John West letter

SponPlague · 22-08-2008, 01:14 PM

I have received a letter from John West, which has been received via the usual route - the NEC, who were cc'ed, leaked to GLW.

John confirms the letter contents are genuine, and as it is now in the public domain, has no objection to it being published for discussion, provided I make clear that he did not make it public in the first instance. I have snipped bits that I think might be deemed libellous at AB's request - otherwise it's unchanged.

Quote:

Dear Mr Cole,

Thank you for inviting me to your EGM. Unfortunately, I cannot make it on Thursday but I wish you every success.

I note that one of the motions calls for a vote of no confidence in Peter Reeve, the Regional Organiser for the Eastern Counties. As you may have heard, via an email circulated by Greg Lance-Watkins, which seemed to be leaked by someone on the staff or NEC of UKIP, Mr Reeve was involved in an unlawful and illegal attempt to remove me as Elected Branch Secretary of UKIP Suffolk Coastal. His involvement in this is just another example of his <SNIP>. Clearly Mr Reeve is not fit to represent UKIP or the members, though all too sadly he does seem to serve the interests of some of the MEPs who have so clearly shown themselves not to be trustworthy or up to the job.

I can confirm that the NEC have received several complaints from Eastern Region members regarding his conduct, whether members of the NEC or its Officers would admit to it would seem to be an entirely different matter.

As my email complaint to the NEC has been put into the public domain I have attached hereto the email I was sent by various members that emanated from GLW. This email is substantively correct and contains more information than my complaint to the NEC alone, further it accurately puts it into context. I understand that since it is now public knowledge I also include a copy of the cancellation of the Essex meeting which Reeve would seem to have organised at short notice so as to assist in orchestrating the kangaroo court for the UKIP Suffolk Coastal Branch Chairman to <SNIP>, rather than use legitimate process where they knew the electorate in the branch had voted me into office – Oh how very EU!

It is sad to see all our dreams at grass roots level and all our efforts so exploited for the corrupt gain of a few – I believe the Party is doomed if we can not introduce the morality, integrity and trust we all so naively thought was there until our eyes were opened by exposure to the realities and having the facts laid bare!

I wish you every good fortune with your efforts to make UKIP electable and redeem it from <SNIP>.

You are welcome to make this letter and its attachments available to the meeting and would ask that it be available for all to read at your meeting as factual evidence in support of your motions as I understand them.

You will appreciate I have no intention of permitting UKIP’s leadership to sweep this under their already bulging office carpet and to that end I have taken the liberty of sending copies to the NEC as our alleged Management and executive body representing the members and to others – unless UKIP is ‘cleaned up’ it is finished.

Yours sincerely,

John West
Chairman & Secretary UKIP Ipswich & East Suffolk

Secretary UKIP Suffolk Coastal

chikrodah · 22-08-2008, 03:02 PM

If I've got this right, John knew that somebody (or bodies) leaks NEC documents to GLW.

Despite (!) that, he copies a private letter, full of poltentially libellous statements, to (presumably) every member of the NEC, thus guaranteeing that yet another of his letters would get leaked to GLW.

Unless, of course, he just cut out the middle-man and sent a copy direct to GLW.

Not only that, but he encourages the recipient to circulate his letter, including its potentially libellous statements, to as many as possible.

Does this entire affair remind anybody else of those African wildlife documentaries where a pack of vultures settles on the dying carcass of a wildebeest?

Or is it more like the pointless playground spats where the ousted kid not only takes his ball away but spends as much time as possible trying to split the remaining members of the group?

mrabody · 22-08-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

If I've got this right, John knew that somebody (or bodies) leaks NEC documents to GLW.

Despite (!) that, he copies a private letter, full of poltentially libellous statements, to (presumably) every member of the NEC, thus guaranteeing that yet another of his letters would get leaked to GLW.

Unless, of course, he just cut out the middle-man and sent a copy direct to GLW.

Not only that, but he encourages the recipient to circulate his letter, including its potentially libellous statements, to as many as possible.

Does this entire affair remind anybody else of those African wildlife documentaries where a pack of vultures settles on the dying carcass of a wildebeest?

Or is it more like the pointless playground spats where the ousted kid not only takes his ball away but spends as much time as possible trying to split the remaining members of the group?

I think your last paragaph hits the nail on the head. I think we are now engaged in a tit-for-tat squabble between John West and everyone he thinks has wronged him.

Funnily enough Peter Reeve has been deselected as PPC for Fenland. I don't know if John West was behind it, but he was clearly very aware of it as he posted about it on the forum here.

I can't help but wonder whether all the rules were followed in the deselection of Peter Reeve. I suspect not.

Oh well, this is an unedifying spectacle, but we've come to expect that from the Eastern Region.

Bob FM · 22-08-2008, 05:38 PM

This email is substantively correct and contains more information than my complaint to the NEC alone, further it accurately puts it into context.

What exactly does this mean, it either is or it isn't entirely factual, you wrote it John.

SponPlague · 22-08-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

This email is substantively correct and contains more information than my complaint to the NEC alone, further it accurately puts it into context.

What exactly does this mean, it either is or it isn't entirely factual, you wrote it John.

What he's saying, Bob, is that when Greg circulated a leaked previous email of his, Greg's email, including comments, was basically correct, and the extra matrial Greg supplied helped people understand the background to John's complaint. That's as I understand it.

John won't reply to you directly on-list, as he posted a while back that his lawyers have asked him to stay off here for now.

Bob FM · 22-08-2008, 05:51 PM

Spon, so let's get this straight his lawyers don't want him engaging on here but he wants to get his side across, without being examined. Is that not a touch unfair, and substantively hypocritical.

SponPlague · 22-08-2008, 06:00 PM

I asked him if I could post the letter here, Bob, as it was already in the public domain, thanks to the NEC leaking. I have a poll running on that; have you voted yet?

Bob FM · 23-08-2008, 07:55 AM

No as I said on the other thread, I don't like the options. I'm sure you would have heard of the court room story where a man is on trial for wife beating and the prosecution ask him . 'Do you still beat your wife, yes or no.?', he's dammed either way.

SponPlague · 23-08-2008, 10:45 AM

So what would be better questions?

Bob FM · 23-08-2008, 12:00 PM

Something like.

Yes: but only to a single email address and then vetted before circulation to all members of the NEC.

23-08-2008, 07:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	No as I said on the other thread, I don't like the options. I'm sure you would have heard of the court room story where a man is on trial for wife beating and the prosecution ask him . 'Do you still beat your wife, yes or no.?', he's dammed either way. Last edited by Bob FM; 23-08-2008 at 07:57 AM.

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

22-08-2008, 03:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,872	If I've got this right, John knew that somebody (or bodies) leaks NEC documents to GLW. Despite (!) that, he copies a private letter, full of poltentially libellous statements, to (presumably) every member of the NEC, thus guaranteeing that yet another of his letters would get leaked to GLW. Unless, of course, he just cut out the middle-man and sent a copy direct to GLW. Not only that, but he encourages the recipient to circulate his letter, including its potentially libellous statements, to as many as possible. Does this entire affair remind anybody else of those African wildlife documentaries where a pack of vultures settles on the dying carcass of a wildebeest? Or is it more like the pointless playground spats where the ousted kid not only takes his ball away but spends as much time as possible trying to split the remaining members of the group?

22-08-2008, 05:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	This email is substantively correct and contains more information than my complaint to the NEC alone, further it accurately puts it into context. What exactly does this mean, it either is or it isn't entirely factual, you wrote it John.

22-08-2008, 05:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	Spon, so let's get this straight his lawyers don't want him engaging on here but he wants to get his side across, without being examined. Is that not a touch unfair, and substantively hypocritical.

22-08-2008, 06:00 PM	#7 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	I asked him if I could post the letter here, Bob, as it was already in the public domain, thanks to the NEC leaking. I have a poll running on that; have you voted yet?

23-08-2008, 10:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	So what would be better questions?

23-08-2008, 12:00 PM	#10 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	Something like. Yes: but only to a single email address and then vetted before circulation to all members of the NEC.