Derek Clark

Aardvark · 13-09-2008, 04:55 PM

BTW, presumption of innocence never stopped anyone being remanded in custody.

gc · 13-09-2008, 07:38 PM

If he is being investigated, then he must have the party whip removed, he must be stripped of party office, and he must not stand as a UKIP candidate.

Or do those rules only apply to Tom Wise?

Petrina · 13-09-2008, 07:59 PM

Just a quick comment re Mote`s position ,from memory ,he was not charged the day after his election .
He was committed to the Crown Court the day after his election ,he had been summonsed to the Magistrates Court months before ,so he knew only too well ,early on in the year of his election that he was subject to Criminal Proceedings for fraud and he kept it all quiet .

We only found out about it through the papers ,the rest as they say is history .

chikrodah · 13-09-2008, 09:09 PM

According to Mote's Wikipedia entry, he was committed for trial on 27 April 2004. He could have told UKIP in time and resigned with dignity.

Those who are members of the Eurorealist discussion list may remember oblique references by Mote in 2002 to research he was doing to support an old age pensioner being hounded by the DWP for over-payment of benefits. With 20/20 hindsight, one has to wonder....

Anthony Butcher · 13-09-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Anthony Butcher: In what way do I violate the presumption of innocence? In most professions you are required to 'take leave' once an investigation has commenced.

But there is no requirement to do so in this case and no particular reason for him to do so either. Publicly asking him to step down from his positions is indeed discriminating against him on the grounds that he is being investigated for something. In my mind that is tantamount to presumption of guilt.

As a tax payer I would rather he carried on doing the job he was elected to do, rather than being paid to do nothing on the chance that he might be found guilty of something in a year or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

The NEC, with Clark as one of the Committee, voted to remove Eric Edmond. No charges, no allegations, no resolution was proposed or seconded.

UKIP is not averse to ambushing people in meetings, but I would find it highly unlikely that Eric was removed without a vote.

Resigned Member · 13-09-2008, 11:46 PM

Eric Edmond was removed against the provisions of the Constitution in particular there was no actual resolution or they would have given it to him instead of making it up afterwards.

SponPlague · 14-09-2008, 12:15 AM

I hear the charge they voted on was "bringing the party into disrepute" - written specifics would follow...

Anthony Butcher · 14-09-2008, 01:35 AM

There certainly seems to be conflicting reports regarding Edmonds. I would withhold judgement on whether it was done properly until more comes out on this one.

What we can say for sure is that one of the party's most senior members has been removed from office, and the party hasn't even issued a statement to the party members. Not a sausage on the website. Given the varying reports on this and the obvious consternation amongst some members, to leave it hanging in the air is just sheer stupidity, once again. It never ceases to amaze me just how incompetent UKIP is.

One simple statement could clarify the situation, stem the rumours and actually inform members of what is happening in their own party. Given that many activists voted for Eric, one would reasonably expect that they have a right to know how and why he has been removed.

In fact, anyone looking at the website would believe that he is still in office because he is still listed as an NEC member. It has now been nearly a week since his removal, hasn't it?
UKIP NEC - UK Independence Party

gc · 14-09-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

I hear the charge they voted on was "bringing the party into disrepute" - written specifics would follow...

Maybe he got caught by the NoW trying to shag a Latvian pole dancer? Maybe he fell over drunk in public....

Or maybe something even worse - maybe he diagreed with Farage?

Geoffrey Collier · 14-09-2008, 11:26 AM

Anthony Butcher: If a vote was take by the NEC to 'remove' Eric Edmond, were Derek Clark, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford allowed to vote, despite being investigated themselves by OlAF and the police? Who moved the resolution to remove Edmond, and by whom was it seconded? Was he given notice (written or verbal) of the NEC's intended action against him? This information would already be available, why have we not been told. When are we to be given a sighting of the minutes?

13-09-2008, 04:55 PM	#11 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	BTW, presumption of innocence never stopped anyone being remanded in custody. __________________ 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

14-09-2008, 01:35 AM	#18 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,187 Party: None	There certainly seems to be conflicting reports regarding Edmonds. I would withhold judgement on whether it was done properly until more comes out on this one. What we can say for sure is that one of the party's most senior members has been removed from office, and the party hasn't even issued a statement to the party members. Not a sausage on the website. Given the varying reports on this and the obvious consternation amongst some members, to leave it hanging in the air is just sheer stupidity, once again. It never ceases to amaze me just how incompetent UKIP is. One simple statement could clarify the situation, stem the rumours and actually inform members of what is happening in their own party. Given that many activists voted for Eric, one would reasonably expect that they have a right to know how and why he has been removed. In fact, anyone looking at the website would believe that he is still in office because he is still listed as an NEC member. It has now been nearly a week since his removal, hasn't it? UKIP NEC - UK Independence Party __________________ 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

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

13-09-2008, 07:38 PM	#12 (permalink)
gc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 569	If he is being investigated, then he must have the party whip removed, he must be stripped of party office, and he must not stand as a UKIP candidate. Or do those rules only apply to Tom Wise?

13-09-2008, 07:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,036	Just a quick comment re Mote`s position ,from memory ,he was not charged the day after his election . He was committed to the Crown Court the day after his election ,he had been summonsed to the Magistrates Court months before ,so he knew only too well ,early on in the year of his election that he was subject to Criminal Proceedings for fraud and he kept it all quiet . We only found out about it through the papers ,the rest as they say is history .

13-09-2008, 09:09 PM	#14 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,715	According to Mote's Wikipedia entry, he was committed for trial on 27 April 2004. He could have told UKIP in time and resigned with dignity. Those who are members of the Eurorealist discussion list may remember oblique references by Mote in 2002 to research he was doing to support an old age pensioner being hounded by the DWP for over-payment of benefits. With 20/20 hindsight, one has to wonder....

13-09-2008, 11:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
Resigned Member Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 154	Eric Edmond was removed against the provisions of the Constitution in particular there was no actual resolution or they would have given it to him instead of making it up afterwards.

14-09-2008, 12:15 AM	#17 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,126	I hear the charge they voted on was "bringing the party into disrepute" - written specifics would follow...

14-09-2008, 11:26 AM	#20 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,160	Anthony Butcher: If a vote was take by the NEC to 'remove' Eric Edmond, were Derek Clark, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford allowed to vote, despite being investigated themselves by OlAF and the police? Who moved the resolution to remove Edmond, and by whom was it seconded? Was he given notice (written or verbal) of the NEC's intended action against him? This information would already be available, why have we not been told. When are we to be given a sighting of the minutes?