Trouble is, if this were the case, we wouldn't know who else was in on the scam. We could only guess someone might be if they tried to divert attention away from the issue.
[Rep]

No one, to my knowledge, has verifiable proof of the leakers, Bob, but the leaks have been there for years. Time after time, the favoured suspect resigns, but the leaks continue.

The fact remains however: there is no point berating those who choose to discuss information that appears in the public domain. Greg's posts also turn up on Eurorealist, for example - did you know that?

Are you suggesting that whilst issues are discussed elsewhere, members here should be denied the same right to comment and discuss?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SponPlague:
No one, to my knowledge, has verifiable proof of the leakers, Bob, but the leaks have been there for years. Time after time, the favoured suspect resigns, but the leaks continue.

The fact remains however: there is no point berating those who choose to discuss information that appears in the public domain. Greg's posts also turn up on Eurorealist, for example - did you know that?

Are you suggesting that whilst issues are discussed elsewhere, members here should be denied the same right to comment and discuss?

Quite right, by why would the leakers choose to give away their game plan - unconscious guilt perhaps?
[Rep]

I should have written leaker, there is no reason to believe there is more than one.
[Rep]

Although such a scam could not be executed by a single person, so there could be more than one.
[Rep]

Some UKIP branches are more active and successful than other, the reasons are complex, but we can take that as a fact. All other parties have similar support-patterns. We don't know when the next GE will be, but autumn 2009 would be a fair bet.

It would be an appropriate time to have confirmed which constituencies will be 'allowed'
to field parliamentary candidates. Left to the dictates and desires of their own hearts, local constituencies would be able to decide such matters for themselves, but they will be very circumscribed at the next election. Branches should start enquiring what the leadership have in mind; branches must be involved, informed and active participants in deciding the policies. If, as seems to be the intention, advancing the interests of the Conservative Party, are to take precedent over the electoral prospects of UKIP, we have a real problem, and that problem must be addressed now. Any parliamentary constituency with either a Labour or LD, MP, having a majority of c7000, will be seen as a 'winnable seat', by the Conservatives. Are we to abandon well established UKIP seats and whole geographical areas, for reasons which do not advance the UKIP cause? If Northamptonshire is to be our template, we have a bleak future. Should we ignore our problem until the last moment we are sunk. This matter must not be decided by just a couple of people of their own volition.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Bob FM:
'C', if you believe what you post is verifiable proof. Then have courage dear fellow name 'him', not to do so makes you know better than those who simply post GLW's rants. Or is it just another case of slinging mud without evidence. The ball clearly is in your court.

Bob, My post is clear. I am not putting forward 'proof' as I have none. All I have done is listed some facts for your consideration, as you seem bothered about the 'leaks'. But I note you do not challenge any of my points.

I appreciate that the problem is that you cannot reconcile "what could be" with what you currently so passionately believe. But once again, I ask you to consider some points any of which you are free to refute:-
a) UKIP is not the success that it should have been as a party.
b) It is not in the LibLabCons interest for UKIP to be succesful
c) A 'false flag' operation to marginalise Eurosceptics would be desirable from the LibLabCon perspective.
d) Too many good people, including those who have much stronger evidence than I, have left UKIP all singing from the same hymnsheet, namely corruption and mis-management. Even Knapman seems to have finally seen the light.

Another problem for you would be that to accept this theory, your 'good guys' and 'bad guys' need to be reversed. Then you might understand the 'great game' that is being played out. Things are not as you may think they are, Bob.......

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
Let me make a guess. Does a leading NEC member retain strong links with the Tory Party and whose handlers do not want UKIP to be too successful in case it keeps the Tories out of office - all they want is to pressure the Tory leadership into being more eurosceptic?

It would make sense of UKIP's incomprehensible strategy, but it would also mean that activists up and down the country who have given generously their time and money have been duped and are victims of a significant scam.

You win the goldfish for being at least partly right. personally I think it is as you say, plus more.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by C_steam:
Bob, My post is clear. I am not putting forward 'proof' as I have none. All I have done is listed some facts for your consideration, as you seem bothered about the 'leaks'. But I note you do not challenge any of my points.

I appreciate that the problem is that you cannot reconcile "what could be" with what you currently so passionately believe. But once again, I ask you to consider some points any of which you are free to refute:-
a) UKIP is not the success that it should have been as a party.
b) It is not in the LibLabCons interest for UKIP to be succesful
c) A 'false flag' operation to marginalise Eurosceptics would be desirable from the LibLabCon perspective.
d) Too many good people, including those who have much stronger evidence than I, have left UKIP all singing from the same hymnsheet, namely corruption and mis-management. Even Knapman seems to have finally seen the light.

Another problem for you would be that to accept this theory, your 'good guys' and 'bad guys' need to be reversed. Then you might understand the 'great game' that is being played out. Things are not as you may think they are, Bob.......

You win the goldfish for being at least partly right. personally I think it is as you say, plus more.

To what extent is this forum read by constituency chairmen? I think I am right in saying that salaries are not paid to that level and below, therefore these people are almost certainly wholehearted in their efforts. Surely if they saw behaviour irreconcilable with the party's objectives they would vigorously question the leadership.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by C_steam:
Bob, consider this. The NEC has been leaking for YEARS. Everytime someone joins the NEC, it is presumed they are the leaker BUT the leaks continue when these people leave or are unelected - for example, everyone thought Petrina was communicating to GLW, but the communciation from the NEC to GLW continued after she resigned.

Now, who do we know who has been on the NEC or attended NEC meetingd for YEARS?
Who do we know who is 'famous' for leaving NEC meetings for short intervals to make phone calls?
Who do we know who has met GLW and even attended meals and functions with him?
Who do we know who is adept at political manouvering?
Who do we know who accepts no challengers or criticism?

So there you go, you now know the leaker. The question is why. The answer is because it gives him a way to control - a way to dig out the malcontents (why do you think this forum is allowed to stay?) a way to destroy or weaken his opponents, and a way to keep UKIP from being successful, as is his brief.

Think about your reply before you make it, and refute with facts, if you can.

I guess this adds up to one person! The way you put it makes sense whether it is actually true or not is another matter!
So he keeps UKIP a manageable size,he knows where his enemies are, he maintains his power base, he earns brownie points from the Tories for his eventual safe Tory seat etc etc.

Interesting theory the main trouble with it is knowing GLW as I do he doesn't have sucker written on his head and wouldn't be party to aiding and abetting such plans.......or at least I won't have thought so!?

So maybe the leaker/leakers are just normal folk who see corruption and want it exposed?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
I should have written leaker, there is no reason to believe there is more than one.

I have been on the NEC for four years.
For all of that time there have been at least one or two potential 'leakers' present (in my assessment/opinion) and sometimes more. They come and go as people resign from the NEC or are replaced with the elections. I am quite sure that if it is people within the NEC, they have been multiple leaks over a period of time.

From my observation, at any time, there are always at least one or two people who probably have their own ideas and agendas about confidentiality of the information within the NEC, and who would, I think, pass on information to others 'anonymously' to further what they see as some kind of 'reason of conscience' to make the information public. Even though they should not do so as it might damage the party.

It happens in all political parties and government agencies.

Ideology is a powerful instigator of treason. So are personal dislikes or personality clashes of individuals. The Cambridge set in the 1950's, and Klaus Fuchs - our top scientist who designed the hydrogen bomb for Britain, gave away british nuclear secrets - enabling the Russians to build hydrogen bombs (no less!) - on purely ideological grounds for example. (No wonder the Americans do not trust us with secrets - though they have have had spectacular 'leakers' too).

It is to be expected that attacks on UKIP will become more focussed and shrill as we get closer to the EU elections; so whoever is responsible for manipulating leaks about UKIP will want more and more information for the ammunition - to utilise the information more and more vociferously and with sharper and more pointed attacks from now on.
----------

There is also the very real possibility that the meetings are bugged. This is not fanciful - if you know anything about the methods of the security services or the private 'security' firms of which there are many around now, you will realise information is big money - and it is big business.

I have some (small) expertise in this and have taken in sweeper equipment on one or two occasions to test the theory. I found nothing, but that only means I might have needed more sophisticated equipment. The bugging could be internal (and therefore under control with someone on the NEC) or external.

You might find this amusing, but consider: UKIP is a real political threat to more than one 'party' (broad sense) The EU; the Government; the Tories (in particular); other parties; - some of which have unlimited resources for information retrieval.
Industrial and political spying is big business in the modern world. It is easy and relatively cheap to implement.
The NEC would be the natural target for anyone interested in the internal machinations of the party.

However: more likely .. much more liklely.... it is someone in the NEC just picking up the phone after a meeting or sending an e-mail.

I will leave you with this: I have noted the leaking activity for some time. The 'reports' from GLW can be part of assessing this.
It varies in quality and content. Sometimes it was very accurate (verbatim) and other times wildly inaccurate - obviously based on a hint of what really happened but obviously not from someone at the meeting who would know the information was wrong.
That it will continue I have no doubt; - and of variable quality.

I believe it is deliberate targetting of UKIP, that it is malicious to undermine UKIP as a political force, and it is going to get worse.

Call me paranoid if you like, but I believe it is entirely possible there is a network of anti-UKIP agent provocateurs who are part of this leaking business, or are at least exploiting it.
As regards GLW: is it possible he could be part of such an organisation?
I would say all the evidence points to it being possible with his incessant daily anti-UKIP propaganda of huge output, and which bears the classical hallmarks of black propaganda. That, or he is just a mildly demented obsessive who is bordering on insane, (and most people say that is not so). Take your pick.

I have noted:
The leaking quality (and GLW anti-UKIP propaganda) was very poor last year for a good while. It practically ceased for at least six months or more last year, and/or was very innacurate - but has sudddenly become more prevalent this year .......... I wonder why .... ?

I leave you to speculate. (You love that on this forum).

DED.
-
[Rep]