UKIP: Paper apologises to Nigel Farage

PETWINA · 19-05-2008, 08:50 AM

Perhaps the Times may be more careful in future about accepting single source stories from the 'asset' Foggo.
Nevertheless this false story damaged us just before the election ,just as the re-emergence of the N.I. asset in Bristol was intended but failed to do.Despite Foggo's story being well and truly fugged the pot bellied,ponytailed 'benefits party 'supporter continues to send his illiterate rants supported by his AE Dept.

My sincere hope in this is that Mr Farage received a nice wedge from the lie peddling Times for his and our trouble.

Aardvark · 19-05-2008, 09:16 AM

PETWINA, How do you know the story, or any of Foggo's stories, are single source? Have you an authority for this proposition? Rhetorical of course as we all know you haven't.

If you look at the byline on the original story you will see it was written by 2 journalists. Impliedly there was more than one source for the story. There were 3 elements - Farage employs his wife (on a salary that would suggest she is full time despite having children), there is an ongoing investigation (accepted, never refuted or denied) and the duff gen concerning NF's son for which an apology has been extracted. Two key elements of the story are impliedly true as no apology has been forthcoming and appears not to have been requested.

The question of hypocrisy, in a party leader who employs his wife despite the party group agreeing, IIRC, that they would not employ relatives, is still an issue. Either we as a party don't employ our relatives using public funds or we do. At present it is clear that the UKIP party leader believes that we should employ our relatives using public funds.

The issue of a party of knights in shining armour on their trusty white steeds galloping into the EU Parliament to clean the latter day Augean stables of the mire of its own corruption is completely different. UKIP, having opted to take the seats in Brussels, should have avoided the absurd situation that we have, in percentage terms, more corrupt MEPs, allegedly, than any other UK party - and more than most foreign political parties. Only UKIP has had one of its MEPs, albeit suspended from the party, imprisoned for fraud and theft on an industrial scale (his wife has been employed as his researcher). Another MEP is suspended from the party whip and has recently been exposed milking the system for all it is worth whilst being investigated over serious allegations. The party leader employs his wife, despite voting not to within his own group. Another MEP split off in a fit of pique, set up his own failed party, doesn't bother to attend meetings and employs his wife as a researcher (and lives in Spain). The party has been investigated by our own Electoral Commission for receiving unlawful donations.

When the epithet of hypocrisy is attached to UKIP's MEPs it isn't always easy to brush off.

BTW, Does anybody think the Times, having been forced to apologise, won't look even harder for more dirt to dish? The wind has been sown, expect the whirlwind come the next EU elections and GE.

PETWINA · 19-05-2008, 09:31 AM

Sorry Ardvark,I assumed that as they had to retract the lie it would have been single sourced.Clearly you are correct and there are 2 or more liars ,acting in concert, spewing untruths about UKIP to Foggo.
Yes the Times may seek more dirt but won't they check stories better in future? I would assume they will in future be less than willing to accept stories from Foggo who was previously discarded by another major paper.Perhaps the fat controllers need a new asset.

C_steam · 19-05-2008, 09:44 AM

@ bob. No! It's just that new posts automatically go at the top of the list.

@ Aaaaaaaaarghvark. Basically correct. Source is the problem and source could/would not be identified, hence the need for the apology.

Raymond Finch · 19-05-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

If you look at the byline on the original story you will see it was written by 2 journalists. Impliedly there was more than one source for the story. There were 3 elements - Farage employs his wife (on a salary that would suggest she is full time despite having children),

The fact Nigel Farage employs his wife has never been denied or hidden.
What next? "SCOOP!!!! Raymond Finch is left-handed!!!!"

there is an ongoing investigation (accepted, never refuted or denied)

Many people are investigated. Few are charged. All an investigation needs is an accusation. NF has enough enemies to ensure someone will always make accusations

and the duff gen concerning NF's son for which an apology has been extracted. Two key elements of the story are impliedly true as no apology has been forthcoming and appears not to have been requested.

See above.

Only UKIP has had one of its MEPs, albeit suspended from the party, imprisoned for fraud and theft on an industrial scale (his wife has been employed as his researcher).

Thrown out of the party. As soon as his lies were uncovered.
UKIP did the right thing when we discovered the truth.

Another MEP is suspended from the party whip and has recently been exposed milking the system for all it is worth whilst being investigated over serious allegations.

Again, we did the right thing.

Another MEP split off in a fit of pique, set up his own failed party, doesn't bother to attend meetings and employs his wife as a researcher (and lives in Spain).

So he left. He is no longer a UKIP MEP. Therefore nothing to do with us.

The party has been investigated by our own Electoral Commission for receiving unlawful donations.

As have ALL the other major parties.

BTW, Does anybody think the Times, having been forced to apologise, won't look even harder for more dirt to dish? The wind has been sown, expect the whirlwind come the next EU elections and GE.

The only valid point you make. The Times is no lover of UKIP. It actually didn't print a single word about Bob Spink joining us. Come the elections it will be solidly behind the Tories. I believe Murdoch has done a deal with Cameron as he did with Blair before him. He is, without a doubt, the kingmaker in this country.

chikrodah · 19-05-2008, 09:54 AM

It should also be remembered that others have, in the past, complained about the second journalist shown in the byline. (http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip-general-issues/47001-united-kingdom-independence-party-accused-diverting-eu-allowances-8.html#post470119) He's apparently not averse to spicing stories up if it suits him. The question could be, which bits did Foggo contribute and which bits were contributed by Swinford?

Aardvark · 19-05-2008, 10:21 AM

RF,

The fact that lots of MEPs employ their wives is technically not concealed since any passing person could go to the europarl website, trawl around the lists of MEPs and researchers and, knowing the maiden names of many of these people, find out which MEPs employ their wives. It is not trumpeted from the roof tops either and if you try to contact NF you will be directed to Brussels or Lyminster, not his missus. I'd hazard a guess you would find it difficult to get his wife to answer the official 'phone - if you don't believe me try to contact NF today and see if you encounter his wife during the series of calls you will probably have to make. The issue, in any event, is not employing your wife, but voting not to in your party group, actively discouraging others from doing so and then doing it yourself. If UKIP came clean, and no other party does, and said that UKIP MEPs would use the massive amount of public funds/taxpayers cash to pay their wives then we would know where we stood.

Nearly everything that makes newspaper stories can be researched and checked by any individual, but they don't have the time, resources or inclination to do so. The public may or may not be interested in whether NF employs his wife, but he hasn't written to the newspapers or volunteered the information to anyone without being questioned first. He did, however, in UKIP group vote not to do so. The fact that he says one thing and does another is a story.

PETWINA, Foggo left the telegraph of his own accord having won a national award for investigative journalism, he was hardly discarded.

The real issue is not a journalist doing his job, but the sources he uses. A journalist cannot be compelled to disclose his sources except in extremis by a court of law, and even then you get a national campaign to protect the right to withhold the information. If the sources are unreliable then the article becomes unreliable. Foggo cultivates some very reliable UKIP sources and a number of NEC members, past and, possibly, present, are probably amongst them. I suspect the errors come from Swinford as Foggo is more aciduous in checking his facts.

The fact that UKIP has done the right thing in suspending MEPs or accepting their resignation from the party is not to be shrugged off lightly. Under the FPTP system it is always arguable that you vote for a candidate and not his party and that, if the candidate is found wanting he can be rejected by the electorate. Under the party list system all of UKIP's wayward MEPs were only elected because they were under the party banner. The fact that UKIP has lost 25% of its membership in the EU Parliament should be a source of overwhelming shame not indifference. I pushed UKIP leaflets in the EU elections, I voted UKIP. I did not campaign for an individual or vote for an individual; I voted for a party and I have been defrauded of a MEP. I am not alone in thinking that and the party will not be returning as many MEPs next time as it did last time. Having MEPs who are not meeting the standards of probity they originally advocated will reduce the vote further.

Shooting the messenger seems to be the purpose of this thread. There is cause to breathe a sigh of relief over Tommy Farage, but gloating is not appropriate. It will all come back to haunt us.

Bob FM · 19-05-2008, 10:51 AM

There were 3 elements - Farage employs his wife (on a salary that would suggest she is full time despite having children) Very revealing this was the very same logic that GLW used in an email to me, implying women with children can't do a job as well. Any connection does one think. GLW also implied he was not the source of all this info, and yet appears privy to it all. When challenged for the evidence he has, he refuses to supply, according to him everyone lies except him. God it must be just terrible being perfect, as posters on here are.

Aardvark · 19-05-2008, 11:13 AM

Bob FM, Funnily I got the same e-mail - unsolicited of course.

As with all of these allegations the source is very important; don't dismiss the information lightly.

GLW does go off at a tangent and I can identify errors in what he says, but he is a close friend of several key UKIP, and former UKIP, figures having worked with them over the years (he wrote a reference letter to the judge in Ashley Mote's case saying how wonderful and trustworthy Ashley is). GLW is getting a lot of information from people closer to NF than you or I are.

Bob FM, none of the posters here is perfect. You can go through my posts,if you have the time and inclination, and find a number of occasions when I have been corrected. I try to accept corrections with good grace and where I have really screwed up I apologise unreservedly.

I don't expect perfection in others unless they expect it of me or unless they set themselves up as in some way superior to people when they are not. I bow to superior knowledge and don't get involved in some discussion areas as I really am not wise enough to do so. Not every poster does that and many discuss things of which they know nothing.

Women with children can indeed do a full time job. My girlfirend is a senior IT manager in a blue chip company and has 4 larger children (11-18) and a mortgage to cope with. Maybe Mrs Farage is employed full time, but if that is so then perhaps the Farage household number should be the point of contact rather than Brussels or Lyminster. The issue remains that UKIP MEPs agreed not to employ partners and the party leader does so. Am I missing something?

PETWINA · 19-05-2008, 01:26 PM

"Foggo left the telegraph of his own accord having won a national award for investigative journalism, he was hardly discarded."

Isn't he a free-lance in reality?

19-05-2008, 09:16 AM	#22 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	PETWINA, How do you know the story, or any of Foggo's stories, are single source? Have you an authority for this proposition? Rhetorical of course as we all know you haven't. If you look at the byline on the original story you will see it was written by 2 journalists. Impliedly there was more than one source for the story. There were 3 elements - Farage employs his wife (on a salary that would suggest she is full time despite having children), there is an ongoing investigation (accepted, never refuted or denied) and the duff gen concerning NF's son for which an apology has been extracted. Two key elements of the story are impliedly true as no apology has been forthcoming and appears not to have been requested. The question of hypocrisy, in a party leader who employs his wife despite the party group agreeing, IIRC, that they would not employ relatives, is still an issue. Either we as a party don't employ our relatives using public funds or we do. At present it is clear that the UKIP party leader believes that we should employ our relatives using public funds. The issue of a party of knights in shining armour on their trusty white steeds galloping into the EU Parliament to clean the latter day Augean stables of the mire of its own corruption is completely different. UKIP, having opted to take the seats in Brussels, should have avoided the absurd situation that we have, in percentage terms, more corrupt MEPs, allegedly, than any other UK party - and more than most foreign political parties. Only UKIP has had one of its MEPs, albeit suspended from the party, imprisoned for fraud and theft on an industrial scale (his wife has been employed as his researcher). Another MEP is suspended from the party whip and has recently been exposed milking the system for all it is worth whilst being investigated over serious allegations. The party leader employs his wife, despite voting not to within his own group. Another MEP split off in a fit of pique, set up his own failed party, doesn't bother to attend meetings and employs his wife as a researcher (and lives in Spain). The party has been investigated by our own Electoral Commission for receiving unlawful donations. When the epithet of hypocrisy is attached to UKIP's MEPs it isn't always easy to brush off. BTW, Does anybody think the Times, having been forced to apologise, won't look even harder for more dirt to dish? The wind has been sown, expect the whirlwind come the next EU elections and GE. __________________ 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

19-05-2008, 09:44 AM	#24 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,964	@ bob. No! It's just that new posts automatically go at the top of the list. @ Aaaaaaaaarghvark. Basically correct. Source is the problem and source could/would not be identified, hence the need for the apology. __________________ -------------------------------------------------- Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at. Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply .

19-05-2008, 09:54 AM	#26 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,872	It should also be remembered that others have, in the past, complained about the second journalist shown in the byline. (http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip-general-issues/47001-united-kingdom-independence-party-accused-diverting-eu-allowances-8.html#post470119) He's apparently not averse to spicing stories up if it suits him. The question could be, which bits did Foggo contribute and which bits were contributed by Swinford? Last edited by chikrodah; 19-05-2008 at 10:01 AM.

19-05-2008, 10:21 AM	#27 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	RF, The fact that lots of MEPs employ their wives is technically not concealed since any passing person could go to the europarl website, trawl around the lists of MEPs and researchers and, knowing the maiden names of many of these people, find out which MEPs employ their wives. It is not trumpeted from the roof tops either and if you try to contact NF you will be directed to Brussels or Lyminster, not his missus. I'd hazard a guess you would find it difficult to get his wife to answer the official 'phone - if you don't believe me try to contact NF today and see if you encounter his wife during the series of calls you will probably have to make. The issue, in any event, is not employing your wife, but voting not to in your party group, actively discouraging others from doing so and then doing it yourself. If UKIP came clean, and no other party does, and said that UKIP MEPs would use the massive amount of public funds/taxpayers cash to pay their wives then we would know where we stood. Nearly everything that makes newspaper stories can be researched and checked by any individual, but they don't have the time, resources or inclination to do so. The public may or may not be interested in whether NF employs his wife, but he hasn't written to the newspapers or volunteered the information to anyone without being questioned first. He did, however, in UKIP group vote not to do so. The fact that he says one thing and does another is a story. PETWINA, Foggo left the telegraph of his own accord having won a national award for investigative journalism, he was hardly discarded. The real issue is not a journalist doing his job, but the sources he uses. A journalist cannot be compelled to disclose his sources except in extremis by a court of law, and even then you get a national campaign to protect the right to withhold the information. If the sources are unreliable then the article becomes unreliable. Foggo cultivates some very reliable UKIP sources and a number of NEC members, past and, possibly, present, are probably amongst them. I suspect the errors come from Swinford as Foggo is more aciduous in checking his facts. The fact that UKIP has done the right thing in suspending MEPs or accepting their resignation from the party is not to be shrugged off lightly. Under the FPTP system it is always arguable that you vote for a candidate and not his party and that, if the candidate is found wanting he can be rejected by the electorate. Under the party list system all of UKIP's wayward MEPs were only elected because they were under the party banner. The fact that UKIP has lost 25% of its membership in the EU Parliament should be a source of overwhelming shame not indifference. I pushed UKIP leaflets in the EU elections, I voted UKIP. I did not campaign for an individual or vote for an individual; I voted for a party and I have been defrauded of a MEP. I am not alone in thinking that and the party will not be returning as many MEPs next time as it did last time. Having MEPs who are not meeting the standards of probity they originally advocated will reduce the vote further. Shooting the messenger seems to be the purpose of this thread. There is cause to breathe a sigh of relief over Tommy Farage, but gloating is not appropriate. It will all come back to haunt us. __________________ 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

19-05-2008, 11:13 AM	#29 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	Bob FM, Funnily I got the same e-mail - unsolicited of course. As with all of these allegations the source is very important; don't dismiss the information lightly. GLW does go off at a tangent and I can identify errors in what he says, but he is a close friend of several key UKIP, and former UKIP, figures having worked with them over the years (he wrote a reference letter to the judge in Ashley Mote's case saying how wonderful and trustworthy Ashley is). GLW is getting a lot of information from people closer to NF than you or I are. Bob FM, none of the posters here is perfect. You can go through my posts,if you have the time and inclination, and find a number of occasions when I have been corrected. I try to accept corrections with good grace and where I have really screwed up I apologise unreservedly. I don't expect perfection in others unless they expect it of me or unless they set themselves up as in some way superior to people when they are not. I bow to superior knowledge and don't get involved in some discussion areas as I really am not wise enough to do so. Not every poster does that and many discuss things of which they know nothing. Women with children can indeed do a full time job. My girlfirend is a senior IT manager in a blue chip company and has 4 larger children (11-18) and a mortgage to cope with. Maybe Mrs Farage is employed full time, but if that is so then perhaps the Farage household number should be the point of contact rather than Brussels or Lyminster. The issue remains that UKIP MEPs agreed not to employ partners and the party leader does so. Am I missing something? __________________ 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

19-05-2008, 08:50 AM	#21 (permalink)
PETWINA Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 155	Perhaps the Times may be more careful in future about accepting single source stories from the 'asset' Foggo. Nevertheless this false story damaged us just before the election ,just as the re-emergence of the N.I. asset in Bristol was intended but failed to do.Despite Foggo's story being well and truly fugged the pot bellied,ponytailed 'benefits party 'supporter continues to send his illiterate rants supported by his AE Dept. My sincere hope in this is that Mr Farage received a nice wedge from the lie peddling Times for his and our trouble.

19-05-2008, 09:31 AM	#23 (permalink)
PETWINA Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 155	Sorry Ardvark,I assumed that as they had to retract the lie it would have been single sourced.Clearly you are correct and there are 2 or more liars ,acting in concert, spewing untruths about UKIP to Foggo. Yes the Times may seek more dirt but won't they check stories better in future? I would assume they will in future be less than willing to accept stories from Foggo who was previously discarded by another major paper.Perhaps the fat controllers need a new asset.

19-05-2008, 10:51 AM	#28 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	There were 3 elements - Farage employs his wife (on a salary that would suggest she is full time despite having children) Very revealing this was the very same logic that GLW used in an email to me, implying women with children can't do a job as well. Any connection does one think. GLW also implied he was not the source of all this info, and yet appears privy to it all. When challenged for the evidence he has, he refuses to supply, according to him everyone lies except him. God it must be just terrible being perfect, as posters on here are.

19-05-2008, 01:26 PM	#30 (permalink)
PETWINA Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 155	"Foggo left the telegraph of his own accord having won a national award for investigative journalism, he was hardly discarded." Isn't he a free-lance in reality?

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