Barboo

I've just asked Daniel Foggo if Nigel Farage has requested a retraction, and he says no. Our exchange was as follows:

quote

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:19:30 -0000
From: "Foggo, Daniel"

Dear Ms Booker,
To date, no communication whatsoever.
Sincerely,
Daniel Foggo

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 March 2008 13:02
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Nigel Farage

Dear Mr Foggo
I and many other UKIP members were extremely disturbed by your recent article concerning Nigel Farage and his use of EU allowances.

Mr Farage has issued a denial statement which appears on the party website, but I note there was no correction published in the Sunday Times this week.

I understand that some UKIP regional chairmen are trying to ascertain what, if any, further action is being taken (their e-mail is reproduced below), but I wonder if you could tell me whether the Sunday Times or you personally have received any communication from Nigel Farage, or from anyone acting on his behalf, formally asking for a retraction of those parts of your article which he claims are incorrect.

Any information you can give me would be appreciated.

unquote

Millennium3

Well that answers the Regional Chairmen's letter to JW.

Petrina

Nigel`s no fool ,I`m sure that there will be a very good reason for not taking action.

Anthony Butcher

He did only meet with the lawyers yesterday. Given the lack of a letter to the Sunday Times, one can only presume that he is skipping that step and going straight to legal action.

I think that a PCC complaint requires some contact with the paper beforehand to try to get a correction printed?

__________________
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

BASILDON BOY

Nigel Farage will have to be prepared to provide his bank statements and all his income and expenditure as an MEP together with receipts for scrutiny by Lawyers.

Independent UKIP

Have you written a similar email to the editor of the Sunday Times? I hardly think that Farage would contact Foggo on the matter. And in the context of a reply apparently sent 17 minutes after the original email I am not quite 100% certain that Foggo is in a position to reply in the way he has done.

If the reply by Foggo were to be wrong and Farage complains to the PCC or takes legal action I hope that communication will be provided to Farage to support his case (particuarly a legal case).

In reply to AB I thought Farage consulted lawyers last Monday not this Monday. If he did consult lawyers this Monday then I tend to agree with you. Whatever, he has to take some external action about this claim. If not he has lost my support and should go.

Barboo

No. It was just a spur-of-the-moment attempt to establish the current position in the light of the chairmen's letter. I was not greatly hopeful of receiving a reply at all, but assumed that had the editor been contacted Daniel Foggo would have been the first to hear about it. Obviously, a response that was accurate yesterday may well be overtaken by events today.

Re Farage consulting his lawyers, the Bromley Times of Wednesday 27 February said: "Mr Farage . . . . said he was due to meet his lawyers on Monday". That suggested the coming Monday, 3 March, surely? Had the interview been given on Monday 25 February, wouldn't the paper have said 'last Monday' or 'today'?

As the chairmen's letter said, speed is of the essence in a case like this so why would Nigel Farage delay for eight days before seeing his lawyers? The only possible explanation would be the hope of a retraction being published the week after the article, but if he didn't ask for a retraction then the paper had no reason to print one. If he decided to let the lawyers deal with it why didn't he see them immediately, and if he did, why didn't they write asking for the retraction last week? It doesn't stack up either way.

Geoffrey Collier

If Mr Farage initiates a legal action, with himself as the plaintiff and the Sunday Times as the defendant, relating to a personal matter concerning his own son, that must be deemed a private action. There can be no justification for any legal costs incurred, being met by the Party. We are going close to the realms of nonsense: legal costs, due mainly to the stupidity of certain people, has virtually bankrupted this Party. Time and time again we have been down this squalid road.

The tax department, free of charge, would be willing to examine Sam Farage's financial position and produce their findings based on high-quality evidence. The accusation is either true or false: obtain the evidence by the
fastest and most economic route.

In the last edition of the Independence for 2007, Mr Farage was chiding the Electoral Commission for failing in their regulatory duties towards UKIP. This would be the time to reiterate those concerns to El-Com. and seek their wise counsel and assistance in this matter. Could some other MEP be involved in the capacity of paymaster, conduit or employer? Who knows!

This is a simple staightforward matter concerning an accusation and the quality of any evidence to support it. Should the latter not exist, the problem immediately disappears.

On the day that Parliament debates the Lisbon Treaty, quite independently of our will, the membership has a distraction such as this. Utterly disgraceful.

PETWINA

Why should he have to shell out a lot of dosh ,say£20k to satisfy the few whingers here and the phony phoenicians because some second rate hack makes allegations.It is very easy to prove a positive not a negative.No legs no circulation ,except amongst women 'd'un certain age' and a few provincial backwoodsmen.

eublues

If there's no evidence to support Foggo's claim about the son being employed, the costs of legal action would surely be recouped.