douglas denny

You were always subject to hyperbole Niaal.

I don't think so.
UKIP will still be around as a potent poltitical force for a good while longer yet.

The British public will punish the other major parties at the Euro elections. UKIP is now inextricably linked with being anti-EU and that is when they will vote for us big-time. Its all about branding and voting patterns. That is why we are trying to broaden the policy base to get away from the single-issue claim against us.

The public voted BNP in the London election because they wanted to punish the other parties about immigration, and link immigration with BNP in their minds.

Chichester constituency is a good example of what can happen in Euro elections:
UKIP representing anti-EU sentiment obtained 6% at the general election, but obtained 26% at the European election. That is how big a swing there can be - and it should be better the next time.


DED.

Akebono

You were always subject to hyperbole Niaal.



That is utterly wrong!!!

Niall Warry

Interesting that you make NO mention of your U turn or the fact you are really responsible for the TW issue dragging on an on and as Party Secretary NOT acting independently. Perhaps you could confirm did you seek or get direction from above as to whether to call a disciplinary hearing?

PS By the way Diglas the name is Niall!!!!!

douglas denny

Sorry about the name NIALL. Don't know why kept doing it wrong - had it in my mind I knew it had (unusually) two letters in it. Got the wrong one.
Freudian slip or something.

I always use correct names for real names on this forum - but couldn't give a damn about psuedonyms, any one which is as good as another and which might as well be shifted around for amusement.

I can confirm I made decisions about the TW disc. case entirely myself.

I expect those 'above' as you put it realised I had to act independently in case they were later accused of gerrymandering in some way. Also it is specifically excluded in the rules in case of prejudicial behaviour anyway.
I was never approached by anyone - including TW, in fact especially by TW. You were sent the rules you should know this.

I refute your accusation that the TW case 'dragged-on' because of my actions. That is silly. It has dragged-on for one reason only - because the EU investigatory/disciplinary set-up OLAF have not come to a conclusion.
This business will drag-on until they do.

UKIP's role in this is almost only being on the sidelines waiting for the result. It is as I said primarily an EU/MEP matter. if for example it was decided by OLAF that MEPs can act as TW did legally and properly - where does that leave UKIP then?

I have explained in some detail the exact considerations I made and why. I stand by that and you will note I have said (which you have ignored) that I still think any disc. case involving the original allegations is weak and likely to fail for lack of proof. The allegations are based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence only; and still are unless further material has come to light since.

Even if there had been a disc. case and if he had been found "guilty"; if there had been any "punishment" without the final report/decisions from OLAF he would have had good grounds for appeal by judicial review and could have taken UKIP to the cleaners and/or reversed the decision.

I know you take the opposite view and insist that a disc. case should have been called regardless, and I understand fully your reasons..... I think you are wrong and that is that.

I was the one at the time to make the decisions based on the circumstances of the time and, rightly or wrongly, regardless of other's opinions, I still stick by it.

DED.
-

douglas denny

Gee Thanks !
Can I know why I am to be sacked please?


DED.

douglas denny

You know the UKIP Disciplinary rules Niall. I sent them to you.

The rules ask for factual evidence. (pertaining to facts . actual.)

How do you prove factual evidence in a court or tribunal? - by verbal evidence and/or documents.
Were there documents available to prove the allegations? No.
Were there people who could or would act as witness to the allegations? No.

How do you prove the allegations Niall?

===========
Reference:
The relevant rule which is crucial is:-
(slightly paraphrased to remove the bit about complaint against the Party Secretary himself):-

Complaints procedure:

Rule 2.2

A complaint must be made in writing to the Party Secretary, .....
... The complainant must state the grounds for the complaint, quoting specific breaches of the party Constitution or Rule Book and including any factual evidence.


You did not include any factual evidence at all in your submission - not even a copy of the newspaper article if I remember rightly. It was mandatory your complaint had to be turned down according to the rules.
-------------
My change in opinion as to the need for resignation is based on other reasons as already mentioned in detail. Or, to put it another way, there are other reasons now than the original one as above which so concerns you.

DED.
-

douglas denny

Niall says:
UKIP is in the last chance saloon - in 6 months, without change, it will be an irrelevance.

If you cannot see that this is hyperbole; then you do not know what hyperbole is.
(Hyperbole: a rhetorical figure which produces a vivid impression by extravagant and obvious exaggeration).

It is an exact quote from GLW; echoed by Niall; that I have been hearing for years from them both.
Niall and GLW are very close friends.

UKIP is still around and getting stronger by the month despite their dire warnings of doom, despondency and imminent demise.

DED.
-

Bob FM

As a relatively new UKIP member, just renewed, and an even newer member of this forum, I find it quite staggering how so many posters seem to believe that the natural rules of the UK, Justice system should be ignored. As a former police officer who specialised in Fraud, it is obvious to me, and I suspect Bedfordshire Police, that Tom Wise has committed no fraud, in so far as his expenses are concerned. Indeed it has been rumoured that Gillian Parker the CC of Bedfordshire has told Wise this. So what are we left with, the ravings of one GLW, who has recently taken to emailing and ringing me, in some perverse attempt to prove to me he is right. I had to smile at this comment, As an aside: I invited GLW and even the journalist Daniel Foggit to present me with their so-called proof. Both dissembled. I invited Foggit to come to a crucial NEC meeting about the issue to present his "evidence" and promised him a hearing if he would come. He dissembled again. I too have asked GLW to provide me with the proof, all he keeps doing is sending me links to his video, and newspaper articles. Let me make it clear that Wise should resign from the party as his actions are not in anyway laudable, and he is naive in the extreme if he wishes other members to believe he was in some way exposing EU Corruption, that may have been the consequence of the sting operation by the NoTW, but the video of him 'boasting' certainly tells it's own story. It is very unfortunate that senior members of the party seem unable to grasp the damage he is doing by his continual claims of being a UKIP MEP, which perhaps legally he is. I came acoss this on a forum, and was staggered;
Tom Wise
Posted By: Piers Merchant on 15-May-2008
Tom Wise has done nothing other than claim what he is entitled too. It is the system that is wrong; very wrong. It was clearly deliberately set up to give MEPs access to bucket loads of cash so that they felt good about the EU and ended up backing the European ideal. Tom is to be commended because he has been blatantly open about it all. The people to be suspicious about are all the MEPs who are happily pocketing the same allowances but keep very quiet about it..............
What on earth are the public to make of any one supporting a man who for whatever reason has forgotten why he was elected. That said The NEC clearly need proof, which no one as yet seems willing to provide. We as a party either believe in the Democratic process or we don't. When I joined UKIP it was against the back drop of nearly 40 years voting Conservative. I am still convinced that I made the right decision. In Swindon 8 of 11 candidates we fielded in the last Locals (May 1st), not only increased their share of the vote (we averaged 10%), but pushed the Lib-Dems into 4th place. This was a success by any measure. I now have no less that 54 local enquiries sitting on my desk, and we have already increased our membership by 10% during the election campaign. So I would say to all those talking negatively, rather than keep propagating the 'conspiracy theories' why not get out there and fight for the party, or are you just content to sit back and say in a years time 'I told you so', if we don't do well. If you are one of them, do us all a favour and leave the party. I want to root out corruption as much as the next person, but that requires EVIDENCE, not speculation, innuendo and the ravings of those whose real motives are the destruction of UKIP and the maintenance of the EU. And I say to GLW you clearly have an affinity with the BNP, as expressed on your video, so why not join them, or are you already a member, and your clear hate of the police borders on OCD, for which there are cures.

Bob Feal-Martinez
Chairman and PPC Swindon UKIP

gawain

Well said Bob

Bob FM

This question answer I think sums up the problems inherent in the EU. The evasion is obvious.
Parliamentary questions
18 April 2005
Joint answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission
Written questions : E-0774/05 , E-0775/05 , E-0776/05 , E-0777/05 , E-0778/05 , E-0779/05 , E-0780/05 , E-0781/05 , E-0782/05 , E-0783/05 , E-0784/05 , E-0785/05 , E-0786/05 , E-0787/05 , E-0788/05 , E-0789/05 , E-0790/05 , E-0791/05 , E-0792/05 , E-0793/05 , E-0794/05 , E-0795/05 , E-0796/05 , E-0797/05 , E-0798/05

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission 25 separate questions but all with the same subject, namely to indicate those occasions when each member of the College, since being nominated as Commissioner designate, has been in receipt of hospitality, for instance as a holiday guest, and from whom.

The principles governing the behaviour of Commissioners are laid down in Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 126 of the Euratom Treaty. In order to ensure compliance with these principles, in September 1999 the Commission adopted a Code of Conduct for Commissioners (SEC(1999)1479). An amended version was adopted in November 2004 (SEC(2004)1487/2). The Code requires them, in their official and private lives, to behave in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity of their office and to rule out all risks of a conflict of interest. The Code then lays down a number of rules concerning both their activities as Commissioners and their private activities.

The Commission considers that insofar as it falls outside the exercise of official duties, the receipt of hospitality is a normal fact of private life, and therefore falls in principle under the respect for privacy of each individual Commissioner and of those who host them.

Naturally, the behaviour of Commissioners, including in relation to the receipt of hospitality, must be compatible with the principles of the Treaties.

Within this framework and at the request of the President, a verification has taken place with the 25 members of the College concerning the occasions referred to by the Honourable Member. No such occasions that would infringe the principles of the Treaties have been identified. The Commission would of course be ready to clarify any specific situation brought to its attention.