Anthony Butcher

That 'rumour' would conveniently fit with the theory that both sides are telling some form of truth. This is pure speculation on my part but this scenario would explain why neither side seems to be doing anything:

Farage's son was legitimately employed by UKIP/Graham Booth in the SW while at university in Exeter (just down the road from head office). The ST 'insider' got his facts slightly wrong or wilfully misrepresented them to have a go at Farage. The paper contacted Farage, who apparently bizarrely refused to deny the allegation or provide any corrections, thus encouraging the paper to go to print. Once the story appeared and the ST realised it was factually inaccurate, they couldn't print anything else for fear of opening themselves up to libel action. Farage in turn is stuck because while he hasn't directly employed his son, family connections meant that his son was employed. Combine that with his wife on a full time salary, and Farage will be forever labelled a nepotist as well as being shown to be deliberately dishonest about whether his son was employed or not (He only ever said that he didn't emplyhis son).

If this speculative scenario is close to the truth, we can expect no action from either side. It would certainly explain why Farage hasn't taken legal action in what is very clearly an open and shut case if he hasn't employed his son.

__________________
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

Bellatrix

How 'Resigned Member' has the audacity to ask to see a private letter is beyond me. The letter was between a Nigel Farage's solicitors and the Sunday Times and is confidential. Do you flyer the neighbourhood with your private correspondence?

Nigel Farage has always stated quite clearly that his son was not employed by the party or anyone in it. I know where Sam works and I'd be surprised if anyone could make the link between that and MEP allowances. No doubt some on here would try, eh, but then trying to damage UKIP is in their interests as they are not party members.

Defamation law also applies to websites too, don't forget.

kernow

Call it "commentators eye"!

Barboo

Where has Nigel Farage stated this? In the ST article he was quoted saying: "I am fed up with answering ridiculous questions"; in UKIP's denial statement he said: "There is not a single grain of truth in the statement that I am employing my son using EU allowances or in any other capacity"; in the Bromley Times he said: "My son has never worked for me in any capacity whatsoever"; and on his blog he said: "I have never employed my son in any capacity whatsoever".

In none of these does he state that his son was not employed by the party or anyone in it. Please substantiate with references what you claim he has said.

UKIP's statement on 24 February was so unequivocal, with Nigel flatly denying both that he was employing his son and that he is being investigated by OLAF, that many people can't understand why four weeks later the Sunday Times has still not published a retraction. In other cases a clarification has appeared the week following some incorrect statement, so it's not surprising that some are doubtful that a retraction has even been asked for. Why be sniffy about it?

Has John Whittaker replied to the regional chairmen?

Millennium3

Is your commentators eye blind to the fact that UKIP are in decline and that they have policies which, in the main, just a tiny section of the voters want?

Or is the truth too unpalatable to face?

chikrodah

Trixy, stop trying to threaten this forum. I'm sure the solicitor's letter would have arrived on the owner's desk by now if there was any real chance of defamation having taken place.

Anthony Butcher

To be fair, I think that the party and leadership are very tolerant of criticism in general. The only time a solicitor's letter was ever used was to encourage me to change the name - which is no big deal.

__________________
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

kernow

I can't remember reading a posting of yours which was not anti UKIP! I remember people like yourself before the last EU elections saying UKIP were on the way out and would lose the 3 MEPS they had. Unfortunately for the anti UKIP lot, instead of losing all three seats we gained another 9! If you were closer to the movers and shakers you'd know UKIP is not in decline!

Millennium3

This argument is often wheeled out. In 2004 in the EU elections UKIP got 16.8% of the vote, yet in the following year at the GE got only 2.38%. Does it not occur to you that a significant section of the electorate are greatly opposed to our membership of the EU and if UKIP had policies which were remotely appealing to the majority they would have replaced the Lib/Dems by now as the third largest party and would be standing at something in excess of 15% in the polls, particularly as the EU is very much in focus because of the LT.

As things stand, if the EU elections are held before the GE, as is likely since it is difficult to imagine Brown's popularity rising for him to call a snap election, the Tories will be able to maintain the illusion of being the party trying hold the EU in check because of their campaign for a referendum. In these circumstances UKIP will lose seats. By the time the GE does come around the Tories will have to declare if they will hold a post ratification referendum on the LT - which they won't. This should work to the advantage of UKIP at the GE, but because their policies are so unappealing to the majority they will get less than 5%, unless another of the smaller parties recognises how many votes are available to an anti EU party with popular policies, in which case UKIP will be history.

Resigned Member

Interersting that according to Bellatrix Sam Farage a student works somewhere-where?
For those who wonder why UKIP is broke and still believe a single word Farage says about the costs of writing a letter to the Sunday Times it may interest them to know that the NEC on Farages proposal has voted to give Zuckerman a large pot of mone to pursue Andy Edwards of 'fraud 'i.e.ridiculing Farage so that some unidentified multi-millioaire cancelled a donation to UKIP and get the police to take away temporarily Edwards p.c.-most will be aware of this bizarre story.No wonder Edwards ridicules Farage-more on that another time.