douglas denny

Very wrong.

Parallel universes again! You must be in another to that which I inhabit.

I always thought that it was a principle of the universe that events were successive - one follows the other. My comments have always followed the rumours/malicious rumblings (in the vain attempt to correct them) - not preceeded them or started them ..... !

Anyway, now that Clive Page has started to give definitive comment here there will be no need for me to try to correct the more outrageous nonsense perpetrated. I can sit back and watch him get all the flack instead!!
Have fun Clive ! (You don't know what you have let yourself in for, treading into these murky waters).

Be particularly wary of 'Barboo' - he/she/it - is a troll of the worst kind - never satisfied with the most erudite facts/statements which would normally bring sweetness, light and understanding to the most profoundly ignorant.

Cheers.

Douglas.

Clive Page

In spite of Mr Dennys warning I will try to set your mind at rest.
When my colleague said that NF had always clearly stated the position regarding his son she meant that he had always made it clear to the ST.
It could have been better phrased but that is what was meant.
John Whittaker saying on the website that NF had asked for a retraction was I think a pretty clear indication that the article would be contested.
I cannot help you on JWs letters to or from branch chairman.I am not privy to that.
Re NF and the whip.I did say that Tom Wise was not forthcoming to the Ind Dem group.

The complaint regarding NF was unsigned and he has not been unforthcoming regarding the allegations.
Thanks for the kind words from members of this forum.For those who e mailed me a the press office> I am not a member of common purpose,I have not read Searchlight in my life nor have I talked to anybody who works or has worked for that publication.
Now with respect to members of this forum enough is enough.I will continue to get on with my proper job as I do not intend to be diverted in a world of rumour and spite.
Regards to you all
Clive Page

Geoffrey Collier

Independent UKIP: Are you seeking the prize for social innocence? First, I know not who you are. Are you just a party member and nothing else? Are you a paid employee UKIP/IDG/, a supporter, perhaps. Why should I reveal anything whatever to you?

I will tell you what is allready in the public domain. There are people (plural) who have been allocated a date, time and venue for their respective police interviews and statement submissions. Presumably this was known to Clive Page, or other party employees, but were they, like Elizabethan diplomats,
forced to remain silent and, 'lie for their country's good'. More likely, they were they genuinely ignorant of these arrangements and just pretended to know more they do, to justify their keep? What do our party researchers do for their money?

Now let us look at a more unjust criticism of me by Mr Page. Namely, that I am only wise after the event; relying on the advantages of hindsight. You appear to be suggesting the same thing thing, only by a more complicated route. Do you think, that there is an obligation on me to peruse the, 'speakers list', for conferences which I do not attend, or the preparation for which I am not involved? I do not believe that those who arranged the Exeter conference, were ignorant of the personal opinions, held by those whom they invited to speak. The task is made easier, when some acctually have their own websites.

As the confessed font of all wisdom, you will be equally aware that another Olaf investigation is pending, in addition to the one concerning Wise and the other already in the public domain. No comment will necessary about that one. In addition stronger, 'regulatory control' by the statutory agencies. concerning party finances is not being ignored. Lack of this regulation, is something which the leadership has complained about in the past. They can sure that we will not be neglected in the future.

Providing that we have disciplined party officers and MEPs', there is no reason why progress cannot be made. The membership are generous, long-suffering and loyal. The cause, the membership and the party, in that order,
will be the vehicle for advancement.

Independent UKIP

I am just a party member and nothing else. You constantly demand answers, you even ask me about matters you probably already know I know nothing about. You obviously know about 'Bedfordshire', I do not. The person who promised to serve us well if elected has chosen to keep something from us. So be it.

The press office know, they are condemned. The press office don't know, they are condemned. No win as usual with you

I don't think you as a private person should be expected to peruse speakers lists. If you were a member of the NEC as you recently sought that would be a different matter (different purely on the basis of your own commentaries on this matter). You did have the opportunity to check up on Gabb when you were a candidate recently and you did not do so. If you had been an NEC member before and during Exeter would you have denied all responsibility for Gabb attending? Thus meaning that the NEC as a body had absolutely nothing to do with Exeter. And for that matter Farage, all the MEPs and all others in the party except for a few 'lowly' persons personally involved with inviting Gabb? Should those 'lowly' persons be disciplined by the party in your view? If so what penalty do you think might be appropriate if they were to be found guilty of disciplinary offences.

So are you only concerned with the personal opinions of invited persons and not with any criminal records they have? Every personal opinion "in the public domain" presumably has to be assessed in advance in your opinion. In the case of Gabb whose website I have just visited that would involve many hours of research at his website alone. Other websites would have to be perused in order to get a clearer view of his personal opinions. What precise rules and limits for this would you wish to be set in place? A google check might exclude something a yahoo check includes. How could any of this possibly work in an efficient manner in your opinion?

You needlessly belittle yourself with your description of me as, "the confessed font of all wisdom". I have never and will never make such a ludicrous claim.

I agree with your final paragraph.

Barboo

Thank you, Clive. The Sunday Times article said:

quote

Farage refused to comment on his employing his son, saying: "I am fed up with answering ridiculous questions"

unquote

Yet you/Bellatrix now say that NF had "always" made the position regarding his son clear to the ST. Do you mean, therefore, that the paper was lying when it said Farage had refused to comment, and that despite his having made clear to them that he was not employing his son they went ahead anyway and published what they knew to be an untruth because he had already told them so?

This is a most interesting development. How very useful this forum is in that it has enabled you and Bellatrix to set the record straight by informing everyone that Nigel Farage had "always" made it clear to the ST that (and I quote Bellatrix) "his son was not employed by the party or anyone in it".

Geoffrey Collier

INDEPENDENT UKIP: With respect, much of your reasoning is not logical. The Exeter meeting was out of my Region and being attended by the Leader and many other senior party figures. What were the paid staff doing on that occasion? If, what was deemed an important event, our expectation must be that those employed to make the party presentable, must do better in future than on that occasion. I cannot be expected to identify, for disciplinary charges, people whose role in the conference organisation I am unaware.

May I draw to your attention matters which I endeavoured to change in the past. In the Press Office, a gentleman was employed, purporting to be an aristocrat and was entitled to the prefix Honourable. He had no such aristocratic antecedents, based on evidence held by Debrett. This information was given to the , then leader, by me; nothing happened until it was placed in the public domain by a national newspaper. We cannot even sort out our own staff.

We later encountred a gentleman, who had fought previous parliamentary elections using different surnames. To add to the confusion, he also claimed to be the great-nephew of a former British prime minister. For telling the same, previous party leader, the information about that person was
false and despite conclusive evidence, I was vilified.

In order to prevent this kind of problem in the future, I asked a NEC member to suggest to the Committee, that the production of birth certificates, should be made mandatory for all our prospective parliamentary candidates. Surely, a reasonable requirement given our experiences? The motion received no support from the NEC.

I would have no objection whatever to the suggestion that those who seek office or employment with the party, are vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau. It is used by the public services, why not us?

I am not being destructively critically, but constructive. Who would oppose any of the above suggestions and what would be their strongest objection

Mark Croucher

While you're at it Clive, I wonder if you could confirm the following:

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?

How many angels Nigel thinks can stand on the head of a pin?

And, if there is a difference, can you explain why, and will Nigel issue a denial that he's counted them personally and is simply lying about the answer?

Also, I'd like to know the meaning of life and the winner of the 3:30 at Kempton Park next week, and if you can't supply the answers, then why not?

Rgds

M

SponPlague

UKIP policy is for a 5-year freeze on all new angels arriving on the pin head, while we assess the situation: and of course, if the pin head is too flat, it is illegal under the EU curvature of pinhead directive, EC 2008/0401 :-)

chikrodah

Sorry, Spon, the answer to all of those questions is 42 ...

Millennium3

And we are, at present, working on a policy of sending them all back to from whence the came as there is insufficient space for indigenous angels.