United Kingdom Independence party accused of diverting EU allowances

Richard Allen · 26-02-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.A.Ware

If this is truly the case why is nothing being done about it. were these rules written down somewhere.

To be honest it sounds more like an informal agreement than a set of rules.

C_steam · 26-02-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamieM

One reason to vote UKIP: They are the ONLY party whose policies I believe in and can defend with reasoned and intellectual argument.

Yes, I thought that. Then I found that the party is not led by those with reason or intellect.

eublues · 26-02-2008, 08:45 AM

"They are the ONLY party whose policies I believe in and can defend with reasoned and intellectual argument."

This is certainly true for me.

It makes me somewhat tolerant, or patient about, things that aren't perfect.

under my rock · 26-02-2008, 01:53 PM

Well according to Guido Fawkes' blog of rumours and conspiracy

Quote:

Nigel Farage is threatening to sue the Sunday Times over the claim that he employed his student son, paying him out of EU funds. He admits to employing his wife on the EU gravy train but totally denies any gravy splashing on the boy.

Fingers are being pointed at Roger Knapman, the former UKIP leader, as the source of the story. The word is that he was on the phone to UKIP donors demanding Farage should be ousted on Saturday night. Cui bono?

Check out the link at

Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy: UKIP Handbags Swinging

Tom Wilde · 26-02-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by under my rock

Fingers are being pointed at Roger Knapman, the former UKIP leader, as the source of the story. The word is that he was on the phone to UKIP donors demanding Farage should be ousted on Saturday night. Cui bono?

Even if Knapman really rang donors etc saying Farage should step down, that doesn't mean he was the source of the story. After all, a couple of days ago lots of folks here were also saying emphatically that Farage should go - until the very definite denial by Farage was published on the UKIP website.

Anthony Butcher · 26-02-2008, 02:15 PM

"Threatening to sue" is a million miles from actually doing it, and means nothing.

eublues · 26-02-2008, 02:18 PM

There was no secret about Farage employing his wife - not ideal for the party, but hardly in the same league as Knapman employing Polish plasterers brought in as a business venture by his son.

mkpdavies · 26-02-2008, 02:20 PM

This is what disapointed me most about UKIP MEPs. They started looking a bit like the pigs in Animal Farm.

Tom Wilde · 26-02-2008, 02:26 PM

Yes.

Employing his wife is just about ok, I'd say - providing she actually does the work for which she is paid. (Though it would be better and more clearly above-board if he employed somebody else in that role instead). The clear and damaging implication in Foggo's story was that he paid taxpayers' money his son and that his son wasn't doing any work for the money.

Anthony Butcher · 26-02-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde

Even if Knapman really rang donors etc saying Farage should step down, that doesn't mean he was the source of the story. After all, a couple of days ago lots of folks here were also saying emphatically that Farage should go - until the very definite denial by Farage was published on the UKIP website.

It is too much of a coincidence, I think, that Knapman released his staff list with that dig at Farage employing his wife just a few days before the Sunday Times story appeared. He has previous form of briefing against Farage. Indeed Farage's camp has also briefed against Knapman in the past, including labelling him as "heavily medicated". There were also strong rumours of a potential split. I imagine that this is part of the on-going war. I could be wrong though.

Of course, the source of the story is largely irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is true or not. If it turns out not to be true, then it is the paper's fault for not checking its facts properly and Farage gets to take them to court. If it turns out that one of his sons has been employed in the EU, despite his crafted denial, then Farage will have a very limited life span as a politician I think.

It would seem that there can only be three resolutions at this point:

1. The paper issues an apology and correction.
2. Farage takes them to court and wins.
3. The paper prints more details next week, including its evidence.

26-02-2008, 02:15 PM	#136 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,823 Party: None	"Threatening to sue" is a million miles from actually doing it, and means nothing. __________________ If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled! Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

26-02-2008, 02:20 PM	#138 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	This is what disapointed me most about UKIP MEPs. They started looking a bit like the pigs in Animal Farm. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26-02-2008, 08:45 AM	#133 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,009	"They are the ONLY party whose policies I believe in and can defend with reasoned and intellectual argument." This is certainly true for me. It makes me somewhat tolerant, or patient about, things that aren't perfect.

26-02-2008, 02:18 PM	#137 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,009	There was no secret about Farage employing his wife - not ideal for the party, but hardly in the same league as Knapman employing Polish plasterers brought in as a business venture by his son.

26-02-2008, 02:26 PM	#139 (permalink)
Tom Wilde Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: London. Posts: 2,774	Yes. Employing his wife is just about ok, I'd say - providing she actually does the work for which she is paid. (Though it would be better and more clearly above-board if he employed somebody else in that role instead). The clear and damaging implication in Foggo's story was that he paid taxpayers' money his son and that his son wasn't doing any work for the money.