Look in on Ashley Mote

Aardvark · 29-06-2005, 09:33 AM

Yes, I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, but why try to claim immunity? Other MEPs allow the waiver of their immunity without question, AM decided to defend his 'immunity'. He is the first British MEP to try this on. He is the first Briton to publicly claim to be above the law since 1689. Having read some of his books it strikes me that he believes in one law for everyone else and another law for him. No man is above the law in our jurisdiction; why did AM try to say that he was?

Bluemerle, I respect your support for AM, but ask him, when you next meet, why he went throught he palaver of defending his non-existent 'immunity'? It wasn't for the benefit of the rest of the UK since nobody else has ever tried. The other MEPs from the UK would have accepted the due process of English law months ago. I'm sorry, but I have to state that AM is branded a hypocrite for the rest of recorded history.

chikrodah · 29-06-2005, 10:39 AM

Bluemerle,

Nobody has suggested that Ashley Mote is guilty. Ashley is entitled to proclaim his innocence; he is entitled, as we all are, to the benefit of doubt. Ultimately a jury will decide. I admire your loyalty to your friend.

However, those individuals who have worked with him and have been subject to his interesting perspective on business relationships with others will be aware of somewhat different aspects to his personality.

Some see the ability to tell only the palatable or favourable elements of a story, whilst deliberately hiding other elements, as an admirable trait in a businessman; some would regard that ability as more akin to that of a novelist.

I base my own judgement on a person's actions, not a person's words. IMHO, Ashley's consistent actions on this subject and others are, unfortunately for others, not those of an honourable man.

mkpdavies · 29-06-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Some see the ability to tell only the palatable or favourable elements of a story, whilst deliberately hiding other elements, as an admirable trait in a businessman; some would regard that ability as more akin to that of a novelist.

Or one of the old parties politicians. :shock:

chikrodah · 29-06-2005, 01:52 PM

Touché!!!

Sheila · 05-07-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheila

.

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

.

The report was adopted in the plenary session today.

.

Aardvark · 06-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Having read the report it is clear that AM was trying it on. He claims something that no other MEP has ever claimed and he claims an immunity that no MP has claimed in hundreds of years. I reassert that AM is branded hypocrite forever.

If the charges had not been laid against AM, but instead against a member of another party, I bet, having read some of his book, that AM would have been jumping up and down demanding prosecution. The whole situation is preposterous.

Our legal system is one of the fairest in the world. If found guilty because of a procedural error anyone may appeal; indeed if the point of law is complex an individual will get 2 shots at an appeal.

I do not subscribe to the rather pathetic view that our police/CPS/DWP/Chichester District Council have invented charges against AM. The rules of evidence in our country are heavily weighted against the prosecution and the burden of proof is high - beyond reasonable doubt. AM will now, thankfully, be tried before a judge and jury. There is no way that public bodies press unsubstantiated and unproveable charges. AM may have a reasonable defence that he can put to the jury, but he will look silly if his only line of defence is that he's written a couple of average books which have nominal sales (look at how they 'score' on amazon.com) and the establishment is ganging up on him. If the establishment really wanted to hit the eurosceptic movement they would target real threats such as Vernon Coleman, Christopher Booker or Daniel Hannan.

AM is innocent until proven guilty. I for one intend to take time out to watch the trial. I trust that those who rush to AMs's defence will be present to hear all of the evidence and take an informed view on the basis of AM's own testimony, if he actually choosses to give evidence.

Aardvark · 11-07-2005, 08:03 AM

From Ashley Mote's website:

Quote:

A Personal Statement by Ashley Mote MEP : July 9th 2005
It has been drawn to my attention that there is a good deal of contentious speculation on the internet about the decision reached by the European Parliament on 5 July 2005 concerning an application from the British government about a court case in the UK in which I am involved.

Much of this speculation appears to be wildly provocative and misinformed. Regrettably it is obvious certain disruptive elements within the UK Independence Party are at work, aided and abetted by our opponents.

In the circumstances I have decided to issue this following statement, which has to be confined to what is now in the public domain so that it does not breach the High Court ruling embargoing public comment or publication before the legal process is complete.

These are the facts, and a few pertinent observations:

1. The British government applied to the European Parliament to overturn a decision of the High Court in the UK. An application on such grounds appears, curiously, not to concern my erstwhile colleagues. They claim to object to the EU's assertion of supremacy over UK law, but not apparently in this case.

2. At no time did I or my legal team ask the European Parliament to sustain or waive any immunity. The issue simply had not arisen, and did not arise.

3. The legal affairs committee report, which was adopted by the parliament on 5 July, said that immunity did not exist. It then went on to waive such non-existent immunity. This defied logic, and made no sense. Neither the UK authorities nor the defence argued the immunity issue. The report answered a question that was never asked.

4. More importantly, the report did not answer several other fundamental legal questions raised by both sides. Bearing in mind that this was the first application by a British government to the European Parliament on a point of law, it must be of concern to electors and the elected alike that the application included doubts about the nature of parliamentary work and members' obligations.

In conclusion, it is essential to point out that we are still in the midst of a legal process which is far from complete. Until that process is complete, the judge's ban on comment and publication stands. I can therefore only repeat my vigorous denials of the allegations which were issued at the outset of this case.

Meanwhile, I again thank most sincerely my many friends and supporters who continue to stand by me during this trying time, and who have sent so many messages of encouragement. They are much appreciated and have been a great help.

The fight goes on. Nil desperandum!

Ashley Mote

AM is off with the fairies again.

Para 1. The normal appeal process from a decision of the High Court is to the Court of Appeal. If the British Government has applied to the EU Parliament it is because AM has raised a point of European law or regulation, something that is quite clear from reading the report elsewhere on this forum. There is no case of the British Government going to Europe except where the other party has raised the European issue (I can be corrected on this one if something has slipped through).

Para 2. It is clear from the report that AM did not 'ask' the EU Parliament to grant him immunity nor to waive his immunity. He was, however, heard by the European Parliament on this matter. His lawyers must surely have asserted his immunity for the British Government to have asked for its waiver - read the report, something AM clearly has not done. Go to the EU website and notice how many MEPs from other countries automatically waive their immunity. Had AM asked for his 'immunity' to be waived the report would have noted such fact and not highlighted other matters. For AM to assert that the matter did not arise is a tortology - if the matter did not arise why did he or his representatives discuss the issue with the European Parliament.

Para 3. Again the report is at odds with AM's assertions. The decision was that there was no immunity, but that if there was it was waived. All lawyers use this trick. It is to stop later appeals - it is the old adage;

Headmaster: Boy, you broke the window and will be punished.

Boy: Sir, the window is not broken; if it is broken then I did not do it; if I did do it, it was an accident; if it was not an accident then I am truly sorry and ask not to be punished; if I am not truly sorry then I ask for a light punishment based on my past record and so on and so on.

Para 4. This was an application to the European parliament on a point of procedure. Courts rule on law, the legal affairs committee reports on the procedures of the European Parliament. I would be delighted if we were not in the EU, but since we are I think it only right that the boundaries of MEPs work and any immunity they might have are discussed at length. I do not believe in immunity from prosecution for anybody based solely on their status.

AM forgets that the reason the matter came before the European Parliament is that he is an MEP. If he doesn't want the rules of the Parliament applied to him all he has to do is stand aside and allow David Lott, No 3 on the SE list, to take his place. He is being outrageously disingenuous. If he stood down as MEP last June when this matter first appeared in the press then his case would have been heard by now; he could have asserted the innocence he proclaims and been acquitted by a jury. UKIP would have an extra MEP in their team, which is what the electorate voted for, and the matter would all be forgotten whilst AM enjoyed his retirement with his reputation intact.

Remember, when you voted in the EU elections you voted under a party list system for the party and not the individual. AM holds a UKIP seat since he was elected on the UKIP ticket. It is not the same as the UK Parliament or council where you vote for a named individual who may change his/her allegiance. If AM stepped under a bus tomorrow David Lott would be MEP; if Tony Blair stepped under a bus there would be a by-election. AM's standing aside would assist UKIP.

Finally AM asserts that a court order is in place. The judge has no jurisdiction outside the UK. The matters covered in the European Parliament are not under the control of English judges, hence AMs rush to cover himself in this matter by trying to throw people off the scent.

Rumour has it that if you want to 'look in' on AM avoiding bankruptcy then Guildford County Court is the place to be on 17th August. You can then see how AM respects English contract law and how he treats those unfortunate enough to be employed by him.

chikrodah · 11-07-2005, 12:14 PM

So let me get this straight.

A UK MEP faces a number of allegations, which if true, are of such severity as to merit a potential prison sentence.

These allegations come to light in a quality newspaper. Various supporters question the truth of these allegations through various fora, unsurprisingly. The MEP categorically denies that these allegations have substance and claims that he is being victimised for his beliefs.

The MEP's lawyers apply for, and get, an order against discussion of the hearing regarding these allegations. This gets interpreted by the MEP as a blanket ban on discussion of any of his activities. Nobody actually knows what happened in that hearing apart from the MEP, his lawyers, the 'opposition' and the judge.

Muted discussion continues, hallmarked by a willingness to give the MEP the benefit of the doubt at all times.

The MEP complains about discussions that include a lot of individuals stating that the MEP is innocent until proven guilty.

IMHO, said MEP doesn't deserve the loyalty of his friends. :?

mkpdavies · 11-07-2005, 12:24 PM

Why don't we see what comes of the due court process. I would rather Mr Mote had just given up his MEP status for the good of UKIP, but for whatever reasons he hasn't. The truth will come out in the end.

chikrodah · 11-07-2005, 01:32 PM

Agreed!

11-07-2005, 12:24 PM	#39 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,103 Party: Libertarian Party	Why don't we see what comes of the due court process. I would rather Mr Mote had just given up his MEP status for the good of UKIP, but for whatever reasons he hasn't. The truth will come out in the end. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

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

29-06-2005, 09:33 AM	#31 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	Yes, I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, but why try to claim immunity? Other MEPs allow the waiver of their immunity without question, AM decided to defend his 'immunity'. He is the first British MEP to try this on. He is the first Briton to publicly claim to be above the law since 1689. Having read some of his books it strikes me that he believes in one law for everyone else and another law for him. No man is above the law in our jurisdiction; why did AM try to say that he was? Bluemerle, I respect your support for AM, but ask him, when you next meet, why he went throught he palaver of defending his non-existent 'immunity'? It wasn't for the benefit of the rest of the UK since nobody else has ever tried. The other MEPs from the UK would have accepted the due process of English law months ago. I'm sorry, but I have to state that AM is branded a hypocrite for the rest of recorded history.

29-06-2005, 10:39 AM	#32 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,724	Bluemerle, Nobody has suggested that Ashley Mote is guilty. Ashley is entitled to proclaim his innocence; he is entitled, as we all are, to the benefit of doubt. Ultimately a jury will decide. I admire your loyalty to your friend. However, those individuals who have worked with him and have been subject to his interesting perspective on business relationships with others will be aware of somewhat different aspects to his personality. Some see the ability to tell only the palatable or favourable elements of a story, whilst deliberately hiding other elements, as an admirable trait in a businessman; some would regard that ability as more akin to that of a novelist. I base my own judgement on a person's actions, not a person's words. IMHO, Ashley's consistent actions on this subject and others are, unfortunately for others, not those of an honourable man.

29-06-2005, 01:52 PM	#34 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,724	Touché!!!

06-07-2005, 02:21 PM	#36 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	Having read the report it is clear that AM was trying it on. He claims something that no other MEP has ever claimed and he claims an immunity that no MP has claimed in hundreds of years. I reassert that AM is branded hypocrite forever. If the charges had not been laid against AM, but instead against a member of another party, I bet, having read some of his book, that AM would have been jumping up and down demanding prosecution. The whole situation is preposterous. Our legal system is one of the fairest in the world. If found guilty because of a procedural error anyone may appeal; indeed if the point of law is complex an individual will get 2 shots at an appeal. I do not subscribe to the rather pathetic view that our police/CPS/DWP/Chichester District Council have invented charges against AM. The rules of evidence in our country are heavily weighted against the prosecution and the burden of proof is high - beyond reasonable doubt. AM will now, thankfully, be tried before a judge and jury. There is no way that public bodies press unsubstantiated and unproveable charges. AM may have a reasonable defence that he can put to the jury, but he will look silly if his only line of defence is that he's written a couple of average books which have nominal sales (look at how they 'score' on amazon.com) and the establishment is ganging up on him. If the establishment really wanted to hit the eurosceptic movement they would target real threats such as Vernon Coleman, Christopher Booker or Daniel Hannan. AM is innocent until proven guilty. I for one intend to take time out to watch the trial. I trust that those who rush to AMs's defence will be present to hear all of the evidence and take an informed view on the basis of AM's own testimony, if he actually choosses to give evidence.

11-07-2005, 12:14 PM	#38 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,724	So let me get this straight. A UK MEP faces a number of allegations, which if true, are of such severity as to merit a potential prison sentence. These allegations come to light in a quality newspaper. Various supporters question the truth of these allegations through various fora, unsurprisingly. The MEP categorically denies that these allegations have substance and claims that he is being victimised for his beliefs. The MEP's lawyers apply for, and get, an order against discussion of the hearing regarding these allegations. This gets interpreted by the MEP as a blanket ban on discussion of any of his activities. Nobody actually knows what happened in that hearing apart from the MEP, his lawyers, the 'opposition' and the judge. Muted discussion continues, hallmarked by a willingness to give the MEP the benefit of the doubt at all times. The MEP complains about discussions that include a lot of individuals stating that the MEP is innocent until proven guilty. IMHO, said MEP doesn't deserve the loyalty of his friends. :?

11-07-2005, 01:32 PM	#40 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,724	Agreed!