Petrina

I agree Brown will not hold a referendum whatever the High Court say BUT if the High Court do agree that the Amending Treaty is substantially the same as the Constit .(94% the same) then that is a huge stick to beat him with .Put it together with all the other **** ups and you have a splendid array of ammo to fire against New Labour at the GE.

If the Tories get in then their supporters must somehow hold them to the majority opinion of the British public`s view that the UK is not best served by our present relationship with the EU.If Cameron twists and turns ,as he will, he must go.

Geoffrey Collier

Bob FM: There is no evidence whatever that the Electrol Commission have attempted to harm UKIP; should you be of a contrary opinion it is for you to provide the evidence. Indeed, all the evidence in the public domain suggests that ElCom were very tolerant of UKIP, and gave it every opportunity to remedy the wrongs which undoubtedly existed.
Having given UKIP an extension date to prepare their accounts, for example, they still hadn't produced them some seven months later. A former Party treasurer e-mailed certain NEC members advising them to let Elcom believe that we are taking them seriously, and then suggested that the new treasurer would have excuses ready, when next we are late with the accounts. That e-mail was presentd by the prosecution in court; not exactly good publicity you may agree! You are arguing that the Electoral Commission were motivated by malevolence towards UKIP: what is the best evidence you possess to support that charge? What would be their motive? That is the extravagant language from which you would be wise to desist, without conclusive evidence.

A party isn't about, 'it's elected members and officers', as you insist. A party is about it's cause and it's members. Particularly those who provide funds and donations which subsequently cannot be traced. Should those who insist that such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, be dismissed as malcontents, what future is there for an electoral system based on voluntary donations? Don't imagine that the statutory agencies are not aware of our difficulties.

Who used the word 'fraud' other than you? It is not speculation that nearly a quarter of a million pounds were transferred to a private company, from our Call Centre in Ashford.
Company House will confirm that to be true. (Would you like the recipient company's registration number?) Have you seen the invoices from that private company to the Call Centre, which provide justification for that capital transfer? This money was raised under Electoral law, but what eventually happened to most of it, is still not clear. Have you been able to ascertain what the £211,000 (incidental expenses) actually covered?

These question have to be answered if UKIP has a future. The membership want to impose high standards from the leadership. Nigel Farage insists that we have been harmed by poor regulatory control by the Electoral Commission. Let us hope that El-Com. will arrange a forensic audit withour further ado, to allay Mr Farage's fears.
I am sure that this expectation will meet with your total approval.

Aardvark

Bob FM,

You didn't read your NEC paperwork, Geoffrey did stand for the NEC and, having met him after I voted, I realise I made a mistake in not supporting him.

The allegations Geoffrey refers to have been passed on to other bodies and we are not privy to the full details. I know that research to establish the facts was paid for by a concerned NEC member at the time, but I don't know what has become of it.

In a healthy, democratic party criticism of the leadership is normal and accepted.

Do you think that the Labour Party is currently rock solid behind their elected leader?

The LibDems are working through all of their MPs as leader in turn, or so it seems, as the result of internal concerns and criticisms. If the LibDems, who have had considerable more electoral success than UKIP (second in percentage terms at the recent elections and a stack of elected MPs and councillors), can publicly criticise their leader, if MPs, Tory and Labour as well, can express their disquiet in public then why should UKIP, a democratic party, seek to restrain free speech or criticism of their leader? You might want to ask why wealthy Eurosceptics, such as Mr Wheeler, would rather put their money behind a pro-EU party that files proper accounts for all of its branches and offices as opposed to UKIP which cannot properly account for all of the monies that come its way.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Geoffrey Collier

Raymond Finch: It wouldn't be tantamount to admitting that he lied. Mrs Thatcher said that the Single European Act, was her worst error while in government. Did she, despite being a barrister, admit she lied? No, she said that she was given wrong legal advice by her advisers. This is how all errors are retrospectively explained.

It would be difficult for Brown to refuse a referendum, should the court judge that the EU Con. and the L.T. are essentially the same. What could influence his decision , may be the likely prospects for re-election. He has two years left as PM, should all other things be even. Following a favourable judgement in Wheeler's Review, Brown doesn't have to make an immediate decision. He can play this one right up to the fence amd that is what he will do. Should a referendum increase Labour's election chances, he will be under pressure to have one by his party. Let us see!

Bob FM

A British Referendum may be a mute point. The tied in Ireland is turning in favour of a NO vote. That is according to the Irish themselves not UKIP, GC. I still maintain you are throwing allegations around like confetti with nothing to back it up. If you know where all this money went and whose company it was, say so. It was my understanding that the Kent issue was dead and buried. As for the EC, why did they not take legal action against the Lib-Dems for their 2.4 million from a fraudster and why were they not compelled to give it back.

Geoffrey Collier

Bob FM : From whom did you get that information which persuaded you that Ashford was dead and buried? I do know whose company it was, and the amount transferred to it. That information is in the public domain.

The Electoral Commission were concerned about PERSONAL donations to UKIP which were impermissible. The status of donations to other parties are not known to me. Are you implying that legally they were identical to those donated to UKIP, but they received more favourable treatment from El Com without legal justification? Are you a lawyer, and is Electoral Law an area within your competence? From whom can I ascertain the veracity of your claim that El Com acted malevolently towards UKIP? A very serious charge believe me.

Bob FM

Strange, if the information as you say is in the public domain, why will you not post it on here. As for the Lib-dem thing. The person donating, donated the funds from a UK holding company as I understand it and it wasn't theirs to donate the guy got 8 years for fraud. I think I am right in saying this was brought up at the UKIP trial, where as you well know the Judge ordered just 14k to be forfeit. The Judge totally accepted that our donor was legally resident and just forget to sign the voters form. I think your attitude to the party on here probably explains why you weren't elected to the NEC

By Dominic Kennedy and Greg Hurst
THE deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats says today that he would take more money from a multimillionaire who is wanted in the US for jumping probation in a fraud case.

Sir Menzies Campbell says that the party has no intention of returning a £2.4 million gift from Michael Brown and has already spent the money, in its general election campaign.

His defiant attitude follows disclosures in The Times that Mr Brown, 39, was arrested three times in Florida, accused of bouncing 12 cheques for a total of $7,000 (£3,925).

The Lib Dems took the money from a newly formed British-registered company wholly owned by Mr Brown’s parent business in the Swiss tax haven of Zug. Mr Brown, a Scotsman living in Majorca, is not on Britain’s electoral roll. The party used his aircraft and senior figures, including Charles Kennedy, made £30,000 worth of flights during the campaign. It won a record 62 seats using its biggest-ever donation.

The Electoral Commission may yet call in prosecutors and force the Lib Dems to surrender the money for failing to make sufficient checks that the business was trading at the time that it made the donation.

Bob FM

The Electoral Commission watchdog said it was "permissible" for the Liberal Democrats to have accepted the money from Mr Brown’s company 5th Avenue, which allowed the party to increase election spending to a record £6 million.

But the Commission said it should have made closer checks on the gift, to ensure that it was not breaking rules which ban donations from foreign companies with no activities in the UK. So please tell why the EC didn't take the same action over this individual, after all was there a difference. Oh yes, his company never traded in the UK, he was not a UK eligible resident, it wasn't his money, and he of course was convicted of fraud.

THREE directors of a stockbroking firm were arrested in raids yesterday on suspicion of laundering money, including a large sum donated to the Liberal Democrats.

Detectives questioned the men from Pritchard Stockbrokers as part of their inquiries into Michael Brown, the disgraced financier and the party’s biggest donor.

Most of the £2.4 million given by Brown’s company 5th Avenue Partners to the Lib Dems last year appears to have come through the stockbroking firm, according to inquiries from Brown’s bank.

The arrests will increase pressure on the party to re-examine the source of the donation that bankrolled a general election campaign. Investors in Brown’s company have demanded that the party return the money because they claim that it belonged to them. The Lib Dems have refused, saying that they accepted it in good faith and acted properly at all times.

Geoffrey Collier

Bob FM: You are confusing so many issues, it is difficult to know where to start. If you want it posted with more details, I trust that this will be to your satisfaction. Remember I am merely complying with YOUR request.

Ashford Employment Ltd (Registered with Company House 9th October 2003, No. 04927291) was a privare limited company, a sole provider of labour to the UKIP Call Centre, which operated from the same address.The sole shareholder (owner) was Alan Bown. The secretary was John Moran, while the director was Terry Quarterman. Within the two Financial Years 2003-2005; £155 714 and £92. 324. produced a total of £248, 038. The turnover for both those years, exceeded that amount which was required to register for VAT. We must presume, therefore, that VAT was identified on the A.E. Ltd invoices sent to the Call Centre. Should that not be the case, they were either claiming a lawful exclusion from that obligation, or it was not being levied.

The manager of the call centre, was Terry Quarterman, the same gentleman who was a director of the recipient compamy. This immediately raised the question; what was his employment status? What were the Terms of Business between A.E. Ltd and the Call Centre, and who agreed them? The instruments which justified those capital transfers, would normally be Invoices, subsequently consolidated on Statements. Presumably, those documents exist and are capable of retrospective inspection by authorised personnel.

There should be no difficulty whatever, in justifying capital movements of that magnitude
and it is reasonable that such evidence should be produced on request. The money was raised lawfully from members and supporter of UKIP, to advance their cause. The disbursement of those donations, particularly when there is an ambiguous relationship between a private company and the Party, must be meticulously documented and justified. In this country political parties can only survive from donations, both private and corporate, being freely given. Donations, therefore, assume a pivotal importance within the very electoral process itself.

Concerning the other matters which you raise, I cannot discuss them in detail for want of information and knowledge of Electoral Law; which I do not possess. However, I think that we can safely forget, 'wicked plots' emanating from the Electoral Commission. I think that I would be correct in assuming that identifying the donor, and deciding the permissibilty of the donation would be the first step. Next, perhaps; is it a private donation or a corporate one? They are distinctly different to require different criteria.

It hardly seems reasonable, that the Electoral Commission should be given extra-territorial powers, to investigate the genus of the donation itself, and the character of the donor. Those things can only be known with subsequent knowledge. Think for a moment about what you are saying. A party receives a permissible donation, and spends it on those things for which it was given. Then it transpires that the donation, although permissible, was originally illegitimately acquired by the donor. The recipient party must then, perhaps, incur debt to repay, the originally dispossed individual or company. That is not in the Realms of the real.

Bob FM

Your so called explanation of the Ashford 'affair' seems just you making a lot of assumptions and no facts. I posted fact. Fact 1: Lib-dems received the money, Fact 2: The company was not trading in the UK (condition of eligibility to Donate as company) Fact 3: Brown was not a UK Resident (therefore not eligible to donate). In either case they should not have accepted the money.