douglas denny

[quote]
Note: I can only mention official procedure about his case and what is in the public domain due to Peter Baker himself publicising it.

You have NOT read my posting to clear -up your errors about procedure of the disciplinary committee.

I say again: it is the decision of six of the Disciplinary Panel to decide if a case is substantive and should be brought before a Disciplinary Committee. It is NOT my decision. I am merely an administrator. The only 'judicial' power available to the chairman of the DC is in a deciding vote in the eventuality of an equal for/against vote of the members.

He most certainly knows.

He most certainly has been given every opportunity to make a response but has not. He will most certainly be given every opportunity to address any evidence laid against him at the Disciplinary Committee meeting.


Douglas Denny. Party Secretary.
-

SponPlague

But you're the one that chooses which six from the pool, Doug? What are the selection criteria?

Further, isn't it true that in at least one case, you 'invited' the NEC to vote on bypassing this process altogether and summarily expel a member outright? :evil:

douglas denny

[quote]Selection according to the rules is "geographically" - meaning a fair spread over the country (if possible). Or by (more or less) randomisation. There were twelve (now ten according to constitution - this is mistake IMHO as the panel is six, and we should have a multiple of this) on the Panel to be "called-up". If there is more than one case then six different would be chosen; then a mixture of all again etc. You know this. You have copy of rules.

Wrong.
I put a case of a transgression of party rules about a branch chairman, thinking the NEC had the power to suspend his chairmanship. I was wrong of course (as a moments thought would have made clear to myself anyway) - and it was Michael Zuckerman who pointed out the only body within UKIP with the power to suspend anyone, or expell them from the party was the DC. The DC procedures were put into motion at the instigation of the NEC after - I had put the case to them in the first place. They in effect took over the role of deciding in the first instance if the case was subtantive enough to go to the Disc. Panel of six to decide if to have a full hearing - which is normally the PS's job. As it was me to bring the case forward I could not do that.

As I had mentioned the case and made an opinon to the NEC it was incumbent on me to place the case before one other on the Disc. Panel. You should know all about this as you were that very person.
You have the documents I sent you.
You dismissed the case with the acknowledgement of the 'wrongdoing' by the perpetrator and an assurance it would not happen again.

DED.

BASILDON BOY

....more ammunition for our enemies!

__________________
Mike Nattrass MEP is HOT HOT HOT!!!

douglas denny

I don't know what you are on about. There is no detail of substance for enemies in this - it just dull party admin. All parties have this kind of thing going on all the time - wherever you are dealing with humans in fact. Womens Institutes and local Golf Clubs have far more meaty goings-on.

DED.

Niall Warry

Sorry who tells blatant lies?

Simon Muir

Not at all. It's about probity and democracy, and accountabiltiy of the leaderhip to the membership.

Stalin's death camps were 'just dull admin' as far as the regime was concerned, and, despite the vast difference of degree which I'll readily concede, there are detectable similarities in the way UKIP's leadership is beginning to operate.

SponPlague

I think he means the business meet is just dull admin, Simon... Admin certainly, but dull? Let's see on Sunday (pity I can't make it...) :twisted: