Letter Robin Page.

Originally Posted by SponPlague:
Ignorance is no defence, Doug! NEC members should be overseeing these things. Why did she resign if she was innocent? History, yes, but recent history! As I said, if she resigned from the party uncder a cloud, should MEPs be utilising her talsnts?

There is no point in my seeking out trouble or walking directly into it. I have plenty of other useful things to be doing in my life wihtout that. If it hits me in the face - well that's different.

We cannot "oversee" everything going on in or external to UKIP in the NEC. The NEC has a specific task only - to make decisions on items to do with the organising and good governance of the party. We can only look at specific items as they arise in proper agenda form - otherwise we would be there all week, every week of the year.
---------

AF was working for an MEP - nothing to do with UKIP.
Information was 'lost' by 'means unknown' which has caused difficulty. None of my business unless it is presented to me as of immediate relevance to UKIP. It is not as far as I know.
The person concerned is no longer in the party - how, why, when, which - none of my business - all I know they are nothing to do directly with UKIP right now. Why should I take an interest in a non-item? I don't care who MEPs choose to work for them (excepting the obvious of course: paedophiles murderers etc) to help them promote the EU - that is their business - nothing to do with UKIP.

If however, it comes up to the NEC in the form of an agenda item, because there are ramifications which do indeed affect UKIP and need a decision to resolve it I shall take a very close interest indeed and shall want to know the ins and outs entirely. Until then - why should I (or you for that matter) bother my bottom about it? It's a waste of time when you can be doing much more interesting or productive things.

DED.
-

P.S. Nniiaall. Pleeeeeese resign .. there's a good chap ..... do it now ...... !

DED.
-

[Rep]

Originally Posted by douglas denny:
why should I (or you for that matter) bother my bottom about it? It's a waste of time when you can be doing much more interesting or productive things. - DED.

I bothered my bottom as you put it, because John Whittaker rang me and asked for some technical assistance in tracing the origin of YouTube videos etc. Having done the spadework, I took an interest. Simple as that. As to why you should bother, it has been suggested earlier on this list that, as she was working for the press office, on candidate selection matters, the NEC could be deemed in the chain of command, and therefore libable. Me, I'd check out these things before the baliffs come knocking - the issue of NEC libaility for party debts was ongoing two years ago, during the leadership election - has it been resolved since then, Doug?

[Rep]

Douglas D: You are saying far too much about the John West, Annebelle Fuller and Robin Page matters on this forum. No other NEC member indulges in this type of thing. The NEC could end-up with a large legal bill the way you are going. Does Whittaker know what you are putting on this forum? It is clearly not just a matter of RP putting in his application too late, there are numerous other issues involved. Indeed, if having expressed you opinions on these matters in public, it would be unwise for you not to withdraw from any NEC deliberations on those same issues. You are not impartial on any of the three cases identified, you have given your opinions, despite not seeing the full evidence. Other NEC members should ask Zuckerman to acquaint himself with much of what you have posted. You appear to think that others do not value their reputations, you still have much to learn. Why not resign from the NEC while you are still safe? Should you choose not to, at least ask you building society how much you could raise quickly in an emergency. If you are au-fait with the true situation, you will know that things are becoming desperate for the party: why add to its problems?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier:
Douglas D: You are saying far too much about the John West, Annebelle Fuller and Robin Page matters on this forum. No other NEC member indulges in this type of thing. The NEC could end-up with a large legal bill the way you are going. Does Whittaker know what you are putting on this forum? It is clearly not just a matter of RP putting in his application too late, there are numerous other issues involved. Indeed, if having expressed you opinions on these matters in public, it would be unwise for you not to withdraw from any NEC deliberations on those same issues. You are not impartial on any of the three cases identified, you have given your opinions, despite not seeing the full evidence. Other NEC members should ask Zuckerman to acquaint himself with much of what you have posted. You appear to think that others do not value their reputations, you still have much to learn. Why not resign from the NEC while you are still safe? Should you choose not to, at least ask you building society how much you could raise quickly in an emergency. If you are au-fait with the true situation, you will know that things are becoming desperate for the party: why add to its problems?

You don't listen do you Geoffrey? We have already been over this elsewhere. I might tell you too I do not like being told whether I should or should not post what I think here or elsewhere by you or anyone else.
What is your problem? Do you dislike my telling you a bit of common-sense? You think that I am not allowed personal opinons? or of expressing them? Is it because I prick your hysterical balloons as you blow them up with your beetroot-red face, and stop all the fun?

The NEC is nothing special - it is a group of elected representatives in a political organisation.- that's all. Not Parliament, we are not the monarchy, or even aristocracy. We do not sit as Gods in the clouds.
If there is any legal liability it is as a party not as individuals. If called to court to explain my opinions they shall be the same.

Now again for you Geoffrey, in words of one syllable... read carefully please.....

I am not aware officially of anything to do with the AF business other than one e-mail from the chairman who says he is not minded to pursue the matter.

There has been no communication from anyone else in the party to me to say it is under investigation; or subject to sub judice rules - and so must shut up.

Until it is, I am free to express my opinions. They are resonable opinions - in my opinion - if not in yours.

If you insist on promulgating hysteria about this issue that is up to you, I cannot stop you in your insanity. This business is, as I have said before, a storm in a teacup. If it goes further then I shall shut up.

If others in the NEC do not express opinions on this forum perhaps they should - or, more likely, they do not because they think you, Geoffrey, and some of the others, are so full of daft conspiracy theories (Ashford !!); too idiotic, and/or too much of a pain in the bottom to have sensible discourse with. Perhaps if you didn't peddle such rubbish all the time here it is likely they might actually want to post here. As it is they won't touch this place with a bargepole.
You should thank me for posting as you would be just left to your insane ramblings otherwise and would go deeper into the realms of fantasy perhaps never to come out. ... Oh no! on second thoughts, forget it, you are there already!

=========

Spongy: you can take as much of an interest as you wish, and with your expertise that is no doubt useful to John Whittaker; but I repeat: I do not see why I should take any interest in this business until and unless it becomes an issue in front of me at the NEC.
AF is (was?) a paid employeee of an MEP and therefore of no direct interest to UKIP. If she or anyone else is responsible for misdemeanours then it is up to the particular employer to investigate. I have no interest directly or indirectly until and unless it comes to me through the NEC as an agenda item.
---------

The assumption here in this forum seems to be that there is some great problem which is going to end up in the courts. Well? is it? ...does anyone here know that for certain? If not then it is you who should be quiet. In the end - we shall see.
There is no evidence that is likely as yet ...... is there? So far all I see here is a lot of speculative hot air whipped-up into nonsensical hysteria ..... as usual for this ridiculous public platform. I don't know why I bother my backside sometimes! ...Geoffrey and his hysterical hyperbole and fantsies about Ashford; others with endless speculation instead of facts .. get your act togther chaps! Facts please. Evidence please. No more ifs, buts, maybes and mightbes and terrible protestations of doom.

Thank you.

DED.
-

[Rep]

Originally Posted by douglas denny:
The NEC is nothing special - it is a group of elected representatives in a political organisation.- that's all. Not Parliament, we are not the monarchy, or even aristocracy. We do not sit as Gods in the clouds.
If there is any legal liability it is as a party not as individuals. If called to court to explain my opinions they shall be the same.

Keep on taking the pills Doug!
The NEC IS "something special" - you are the elected 'managing board' of the party. As to legal liability, if you think you have no liability I suggest you confirm that with legal people. My understanding is that the NEC are jointly and severally liable for 'the party' in the same way that any management board is for their organisation.

Or to put it another way - if the 5hit hit the fan, where would it go? It has to go somewhere Doug, and in this day and age, it has to cover someone - who isn't already covered, if you get my drift.

[Rep]

As always GLW the source of mischief and the gullible believe it. Lets have Robin personally post or is it beneath his dignity to justify to fellow UKIP members why he uses a blatant anti UKIPer as his vehicle to attack the party, has he no honour.

[Rep]

It seems that UKIP has been severely damaged, this time perhaps mortally.

Why should any cash paying member of ukip continue paying any attention at all to an election held by ukip?

These internal ukip elections are already decided before they even start.

The first and second placings are already dedicated to someone,by the Leader,regardless of the election results.

That is not Democracy,that is pure Communism, disguised as Democracy, and freely practiced by the Communist styled EU.

Could it really be that,UKIP IS DEAD AND LIVING IN BELGIUMS MOSCOW?

[Rep]

Had you read the posts carefully, Bob, a habit worth aquiring, you would realise that Robin had NOT used a blatant anti-UKIPer (I assume you men GLW?) - he contacted the NEC, and they leaked. Are you seriously suggesting no-one ever writes the NEC in case Greg publishes it?

Do try to keep up, 007 :-)

[Rep]

Originally Posted by C_steam:
Keep on taking the pills Doug!
The NEC IS "something special" - you are the elected 'managing board' of the party. As to legal liability, if you think you have no liability I suggest you confirm that with legal people. My understanding is that the NEC are jointly and severally liable for 'the party' in the same way that any management board is for their organisation.

Or to put it another way - if the 5hit hit the fan, where would it go? It has to go somewhere Doug, and in this day and age, it has to cover someone - who isn't already covered, if you get my drift.

Steamer. The NEC is only 'special' within its own context - i.e. within UKIP.

Yes, you are right it is the top management 'board' of the party - but that's the point, some here are saying I should take great interest in this issue with its unrestricted speculation - yet without a shred of evidence there is anything wrong yet in a legal sense. But which nevertheless causes Geoffrey to go dancing around like a demented loon like Corporal Fraser; "We're Doomed! doomed I tell ye!" - when thus far at least there is nothing happening officially at all. More to the point at NEC level there is ...... nothing!
I refuse to be drawn into speculation about it or dance up and down like Geoffrey. He did that last time over Ashford to me telling me at regualr intervals UKIP was going to court over it - AND the income tax people were going to take UKIP to the cleaners ...That was when? ... five years ago?? No court appearence yet! Not taken to the cleaners yet about Ashford.

What have we?
A short e-mail of explanation about the loss of data and the chairman does not intend to take it any further. That's it!

If this situation changes with any official police investigation of substance then it might be more of interest. Even then, that does not mean there will be any outcome other than the investigation found, perhaps, nothing of substance. If it does find 'something of substance' then we are into a different ball game and yes that's when I should shut-up. Even then,IF it went to court; and IF there was anything against UKIP ... the liability is - you are right - to the NEC but, they do not pay anything until all of the assets of UKIP are used up. They would only be acting as guarantors for the party in their role of members of the NEC.

There .. NOW look what you have done .. got ME at it now ... Ifs and buts and maybes ... its bloody catching like a malaevolant virus .......Damn it!

DED.
-

[Rep]