britgirl

Andrew,
You have promulgated this nasty missive from Mr. Simon Muir.
If he wants to leave the party for his largely erroneous reasons - that is for him to decide.
Mr. Muir has his opinions and is entitled to them, but there is one section which is outrageously untrue.

It is the following (especially the underlined):-

> This coming week, before the conference dust is off the shoes of the
> attendees, disciplinary committee meetings will be held. One of the
> 'accused' is Peter Baker, Chairman of the East Midlands committee, and
> for four years a hardworking and tenacious organiser of the very
> conference and business meeting that I expect will on Sunday be
> manipulated to help oust him from the party.
>
> His crime? Well, even he doesn't exactly know, except that he dared to
> write (on the instruction of his committee) a letter asking Roger
> Knapman to explain why he employed Polish workers instead of British
> ones, to cause such embarrassment to the party. Oh, and his committee
> had the effrontery to point out that Derek Clark MEP had been elected to
> serve the people of the East Midlands, and not the other way around.
>
> Peter's not supposed to talk about the proceedings, and until earlier
> this week didn't even have any paperwork, let alone evidence or
> statements to which he might prepare a response. The only think he knew
> for certain was that his accuser was the selfsame Derek Clark MEP.

Mr. Baker has been given all documentation from when I sent him a letter with the details of the complaint on 11th July 2006. He has been contacted by me about this business on many occasions, by letter and mostly recorded delivery.
He has refused to co-operate with the disciplinary proceedings until now. If he had, the matter might have been solved reasonably and amicably without recourse to the disciplinary committee.

There are considerable fences to be jumped before a disciplinary meeting is convened, and are checks and balances along the way where the case can be dropped if there is satisfactory and/or reasonable response from the "accused" and complainant. The decision to go to a full hearing is from four "ordinary" members (meaning NOT associated with the leadership at all) of the party who have selflessly put themselves forward for this onerous task.
It is not my decision as Party Secretary, or anyone else in the party other than six of the Disciplinary Panel.

As you will no doubt not wish to bring UKIP into disrepute with erroneous information, perhaps you might like to publish the above and correct the disinformation.

Douglas Denny. Party Secretary.

=================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Edwards" <andrew.edwards1@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "new-ind-uk" <new-ind-uk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "CDA 2" <CDAmkII@yahoogroups.com>; <eurofaq@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: Another resignation...


> Another EUKIP resignation, to go with that of Tafski ... rather long and
> rambling, but the latter portion is pretty damning!
>
> It even looks as if Clark's Kangaroo courts are being resurrected!
>
> Rgds
>
> Andy E.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Muir" <simonm@muircom.demon.co.uk>
> To: <ind-uk@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <chairman@ukip.org>; <gensec@ukip.org>; "Simon Muir"
> <simonm@muircom.demon.co.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006
> Subject: My Resignation
>
>
>> 10 Henleaze Road
>> Bristol
>> date as email
>> By email.
>>
>> David Campbell Bannerman
>> UK Independence Party Chairman
>> c/o PO Box 408
>> Newton Abbott
>> TQ12 9BG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Bannerman,
>>
>> This is a very hard letter for me to write.
>>
>> Ten years ago I was proud of my political indifference. Having had one
>> career in broadcasting (and then still in the throes of setting out in a
>> different direction), I was proud of my political 'neutrality', not
>> realising that this actually meant 'neglect of duty.' For, since the
>> 1970s, during all of my adult life (and 'on my watch' so-to-speak),
>> successive corrupt politicians have betrayed my country and given its
>> assets away to foreigners. It would be called treason in another age,
>> and that it is not now so declared is indicative of the morass into
>> which we are now rapidly sinking.
>>
>> Norman Tebbit recently likened the government to a 25 stone teenager
>> demanding food at Macdonalds 'so as to become thin'. Even he however
>> would not break ranks and call for British withdrawal from the EU when
>> he was in government and in a position to significantly influence, if
>> not change, the course of events. On his watch he knew the truth, yet
>> remained silent.
>>
>> The Referendum Party offered me hope. Hope that the values I cherish,
>> the Christian heritage of my youth, my family, and the faith I had come
>> to know personally, might again be considered as proper and reasonable
>> in my country. For we stand apart from continental Europe, arguably
>> since the start of the Christian era, in having a branch of Christianity
>> free from the stifling embrace of Roman hierarchy.
>>
>> Space does not permit me to digress properly into the fundamental worth
>> of this value set. Suffice it to say that it is immensely precious and
>> valuable. It is not a a cultural artefact or a hangover from some
>> romantic era, but a practical and sensible guide to living in any age,
>> and to the right relationships we should have with each other.
>>
>> The vast majority of reforms we now take for granted across the Western
>> world, such as the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the concept
>> of public service, universal free access to education (and many more),
>> have their roots in these Protestant Christian islands. If our
>> once-generally-held belief system is so wrong, as ignorant critics
>> suggest, why is it that so much good has come from it, and why have
>> Christians been prepared to accept true martyrdom in order that others
>> might be saved from barbarity?
>>
>> For there is nothing 'romantic' about being burned at the stake or
>> hanged, drawn and quartered. My very ability to write freely in this way
>> can be reasonably attributed to men who held truth in such high esteem
>> that they were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. The violent and
>> wrongful deaths of Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer, to name but three of
>> hundreds, marked the ends of lives spent in peace and service of their
>> fellow men. As true martyrs, their sacrifices stand in stark contrast to
>> the acts of hatred being visited upon us now by brainwashed adherents of
>> militaristic and aggressive cults, and their lives are a testament to
>> the value of our Christian heritage.
>>
>> I must emphasize that my faith is personal, as is that of every
>> Protestant Christian. David Pawson, my pastor in years past, used to
>> say, "God has no grandchildren," meaning that each person must make
>> their own conscious choice as to belief.
>>
>> One is never 'born' a Christian. One must choose it for oneself (or
>> not), for it is not a religion of coercion, nor can it ever be. Freewill
>> is as essential to Christian faith as it is anathema to those who now
>> seek to take over our society.
>>
>> It may surprise you to learn that I do not generally believe in human
>> rights. I can find no logical nor moral justification for the concept of
>> a panoply of 'rights' given by the Almighty or even the 'Big Bang' (in
>> passing one wonders what ultimate moral authority Atheists might cite!),
>> yet supposedly denied us now. In contrast, I find human responsibilities
>> detailed in the Bible, as obligations to our fellow men, to nature and
>> to God. The Christian way is one of good, of service and of sacrifice in
>> the interests of our fellows, and it has no place for the doctrine of,
>> "I must have this possession or service because it is my 'right'".
>>
>> There is however one single human right that I do believe in - the right
>> to exercise freewill. I do have a God given RIGHT to think what I want.
>> If I then act upon that thought there is an expectation too that I
>> should be accountable for that action. Any man may reason with me or
>> argue, and in some circumstances prevent me from acting, but no man has
>> the right to attempt to force me to think in a certain way.
>>
>> That is wholly consistent with my Christian faith, and in stark contrast
>> to the political culture that has latterly grown so cancerously in our
>> land. For today in Britain, once the home of independent Protestant
>> thought, and the place from which so much genuine good has spread out
>> into the world, our very government, ostensibly the servants of the
>> people, seeks to control not just what I do, but what I THINK.
>>
>> That this is wrong is obvious, at least to me. In the Referendum Party
>> and latterly UKIP, I believed it was also obvious to many tens of
>> thousands of others. I still believe that. The difference however is
>> that I can now no longer trust that UKIP will be the agent to bring
>> change about. I can no longer honestly say I believe UKIP wants reform,
>> nor a change in the nature of British government.
>>
>> For six of the eight years or so I have been involved in UKIP, I
>> believed we were 'the good guys'. We weren't slick, we weren't wealthy,
>> but we were RIGHT in what we said, about the EU and its effect on the
>> UK. We wanted change for the right reasons - to restore our society, and
>> repair the damage done to it over thirty years of control by an evil
>> ideology.
>>
>> Now I am no longer sure. I have seen wrong actions covered up. I have
>> seen the indefensible defended on the grounds of expediency. I have
>> heard policies, on the sole basis of which I have served the party,
>> changed, apparently on a whim. In short, I have watched truth depart.
>>
>> I have never expected UKIP to be a fount of ideological correctness.
>> Those who know me well also know that, although I have strong beliefs
>> robustly held, I do not expect them to be adopted as of right in any
>> secular political arena.
>>
>> I cannot however any longer give my support to a party that is become
>> like all the rest.
>>
>> This coming week, before the conference dust is off the shoes of the
>> attendees, disciplinary committee meetings will be held. One of the
>> 'accused' is Peter Baker, Chairman of the East Midlands committee, and
>> for four years a hardworking and tenacious organiser of the very
>> conference and business meeting that I expect will on Sunday be
>> manipulated to help oust him from the party.
>>
>> His crime? Well, even he doesn't exactly know, except that he dared to
>> write (on the instruction of his committee) a letter asking Roger
>> Knapman to explain why he employed Polish workers instead of British
>> ones, to cause such embarrassment to the party. Oh, and his committee
>> had the effrontery to point out that Derek Clark MEP had been elected to
>> serve the people of the East Midlands, and not the other way around.
>>
>> Peter's not supposed to talk about the proceedings, and until earlier
>> this week didn't even have any paperwork, let alone evidence or
>> statements to which he might prepare a response. The only think he knew
>> for certain was that his accuser was the selfsame Derek Clark MEP.
>> Apparently someone in this debacle has the concept of 'public servant'
>> strangely inverted. No doubt the hearing will clarify who, but my
>> expectation is that it won't be Derek.
>>
>> I know Peter. I worked closely with him on the Bristol conference, to
>> date the best attended (and one of the least expensive for UKIP) that
>> the party has ever had. His record of tenacity and commitment speaks for
>> itself. In fact he was one of the key organisers responsible for getting
>> Mr. Clark 'elected' in the first place.
>>
>> That such proceedings as next week's are contemplated at all is an
>> affront to natural justice, and an utter disgrace. All that will remain
>> will be for a victorious Mr. Clark, MEP, to adopt the portfolio of the
>> Ministry of Truth, to complete UKIP's Blairite transformation.
>>
>> This is one small example of life inside Farage's New UKIP. If you seek
>> it out (and in any event I believe you are already well aware) you will
>> find elsewhere well-documented evidence of leadership election dirty
>> tricks, and attempts to cover up afterwards.
>>
>> One can but speculate as to why this was deemed necessary. After all, as
>> the most prominent candidate by far, Mr. Farage only had the election to
>> lose. To secure victory he needed to do nothing. One is only left to
>> speculate on the character and private insecurities of a man who
>> tolerates such behaviour by his associates. I cannot believe he was
>> unaware of what was going on.
>>
>> I do not intend to wait for the invitation to my own 'room 101.' I am
>> not prepared to adopt the Newspeak of New UKIP, nor its apparent new
>> methodologies. I will not turn a blind eye to the deficiencies of the
>> leadership, for to do so makes me culpable too. This is not right, and I
>> cannot in conscience just declare that 'bygones are bygones' and move
>> on.
>>
>> In tragic contrast to what I see falling apart inside UKIP, there is,
>> and always has been, a far better alternative. There is a steady wind
>> and clear water there for the man who will steer an honest course
>> towards it, and the race could yet be won. Generations yet to be born
>> are depending on us to steer in the right direction. If we fail to do
>> this we lose far more than just elections - we lose our history, our
>> heritage, our integrity, and our nation's future.
>>
>> I still believe UKIP has a vital role to play: to collect and organise
>> the genuine reformers of the nation into a coherent and effective
>> political force. Yet until UKIP makes it clear that it stands on the
>> side of right (and not just for a different style of corruption), I can
>> no longer support it.
>>
>> Thus with a heavy heart, I must tender my resignation from the party
>> with immediate effect. Should the party put its house in order at some
>> future point, I hope to be first in the queue for readmission. Until
>> then, however, I can only watch from a distance.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Simon Muir.
>>
>> --
>> Simon D. Muir Landline: +44 (0)117-962-9761
>> Bristol,
>> United Kingdom

C_steam

Some of this Denny nastiness arises from the false allegation that Peter supplied GLW with a copy of said letter, who then put it in the public domain. There is perfectly good evidence that would show why this was not the case.

Best thing for all concerned is for UKIP to call GLW as a witness. I can't for the life of me think why they are not doing this.

8)

mkpdavies

Because it would be like calling a nutter?

IE pointless.

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

C_steam

Matt - the actions of GLW are central to this case. Otherwise it is a kangaroo court based on hearsay and opinion. UKIP clearly would not countenance such a court, hence the calling of GLW to this hearing is vital for UKIP to be able to clear the good name of the long standing member and activist, Peter Baker.

mkpdavies

The bloke is mad. He isn't all there. I wouldn't know what to believe so what's the point?

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Independent UKIP

Could the moderators perhaps remove the personal contact details in the Britgirl post?

Niall Warry

Have you EVER met him????????

He is at the moment being proved more right by the day!


GLW rules OK.

Nigel's loyal cabal may not like the facts but facts the are. The truth ALWAYS comes out in the end.

Independent UKIP

He was a member here for a while. I expect all his posts are still in the archive. He did not appear to be completely with it to me and thankfully was banned in the end. I don't think this forum would still exist if his relentless repetitive drivel had not been stopped. Nobody except him would still be posting or reading posts.

Simon Muir

Well that's all right then.

Greg Lance-Watkins is verbose, rude and despised, ergo he cannot make valid points.

I wonder if you're useless at chess? The chess fiend at school was the scruffiest boy in my class. First impressions diverted his lesser opponents from a mind as sharp as a razor, and once he realised he was having that effect his shirts became dirtier and his tie frayed at the end. He went on to acquit himself very well in the national championships for our age group.

The irony of the disciplinary proceedings against Peter are being completely ignored here, namely that it was ROGER KNAPMAN who brought the party into disrepute, by taking a course of action, presumably for commercial reasons, that was diametrically opposed to the expected view of the party. He tried to wriggle out of it, on the basis that there wasn't any explicit policy about employing migrants one way or the other, but to the rest of us, and the press, and the readers of the press, the hypocrisy was impressive (to put it mildly).

Who brought UKIP into disrepute? The party leader, or the people who dared question him? Why, apparently, have unconstitutional attempts being made to replace the East Midlands committee with a more pliant one, and why are such charges being brought against the chairman, for writing to Roger Knapman in terms as instructed by his committee?

Mr Denny has expressed his view of events concerning this disciplinary process. Elsewhere he has made it very clear to others that he alone, as party secretary, is the gatekeeper of the disciplinary process, and therfore in a unique position to stop such stupid abuse of power taking place. That he appears to endorse it tells me all I need know (although not what I wanted to hear!).

It is a matter of natural justice that a man knows what he is accused of, and is given opportunity to address any 'evidence' laid against him in formal proceedings. Irrespective of the daftness of the charge itself, if Mr. Denny cannot conclusively state that Peter Baker has been given all relevant details with sufficient time to prepare a response, then my original point remains.

The other pertinent fact, which Mr. Denny does not address, is the matter of the discipline committee itself. I was under the impression that it was the responsibility of the party's business meeting to select the committee members. After Sunday, who will be on the committee, and will Mr. Denny still be Party Secretary?

If common sense prevails (unlikely but possible) the whole thing may be moot. It seems, however, that nobody in the leadership has at any point tried to get this stopped, and worse that Derek Clark MEP is apparently the plaintiff!

How ludicrous is that?

mkpdavies

He also tells blatant lies. I should know, because he did one about me.

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems