Mr Warry, as I see it, the headline of the Junius article 'Nikki Sinclaire publishes a full audit of her accounts' is at least mistaken and at worst a complete lie. Neither Miss Sinclaire nor her accountants have saw fit to refer to these statements as a 'full audit' and as Independent UKIP has highlighted, her accountant quite politely adds that 'For the avoidance of doubt, we have not carried out a statutory audit of the expenses or any financial statements as part of this exercise' - if this was a 'full audit of her accounts' (as per the Junius headline), surely then we would be granted the details of Miss Sinclaire's accounts that her accountant has excluded, otherwise it would not be a full audit. I'm not implying impropriety on Miss Sinclaire's part, for she has been more generous with her expenditure details than others.
I know you are reluctant to offer criticism of your bretheren in the 'we must sabotage UKIP' bunker but the term 'full audit' implies that all pennies have been looked at and accounted for. Again, I refer you back to the statement on the letter - 'For the avoidance of doubt, we have not carried out a statutory audit of the expenses or any financial statements as part of this exercise'. Indeed, Miss Sinclaire does not use the term 'full audit' so why have Junius? So with that in mind, Mr Warry, would you agree that this is not a full audit, as claimed by the Junius gentlemen? I'm not asking you to call them liars, I am asking you if their claim that these are full accounts is correct?
As I see it Junius, who doesn't claim to be an accountant, used the term 'full audit' to cover the fact an accountant had quite properly, with in accountancy rules, 'signed off' her expenditure.Originally Posted by Arthur Fonzarelli
I don't see where the problem lies here but I do understand that Nigel's supporters always want to portray those critical of him and his fellow MEPs as liars.
I agree with you, Arthur!
The article including its title is misleading, it does not present a 'full audit' of Sinclaire's accounts. As is always the case on the Junius blog, selection and interpretation of facts is used to present one-sided arguments. Like the saying goes: there's two sides to every story. For example, the article 'UKIP's vote continue to plummet under Farage's inept leadership but at least Harry Aldridge is smiling!' fails to mention other successful council by-elections that UKIP have stood candidates; it also fails to mention recent opinion polls from YouGov that show UKIP support increasing; it also fails to mention how UKIP's membership increased by 11 per cent in 2011. The Junius blog paints a false picture of UKIP to current and prospective members of the Party!
UKIP, Britain's fourth largest political party.
The facts are that if Junius and GLW's blogs contain inaccuracies as often as you believe then they would by now have been taken to court.
To my knowledge only GLW has been taken to court and that was over the copyright of a UKIP publicity photograph he used. This action was taken by Mark Croucher with the full backing of Nigel's EUKIP and Mark Croucher didn't even bother to turn up to the court and I believe to this day has not settled his debts to the court and GLW so EUKIP have defaulted and thus dishonoured their liability to the tune of about £12,500.
Why would the Party want to waste their time and resources on two blogs that don't even register on the ratings website, Alexa because they have so few visitors (hits)? The Junius blog has just 32 followers?!?! Half of whom are from other political parties including an ex-member of the BNP. Moreover, neither of the two blogs has done anything to damage UKIP's popularity despite their best efforts.
UKIP, Britain's fourth largest political party.
Sadly you are starting to show how much you are out of your depth!
EUKIP, as I explained, WERE bothered by GLW's blog when they hoped they could 'get him' for the use of a publicity photograph of Nigel.
They lost the case and still owe £12,500 which they have dishonoured to pay.
What a way for a supposedly serious party to behave.
Infact do your reseach and tell where Nigel's EUKIP have ever won a case they have taken to court?
Nigel has often ended up in court due to the actions he allows his party to take and as I say above has to my knowledge NEVER a case and so have wasted thousands on legal costs.
Nigel doen't run a serious party he just runs his own own fan club for his own ends and clearly you are one of his many dupes!!
With whom, exactly?
Mark Croucher, not the Party.EUKIP, as I explained, WERE bothered by GLW's blog when they hoped they could 'get him' for the use of a publicity photograph of Nigel.
Source?They lost the case and still owe £12,500 which they have dishonoured to pay.
Oh the irony! This coming from a man with no integrity or credibility whatsoever.What a way for a supposedly serious party to behave.
Stifle debate? Are we not referring to the two blogs?Infact do your reseach and tell where Nigel's EUKIP have ever won a case they have taken to court?
Often? I don't think so. Only a small handful of cases. Please, don't exaggerate.Nigel has often ended up in court due to the actions he allows his party to take and as I say above has to my knowledge NEVER a case and so have wasted thousands on legal costs.
I disagree.Nigel doen't run a serious party he just runs his own own fan club for his own ends and clearly you are one of his many dupes!!
UKIP, Britain's fourth largest political party.
Factually incorrect again.
The court was presented with a written statement by Paul Nuttall.
Mark Croucher was fully backed by the party, not that he turned up to the court, nor has he settled his debt of £12,500.
Yes exactly. A statement by Paul Nuttall on behalf of Mark Croucher, not the Party as an entity!
Source?Mark Croucher was fully backed by the party, not that he turned up to the court, nor has he settled his debt of £12,500.
Does this not prove my point mentioned earlier? That the Party nor the individuals were actually bothered by the case in question.
UKIP, Britain's fourth largest political party.
You are clutching at straws.
The source is from the horses mouth and no doubt the court records will confirm this if you check.
Mark WAS that bother he brought the case remember and Nuttal, in his capacity as I believe Party Chairman, supported him so the PARTY was involved.
The court are still owed £12,500 which is quite disgraceful don't you think?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks