Question I need the answers too

realwales · 22-04-2006, 12:57 AM

Well, I have to say that having read this thread I find the comments made by certain paid employees of this party absolutely extraordinary and arrogent beyond belief.

BA Ware asks some very fair questions, which he is quite entitled to ask. Who the hell does Douglas Denny think he is comparing our status as a political party with that of a public company being backed by shareholders?

As paid- up members, we are quite within our rights to know how the hard- earned money we donate to the party is being used, or squandered as the case often appears to be. And, Mr Denny, why the hell should we trust who you call the "UKIP directors" when they've got plenty of past form when it comes to squandering money?

Mr Denny, seems you are so keen on comparing us to a PLC, why not behave like one and give ordinary members a clear understanding of how their money is being spent? I would certainly not consider investing in a company that is so taciturn on financial matters. It also appears that the Business meeting was conducted in an unconstitutional way, at an unconstitutional time, and most of the members didn't even know it was happening until after it had happened!

He goes on to talk about the 57 people (of whom I am NOT one) who voted on Petrina's poll, well, Mr Denny, it may have escaped your attention but many of the 17,000 'hard working, loyal members' are often elderly people who do not have access to the internet and are therefore pretty easy to manipulate.

Therefore their only real communication with the party hierachy is the "Independence News" which tends to be a magazine promoting a grinning Nigel and all his wonderful deeds. Some of the more agile of these elderly folk make it to Conference once a year to hear Nigel make a wonderful, witty and humourous speech, they leave with warm hearts, thinking all is well, and genuinely believing this party is in good shape, when in fact anyone who knows anything about how NEC meetings are conducted knows its divided from top to bottom, and could fairly be described as in a state of chaos.

At the last Lechlade meeting, I am reliably informed by my several friends who were present that Nigel warned against the party "splitting off INTO phpbb_factions". Of course, what he was REALLY asking for was unquestionning obedience from those of us in the party who are concerned with the direction in which it is heading and the lack of leadership, ideas and accountability combined with general incompetence that exists at the top of this party. He tends to get this unquestionning obedience from the majority of the membership who don't have a clue what things are really like.

Ask yourself this, Mr Denny, how many of the 17,000 members are even aware of the Lechlade Group? Pretty low I'd say, especially when you consider Lechalde consists largely of younger members who usually have access to the internet.

People like you, and indeed certain other paid employees of this party who post on this board, see the idea of ordinary members from around the country sharing and expressing ideas over the internet as some sort of a threat. Daring to question the 'leadership' (I wish we had some ******* leadership for a start!) results in a load of rude insults from paid employees very often. I find paid employees insulting unpaid, hard- working volunteers for expressing a view different to their own to be totally unacceptable.

You need only feel threatened by the questions BA Ware and others ask if you have something to hide, or if you are frightened of being held to account. You don't like those of us who ask questions because we are daring to hold the likes of yourself to account!

mkpdavies · 22-04-2006, 12:57 AM

Quote:

This site is poison.Much healthier to be out canvassing and leafletting.But of course without candidates all you lot can do is criticise.Were any of you helping fight the S.Staffs delayed election?Having committed a weekend including hotel costs etc I was appalled at the lack of members helping out.You can all do the talk but it is the walk that counts.

What at night, you'd get arrested. I was doing some in the day though and helping run a public meeting the other day too. I am a candidate, so I have every frigging right to criticize, when I have to tell people who UKIP are and that they aren't just an anti-EU pressure group every 5 minutes. I wasted a lot of time and money on the GE and I don't want the same thing happening again and again.

I was at South Staffs (search the forum) and I slept in my car some nights during the WEEK I was there. Yes I have been ******* commited, but with the pathetic direction shown from the top, is it any wonder hardly anyone else bothers?

I'll stop critising, when I start seeing some bloody effort from the top to make UKIP half electable. I keep on wasting my time trying to sell a very limited product, but if the party keeps on being supressed for much longer, then I'll give in and look for a real alternative.

B.A.Ware · 22-04-2006, 01:32 AM

michael mcgough wrote

Quote:

BAWARE;Thanks for answering my questions.I personally think that posters should use their real names to give credibility to their views.

I have never hid my name It is in many posts.

Quote:

I am disappointed that you are not fielding candidates.

I will answer that latter.

Quote:

and that with the Lechlade Group and the' nearly but not' NEC meetings we may be heading for serious damage.

This really worries me I am part of the Lechlade group and I can guarantee that every one involved want the best for the party and have openly committed to supporting Roger until the end of his office.

Quote:

I was surprised that as a Chairman you were not familiar with the Electoral Commission website

.

I have used this site extensively but I can’t find the 2005 accounts can you email them to me?

Thank you for your reply it was very reasoned, I hope you do not think I ask things for the sake of it. One of the driving factors for me asking these questions was I was asked the other day when I was on about cash for peerages where we get our money from, obviously you can answer this but yet as a Chairman I cant.

B.A.Ware · 22-04-2006, 01:37 AM

Quote:

I could write something you had written previously and you would slag it off because it was me saying it

We could all do that bellatrix, I have explained to you how I feel lets move on and please listen to people and get them on board it really isn’t that hard.

michael mcgough · 22-04-2006, 08:39 AM

BAWARE;Thanks for your response ;As to the accounts go to www.electoralcommission.gov.uk.Look at fourth entry on right ,£ sign,click this.Then fourth down in centre,headed registers is 'accounting statements',click here then all parties appear alphabetically.Scroll down to UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY ,click and accounts for 2004 are yours.The accounts for 2005 should,I believe be submitted by end of June.As you will appreciate these take time to produce AND are Audited by a professional external firm of auditors,not by members or paid employees of the party.This timeframe between end of accounting year and publication is quite normal.Unlike the accounts of the EU,Dept of Work and Pensions,Home office etc. the parties accounts are not 'qualified'by the auditors.
Have a splendid St George's Day tomorrow.

Bellatrix · 22-04-2006, 10:51 AM

Just a quick point - UKIP researchers don't strictly work for MEPs. I work for a chap called Herman Verhierstraeten as I am an employee of the IND DEM group and not UKIP.

Quote:

How many employees work for Ukip?

Who pays for the employees in Ukip?

We have 65 million people working for UKIP, and you, B.A.WARE pay for all of them as we have used MEP researcher money to hack INTO phpbb_your piggy bank on your bedside table.

If you really want to improve the party, why do you spend your day slagging everything about it (except you and your chums) off to all and sundry. I wonder what would happen if the BBC called up and wanted Farage for question time. We reply, Nigel isn't wanted anymore by a couple of people who use a forum but we've got this really great chap called B.A Ware who thinks he has all the answers. no, no-one knows who he is and he's never been elected to public position, no, he doesn't know how Brussels works. Still, want to have him on the panel?

That's not how it works. Go and help campaign. I am going INTO phpbb_the office on the weekend so if you are so much better than me and really want to improve the party, off you go!

Biscuitman · 22-04-2006, 10:58 AM

I'm a bit fed up of the arguing on this thread.

BA's original questions are actually immatterial, the underlying problem is the lack of communication up and down the party structure and across the party structure.

The remedy for this was included in an excellent paper circulated after the General Election that outlined a framework for re-organising the party top to bottom, including lines of communication.

The paper was so good that the first Lechlade meeting adopted it wholesale as the first step on the way forward.

The author of the paper was Denis Brookes, for those of you who missed it first time round it is reproduced below; some of the recommendations have already been implimented.

Quote:

THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR RESTRUCTURING

BY DENIS BROOKES

Introduction

In twelve years the Party has grown from small beginnings and a few gifted amateurs INTO phpbb_a rapidly expanding organisation of dynamic professionals, a strong membership base and an expanded administration.

However, the Party has now outgrown the structures which served it well as a smaller Party and it has now become apparent that the Constitution, Rule Book, constituency associations, ROs and personnel roles need to be adapted and modified so that all the potential available can be utilised.

In order to do this it is essential that the Party is remodelled in such a way that it can support and develop the skills available from the grass roots to the political front line in a way which is both democratic and effective.

Without reform from the grass roots upwards this Party will be increasingly unable to function at its full potential and, whilst it will not die, will be an ineffective force for good in the battles which lie ahead. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Whilst it is true that beneficial changes have taken place in the Party, they have so often been reactive and taken in isolation. It is essential that the changes which we all agree must take place are now universal and proactive. The time has come for a plan which will co-ordinate all the various parts which require reform and create a balanced, seamless organisation in which everything operates in harmony.

It is my belief that this can be achieved within a few months of agreement to a suitable plan. The manner in which I see the Party developing - changes to the constituency associations; changes to its Constitution and Rule Book and the responsibilities and duties of Party employees I should like to present to you for serious consideration. I do hope that you see it as a framework onto which improvement can be hung.

I must acknowledge that some of what is being presented to you in this document has already been thought of. Some, indeed, is already being changed as you read it. I hope that what I have drawn up will start the process of bringing together all these changes, both actual and planned, which will create a lean, efficient, effective and winning Party machine.

***********
INDEX

1. THE PARTY CONSTITUTION
2. GENERAL SECRETARY
3. N.E.C.
4. REGIONAL ORGANISERS
5. SHADOW CABINET
6. CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATIONS
7. SUMMARY

1. THE PARTY CONSTITUTION

I understand that currently a sub-committee is looking INTO phpbb_the Party Constitution in order to remove anomalies and bring it up-to-date (see NEC Minutes 8.12.03 Item 14).

It is generally agreed that what was written 10 years ago is no longer suitable for the current development of the Party, and certain problems have arisen by those able to exploit shortcomings in its provisions and also by the fact that they cannot be properly restrained by those in authority charged with the running of the Party. Plainly, this cannot be allowed to continue.

In order that we join up all sections of our Party machine it will be necessary to construct the new Constitution in such a way that it will give legitimacy to other necessary defining documents (see Party Constitution para 16 The Party Rule Book). Such as:

· Committee Standing Orders. These can be a simplified form of the type used by councils and which set a standard format for the conduct of all meetings; the requirements of voting and initiating motions and, equally importantly, defining what is acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. The role and powers of the Chairman will also be part of this document and will thereby ensure that disciplinary action during meetings can be taken swiftly if necessary.

· Code of Conduct. This relates to what is expected of individual officers, committee members and employees. This also can be an abstract of what councillors have to conform with.

· Constituency Party Rule Book. This is also in need of review, especially Section 6 which should incorporate Standing Orders above. The importance of having properly conducted meetings will be apparent in No.5 when proposals for reform and improvement of the constituency associations are presented.

It is important that we do not become swamped by an avalanche of rules and regulations but is also essential that the Party is never faced with internal problems which it is powerless to resolve quickly. It is my suggestion that the actual written words of any document should be succinct but unambiguous. To this end I am prepared, upon request, to draw up more specific proposals from the material I have in hand for the committee to discuss.

******

2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY

There is no reference to this position in the Constitution. This is an omission which should be rectified even though the position is salaried and the incumbent a Party employee. I strongly feel that there could be great advantage in combining this position with that of Chief of Staff/ Chief Executive so that the General Secretary (GS) would be charged with ensuring that all Party procedures are in accordance with the Party rules and Constitution and, also, takes on an active role in the regions.

Whether it is felt suitable that he/she is empowered to enforce, or simply to police is a matter for discussion. What is without doubt is that once the strengthened Constitution and concomitant rules and codes are in place, it would be unthinkable that there was not someone charged with seeing that they are upheld. Of course, the necessary checks and controls must be created so that the holder of this post, with its increased responsibilities and powers, can be readily held to account (possible Party Leader or NEC via Party Chairman). Once this is agreed, then the Party will have a GS/Chief of Staff who will bear, along with his agreed and established duties, responsibility for the following:

· Constituency Associations. Working through the ROs to create, monitor, encourage. This will also include dissolving those which persistently fail to operate correctly according to the Rule Book, or who lack the will to develop (see Constituency Associations Section 6).

· Regional Organisers. To develop their role by devising a specific plan for developing the above. To draw up an agreed Job Specification. To liase with the Regional Committees and assist with the implementation of their suggestions. To obtain a field report on a weekly or monthly basis. To keep in close personal contact, and to develop their responsibilities.

· Disputes. To act, with delegated authority, as the initial arbiter where disputes arise and advise correct course of action. This would take some of the burden from the Party Secretary’s shoulders without diminishing his/her role or influence.

It is apparent that this enhanced position will necessitate someone who possesses considerable organising skills; the ability to work and respond positively under pressure; great powers of persuasion and diplomacy; a fluent and inspiring orator; the ability to motivate a volunteer workforce; the determination to reveal an iron hand from within a velvet glove when faced with indiscipline and have unswerving loyalty to the Party.

******
3. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mentioned in Sect. 1 (The Constitution), was the Code of Conduct and Standing Orders which will apply to all members of this committee. Whilst this will ensure the smooth running of meetings with regard to procedure, conduct and sanctions, it will not be of any help in ensuring that the most highly-motivated and suitable Party members are able to serve on it.

The current method of letting the membership decide on a national basis who should serve on the NEC can, and has, led to a geographical imbalance in representation. This has the unfortunate effect of certain parts of the membership considering themselves being effectively disenfranchised.

It is important that this problem is resolved quickly and I suggest that we look positively at some of the suggestions circulated in a briefing paper some years ago.

· That the NEC comprises (along with Leader and officers) one representative from each of the regions who would be selected on a regional basis by the relevant membership.

· That NEC members serve for two not three years.

· That vacancies are created to allow ‘new blood’ to take their part in our rapidly developing organisation and to this end I suggest that, once a NEC member has served two consecutive terms of office, that member has to stand down and wait two years before re-applying to be elected.

· Further, it is essential that the NEC is a true representation of grass roots thinking and aspirations. In line with the other parties we should not allow MPs and MEPs to sit on it. This will free space for ordinary member representation once the present MEPs have served their term of office.

Another matter which should concern the NEC is the continual complaint by branch officers and members that they are never told what is going on. A year ago when I first presented this document, I passed on a suggestion for an information cascade system. I note that this is now largely in place.

******
4. REGIONAL ORGANISERS

The ROs are an vital element in the continued development of the Party. They are an essential link between the Party Chairman, NEC, Party Officers and the grass roots. There is extensive expertise available amongst the ROs, many of whom are widely experienced in a variety of fields.

Their usefulness cannot be underestimated and if they are to deliver their full potential than certain changes will be necessary in order to unify them INTO phpbb_a powerful and effective force..

As suggested (No.2, General Secretary) they will have a clear reporting chain through the G.S. to the Party Chairman and the NEC and will operate according to their terms of reference. They will also continue to sit on any Regional Committees and play an active role there.

We should ensure all future ROs are appointed only after a the job has been properly advertised, and a correct selection process with formal interview has taken place. This has not happened in some cases and has led to acrimony. We may also like to consider advertising outside the Party membership for those who have a proven track record in the commercial or public sector.

Our stunning results in the 2004 Euro Elections has enabled us to develop the RO base throughout all 11 mainland regions with a consequent increase in branches/ constituency associations formed and the ability to react quickly and positively (when, for example, Veritas attempted, unsuccessfully, to destabilise the Party and its membership). Without our ROs’ efforts the fallout from Veritas would certainly have been much more severe.

The role of the ROs would include:

· Building up a reliable team of volunteers to assist within each region.

· Taking a central role in building up a list of local election candidate. Ensuring they are active within their wards at least 12 months ahead of any elections and the keeping of a candidate database.

· Helping Branches to be properly constituted by organising meetings of Chairmen to explain their revitalised role, and the self-discipline and activity necessary to ensure their effectiveness.

· Having regular monthly meetings with the GS who will monitor past progress with the support of written activity reports and will ascertain their programme for the next month. (The measure of funds raised could be reckoned by liasing with the Party Treasurer’s quarterly returns).

· Being seconded each year to the Conference Steering Committee to assist with this event and take some of the pressure off volunteers.

· Directly monitor CA activity (see 6, Constituency Associations) in order to ascertain which Branches are viable. They will be tasked with trying to make them a success.

· Where Branches are persistently under-performing and without any possibility of reform, then request the GS to ask the Party Chairman to take control with the intention of reforming the committee.

· Attend regular progress/policy development meetings with the GS.

For the ROs to be an effective force for Party development it is essential that they come under a central control. The exact reporting point will be decided by the NEC, but what is essential is that person who is charged with the strengthening and development of their role will carry full delegated authority.

It must be acknowledged that the source of ROs’ funding can, and has, led to a conflict of loyalties on occasions. It is, therefore, essential that the ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ with the MEPs over control has to be rigorously enforced if a disciplined system is to evolve with the ROs’ function within the Party structure.

Without such an approach we will have our Regional Organisers unable to discern a unified national approach to their duties whilst feeling obliged to act according to the dictates or requests of their Region’s MEP. Plainly, this is not in the interests of the Party, its membership and the ROs themselves.

I would hope that the suggestions in this section are distributed to the NEC members and they are put as an agenda item for the next meeting.

******

5. THE SHADOW CABINET

Now that the Party has strongly expanded its membership base, it has the ability to draw upon a pool of experience denied to it even two years ago. We have amongst our ranks Doctors, Engineers, an economist, a retired Superintendent of Police, those experienced in the financial commercial and commodities sectors, certainly one Veterinary Surgeon, barristers and lawyers and many others who bring to us a variety of disciplines.

Many of our members have asked why this Shadow Cabinet is not in place and some years ago it was possible to explain that we lacked the expertise to form one. Many now believe that the right people are there and a cabinet should be put in place.

Whilst we are a small Party, and some outside observers may scoff at such a move being pretentious, we should press ahead and promote its formation and the names of the cabinet members.

To deny the existing talent within our Party the platform to express itself would, in the view of many members, be to under-rate the Party’s potential and make it a less effective political force at a time when the UKIP is the only party which can return democracy accountability to the British people and give them their freedom from foreign dominance.

******
6. CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATIONS

We all acknowledge the fine work carried out by CAs and the dedicated effort which has brought about a high degree of awareness amongst the public of UKIP. Indeed it is the CAs who underpin the Party and who directly connect with grass root opinions and support.

· It is known that some CAs are very lax in operating according to accepted committee procedures. They have no agenda; irregular meetings, do not take minutes and have no proper method of recording proposals, seconders and votes cast. Their financial records are inadequate and controls non-existent. They have no plans for promoting the Party and lack the ability or will to organise events.

· This has to change and CAs will be told that not only must proper procedures be applied but their records will be monitored by the ROs and reported to the General Secretary in his/her new role.

· We know that some CAs are serious under-performers. In fact, it is possible to say that in terms of being a disappointment to aspiring members and supporters by lack of activity, they are a positive hindrance to the Party. These CAs must be taken firmly in hand by the General Secretary and his ROs. They must be made aware of their responsibilities under the revised Rule Book and be prepared to offer an activity report which will include details of fund-raising, events, mailings, candidate recruitment, etc.

They will be monitored by the ROs who will have regular meetings with the chairmen to discuss progress and advise on future development. This supervision will not include actually doing the job for them as they must show that they are capable of becoming effective without being ‘nannied’. If at some determined stage they are unable or unwilling to improve then, with the permission of the Party Chairman, they should be closed down until the necessary will enables them to reform with the assistance of the RO.

*******

7 SUMMARY

We have seen the success of the other mainstream parties in the past and we must acknowledge that it is down in large part to an efficient party machinery and a disciplined organisation overseen by an experienced Chief of Staff. We now must face the challenge of bringing these disciplines to the UK Independence Party.

Conversely, we are painfully aware that the breakdown of the trusting relationship between the general public and these parties is because they have put the winning of elections before their moral integrity.

This has led to a culture of cronyism, sleaze and corruption. Plainly, this is because those Parties’ leadership and MPs have decided that the Christian principles which have previously underpinned the processes of democracy and justice are now expendable.

It is essential that the UKIP is above these temptations. It is crucial that UKIP puts its own house in order before it can claim the right to put the country in order. So much is right and healthy with our Party. It will, therefore, take only a small effort of collective will to bring about the reforms necessary to strengthen its organisation.

We have to ensure that nobody is able to ignore the Party Constitution and Rule Book. Also, that all those charged with carrying out Party business have clearly defined roles, agreed terms of reference, can carry them out without interference from anyone else and are those most qualified to carry out these essential tasks.

There have been moves since I first presented this document to the Party Officers some twelve months ago which are most encouraging and I am sure that they will continue.

Let the new plan be all-encompassing, fully joined-up and proactive. Then we will be unstoppable.

ENDS.

douglas denny · 22-04-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

"realwales"
Well, I have to say that having read this thread I find the comments made by certain paid employees of this party absolutely extraordinary and arrogent beyond belief.

BA Ware asks some very fair questions, which he is quite entitled to ask.

No he is not entitled to ask some of the questions. Some of the questioins are properly in the domain of the NEC only - especialy financial ones.

Quote:

Who the hell does Douglas Denny think he is

Someone of no particular importance.

Quote:

.....comparing our status as a political party with that of a public co
mpany being backed by shareholders?

It's a good analogy.

Quote:

As paid- up members, we are quite within our rights to know how the hard- earned money we donate to the party is being used, or squandered as the case often appears to be.

No you are not. As mentioned above.

Quote:

And, Mr Denny, why the hell should we trust who you call the "UKIP directors" when they've got plenty of past form when it comes to squandering money?

Specific evidence please - preferably written - about "squandering money". That is another off-the-cuff allegation fondly but totally erroneously believed by some of the grizzlers on this forum. UKIP is very careful with the little money we have. Some occasional mistakes of judgement are made because of human error - but are only found with the benefit of hindsight. that is normal. There is definitely no willful "squandering". That is nonsense.

As for trust in the "directors" - that seems to be sadly lacking with the malcontents of this forum which seems to attract nothing but the malcontents. The "directors" are doing their best in difficult circumstances and should receive some loyalty and consideration for that in the same way that company directors do. And - if you are not satisfied you can do what shareholders do - get out of your investment - or sack the directors when it comes their turn for election. (You see it is quite a good analogy).

As party secretary I have not received in a year ONE single complaint of any member about squandering money and there are 18000 members out there.

Quote:

It also appears that the Business meeting was conducted in an unconstitutional way, at an unconstitutional time, and most of the members didn't even know it was happening until after it had happened!

That is plain rubbish and proves you do not know what you are talking about.
I've heard it all before ... It "appears" this and ... it "appears" that .... Check the facts - go to Petrina Holdsworth who was the chairman at the time and ask her - I'm fed-up of telling you.

Quote:

Ask yourself this, Mr Denny, how many of the 17,000 members are even aware of the Lechlade Group? Pretty low I'd say, especially when you consider Lechalde consists largely of younger members who usually have access to the internet.

That shows how small in consequence the 'Lechlade Group' is. They are a small vociferous group of young people mostly - all bursting with ideas. That is all to the good. What they naively think though is that they will be able to change UKIP dramatically within a short space of time. Well, I wish them luck. Human affairs - especially in politics is notoriously ponderous and slow in changing. It is the nature of the beast - for many reasons I cannot go INTO phpbb_here. I have already had considerable correspondence with Tony Butcher about this very point. I am willing for him to put my ideas one at a time up for discussion on this forum. That will liven things up a bit too.

I am all for helpful dissemination of information by any means.

The 'Lechlade group' however,is of little consequence to the 18000 members - who are not interested in what they do at all; the only people interested in that are those few in it. The one or two who are now on the NEC will be able to contribute to the pool of ideas and suggestions put to the NEC. That is their value - they are no more of value than that or than any other pressure group outside of the party.

Quote:

People like you, and indeed certain other paid employees of this party who post on this board, see the idea of ordinary members from around the country sharing and expressing ideas over the internet as some sort of a threat.

Nonsense. As I just said above - I am all for dissemination of ideas - I just find it so negative and useless on this forum. I see little in the way of positive suggestions or ideas. It is just a sounding board for malcontents to grizzle most of the time. If only people would stick to facts when discussing UKIP matters it would be so much better. Your "appears this" and "appears that" .. is no use whatever.

Quote:

I find paid employees insulting unpaid, hard- working volunteers for expressing a view different to their own to be totally unacceptable.

I agree. As a volunteer party worker myself I find it is quite unacceptable people slagging-off hard working party volunteers.

Quote:

You don't like those of us who ask questions because we are daring to hold the likes of yourself to account!

I like people asking questions; they have a right to ask questions ...

When I am asked questions I always answer them truthfully or not at all, or explain why I cannot answer- either because I don't know or cannot for confidentiality reasons.

I do not like the assumption, however, that you should have the answers to some of them by right- you do not !

There are enemies out there - and on this forum - who wish UKIP harm and will ask questions which are potentially harmful: they do not have the right to that information in the same way shareholders of a company do not have the right because it would damage the company if their enemies knew that information.
To an intelligent person that much should be obvious.

Douglas.
-

C_steam · 22-04-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

And, Mr Denny, why the hell should we trust who you call the "UKIP directors" when they've got plenty of past form when it comes to squandering money?

Specific evidence please - preferably written - about "squandering money". That is another off-the-cuff allegation fondly but totally erroneously believed by some of the grizzlers on this forum.

Glad to hear it Douglas. By the way, why did our treasurer resign?

Intbel · 22-04-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas denny

The 'Lechlade group' however,is of little consequence to the 18000 members - who are not interested in what they do at all; the only people interested in that are those few in it.

As few are aware of the Lechlade group - how can you know they are disinterested? Or interested?

I am sure if more folks were aware of it there would be far more folks interested in it.

I asume you have no interest in the RFBAA ?

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

22-04-2006, 12:57 AM	#31 (permalink)
realwales Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 93	Well, I have to say that having read this thread I find the comments made by certain paid employees of this party absolutely extraordinary and arrogent beyond belief. BA Ware asks some very fair questions, which he is quite entitled to ask. Who the hell does Douglas Denny think he is comparing our status as a political party with that of a public company being backed by shareholders? As paid- up members, we are quite within our rights to know how the hard- earned money we donate to the party is being used, or squandered as the case often appears to be. And, Mr Denny, why the hell should we trust who you call the "UKIP directors" when they've got plenty of past form when it comes to squandering money? Mr Denny, seems you are so keen on comparing us to a PLC, why not behave like one and give ordinary members a clear understanding of how their money is being spent? I would certainly not consider investing in a company that is so taciturn on financial matters. It also appears that the Business meeting was conducted in an unconstitutional way, at an unconstitutional time, and most of the members didn't even know it was happening until after it had happened! He goes on to talk about the 57 people (of whom I am NOT one) who voted on Petrina's poll, well, Mr Denny, it may have escaped your attention but many of the 17,000 'hard working, loyal members' are often elderly people who do not have access to the internet and are therefore pretty easy to manipulate. Therefore their only real communication with the party hierachy is the "Independence News" which tends to be a magazine promoting a grinning Nigel and all his wonderful deeds. Some of the more agile of these elderly folk make it to Conference once a year to hear Nigel make a wonderful, witty and humourous speech, they leave with warm hearts, thinking all is well, and genuinely believing this party is in good shape, when in fact anyone who knows anything about how NEC meetings are conducted knows its divided from top to bottom, and could fairly be described as in a state of chaos. At the last Lechlade meeting, I am reliably informed by my several friends who were present that Nigel warned against the party "splitting off INTO phpbb_factions". Of course, what he was REALLY asking for was unquestionning obedience from those of us in the party who are concerned with the direction in which it is heading and the lack of leadership, ideas and accountability combined with general incompetence that exists at the top of this party. He tends to get this unquestionning obedience from the majority of the membership who don't have a clue what things are really like. Ask yourself this, Mr Denny, how many of the 17,000 members are even aware of the Lechlade Group? Pretty low I'd say, especially when you consider Lechalde consists largely of younger members who usually have access to the internet. People like you, and indeed certain other paid employees of this party who post on this board, see the idea of ordinary members from around the country sharing and expressing ideas over the internet as some sort of a threat. Daring to question the 'leadership' (I wish we had some ******* leadership for a start!) results in a load of rude insults from paid employees very often. I find paid employees insulting unpaid, hard- working volunteers for expressing a view different to their own to be totally unacceptable. You need only feel threatened by the questions BA Ware and others ask if you have something to hide, or if you are frightened of being held to account. You don't like those of us who ask questions because we are daring to hold the likes of yourself to account!

22-04-2006, 08:39 AM	#35 (permalink)
michael mcgough Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 1,013	BAWARE;Thanks for your response ;As to the accounts go to www.electoralcommission.gov.uk.Look at fourth entry on right ,£ sign,click this.Then fourth down in centre,headed registers is 'accounting statements',click here then all parties appear alphabetically.Scroll down to UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY ,click and accounts for 2004 are yours.The accounts for 2005 should,I believe be submitted by end of June.As you will appreciate these take time to produce AND are Audited by a professional external firm of auditors,not by members or paid employees of the party.This timeframe between end of accounting year and publication is quite normal.Unlike the accounts of the EU,Dept of Work and Pensions,Home office etc. the parties accounts are not 'qualified'by the auditors. Have a splendid St George's Day tomorrow.