Andrew Edwards

Geoffrey Collier · 10-05-2008, 10:56 AM

If the UKIP NEC instructed a solicitor to seek advice from a barrister, they will have got little change from £1000. per hour. The next question must be; what advice did that barrister give the solicitor, which would not have already have been known by any competent practising solicitor? Not for the first time we have been wasting money on
on ludicrous legal actions. Which was the solicitors' practice acting for UKIP? Would it be a name familiar to us, I wonder! The cost of this action should be made known. Perhaps Marta Andreasen will tell us, if we promise to support her, in any future career
development plan.

BASILDON BOY · 10-05-2008, 12:15 PM

Can we see the original email?

You won't get prosecuted by UKIP!

Anthony Butcher · 06-06-2008, 09:09 PM

Andrew Edwards sent out an interesting (if slightly rambling) email about this:

Quote:

On Thursday, 08 May 2008, a scurrilous and duplicitous statement was posted on the UKIP web-site relating to myself, entitled:

"UKIP and Andrew Edwards"
[The statement may still be read in via this link: http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=627&Item id=57]

Avon & Somerset Police confirm that this statement contained 'inaccuracies'!

So, let me deal with this, 'statement', point by point (especially note point 4):

Statement says:The UK Independence Party has decided not to prosecute Andrew Edwards, who in November last year sent to a great many UKIP members and supporters and to the national press an e-mail designed to look like an official UKIP press release from Nigel Farage. The e-mail contained many scurrilous allegations designed to cause harm not just to the party but to any potential donors.

Answer: First error: UKIP does not decide whether a criminal case is pursued or not. That decision rests with the Crown Prosecution Service, in conjunction with the Police!

Second error: The e-mail in question was a spoof response to an e-mail from UKIP referring to EU financial improprieties, and was clearly recognised as such by most UKIP recipients. For example: This quote was made by an ex UKIP NEC member shortly after the May 8th statement was posted, "I vaguely remember the email they are talking about, and while the first few lines looked like they might have been from Farage, it very quickly became evident that it was a spoof. It was a confession to embezzlement IIRC. I find it hard to believe that anyone took it seriously.".

Third error: There is nothing scurrilous about the concerns many UKIP members have in relation to the mysterious finances of the Ashford & Ramsgate call centres, and the £200K of 'other expenses' shown in the accounts of UKIP SE. which disappeared without sufficient explanation under 'other costs'.Nor is there anything scurrilous about anyone asking why Nigel Farage et al refuse to release the asked for clarifications!

Indeed, how can Nigel Farage attack the EU for its lack of transparency over its accounts when exactly the same lack of transparency applies over UKIP's own accounts? Why should members finance a party under such circumstances, leave alone canvass for its leader?

Statement says: It was so widely distributed that senior party figures and the press office received calls about it. In view of this, it was decided to make a formal complaint to the Commercial Fraud group of Avon and Somerset police.

Answer: As most recipients of my e-mails relating to UKIP are Bcc'd, the statement, "so widely distributed" above can only be conjecture. But no matter, a complaint was indeed made by UKIP, and it duly arrived on the desk of, Mr Peter Wood, of the Corporate Fraud Group, A&S police.

Statement says: As part of the police investigations, computer equipment belonging to Mr Edwards was taken away and examined.

Answer: Correct. Though it was quickly returned. What was most interesting about the visit, at least to myself and my advisors, was the alacrity with which the police moved when, in the words of Mr Peter Wood, the officer attached to the fraud squad: "Usually, I do not move for anything less than fraud involving over £1m." In other words I was dealing with a very senior corporate fraud officer! Because of a spoof e-mail??!! How was Nigel Farage and/or Benson-Azure(?) able to employ the services of such a high level fraud officer, via the establishment, in such an efficient and prompt manner? Especially given that Nigel and/or his legal advisor's (Benson-Azure?) now wish for no further action to be taken?? Was it made clear to the police at the outset that UKIP would not stand firm?

Statement says: Following this, Mr Farage was informed that it was the view of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that a prosection was warranted.

Answer: Blatantly untrue - no matter how you view the statement, it is a terminological inexactitude.

The proof : notice carefully the dates - the UKIP statement was posted on its web-site on May 8th, yet the message below, from my solicitor, and dated May 20th, states that the Commercial Fraud group of Avon and Somerset police had not given any such information, to anyone within UKIP!

20.05.08

Dear Andrew

UKIP Investigation

further to your email dated 16 May 2008 and my reply dated 19 May 2008 I can confirm that I have now had the opportunity to speak to Peter Wood in relation to this matter.

He firstly confirms that they have not been to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this matter and he has not spoken to Nigel Farage since 29 April 2008.

Obviously this means that the article is inaccurate. He intends to speak to Mr Farage in relation to this matter to clarify it and whilst he is doing this he will be confirming the authenticity of this article.

Can I remind you that once a complaint has been put in for investigation it is up to the Investigation Team and the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision as to whether this matter will be proceeded criminally.

Therefore even if the UKIP do not want to proceed with this matter it may now be out of their hands.

As soon as I hear from Peter Wood in relation to this matter I will contact you again.

In the meantime if you have any questions or queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Ends

Note: It is my understanding, from A&S 's Fraud Office, that UKIP has had to apologise to the police for making these claims, and for not informing the investigating officer that they had posted a press release relating to the investigation on the UKIP web-site.

Indeed, UKIP are fortunate that the police did not immediately charge them with wasting police time as a result of their actions. Of course they still could - certain wheels turn slowly - maybe the Web-Master should take advice!!!

Statement says: Mr Farage was asked if the party wished to proceed with a prosecution, but after legal advice the decision was taken not to proceed in this instance.

Answer: This is at best a duplicitous statement, and at worst, an untrue statement. UKIP may well have been advised by someone not to proceed, but they were not asked this question by the police! You may wonder isn't it just a teensy bit odd that they failed to inform the police of the publication of this statement???

Note the last part of that e-mail from my solicitor:
"Can I remind you that once a complaint has been put in for investigation it is up to the Investigation Team and the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision as to whether this matter will be proceeded criminally.

Therefore even if the UKIP do not want to proceed with this matter it may now be out of their hands."

Things begin to get somewhat bizarre!

The police have informed me that UKIP's reason for dropping the case is that, 'It would not be in the public interest to do so'. ( Which raises yet another strange point, how could the investigating Fraud Officer, Peter Wood, seemingly, accept such a claim at face value??? Were they also happy to drop a non case, and UKIP's 'statement' gave the perfect cop-out??? Excuse the pun!)

Excuse me!

How on earth can UKIP decide to drop the case because, 'It's not in the public interest'??? The CPS can certainly make such a decision, but UKIP???

But, assuming for a moment that what the police tell me is correct, it begs the question, why then did UKIP decide to instigate the investigation in the first place, by making an official complaint to the police??? Why was that in the 'public interest', yet to continue the prosecution would 'not be in the public interest'????

The answer to that conundrum is, in my humble opinion, blindingly obvious - can you see what it is?

Could it be that the error filled Press Release was issued to deliberately bring the investigation to an end? Could it be that UKIP instigated this complaint in order to use the Police as a big stick with which to frighten off an irritating critic, and, when this failed, issued this 'inaccurate' statement in order to ensure that the case was effectively killed off? After all, having authorised this statement, complete with false claims, the Massa could hardly appear in a court as a truthful and reliable witness - could he?

A bizarre thought maybe, but can you think of another reason?

Isn't it time that the remaining UKIP members asked themselves - do you have the right sort of people running your party? Given Nigel Farage's underhand manoeuvres in this one instance alone (one has to assume that he would have to have authorised all that has been said and done here), perhaps readers would care to speculate on the extent of his manoeuvres elsewhere since running the party, during his history on the NEC, and in his interactions with his fellow members. I suspect a full report thereon would encompass more than sufficient for a book to be written.

Rgds

Andy E.
PS: written confirmation has been received informing me that the police investigation is now closed.

Anthony Butcher · 06-06-2008, 09:11 PM

Is anyone else puzzled about how and why UKIP became involved in this matter at all? At face value it looks like an appalling lack of judgement.

mrabody · 07-06-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

If the UKIP NEC instructed a solicitor to seek advice from a barrister, they will have got little change from £1000. per hour. The next question must be; what advice did that barrister give the solicitor, which would not have already have been known by any competent practising solicitor? Not for the first time we have been wasting money on
on ludicrous legal actions. Which was the solicitors' practice acting for UKIP? Would it be a name familiar to us, I wonder! The cost of this action should be made known. Perhaps Marta Andreasen will tell us, if we promise to support her, in any future career
development plan.

Don't be daft Geoffrey. Legal advice does not normally run at £1000/hr. You will probably find that a "Grade A" solicitor (typically a partner) outside of London will charge £200 and those of us with less experience between £130-$150. You can find plenty of barristers who charge out at £225/hr or so. Yes at the top end of large city firms of solicitors practicing corporate or banking law you may find senior partners charging close to £1000 (actually £800 per hour is probably the top rate). And I don't doubt that when people like Sir Paul McCartney get divorced they pay top flight barristers a lot more than the average, but as usual, it is the exception that proves the rule.

Bob FM · 07-06-2008, 10:23 AM

What a load of twaddle again allowed by Anthony. Point 1: The complainant makes the complaint. Point2: At any stage during the investigation the complainant can with draw the complaint. 3: Unless there is an overwhelming 'public interest', the police will honour the complainant's wishes, although maybe not liking it. So AE whoever you are UKIP could have quite properly withdrawn the complaint. How do I know this. I was a Policeman. As for solicitors/barristers fees, GC is obviously talking rubbish.

Geoffrey Collier · 07-06-2008, 12:26 PM

mrabody & BobFM: If legal actions are as cheap as we are being told, why have UKIP's previous legal settlements been so expensive? Should the action against Andy Edwards not have been stopped, how much had the NEC approved for anticipated legal costs?

I quoted £1000 per hour for an opinion from a barrister, on the basis of what my solicitor had advised me, about two years ago, when someone was making threatening noises in a commercial property transaction in which I had an interest. In future it is important that we seek advice from ex-policemen when confronted with matters forensic. BobFM and Twizze, may be on the vanguard of something significant in our legal process. Not only are we to ask a policeman if we want to know the time; but we can now add treason and legal taxation to their areas of competence. I am sorry mrabody, you haven't lived among for sufficient long, to be deemed an authority on anything; but your time will come.

stathan · 07-06-2008, 12:36 PM

More to the point why is this jerk posting out spoof emails of this nature anyway?

Heres a suggestion, get a life, don't engage in pathetic actions such as this and therefore not have to justify said actions!

Bob FM · 07-06-2008, 01:07 PM

GC you really are the most sanctimonious person I have encountered in by near 60 years. I have had a great deal to do with Solicitors and Barristers over the last 3 years with Freedom to Choose, their hourly rates vary from Juniors at £150 to £200/hour, visa new QC's at £500 to top notch at £750. I do not say there aren't those who charge £1000 but I have not come across one, except of course when they are charging HMG. However I fail to see why you are even talking ion this way, it was a police investigation which would have cost UKIP nothing, or did that escape your attention.

Geoffrey Collier · 07-06-2008, 04:57 PM

Bob FM: I was merely quoting figures given to me, relatively recently, by a solicitor acting in an actual case in which I had an interest. When you reach court, a QC and junior counsel, plus the instructing solicitor and finally VAT. the actual cost will not be those which you are quoting. I hope that you have given Stuart Wheeler the addresses of those barristers whom you have encountered over the past three years.

I will tell you why I am , 'talking in this way'. The NEC raised the matter of initiating a civil action against Mr Edwards, as a consequence of his 'spoof' letter. This proposed action was approved by the NEC. It would be inconceivable, that some consideration would not have been given as to the final cost; and actual financial reserves identified, particularly when the NEC Secretary is a lawyer himself. The liklihood of success and the liklihood of obtaining damages, even if they had won, appears to have produced a collective change of mind. Should that not be the case, are we to assume that a civil action is still a possibility? Most unlkiely, I would predict.

The matter was subsequently referred to the police, possibly to have it pursued at public expense, but that does not appear to have been successful, at least as far as the NEC is concerned.

If litigation is so inexpensive, why has UKIP paid so much by using the legal process over the years? Answer, because it is not inexpensive, and should only ever be an option of last resort. That is not being sanctimonious, BoB FM, but wisely protecting the funds of the Party and membership.
years?

10-05-2008, 12:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
BASILDON BOY Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: N'Djamena, Chad Posts: 1,680	Can we see the original email? You won't get prosecuted by UKIP! __________________ Mike Nattrass MEP is HOT HOT HOT!!!

06-06-2008, 09:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,455 Party: None	Is anyone else puzzled about how and why UKIP became involved in this matter at all? At face value it looks like an appalling lack of judgement. __________________ 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

07-06-2008, 10:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
Bob FM Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 583	Withdraw What a load of twaddle again allowed by Anthony. Point 1: The complainant makes the complaint. Point2: At any stage during the investigation the complainant can with draw the complaint. 3: Unless there is an overwhelming 'public interest', the police will honour the complainant's wishes, although maybe not liking it. So AE whoever you are UKIP could have quite properly withdrawn the complaint. How do I know this. I was a Policeman. As for solicitors/barristers fees, GC is obviously talking rubbish.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-05-2008, 10:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 668	If the UKIP NEC instructed a solicitor to seek advice from a barrister, they will have got little change from £1000. per hour. The next question must be; what advice did that barrister give the solicitor, which would not have already have been known by any competent practising solicitor? Not for the first time we have been wasting money on on ludicrous legal actions. Which was the solicitors' practice acting for UKIP? Would it be a name familiar to us, I wonder! The cost of this action should be made known. Perhaps Marta Andreasen will tell us, if we promise to support her, in any future career development plan.

07-06-2008, 12:26 PM	#17 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 668	mrabody & BobFM: If legal actions are as cheap as we are being told, why have UKIP's previous legal settlements been so expensive? Should the action against Andy Edwards not have been stopped, how much had the NEC approved for anticipated legal costs? I quoted £1000 per hour for an opinion from a barrister, on the basis of what my solicitor had advised me, about two years ago, when someone was making threatening noises in a commercial property transaction in which I had an interest. In future it is important that we seek advice from ex-policemen when confronted with matters forensic. BobFM and Twizze, may be on the vanguard of something significant in our legal process. Not only are we to ask a policeman if we want to know the time; but we can now add treason and legal taxation to their areas of competence. I am sorry mrabody, you haven't lived among for sufficient long, to be deemed an authority on anything; but your time will come.

07-06-2008, 12:36 PM	#18 (permalink)
stathan Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 355	More to the point why is this jerk posting out spoof emails of this nature anyway? Heres a suggestion, get a life, don't engage in pathetic actions such as this and therefore not have to justify said actions!

07-06-2008, 01:07 PM	#19 (permalink)
Bob FM Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 583	GC you really are the most sanctimonious person I have encountered in by near 60 years. I have had a great deal to do with Solicitors and Barristers over the last 3 years with Freedom to Choose, their hourly rates vary from Juniors at £150 to £200/hour, visa new QC's at £500 to top notch at £750. I do not say there aren't those who charge £1000 but I have not come across one, except of course when they are charging HMG. However I fail to see why you are even talking ion this way, it was a police investigation which would have cost UKIP nothing, or did that escape your attention.

07-06-2008, 04:57 PM	#20 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 668	Bob FM: I was merely quoting figures given to me, relatively recently, by a solicitor acting in an actual case in which I had an interest. When you reach court, a QC and junior counsel, plus the instructing solicitor and finally VAT. the actual cost will not be those which you are quoting. I hope that you have given Stuart Wheeler the addresses of those barristers whom you have encountered over the past three years. I will tell you why I am , 'talking in this way'. The NEC raised the matter of initiating a civil action against Mr Edwards, as a consequence of his 'spoof' letter. This proposed action was approved by the NEC. It would be inconceivable, that some consideration would not have been given as to the final cost; and actual financial reserves identified, particularly when the NEC Secretary is a lawyer himself. The liklihood of success and the liklihood of obtaining damages, even if they had won, appears to have produced a collective change of mind. Should that not be the case, are we to assume that a civil action is still a possibility? Most unlkiely, I would predict. The matter was subsequently referred to the police, possibly to have it pursued at public expense, but that does not appear to have been successful, at least as far as the NEC is concerned. If litigation is so inexpensive, why has UKIP paid so much by using the legal process over the years? Answer, because it is not inexpensive, and should only ever be an option of last resort. That is not being sanctimonious, BoB FM, but wisely protecting the funds of the Party and membership. years?