Aaarrgghh Eric Edmonds vs Party Chairman

SponPlague · 30-09-2008, 08:40 AM

More leaked NEC correspondence...

Quote:

Date: Saturday, 20 September, 2008, 10:11 AM

Dear Mr Nuttall,

I received by post this morning, 20th Sept, a complaint from Mr Victor Webb regarding the MEP selection procedure in the South East region. I gather all NEC members are being sent a copy of his complaint. He seems to me to have a strong prima facie case for complaint. Can you please place on the Oct meeting agenda Mr Webb's complaint and can you invite Mr Webb to attend the meeting if he wishes to present his case in person and he could then answer any questions NEC members might have.

One of his complaints I have also received from other members viz the disappearance of the party constitution from the official UKIP party web site. Can you make enquiries please as to how this happened and who authorised this removal.

Can you please also place on the agenda the following motions:

1. All UKIP MEPs currently under investigation by OLAF be suspended from the NEC and not entitled to attend or vote at NEC meetings until the OLAF investigations are concluded and they are cleared of the allegations against them.

(If this group includes Mr Farage then I would suggest he still to be invited to give his leaders report, answer questions on his report but then leave. This action would be consistent with how we handled Mr Tom Wise's case when he was investigated by OLAF )

2. Mr Bannerman be asked to resign with immediate effect from the NEC if the allegation that he holds a paid office in the EU IndDem group of which UKIP is a part is true and therefore under the party constitution he cannot be a member of the NEC. Further, if the allegation is true, that all NEC motions passed while Mr Bannerman was a paid EU employee be struck out and reconsidered.

3. Mr John West be invited to take Mr Bannerman's place.

4. Ms Andreassen be asked to clarify her party membership status.

I ask Del Young and David Abbott to second these motions by email to Mr Nuttall

Eric Edmond

and the following reply:

Quote:

Dear Paul,

In response to yet more disruptive behaviour from Mr ( or is it Dr ? ) Edmond, which I can add to the rapidly growing charge sheet for next time, may I confirm that The Party Secretary has already been consulted over my status on the NEC.

His advice is that as I only started with the Ind Dem group on 10th September ( 2 days after the last NEC ), was elected entirely legitimately in my own right before any such role, and am not employed by any individual MEP directly ( the intention was to stop ROs and other employees in the UK as they have interface with members daily and that may be seen to influence any election at the time they were standing ) and by the Ind Dem Group, this restriction does not apply to me.

As for the other motions, none of which are positive of course or take us further towards our objective of leaving the EU ( perhaps Mr/Dr Edmonds could confirm whether he is working for our opponents or is still in Government service ? ), I would suggest these are only placed on the Agenda once it is clear whether Mr/Dr Edmond remains on the NEC or not, a matter which will be taken under Matters Arising.

We may be saved a lot of wasted time, as we were when Mr/Dr Edmond voluntarily absented himself from the meeting on the last occasion - everyone noticed just how much more positive and speedy the business from then on was.

Best wishes,

David
David Campbell Bannerm

Mark Croucher · 30-09-2008, 11:27 AM

In a move that will come as a surprise to all, and despite Edmonds not telling the truth about his 'expulsion' from the NEC, DCB's reason for remaining on the NEC whilst employed by the IND/DEM group must surely be incorrect. I was always under the impression that employment by the party, in whatever guise, disbarred the employee from NEC membership.

On this specific issue, I can't help but feel that Edmonds is right and DCB wrong.

The rest of his missive is just troublemaking old cobblers, of course.

M

B.A.Ware · 30-09-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Croucher

In a move that will come as a surprise to all, and despite Edmonds not telling the truth about his 'expulsion' from the NEC, DCB's reason for remaining on the NEC whilst employed by the IND/DEM group must surely be incorrect. I was always under the impression that employment by the party, in whatever guise, disbarred the employee from NEC membership.

On this specific issue, I can't help but feel that Edmonds is right and DCB wrong.

The rest of his missive is just troublemaking old cobblers, of course.

M

But he is not employed by the party, he is employed by the IND/DEM group, thats the way i see it.

SponPlague · 30-09-2008, 12:40 PM

So was Mark - would you have stood for the NEC if you could, Mark?

Anthony Butcher · 30-09-2008, 12:47 PM

Both Mark and BA make good points, but I think that DB's employment is still through the party and intended for the party. IDG and MEP employees must surely fall under at the very least the intention of the rules regarding employees, especially since UKIP doesn't really have any employees.

Looking at the emplyment rules in the constitution, it says:

Quote:

These members shall neither be paid employees of the Party nor any of the Party’s elected representatives who receive in respect of their elected position emoluments commensurate with full-time employment nor self employed contractors for services either with the Party nor with any of the elected representatives of the Party (provided that members who provide paid professional advice or supply goods or services on a casual basis to the Party or the Party's elected representatives from time to time shall not be excluded from standing for election to the NEC. Any dispute in relation to the foregoing proviso shall be conclusively determined by the NEC).

Ignoring the fact that it is written in some kind of gibberish that would make the PC brigade proud (congratulations Mr Zuckerman), the rules do cover employees of MEPs and thus presumably IDG employees too.

The constitution even provides a specific clause for this situation - there is clearly a dispute over DB's status and Edmonds is asking for the NEC to resolve it, as it should.

Mr Edmonds is wrong about the party constitution. It is quite easily found in the Members section:
Party Constitution - UK Independence Party

SponPlague · 30-09-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Mr Edmonds is wrong about the party constitution. It is quite easily found in the Members section:
Party Constitution - UK Independence Party

Be fair, Anthony - it was only added on Tuesday 16th September! Not even I think it realistic for NEC members to check sub-areas of the members only section daily, unless promoted...

Anthony Butcher · 30-09-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

Be fair, Anthony - it was only added on Tuesday 16th September! Not even I think it realistic for NEC members to check sub-areas of the members only section daily, unless promoted...

There's always a copy here too.

SponPlague · 30-09-2008, 01:14 PM

Yes, but if he admitted to being on this site, that would only enhance the case for expulsion!

Mark Croucher · 30-09-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

So was Mark - would you have stood for the NEC if you could, Mark?

Haha, no, I don't think so. I'm not very clubbable lol

I was always under the impression that my position debarred me from standing even had I wanted to. That said, the precise wording as posted below does seem to allow some wriggle room - rather more than I had thought, in fact. I suppose technically it is correct that he can work for IND/DEM and be on the NEC, but not exactly within the spirit of the rules.

Rgds

Mark

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

30-09-2008, 11:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mark Croucher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dartford, Kent Posts: 1,028	In a move that will come as a surprise to all, and despite Edmonds not telling the truth about his 'expulsion' from the NEC, DCB's reason for remaining on the NEC whilst employed by the IND/DEM group must surely be incorrect. I was always under the impression that employment by the party, in whatever guise, disbarred the employee from NEC membership. On this specific issue, I can't help but feel that Edmonds is right and DCB wrong. The rest of his missive is just troublemaking old cobblers, of course. M

30-09-2008, 12:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	So was Mark - would you have stood for the NEC if you could, Mark?

30-09-2008, 01:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	Yes, but if he admitted to being on this site, that would only enhance the case for expulsion!