Aaarrgghh Robin Page --> Nigel

SponPlague · 21-10-2008, 09:09 AM

This is the first of two letters (leaked by the NEC?)...

Quote:

Open Letter to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage 19.10.2008

Dear Nigel,

There are a number of issues, which need seriously addressing. Failure to deal with them brings the whole of UKIP into disrepute and in my view raises the question of whether you are a fit person to lead a political party.

I would remind you that I am not a politician. However I have always been concerned by those who enter politics and who lie and cheat as a normal part of their lives. As a result I want to know whether or not lying and cheating is now an accepted part of UKIP’s philosophy and internal management.

I suppose my mother is to blame for all this. Her philosophy was always “Tell the truth. Say what you mean, and don’t hold grudges”. It seems to me that you, and most of those sycophants that surround you, might take a completely opposite view.

To start with Nigel, you are aware that I made a Data Protection Act request to UKIP. The Party has made no effort to comply with the Law. How can you be taken seriously as a Party leader when you have allowed this to happen? Do you regard you and the Party to be above the Law? Perhaps you do and of course several senior Party members are currently being investigated by the police and OLAF.

Let me remind you of my background.

My first major choice of blatant lies or the truth came in 1969. The then Secretary of State for Social Security Richard Crossman, and his henchman, an MP from Kent called David Ennals – later ennobled, were liars. I could have ignored their lies or challenged them. I decided to challenge them.

The two of them lied their way through a Panorama programme on BBC television. Being a civil servant in the same department I was appalled, but was told by a senior officer that we could do nothing as the department paid our wages.

I took a different view, believing that as a” public servant” my first loyalty was to “the public”. Consequently as a matter of principle I believed that the truth should be told. As a result I wrote a series of articles under a pseudonym for The Spectator under the Editorship of Nigel Lawson. Needless to say, because my articles were totally factual the super-sleuths tracked me down, and at the age of twenty-six I was sacked and threatened with legal action under the Official Secrets Acts if I wrote another word. Of course I wrote again and of course I was not prosecuted – although for a young country boy taking on a bunch of dishonest politicians it was all rather stressful. Everything I said was later confirmed by a Committee of Inquiry.

I have made several other stands since then on matters of principle – usually honesty against political dishonesty – even police dishonesty. Stress is now not an issue as I am used to it all and of course won damages earlier in the year from the Gloucestershire Police. Information received under the Data Protection Act clearly showed that the police had lied about me and had no reasons to act against me. BY complying with the Data Protection Act the Gloucestershire Police actually incriminated themselves. Please note Nigel – UKIP still has not complied with my Data Protection Act request – thus not only breaking the provisions of the Act – but also implying to me, and others, that you have things to hide. Nigel, why won’t you comply with the ACT? I need to see the minutes of the “Political Committee” that allegedly discussed my case at the time of the internal elections. There are many emails too that I know exist and you must divulge. The Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act are virtually the only pieces of good legislation passed by Blair – you seem to be frightened by them – why?

In 1979 I stood in the Thatcher General Election as a Tory in Bethnal Green. I achieved the second highest swing to the Tories in the country, and easily saved my deposit. It is normal after such an event and after such a personal result, to then put in for a safe seat. However, I found some of the other neighbouring Tories so deceitful, unpleasant and dishonest (some of whom went off in the traditional way to get safe seats) that I went off to write “The Wildlife of the Royal Estates” instead. I decided against a life in politics as I found most of those climbing the ladder totally unpleasant, as indeed I do today. Indeed the only politician that I met at the time that I held any respect for was Peter Shore in the next constituency. He seemed out of character for politicians past or present - straight, honest and pleasant.

When Jimmy Goldsmith came along I changed my mind. I felt I should get involved again – not for my sake – but to help save the pound, and even the country. I got on very well with him. Unlike some of those who huffed and puffed around him, bowing and scraping – I told him exactly how I saw things and I believe that he respected me for that – unlike you Nigel. Anybody who disagrees with you seems to be ejected from the Party – or set-up – and I expect in due course you will set up a Kangaroo Court full of “Yes men” to get rid of me – that seems to be democracy UKIP style at the moment.

Interestingly, or not, Jimmy wanted me to stand against John Major, but I refused, believing that local people should represent their own areas if at all possible. That is why in the Europeans I believe that David Bannerman should stand in London. Also of course, because I believe in total honesty, I do not believe that he should be using the name David Campbell Bannerman. He should be standing on his own ability, not on the name of a long dead politician – what is your take on this Nigel?

It may be of interest to you Nigel that because of my experience in broadcasting and writing I did the voice-over on the Referendum Party’s video that went to thousands of houses and also had some input on the script. Oddly I have never been asked for any input from UKIP as I am told that Jeffrey Titford would not allow it. I have never known why – although in the past you have confirmed the situation? So what was the problem Nigel?

With the sad loss of Jimmy Goldsmith you pleaded with me to join UKIP. After serious consideration, and realising that it could damage me professionally, particularly with the BBC, I agreed. At the same time I was doing much for the Countryside Alliance and at one rally addressed 125,000 people.

At the time of the European Elections in 2003 I agreed to be a candidate. As usually happens at the hustings I injured myself just before. I fell off a ladder and landed on my head – on concrete – concussing myself and damaging an arm. For trying to take part in one hustings meeting – with a splitting headache and leaving early, certain people within UKIP started “spinning” against me. A reliable journalist would not reveal the person or people involved but informed me that it came from the UKIP computer at its Chelmsford HQ. It was said later that the computer was examined and the entire material for the time concerned had been wiped. You stated at the time that the spinning must have been done by Titford, Gulleford or Wise individually or in combination. I have no idea. It was said that even so I missed second place by four votes. From the way in which UKIP runs its elections, I do not necessarily accept the result.

However – although I believe that I was stitched up – I agreed to do nothing, for the sake of UKIP.

However Nigel, you know that I have been stitched up for a second time and in view of the behaviour of Wise etc I am not prepared to allow blatant dishonesty to prevail again.

You know that for these elections I did exactly what your paid staff asked me to do. Strangely, an email from Stuart Agnew to John West actually confirms this and there should be other evidence that is almost certainly being withheld (or of course destroyed). You also know that the Curtis Report was nonsense and of course Wise put Curtis in place originally. You have also totally ignored the report and recommendations of your Returning Officer, Piers Merchant. The sooner UKIP elections are handled by the Electoral Reform Society to prevent vote rigging, gerrymandering and or corruption the better – but of course Nigel, I think you are opposed to that – why? You know that people were accepted late onto lists and apparently you have put your own choices at the top of lists. And are you going to parachute Bob Spink into the East? Then of course it was you who described the weak and silver-spooned Gill as “unprofessional”. The elections were a total farce. I am told that you spoke against me at meetings, when you told me you had no say in the matter at all. Thanks friend. Strange that – I did regard you as a friend. Evidently you regarded me in the same way as you regarded Richard North – what was that? Some sort of threat? You certainly don’t seem to understand teamwork, combining skills and abilities; you just seem to want to dominate “gofors” who say “Yes Nigel. No Nigel. Three bags full Nigel”.

Incidentally, your treatment of Richard North was a disgrace and at this particular time, Richard onboard, as part of a team, would have been invaluable. Where has UKIP been lately? Invisible – congratulations.

But there are other issues Nigel. I remember you boasting to me how much the call-centres were making. Where did the money go and how much did they make?

In my view you must also come clean about the Isle of Man. Have you and/or your brother got a Trust Fund there or not? What is it for and where did the money come from? If it is an educational Trust, as it is rumoured, who can benefit from it? I know you were on the Isle of Man for two days in May – did any aspect of your trip involve money? These are all reasonable questions Nigel and require an answer. Are members of the NEC incapable of asking these questions?

It is odd – in the past you have claimed to want honesty and transparency in Europe. I want to see honesty and transparency in UKIP. At the moment UKIP has become the “sleaze party” it seems to me.

Then there is the “wog” issue. If it is just a story to create mischief, fine, say so and it gives people chance to believe you. But it is also said that there are witnesses and you were filmed – which if true would make it difficult. So be honest Nigel. Did it occur? If it did you should stand down. If it did not – fine.

I urged you to stand as leader. I was wrong. In my view you have shown that you have few leadership qualities – surrounding yourself with yes men and in my view flouting UKIP’s own rules. You are turning UKIP into a one-man band – a dictatorship – and at the same time turning a small party into an even smaller party. All this also helps to explain to me why you gave me virtually no support when at short notice I was removed from the BBC’s “Question Time” and never put back on again.

In my view Nigel your honesty and integrity has descended to the same level as Edward Heath. I am disappointed as I considered you as a friend and taking on my mother’s philosophy I still like you, as I don’t bear grudges. However Nigel for the sake of UKIP and the good people making up the grass roots – stand down before you do any more damage to the anti-EU cause. You are not only bringing UKIP into disrepute, in my view, you are confirming that politics brings out the worst in people. Power and politics, however small and insignificant, corrupt – pathetic isn’t it?

Yours,
Robin Page

eublues · 21-10-2008, 10:00 AM

What does Robin Page expect to achieve from an 'open letter' of this sort, rambling across a muddle of issues mixing fact and opinion?

He publicly condemns Nigel's honesty and integrity but still likes him!

Petrina · 21-10-2008, 11:05 AM

It may be a somewhat rambling account of Page`s motives and views and Nigel`s perceived inadequacies but it is hard- hitting and clearly has some basis in truth .
Piers`s report made clear that there were many problems over the MEP list election ,I understand that Mrs Robinson has now received her selection deposit and costs back from the party ( as per GLW`s latest missive ),we know that the Eastern Region is up in arms about all manner of alleged impropriety .
Frankly I find it hard to believe that Page would have dealt with his application to be on the list in the sloppy fashion that UKIP now suggest for the simple reason that Page stood a very good chance of coming in the top two and that he had shown great interest in replacing Wise had the chance come his way.
Nigel should mull this missive over and he should ,in my view, issue a reply if he can.

Mark Croucher · 21-10-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrina

Frankly I find it hard to believe that Page would have dealt with his application to be on the list in the sloppy fashion that UKIP now suggest .

Sorry Petrina, just refresh my memory. Whose responsibility was it to ensure his application was in by the deadline?

M

Petrina · 21-10-2008, 04:34 PM

To answer your question Mark......
Peter Reeve and the other member of staff who informed Page that they would do it on his behalf ,not as his friends, but importantly as agents/employees of the party, if Page is to be believed . Page ,if they are to be believed .

My point is that one should look at who stands to lose by this present situation and who stands to gain ,obviously it is Page who is the loser .I know that Page was/is viewed as a loose cannon ,he is not a "team player " so UKIP`s management would probably have been relieved to find him out of the picture .

One also has to ask oneself if one has faith in the whole selection and election process and I do not believe that an objective observer could honestly say that one could .

Mark Croucher · 21-10-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrina

To answer your question Mark......
Peter Reeve and the other member of staff who informed Page that they would do it on his behalf ,not as his friends, but importantly as agents/employees of the party, if Page is to be believed . Page ,if they are to be believed .

.

I'm sure you're answering a question, but not one that I asked.

Mine was: "Who was responsible for ensuring his applications forms were lodged by the deadline date?" There is of course only one possible answer, and I'll help you by supplying it: Robin Page.

To address the question which I didn't ask and yet which you were answering,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Page

certain people within UKIP started “spinning” against me. A reliable journalist would not reveal the person or people involved but informed me that it came from the UKIP computer at its Chelmsford HQ. It was said later that the computer was examined and the entire material for the time concerned had been wiped. You stated at the time that the spinning must have been done by Titford, Gulleford or Wise individually or in combination. I have no idea. It was said that even so I missed second place by four votes. From the way in which UKIP runs its elections, I do not necessarily accept the result.

One must question the judgement of someone who, believing they were robbed of an election by foul play in a regional office in 2003, would then rely on the same office, with largely the same personnel, a mere 4 years later. You've gotta admit, it's a pretty stupid thing to do, even if his entire version of events were to prove correct, which is itself not as clear cut as his missives imply.

M

Petrina · 21-10-2008, 06:55 PM

Sorry mate I don`t agree,whilst in normal circs it is clearly the prospective candidate`s duty to ensure that the papers are in on time if an agent of the party varies the normal rules by offering to do that himself then the duty transfers to that agent .The fact that the agent may have been acting outside his authority is of no consequence.

As to why Page relied on them to take his duties over ,maybe he was remembering his mother`s advice not to hold grudges ,anyway I don`t think that Reeves and a -another were involved with the previous alleged foul play.

Niall Warry · 21-10-2008, 07:33 PM

I believe Robin Page was very busy and or also ill at the time of registering his forms so was happy for the 'office' to do it for him as they said they would. Surely it is the least the potential number one candidate could expect.

eublues · 21-10-2008, 08:33 PM

Petrina - on a separate matter, do you know if panellists on Question Time get paid a fee? Thanks.

under my rock · 21-10-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.N.Warry

I believe Robin Page was very busy and or also ill at the time of registering his forms

Two issues there, ill or too busy. If he was ill then it must have lasted several months as the window for submitting forms lasted for quite a long time which would question his ability on health grounds to sustain a long campaign? If he was just too busy then this must throw into question his commitment to be able to devote the time necessary for a long campaign.

Looking at this from outside the Eastern Region is appears to me to be a case of a self important "Don't you know who I am?" thinking the rules don't apply to him because he is a former TV Personality and as such is entitled to have UKIP Staff do his running around for him. How many other potential candidates had their forms completed by the Regional Office? Not many I'll bet!

21-10-2008, 10:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,189	What does Robin Page expect to achieve from an 'open letter' of this sort, rambling across a muddle of issues mixing fact and opinion? He publicly condemns Nigel's honesty and integrity but still likes him! Last edited by eublues; 21-10-2008 at 10:03 AM.

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

21-10-2008, 11:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,062	It may be a somewhat rambling account of Page`s motives and views and Nigel`s perceived inadequacies but it is hard- hitting and clearly has some basis in truth . Piers`s report made clear that there were many problems over the MEP list election ,I understand that Mrs Robinson has now received her selection deposit and costs back from the party ( as per GLW`s latest missive ),we know that the Eastern Region is up in arms about all manner of alleged impropriety . Frankly I find it hard to believe that Page would have dealt with his application to be on the list in the sloppy fashion that UKIP now suggest for the simple reason that Page stood a very good chance of coming in the top two and that he had shown great interest in replacing Wise had the chance come his way. Nigel should mull this missive over and he should ,in my view, issue a reply if he can.

21-10-2008, 04:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,062	To answer your question Mark...... Peter Reeve and the other member of staff who informed Page that they would do it on his behalf ,not as his friends, but importantly as agents/employees of the party, if Page is to be believed . Page ,if they are to be believed . My point is that one should look at who stands to lose by this present situation and who stands to gain ,obviously it is Page who is the loser .I know that Page was/is viewed as a loose cannon ,he is not a "team player " so UKIP`s management would probably have been relieved to find him out of the picture . One also has to ask oneself if one has faith in the whole selection and election process and I do not believe that an objective observer could honestly say that one could .

21-10-2008, 06:55 PM	#7 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,062	Sorry mate I don`t agree,whilst in normal circs it is clearly the prospective candidate`s duty to ensure that the papers are in on time if an agent of the party varies the normal rules by offering to do that himself then the duty transfers to that agent .The fact that the agent may have been acting outside his authority is of no consequence. As to why Page relied on them to take his duties over ,maybe he was remembering his mother`s advice not to hold grudges ,anyway I don`t think that Reeves and a -another were involved with the previous alleged foul play.

21-10-2008, 07:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
Niall Warry Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Somerset Posts: 1,674	I believe Robin Page was very busy and or also ill at the time of registering his forms so was happy for the 'office' to do it for him as they said they would. Surely it is the least the potential number one candidate could expect.

21-10-2008, 08:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,189	Petrina - on a separate matter, do you know if panellists on Question Time get paid a fee? Thanks.