not been randomly set upon by the DWP, Chichester District Council etc.

The fact is that in this country we have a system of trial by jury. AM is to be tried by his peers, not by some Star Chamber. He will be represented by very expensive lawyers as is his choice. The prosecution must prove on each of the charges that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Knowing that, the prosecution may not even have issued charges on parallel matters where they did not believe that they could meet this test. It is reasonable to suggest that, since the matters involve allegations of paperwork fraud, that AM need only demonstrate that he did not conceal from the various bodies he is alleged to have defrauded any of his business affairs, whether in this country or overseas. AM will be acquitted without any doubt if he can suggest to the jury that his actions over several years were entirely innocent and that, if accidental, he has sought to rectify the matter by making offers of recompense. I am sure you will be at the trial - I know I will be - you will then see how AM and his lawyers are allowed the benefit of the doubt under the English legal system

His lawyers can assert, if they so wish, that he is being victimised, but I suspect that he will be laughed at in all of the national press as a sort of Walter Mitty character who believes that he is something that he is not - ie better than everyone else.

AM will have his day in court. He need say and do nothing. It is for the prosecution to prove their case. It is for the jury to consider the facts as presented. AM asserts his belief in trial by jury. He asserts in his books his belief that people should not be immune from suit (though his actions on this matter now brand him 'hypocrite' forever). I can't see what his problem is, and, Bluemerle, I can't see where you are coming from.

Bluemerle · 28-06-2005, 11:34 PM

Ashley Mote has always said he is innocent, so I give him the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise.

29-05-2005, 10:52 AM	#24 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	Aardvark much of what you say about Ashley Mote is not factual but your opinion. Please can we lay this topic to rest whilst this man is undergoing civil action. Regards, Alex __________________ Anything I post on this web forum is my personal opinion only. Users on Ignore list: None.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-05-2005, 08:38 PM	#21 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	AMs company is being wound up on the petition of people who he owes money to. He hasn't filed accounts. Even if the authorities were out to get AM they would hardly know that he wasn't going to pay his debts; nor would they know that he couldn't be bothered to file accounts. Likewise the stautory demand that AMs researcher has issued for non-payment under his contract for services could only have arisen if AM had failed to pay the monies owed. AMs researcher, who happens to be well known to me, is the least pro-establishment person you could come across, but he is bitter because AM owes him thousands of pounds. It's not a conspiracy againsy Mote. If Mote paid his dues his company wouldn't be in liquidation and he wouldn't be risking bankruptcy. Neither case is linked in any way to the allegations brought by the DWP. If AM wants to keep out of harms way he could at least honour the contracts he signs and then he wouldn't end up being dragged through the courts.

29-05-2005, 08:43 AM	#22 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	S Times May 29, 2005 EU Beanfeast Nicola Smith (News Review, last week) rightly criticises the waste of taxpayers’ money in having the European parliament spend four days a month in Strasbourg. But she should have mentioned that not all MEPs accept offers of lavish entertainment from the mayor, or anyone else for that matter. I, for one, refused to go to the asparagus feast * much as I like asparagus. As a matter of principle I accept invitations from pressure groups and others only when they offer some insight on matters of concern to my interests and duties as an MEP. They are rare events * perhaps three in 10 months, one of which was then cancelled. On one occasion I was invited to the most expensive restaurant in Strasbourg. Since the organisation concerned was already in receipt of European Union funds (that is, British taxpayers’ funds) I vigorously complained, refused the invitation and asked them to send me any papers that might be of interest. Their reply is still awaited, several months later. Ashley Mote MEP Independent, Binsted, Hampshire

29-05-2005, 10:50 AM	#23 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	Nice to see that Ashley's ukase against publicity only refers to detailed factual articles about him, and doesn't apply to his charming little letters to the press. According to his own website in January/February this year, he's quite happy to accept invitations from people who have no recollection of inviting him. I wanted to see him debate at one particular meeting so I checked with the organisers (as it would have meant travelling a considerable distance). It turned out that not only was the date of the meeting incorrect, but they'd never invited him to be part of the debate. This forum is peppered with comments regarding Mr. Mote's inconsistent reporting of facts. You have to ask yourself whether it's smart to trust the printed word of someone in those circumstances. :twisted:

29-05-2005, 11:27 AM	#25 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	Opinion? Firstly civil actions do not affect our capacity to debate since there is a presumption under English law that a judge sitting in a civil case will not be affected by discussion outside the court. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the compulsory liquidation of Franklin Estates Wines (UK) Ltd since the matter is before legal professionals. The information was in the London Gazette, a public access document, before Christmas and the details of the non-filing of accounts are matters that anyone can obtain from Companies' House. AM and his wife were directors, but the documentation available shows that the 400 shares in the company are owned by a Delaware parent company (Delaware is a notorious offshore jurisdiction for non-US domiciled persons and it is not possible to establish who the directors of the parent company are). The statutory demand is listed in Guildford County Court and you can 'phone up on Tuesday and find out the time and date if you want to see AM cross examined on his non-payment of his researcher - unless of course he settles beforehand. Let's all go! The matter of AM's fictional meetings was covered in Private Eye and thus far they have not issued a retraction (the item was published on this forum some time ago). The latest issue of 'Sprout' is available in Borders branches throughout the country - it is a good read on all matters European with regular articles by Dan Hannan and Godfrey Bloom (a very clever self deprecating person). The article on AM is substantial. The many criminal charges laid against Ashley Mote are indeed sub judice and I for one would not wish to question his innocence. If his immunity is waived he will have his day in court in Chichester and I for one am going to sit in the public gallery and listen. No UK MP has immunity and none would want it. It strikes me as odd that AM would not just do the decent thing and waive any immunity he might have so that he can prove the innocence that he avers. I have read much of his book 'Vigilance' and he rails against people who hide behind immunity. It might be my opinion that he is a hypocrite should he defend his immunity, but it is a fact that nobody since James II has tried to place himself above the laws of this country. That was the whole point of the 1689 Bill of Rights, another statute that AM refers to regularly. AM is often quick to fall back on the judgement limiting discussion of his case, since it would place him in a negative light; it seems to me unfair that he should puff himself so publicly as the protector of EU funds when nobody is allowed to gainsay anything he does. On the 24th May AM's immunity was discussed in camera in the EU's legal Affairs Committee. If the hearing went against him then his immunity will come before either the next plenary session in Strasbourg or the one after that. We shall have to wait for the minutes to be published next week. See: www.europarl.eu.int

27-06-2005, 05:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
Sheila Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 580	. The EP Legal committee's report was published on the Europarl website this afternoon. There is a link to it on this page: http://www2.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=5235422 .

27-06-2005, 06:30 PM	#27 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Considering most of the crooks in the EU have immunity, it looks as if Ashley Mote is getting too close to the truth for some of them, hence he will have to be silenced. :shock:

28-06-2005, 10:55 AM	#29 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	Had AM not been a MEP his court case would have concluded by now and, had he been found guilty, he would be facing between 18 months and 3 years in prison. The investigations INTO phpbb_AM precede his election to the European Parliament and, if you have read the report, the alleged crimes go back many years. AM should not have stood and caused UKIP the embarrassment that he has. David Lott was the next person on the UKIP list. I am sure that he would have fought for the UK's interests in Brusssels and we wouldn't all be faced with the prospect of spending August watching our public support ebb away and having to justify the actions of a maverick. AM is not being silenced. He is free to say and do what he likes at the moment. To be fair though, since he sacked his researcher, the quality of what AM says has become very pedestrian and repetitive. There is little new coming from him and although he speaks publicly it is impossible to find out from his website where he is going to be. The point is that AM has argued that he has immunity and has sought to evade prosecution in the English courts when no other citizen of this country has sought to do so since 1689. It is pure cant for AM to assert that he is being victimised because of his views. There are people who have caused the establishment more stress than AM, but have not been randomly set upon by the DWP, Chichester District Council etc. The fact is that in this country we have a system of trial by jury. AM is to be tried by his peers, not by some Star Chamber. He will be represented by very expensive lawyers as is his choice. The prosecution must prove on each of the charges that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Knowing that, the prosecution may not even have issued charges on parallel matters where they did not believe that they could meet this test. It is reasonable to suggest that, since the matters involve allegations of paperwork fraud, that AM need only demonstrate that he did not conceal from the various bodies he is alleged to have defrauded any of his business affairs, whether in this country or overseas. AM will be acquitted without any doubt if he can suggest to the jury that his actions over several years were entirely innocent and that, if accidental, he has sought to rectify the matter by making offers of recompense. I am sure you will be at the trial - I know I will be - you will then see how AM and his lawyers are allowed the benefit of the doubt under the English legal system His lawyers can assert, if they so wish, that he is being victimised, but I suspect that he will be laughed at in all of the national press as a sort of Walter Mitty character who believes that he is something that he is not - ie better than everyone else. AM will have his day in court. He need say and do nothing. It is for the prosecution to prove their case. It is for the jury to consider the facts as presented. AM asserts his belief in trial by jury. He asserts in his books his belief that people should not be immune from suit (though his actions on this matter now brand him 'hypocrite' forever). I can't see what his problem is, and, Bluemerle, I can't see where you are coming from.

28-06-2005, 11:34 PM	#30 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Ashley Mote has always said he is innocent, so I give him the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise.