Colin McNamee

:!: :arrow:

Weren't you (and Del) originally a supporter of Richard's and in agreement that the 'cabal', as refered to by some, candidate(s) should not be supported? What changed your views?...and so vehemently !? So what 'turned' you?


Hey, you've pinched 'my' terminology for those voting Nigel :? Nigel said at the start of the campaign that to cover for his absence in Brussels he would appoint (annoint) a nominee who would manage in his stead. Note not Deputy, not Chairman but a nominee (ie could be a third person IF the other two positions were also appointed by Nigel). At no time subsequently during the campaign has Nigel advsied who this nominee would be! Now, there's a 'pig in a poke' if you vote for Nigel. If Nigel wins what/who do WE get?

gimlet
Good question and........ yes but explanation/comment from Nigel even more interesting in that event :wink:

Niall Warry

I wrote to DCB a few day ago, as I have no faith in DD, to demand a Disciplinary Hearing against Mark Croucher for bringing the Party into disrepute by producing and editing the last 'Independence' which was clearly bias in favour of Nigel.
As of to day I've had no reply.
I agree there is a cabal operating in UKIP so how does one break through it and get an honest hearing????

michael mcgough

"for bringing the Party into disrepute by producing and editing the last 'Independence' "

Perhaps he lacked material on the other candidates An article on all the companies Richardski has turned around might have been useful.

Anthony Butcher

Given that Richard has already explained to you that he cannot divulge the names of the companies publicly (although he has offered to do so privately), your continued sniping on this point is just a cheap shot.

SponPlague

Independence needn't have gone out at the same time as the ballot papers.
And why not hold of Bromley coverage until the next issue?

michael mcgough

"Given that Richard has already explained to you that he cannot divulge the names of the companies publicly (although he has offered to do so privately), your continued sniping on this point is just a cheap shot."

Come on.This is the leadership candidate selling himself to the membership and represented by the BBC as a company turn around expert and I can't know the name of even one of his successes unless I provide a solicitor's undertaking of confidentiallty.I didn't need to sign a letter to find a failure.He is asking us to accept too much on trust.

To reassure me perhaps you could tell me when I may receive answers to my questions to Richard (copied to you) regarding the failed company that I sent last monday?

Bluemerle

Just received a reply from Geoffrey Kingscott:-

Dear........

I have been down in Devon this week, so I am only gradually catching up with my emails.

As Acting Returning Officer, my principal concern is to ensure that the election is fair and secure, so I am concentrating on the ballotting and counting procedures.

A Returning Officer cannot police an election campaign, and monitor everything that is said.

Anyone who spreads malicious rumours which do not have justification usually find that such activity is counter-productive.

Feelings are running high in this campaign, and rightly so, because the whole future of the Party - and that means the country - is at stake.

Best regards

Geoffrey

Geoffrey Kingscott
General Secretary
UK Independence Party
PO Box 408, Newton Abbot, TQ12 9BG

Telephone: 0115 946 8653.
Email: gensec@ukip.org

John Page

The fact is, Michael, you would never vote for him in a month of Sundays. You know that, we know that, and I expect (I haven't asked him) he knows that.

If (and I don't know this either) he feels he has better things to do than to answer endless questions from a supporter of an opponent - who I notice never seems to demand similar details from the other candidates - I for one frankly would not blame him.

michael mcgough

All I want John is to establish Richard's business turn around credentials.
No I won't vote for him but I suspect the 'anyone but Nigel' crew will.
'Pig in a poke' were your words not mine.
No answer ;can't answer.

John Page

Why, as you're not going to vote for him?

In any case, I gather from your posts that he's already explained that client requirement on confientiality would prevent the information being released into the public domain.
I don't recall those words as mine - certainly not about Richard. A search doesn't throw up any instances of me using that phrase. Substantiate or withdraw.
Frankly I don't see why Richard should give your questions the time of day as you clearly support an opponent.