Mark Croucher

BA, elsewhere you've accused me of scattering accusations of BNP involvement randomly against those you claim are upstanding figures calling for probity. Let's try it the other way around, and perhaps you can spot the reason why?

Greg Liar-Watkins:

Constantly calling for a clean-up in UKIP. Claims corruption in the party. Shifts allies to suit argument. Makes wild accusations while claiming to 'have never been wrong', despite being repeatedly proven wrong. By his own admission in contact with Nick Griffin. Attempted to bounce UKIP members into meeting Griffin after inviting him to weekend gathering.

David Abbott

Since election to NEC, constantly calling for a clean-up in UKIP. Claims corruption in the party. Shifts allies to suit argument. Makes wild accusations. Met Nick Griffin at American Renaissance Conference, and again at BNP fundraising dinner. Donated to BNP, and then lied about details repeatedly.

Andrew Edwards

Constantly calling for a clean-up in UKIP. Claims corruption in the party. Shifts allies to suit argument. Makes wild accusations despite being repeatedly proven wrong. Expelled from UKIP after Nick Griffin admitted he was working for the BNP.

John Brayshaw

Was known to Edwards several months before he appeared on UKIP radar. Joined small defunct branch and assumed chairmanship, before being summarily expelled when it was discovered he was also the BNP's treasurer. Would have accounted for donations from Abbott. Left calling for a clean-up in UKIP. Claimed corruption in the party. Close colleague of Nick Griffin.

Now, what do these people have in common?

Let's see. They all claim they want UKIP 'cleaned up'. They all claim corruption. They all shift allies to suit their current arguments. They've all met Nick Griffin. They've all tried to conceal this link.

This is not to say that all those claiming to want a 'clean-up' of UKIP are BNP inspired - far from it. But the BNP have realised that the way to really rile the largely middle-aged, middle class membership of UKIP is to plant the seed that UKIP is everything it argues against the EU for: corrupt, indolent, lazy. Any means, fair or foul, have been used to germinate this seed. Who remembers Hamish Inglis? Martin Cole? Any of the other anonymous or pseudononymous e-mail campaigns waged against UKIP? The attempts to gerrymander NEC elections in 2004 which must have cost thousands and put to shade the bungling of UKIP's general secretary a few years ago? The constant attempts to infiltrate people into UKIP's membership? The mass mailouts?

And then the not so obvious things. The clear indications of collusion between the BNP and both Labour and the Tories (at different times) with a united aim of preventing UKIP acting against clear BNP interference?

So, are thosse who call for a clean-up of UKIP all tarred with the same brush? No, but they tend to be viewed in the same way, and for the following reasons:

Firstly, they are all working from the same source material: most of it planted by the BNP and intrinsically untrue, some of it caused by c0ck-ups within the UKIP structure. UKIP has difficulty getting 20 activists into the same place at the same time, so how exactly do you think it could organise all this, and with whom? Do you not think that had, say, Petrina noticed huge distortions at the top while she was Chairman that she would hesitate to tell you about them now?

Secondly, many of those claiming corruption are UKIP's 'discards', people who haven't achieved anything when they were in a position to do so, and who feel that their ejection from senior positions is due not to their own failings but a concerted conspiracy. Far easier then to blame corruption in UKIP working against these individual bastions of integrity than sufficient introspection to understand, much less admit their own failings publicly.

Thirdly, the rank and file activists, who read all this and wonder if it is true. Perhaps they have been a 'victim' (I use the word advisedly) of some miscarriage within the UKIP system? Perhaps they see opportunities being wasted by a local committee composed of morons whom they can not shift? Perhaps they have simply read a combination of the first two reasons and figure that there's no smoke without fire? With a constant drip, drip, drip of accusations falling into their e-mail inbox and through their letterbox, who could blame them for wondering?

UKIP is a small party, and progress within it depends on luck. Thus Brendan, who by all accounts has put in the hard graft, gets little in the way of thanks and ends up disillusioned with the party and the leadership. It shouldn't be so, but that's how it is. Do you not think that this amplifies suspicions that all is not as it should be? And believe me, I know how it is: I've pounded pavements on my own, delivering leaflets. Kick-started campaigns with no support, because despite a healthy membership list, the number of actual, get your hands dirty activists was about 3.

I can say categorically that, in all my time within the party, and despite a considerable number of political disagreements with the leadership - Jeffrey, Roger and Nigel - I have never seen corruption of the type that is so widely claimed by protagonists such as those above. I've seen c8ck-ups, disasters, mistakes, errors and oversights, and the thing that unites them tends to be overpromoted people trying to carry out a role which is really beyond them. Of financial embezzlement, fraud and theft I have never seen any indication.

So why not try something new for the forum, and actually think about what you are saying rather than swallowing whole anything which fits with your preconceptions? Apply a little logic to 'facts' as they are presented? Look at the Edmonds situation: I've read the bits where Edmonds was reasonable and clear, while the rest of the NEC shouted and hollered at him. But then read the Edmonds v Duffy thread, look at the original messages, and wonder whether Lisa Duffy's temperate message and Edmonds' ill-tempered response really indicate that that is how it was, and if not, why not? A sudden change on Edmonds' part from reasonable argument to rudeness and insinuation, right down to the Ms (or Mrs) bit a the end? Hardly likely, as good manners do not rely upon temper. Do you really think that the people Liar-Watkins hailed as paragons of virtue and integrity 4 years ago have changed so much overnight?

And also ask yourself, 'qui bono'. Do you really think that, should the people Liar-Watkins and his destabilisation campaign hail now as potential saviours would not be corrupt imbeciles as soon as they achieved their aims in the eyes of Liar-Watkins and the BNP? Would they all just say 'right, that's that sorted then' and go home? Even Tony Butcher became a 'corrupt sock puppet' as soon as someone dared to take on Liar-Watkins here on his forum.

So why now? Partly because UKIP has to some extent given its enemies a gift because of mistakes in the MEP process. Even had this not been the case, there would have been a sudden upsurge in the attacks on UKIP from its enemies within and without, because we are in the run-up to the Euro-elections: this is exactly what happened in late 2003, ensuring that a part of UKIP's resources are always directed inwards rather than being focussed on the campaign. This will all continue, probably right up until polling day. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this situation is unique, because it isn't and, in fact, is entirely predictable.

That UKIP has problems is inescapable. What it doesn't have are the problems it's sockpuppet BNP enemies claim.

Rgds

Mark

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: I find it hard to believe that references, these days, to any adult female as Ms/Mrs, are intended to offend; but fall well within the paremters of social acceptability. It is often done by commercial and bureacratic organisations in order to avoid offence. In the case of Lisa Duffy, a friend of her's said, on this forum, that she is a widow, while a colleague from a UKIP committee, on which they both served, said that Lisa Duffy told them that she had been derserted by her husband. Either way, it does not matter too much, but it does militate against choosing an exact form of address.

Of Dr Edmond, David Campbell-Bannerman,( or whatever his surname happens to be this wet Tuesday afternoon) wrote to Paul Nuttall, '..perhaps Mr/Dr Edmonds could confirm whether he is working for our opponents or still in Government service?' It appears that the Deputy Leader seems not to know a NEC members exact surname or form of address. There is surely less justification for that mistake?

Your claims, Mr Croucher, that you have seen no indications of theft, fraud and embezzlement, must be as dishonest a statement as one could make. Have we not one such miscreant soon to be a guest-speaker in Gloucester? Is not an illegal lottery being investigated by the Metropolitan Police? Wine World, with duty-payment implications,
another subject of investigation. A Partyteasurer, advising deception against a regulatory commission, is all innocent fun, is it Mr Croucher? I don't feel that you could be quoted as a reliable reference source. How can improvement be possible with your kind of resistance to honest conduct?

B.A.Ware

Mark what i actually said is quoted below

Nowhere in my posts does it mention they are upstanding figures calling for probity. I don't know either of the people mentioned but know off them mainly from this forum so how i am supposed to know whether they are upstanding or not.

The point i objected to was you accusing someone of being BNP or a Nazi just by association and like i said I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe they are it just boils down to name calling and point scoring which in my mind ruins some of your genuine points you make for the other side of the debate.

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

Mark Croucher

In fact, my experience of the BNP within UKIP leads me to believe that if the cap fits, they're probably wearing it. Nothing in the above, or in their actions, deceptions or lies, leads me to believe my assessment is wrong. That they all have far closer associations to Nick Griffin personally than they are prepared to admit is clear.

So you'll forgive me if, when they pop-up with the sort of unsubstantiated allegations for which they are famous, and then act as if constant repetition is a substitute for proof, I see them as not being that which they pretend to be.

They are free to sue me for libel if they believe they can prove otherwise. They won't though, because they can't. As mentioned previously, the truth is always an absolute defence.

I simply ask that the next time they start spreading their poison, you bear in mind (a) their agenda and (b) their lack of proof, before swallowing it whole.

Rgds

Mark

Mark Croucher

Glad to see you've addressed the main issues. If you weren't so blinkered by your own stupidity you'd realise what cobblers you're talking, and how in danger of a writ for libel you are unless you withdraw your assertion that I condoned theft, fraud and embezzlement.

I don't have the first idea of who you're talking about in Gloucester, the only lottery I knew of was the weather lottery which raised about 50 quid, any duty implications for the UKIP Wine Club remain with the retailer. In the latter instance, I believe almost no wine was sold anyway, so even if there were (and there wasn't) duty due on the wine, we are again talking such small potatoes that whoever made such an absurd suggestion to the MEt will probably find themselves under lock and key for wasting police time. Finally, your assertion that the party treasurer condoned misleading the Electoral Commission is also actionable. I will forward your comments to the Treasurer in question and the retailer concerned lest they wish to take the matter further.

I wonder what your angle is? Or are you just so wrapped up in the allegations that the truth no longer matters: a sort of UKIP flat-earther?


M

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: Please feel free to take whatever action you wish. If a former treasurer wishes to take action against me, let him do so. You talk such foolish and childish nonsense, it is difficult for any adult to take you seriously. Increasingly, it is becoming apparent that maligning anyone who disagrees with you, is your only reaction to any
situation.

Why should you expect to be allowed to deliberately harm professional peoples' reputations with your scurrilous allegations against them? While on the subject of legal action, I wonder how much UKIP has spent on them in recent years?

Take whatever action you like Mr Croucher. You may discover others have already commenced one against you.

Mark Croucher

I think you live in a rather naive little bubble. And what professional people's reputation? A BNP donors? Don't make me laugh, I'm sure he's a perfectly acceptable doctor.

I think your problem is that you just can't handle the truth: that you, and people like you, have been manipulated for a long time, fed partial, inaccurate information and encouraged to believe that you're doing something noble in making a big song and dance about it. And you'd rather defend the indefensible and turn a Nelsonian eye than admit it.

B.A.Ware

You accuse them of false claims yet in your original post you falsely accused me of claiming they were upstanding figures calling for probity something i pointed out in my post yet in your second post you have totally ignored this, pot and kettle comes to mind.

Mark for the record i have never commented or posted (as i remember) on the Accounts, John West, Robin Page, David Abbot or Eric Edmonds sagas, my only problem with the party as you know to well is the single issue status.

My only problem with Farage is i think he should not be the leader he should have stuck at what he was good at, i truly believe the leader of the party should be UK based and should spend 100% of his time building the party at home.


As for Swallowing anything i am perfectly capable of working out the probabilities of whether there is an agenda and perfectly capable of logically deducing fact from fiction.

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

Mark Croucher

Sorry

M

david H

Geoffrey, Mark Croucher was involved with Searchlight.

__________________
"You think you are combatting prejudice but you are at war with nature". Edmund Burke.

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-98-1127.html