johnwest

UKIP Law and Order Conference: A Response by John West to the email by Jeffrey Titford MEP.


1. The conference will take place as planned. None of the speakers have been banned from addressing the conference.

2. The NEC gave me permission to hold this conference.

3. It is not true that I ignored the advice of John Whittaker, the Party Chairman.

4. All members and non-members are welcome.

mkpdavies

Oooh you are one of the Rebels now John. Lechlade two!

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

fordtit

Good for you, Mr West! I am glad to see that you do not bow down to petty threats. Jeffrey Titford should now issue a full and frank apology to you. His behaviour was disgraceful. His silly and stupid email has done the party no favours, especially before the London and local elections.

fordtit

Will Titford try to block West when it comes to the MEP selection process? The answer has to be yes. He clearly does not like West and would be biased.

Legin

Surely Titford has to resign, how can anyone be so stupid as to put out such an e-mail, he most certainly must not be allowed to have anything to do with the selection of MEP candidates!

All those that I have spoken to today wish you every success when the elections take place.

I am also sure the conference will be a success too! Good luck John.

Independent UKIP

When I see on this forum a fully comprehensive declaration of interest by Legin and fordtit I might just be willing to pay some regard to their posts. Until then not a single word they post on this forum is of any interest to me. These people and others very much like them have been sprouting up recently on this forum. I won't even give this new group of forum members the benefit of the doubt. I know why they are here, they know why they are here and they disgust me, a long time UKIP member.

UKIP should be united about at least maintaining and preferably increasing the seats it already has not destroying itself on who should be contesting the few 'guaranteed' seats and all the resultant largesse. Much more of this and I'll be siding with Barboo.

Legin

[quote=Independent UKIP;494137]When I see on this forum a fully comprehensive declaration of interest by Legin and fordtit I might just be willing to pay some regard to their posts. Until then not a single word they post on this forum is of any interest to me. These people and others very much like them have been sprouting up recently on this forum. I won't even give this new group of forum members the benefit of the doubt. I know why they are here, they know why they are here and they disgust me, a long time UKIP member.


Oh dear, have I touched a nerve? I too have been a member of UKIP for many years but when I receive an e-mail such as Titford put out it makes me wonder how much longer I will remain a member!!

BASILDON BOY

I campaigned long and hard for Titford both when he was the Referendum Party candidate and when he first stood for UKIP.

It is very sad the petty bickering.

The only losers will be UKIP with yet more activists leaving...

__________________
Mike Nattrass MEP is HOT HOT HOT!!!

Barboo

Don't worry about it, Ind.UKIP, you'll come round to siding with me eventually!

In the meantime I think you're right to be cautious about the e-mail purporting to come from Jeffrey Titford's office. I first thought it must be a spoof, even though John West's response indicates he believed it to be genuine. Did I fall into the error of thinking not even an MEP would put out something so unprofessional and incompetent?

First, UKIP's Euro candidate selection rules do not appear to prohibit candidates from speaking at party events. They and their supporters are not allowed to (quote): 'run campaigns promoting any candidate or denigrating opponents, by means of issuing unsolicited promotional material by post or email', but there is nothing to suggest they may not accept invitations to address UKIP meetings. If Jeffrey Titford was concerned that his employee Christopher Hudson might be in breach of the rules by speaking at the Law and Order Conference the correct procedure was not to try and bully him into withdrawing, but to contact Christopher Gill, the man appointed by the NEC as Head of Candidate Selection. Mr Gill could then, as a precaution, have asked the organisers to draw Conference's attention to the rules and remind contributors not to jeopardize any candidate's nomination by straying from the conference theme. Simple. Problem solved, without causing offence to party members.

Secondly, in stating it to be inappropriate for the conference to take place during the electoral process for selecting MEP candidates, the author of the e-mail has his facts wrong. The date of the conference is 31 May, whereas the 'electoral' part of the candidate selection process does not begin until 4 August, over nine weeks later. If he really means 'selection' as opposed to 'electoral' process, then that began on 6 October 2007, which would make Jeffrey Titford's own Eastern Counties Rally at Bar Hill on 5 April equally 'inappropriate'. If the rules really do prevent prospective Euro candidates from speaking at meetings or putting themselves forward in other ways for a period of ten months until the counting of votes on 29 August, that means any Euro candidate who stood for the NEC or for UKIP in local elections this year will have broken them, as will any candidates who are also branch chairmen if they failed to step down during the selection process. In which case, the party might just as well shut up shop altogether from the time nominations are invited till the Euro lists are announced. No sensible party would impose such restrictions on its activists, but this being UKIP someone ought perhaps to check with Christopher Gill to make sure.

In view of the above, maybe someone should also ask Jeffrey Titford to confirm that the e-mail in question did not come from him or from any of his staff writing in his name, and that he has no objection to Christopher Hudson speaking at the Law and Order Conference. That will allow the organisers to reinstate their description of Chris Hudson as 'Liaison Executive to Jeffrey Titford' as it was before this nonsense of the e-mail cropped up.

fordtit

Jeffrey Titford has apparently confirmed to certain members in the East that this email did originate from his office. The only members of staff who work there are Stuart Gulleford, Lisa Buckle and Jeffrey Titford. Please note that Mr Gulleford regards himself as Titford's successsor.

Will Mr West confirm or deny if he has spoken to or emailed Titford about this? Has Titford confirmed to him he sent it?