One Londoner

Branches not filing their accounts on time has no impact on Head Office accounts. As I have previously said, this is an entirely bogus excuse for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

If it turns out that there is a more serious problem than simple lateness with the accounts, if it can be established that the NEC were lied to about the accounts, then this will be very important in establishing legal liability. Given that there are apparently no minutes kept of NEC meetings, it would probably be worth getting affidavits from NEC members present at that meeting who can confirm what was said and by whom.

douglas denny

[quote]Because you said: "Richard's questions had absolutely no impact on the delay" (of the accounts).

It is a lie and a dammned one at that.

I did.

I have.

Further: YOU know it was the DIRECT intervention of Richard's questions (along with YOUR support) that caused the treasurer Andrew Smith to decline continuing as treasurer. If you do not agree with this - perhaps you would you like to ask him yourself? His e-mail address is: andrew@smith-epping.com

He was already struggling to get the accounts out on time for the Electoral Commission when you and Richard jumped-in with your insulting, accusatory and combatative attitude BEFORE you had even joined your first NEC meeting.
Andrew had beeen giving the NEC detailed reports of the finances of Ashford on a monthly basis along with the normal appraisal of party finances. If you had at least waited until your first meeting you would have had this information; THEN would have been the time for further questions. That is the normal procedure. You should have already known that.
Worse: That you now declare you do not understand that your actions were insulting and onerous in the extreme and the direct cause of his leaving - beggars belief.

That's jolly decent of you. Then why do it ?

And stomping-in with ridiculous and accusatory questions before you are even at your first NEC meeting causing the loss of a perfectly good treasurer is somewhat counter-productive too.

Everyone in the NEC knows he chose to leave because of Richard's questions and accusatory (and insulting) tone.
Are you in denial or something?

He was in effect PUSHED by your actions making his life unbearable with your unreasonable demands. You are ignoring tha fact he worked hard on the accounts and was VOLUNTARY. You and Richard treated him like dirt. No wonder he left.

WHAT? Are you mad as well as in denial?
Andrew was beavering away against difficult odds to get the accounts out in time for the Electoral Commission when along comes Richard Suchusorski and Tony Butcher demanding a full audit there and then along with 35 detailed and onerous questions - all of which would have taken him weeks to prepare - AND YOU SAY IT WOULD NOT TAKE UP HIS TIME .......!!! Sheesh! Why do you say this kind of rubbish?

It is true. And all the more reason for your insulting and unreasonable demands to hound out the treasurer.

As I understand it, Richard evnetually declared himself satisfied with the answers to his questions. But I would not be surprised to be wrong on this as both you and Richard seem to be dissatisfied with EVERYTHING ....ALL OF THE TIME.


My point exactly as above.

Another disingenous load of flannel. I am not in the least confused about this issue.
If, as you say, ... the audited accounts would have been the end to it .... then why not just wait for a few weeks for the audited accounts which were being prepared anyway ..?? and why go in with both guns blazing BEFORE you had even sat on an NEC committee?? ... and why not wait for the proper time and place to ask your questions???

Well to me the whole thing was totally unreasonable the way it was done.

All you had to do was wait until the first meeting you went to then present your questions in committee to the treasurer. You ignored all protocols of standard procedure in posing questions which should go through committee not external to it; ...and to put 35 intensely detailed and onerous questions (I have them on file) at that time when the treasurer was struggling to get the accounts prepared was shameful and disgusting behaviour.

It WAS insulting; it WAS ungentlemanly - it WAS confrontational; it served NO USEFUL PURPOSE.

The information was largely available to the NEC already - and further questions would have been answered properly and without the acrimony if you had done it properly. You both went at it like a bull in a china shop.

I was shocked at the time with Richard's and your behaviour - and still am. I thought it was not the right way to make friends and influence people. It certainly got up my nose. (As you can tell!).


And this kind of dismissive attitude is merely childish. You are trying to divert attention away from the gravity of it.

What you both did was grave, disrupting and shameful. You were self-indulgent to a marked degree. You must face-up to the fact you and Richard WERE the direct cause of the loss of the treasurer with your actions. There is no getting away from that and I will NOT have you lie over it.

I think you should consider resigning over this single issue if no other when you are willing to lie over it.

There is another you might like to consider resigning over too: as I have discovered only yesterday of your being the site administrator for a Conservative website and Lib-Dim website. It might be common knowledge to many, but it was not to me or the other 18,00 members of UKIP who voted for you to place you on the NEC. Do you think they would have voted for you knowing you assist other political parties?

Frankly I do not consider it appropriate for a member of the NEC with access to confidential indformation of the party to be assisting another party in any way. And if you are PAID to do it (I have already asked you directly by e-mail if you are paid and you have declined to answer) then you have a pecuniary interest in at least three political parties AND sit on the governing body of one of the - UKIP.

It is a resigning issue.


The "missing" accounts were not "missing" they were just not submitted
by dillatory branches -that was containable and what Andrew was dealing with.

Andrew did NOT need however, especially at that time, a number of people on the NEC itself giving him a VERY hard time !!

Douglas.

mkpdavies

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

Well, then we disagree on the idea of cause and effect. There was no obvious need for Andrew to resign.

That's an interesting statement, given that:
1) I didn't attend the first meeting
2) I didn't take any part in compiling the questions

BUT, if it makes for a better argument, please feel free to continue inventing things. My only part was lending my name to a request for a full inspection of the entire party financial status.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I see nothing wrong with NEC members wanting to look at the accounts, especially since, by your own admission, there are missing accounts for the South East!

Exactly my point. He chose to leave. Personal responsibility for one's actions. I have been insulted plenty of times on the NEC, but I have managed not to resign.

As are we all. I have no problem with him resigning, if he was uncomfortable in the job - that is his choice. I disagree with his reasons for doing so and think that he over-reacted, but I am not going to judge him for it. What I do object to is people claiming that he was hounded out of his job, which he absolutely wasn't.

Huh? I have never met the man or spoken to him!

Your sequence of events is muddled at best here. Andrew didn't answer the questions until after he had resigned. It is a temporal impossibility for them to have interfered with his work as treasurer. Shouting louder doesn't make your statement any more true.

Well which is it? Either the accounts were going to be late anyway due to the branch accounts, or Richard travelled back in time to present his questions to Andrew before he resigned and then caused the delay.

In fact, as I recall, Andrew went back on the agreement and failed to answer any of the questions. Eventually Alan Bown kindly stepped in and offered to deal with the questions and ask for assistance from Andrew.

Well, you could ask him, but I really don't think that is the case.

Douglas, please read the reply. We want a full audit of the entire party financial situation, not just HQ. That includes the regions and any other accounting units. Of course we could have just waited for the audit of the central accounts, and no doubt these would have become part of what we we asking for.

However, the end of year accounts barely scratch the reality of a financial situation. For example, I wanted to look at how effective the call centres are, can we save money on the Independence News, can we save money on leaflet printing etc. In other words, I was looking to see where we are spending the money, where we are getting the money from, can we save money, improve efficiency etc.

Not at all. It is a shame, of course, when someone resigns, but it is strange, IMHO, for an accountant to resign when asked financial questions.

Wow. This was posted at 11.26am this morning. Given that you were sent a reply to your stupid statement last night (at 1:16am), I find it very odd that you are now repeating it here. I have already told you that I am not paid. Here is the reply email that you received last night and have chosen to ignore:

B.A.Ware

There's none so blind who cannot see

Christina

These insulting accusations against UKIP remind me of the ones made by Gregory Lance Watkins on his Eurorealist site. Are they the same?

Percentage

I must say you have a bit of a case there,however whilst UKIP carrys on relentlessly with its "Micky Mouse" policy on dual membership,it has to be regarded as a bit "rich" in terms of accepted party standards & "ambitious" as to what to expect realistically from a fellow party member who has a different aproach or point of view when it comes to party maintenance!

Get rid of dual membership,become a serious fully rounded party & these sorts of issues will be as clear as a goldfish bowl! 8)

No matter whose looking in! :wink:

douglas denny

1)That there is likely co-operation and coordination between Watkins and people both within UKIP and without, and attacking UKIP, is well known.

2)That UKIP is a dangerous organisation to many other organisations both National (other political parties for example) and international (the EU itself and all it's works), is also well known.

3)That people in other organisations will be reacting to UKIP and trying to destabilise it is more than just probable. Their methods will follow the normal and usual political propaganda techniques of attacks by smears, slurr, (particularly of individuals) misinformation, disinformation, infiltration and disruption (especially if possible from within).

4)That the people in 1) are likely to be either a part of, or being used
by 3) is more than just probable.

5)That said people in 3) helping to destabilise UKIP are either doing it deliberately or merely as useful idiots is 100% probable.

Judge for yourself from the postings of individuals in what category you might want to place them.

Douglas.

michael mcgough

For someone so interested in accounys I find it most odd that there were no accounts filed after march 2000 for Richards turn around vehicle Fllorcoverings International (uk) limited.For members of a financial bent you won't surprisingly find any info in Swansea but Belfast.

mkpdavies

Michael if you keep spamming every single thread with the same Ad Homiem attack, then further action will be taken.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems