mkpdavies

It's looking this story is very much horseshite now. Farage will have a good opportunity to get cash and publicity from this, if the statement is true. I'm guessing it is true, because it will be 10 time more bad if it wasn't.

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

Yep, if Farage's statement is true, then this could be the article that finally rids UKIP of Foggo as a credible critic. They lost the PPC case against him over the Polish workers article, but this one looks far more serious.

I am not sure that there is much chance of any positive publicity though; any retelling will involve restating the articles claims and mud tends to stick. Other than a formal apology and correction in the ST, I doubt that UKIP will want any more media attention on this.

Despite Mark "Whatever" Croucher's assertion that every detail in the article is untrue, I note that Farage doesn't deny that he hires his wife. That's not something the party will want to advertise, even if they do feel fairly confident that it is a necessity/genuine convenience. It's one of those things that always looks bad.

__________________
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

Barboo

Yes, but how it looks is not necessarily how it is, mkp, and it's extraordinarily difficult to suss out the truth from what you read, whether in a damaging article or in its rebuttal.

As newspapers have lawyers to vet anything potentially actionable it would be unusual if there was no evidence at all for the article's claims, which in the peculiar world of PR and spin doesn't mean that UKIP's statement is untrue. It could all turn on something as apparently trivial as tense. Nigel Farage is quoted saying: "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". He does not say that he hasn't employed Sam in that way in the past.

Anthony Butcher

Interestingly, I submitted UKIP's denial to the comments page of the Times article a couple of hours ago - I think that their readers have a right to know that it is a strongly disputed accusation - but it has yet to appear.

It is possible that they have a long moderation queue, but several other comments have appeared, while mine remains mysteriously absent.

__________________
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

Anthony Butcher

I don't think that kind of technicality washes in the world of politics. If it turns out that he has in the past employed his son then I think that he will be crucified. Would anyone here regard that as anything better than a bare faced lie?

It would also be incredibly stupid because it would just give the paper an excuse to reprint the article but this time including an apparent denial of something they have evidence for. Then not only do they label him as a hypocrite on the gravy train, but also a public liar.

__________________
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

Barboo

Note, though, that this one isn't just Foggo. The article is also attributed to Steven Swinford. I wonder what his input was?

Barboo

Yes, and if that should turn out to be the case, the use of the present tense in the original article would have been a trap for the unwary! If my hypothesis is wrong, what possible explanation can there be for the Sunday Times leaving itself wide open for a libel action? To make claims as specific as those in the article, without any corroborating evidence, is peculiar in the extreme. I know journalists can happily twist the truth out of all recognition, but they, and certainly their editors, usually make sure they have at least something to back up their claims.

One other small point about the UKIP statement which I thought strange was the final paragraph re Marta Andreasen. As party treasurer she has no authority over or responsibility for the MEPs' finances at all. In fact, the online version of the article particularly mentions Robin Collett as the MEPs' accountant. So why was Marta Andreasen brought into it? If it was in the hope that her name would give extra credibility to the rebuttal statement, I think that is unfortunate. The plain unvarnished truth should stand up on its own.

stathan

I'm often 99% sure that a certain horse that I've backed down my local bookies is going to win the race........ I'm afraid to report that often they don't.



You are wrong..simple as that..don't bother with the apology it means nothing.


As regards personal attacks, if people pointing out your continued poisonous bitterness in every other posting about UKIP upsets you...don't do it, concentrate on your own agenda rather than harping on about the same old same old

komerad

I agree Barboo - why on earth was this tacked onto the end of the denial, I'd have thought it was nothing to do with MA,why mention her?
Anyway we will know if any damage has been done when we stand in the street with our pro-referendum petitions tomorow morning in Cardiff.
Hopefully,not many taffys read the Times

SponPlague

James Carver used to be RO for UKIP Wales - his name appears in said capacity in back issues of Independence...