Simon Muir

Bermondsey, dateline 10.10.06 1600h

Today should have been the day that Peter Baker, chairman of the East Midlands committee, and Conference treasurer and organiser was either disciplined or exonerated in front of the official discipline committee of UKIP. Instead, in a farce of Pythonesque stature, the meeting was adjourned, amidst suppressed guffaws from the defence team and incredulity from those unfortunates who had travelled hundreds of miles as witnesses.

The committee hearing (read 'show trial') was to have taken place in the offices of Gerard Batten, UKIP-MEP. Attending were the protagonists:

• Peter Baker (accused)
  Derek Clark (accusor)

Discipline Committee panel members:

• Douglas Denny, ex-Party Secretary (chairman)
  xxxxxx (member)
  xxxxxx (member)
  (Note: there should have been at least four
  members, however the fourth was a no-show)

In addition:

• Petrina Holdsworth, McKenzie Friend, advising Mr. Baker
  Marietta King (defence witness)
  Greg Lance-Watkins (defence witness)
  Marilyn Swain, Secretary East Mids. Committee (defence witness)
  David Black, East Mids. Committee (defence witness)

The defence party assembled outside the office building (in Morocco Rd., a side-street off Bermondsey St.), but Mr. Lance-Watkins was refused entrance to the building by Mr. Denny, who appeared outside in an agitated state. Despite the evident rudeness (and apparently quite gleeful), Mr. Denny explained that Mr. Batten had refused Mr Lance-Watkins ("Watkins!") admission to the premises (the exact grounds for this were unclear), and, since the offices belonged to him, the committee could do nothing about this.

Ms. Holdsworth stated that Mr. Lance-Watkins was there to give evidence to the committee. Mr. Denny responded that the committee had not agreed to this, however Ms. Holdsworth replied that it was not the place of the committee to tell the defence who to call as witnesses, and that any attempt to interfere in this contravened the very rules under which the committee sat.

Mr. Denny then retreated into the building, to return with the offer that the committee could interview Mr. Lance-Watkins, if it decided to, in the street, or in a nearby pub (at Mr. Lance-Watkins' choice). This offer was refused, Mr. Lance-Watkins pointing out that he did not frequent pubs in Bermondsey nor give evidence on pavements.

Mr. Denny intimated that Mr. Batten had told him the only place he would meet Mr. Lance-Watkins would be a toilet. Again Mr. Lance-Watkins politely refused this offer (Mr. Batten's connection with toilets is presumably normal, however his connection with the disciplinary proceedings has yet to be established).

The witnesses unanimously then refused to participate further in the day's proceedings. Mr. Denny then stated that the proceedings would continue despite all, and that he would record Mr. Baker as having failed to attend.

Ms. Holdsworth and Mr. Baker offered to discuss some of the 'procedural violations' with the committee, (but not the substance of the case itself). Mr. Baker and Ms. Holdsworth did then enter the building, and a discussion took place inside for approximately one hour.

The witnesses sat outside (on a convenient wall, using newspapers for insulation), and eventually repaired to a local sandwich bar in disgust. Mr. Baker and Ms. Holdsworth later rejoined the party, to state that the case had been "adjourned, by mutual agreement" (a condition of which was confidentiality as to the reasons), thereby effectively setting the process back to the beginning, as both the discipline committee and the party secretary* have effectively been replaced.

At this point the assembled company dispersed back to the individuals' homes, some having travelled round trips in excess of 300 miles to attend. No discussion of expenses nor offers of reimbursement were made, in flagrant disregard for convention in such matters.

My comment: It is abundantly clear that with such morons running UKIP, it is but a matter of time before the party collapses.

*pending ratification by the NEC.

Simon Muir

It's arguably bad form to follow up my own post, but it has been pointed out to me that all of those left sitting out on newspaper on the wall (above), with the obvious exception of Mr. Lance-Watkins, were in fact UKIP branch chairmen.

Wherever the 'writing' happens to end up, the message needs no translation.

__________________
Macduff, becoming tired of tomfoolery, flung his sword aside, and seizing hold of McGonagall, brought the sublime tragedy of Macbeth to a close in a rather undnigified way, by taking the feet from under the principal character. (review, Dundee 1858)

Soddball

Sounds like everyone is more interested in scoring political procedure committee points than fighting elections to me. Better off firing the whole damn lot of them.

One Londoner

It's deja vu all over again!!!

It is ironic that Derek Clark is once again involved. The UKIP disciplinary process has been a farce ever since the days when he was party secretary and allowed Nigel and his cronies to use it as a political weapon to dispose of potential rivals. Very sad. :cry:

MarkR

I wouldn't have him in my building either.

Bluemerle

I am looking forward to the next episode. Who writes these comedies??

One Londoner

I would say it is more of a tragedy, Bluemerle.

Over the years UKIP has soaked up a lot of anti-EU activists and then spat quite a few of the most effective ones out when they start to question some of the dubious activities of the leadership.

It is a tragedy for the anti-EU movement that the organisation which should be our flagship is rotten at the core, sadly reminiscent of the EU itself.

Bluemerle

You're right One Londoner. We should all be crying. But with the present cabal it is obvious that they couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery. They obviously know little, or nothing, about procedure in these cases. It is a good job Petrina was there. At least she should know the correct way these disciplinary committees work.

Why are we all wasting our precious time supporting these clowns??

Veelad

:mrgreen:

This is excellent stuff, you just could not make it up , I too look forward to the next episode in this comedy of errors

HarryUKIP

So one of Hapless Denny's final acts was to arrange a meeting in a place where the owner had a veto on who was allowed in!

and Clueless Denny also failed to ensure that the minimum number of DC people were in attendance.

Am I reading about some depopulated parish meeting or a political party?