THE POSTING COMMENCED AT 00:30 - 18-JAN-2010
THE MOST RECENT ALTERATION/ADDITION WAS MADE ON 24-JAN-2010
DENNY WAS EITHER INCOMPETENT
OR INVOLVED IN A CORRUPT COVER UP
This series of correspondence will be made public here having been placed in the public domain elsewhere.
The material has been largely published on the squalid little British Democracy Forum which was formerly EKIPForum and is owned and administered by a dishonest and untrustworthy individual Anthony Butcher who has frequently cow towed to dishonest instruction from EUkip and its executive and provides a dishonest platform for lies and distortions by EUkip staff, supporters and sock puppets too ashamed to put their name to their dishonesties which attack those who seek to expose the truth about EUkip and its corruption, in which Anthony Butcher colludes, clearly lacking in integrity, ethics or understanding of morality.
The FACT that in stupidity and ignorance Douglas Denny felt he was safe to lie about myself, Daniel Foggo and Niall Warry sheltering from the truth in the false belief that the correspondence that showed him for the incompetent annd the liar he is would never surface and colluding with Anthony Butcher by use of his Forum and by taking advantage of Anthony Butcher's undeniable dishonesty - Denny should be minded that Daniel Foggo, Niall Warry & I have always had quite good records!!
Of course we will put in the public domain material that proves someone is telling lies about us as long as it is not a breech of trust and Denny's lies grant him no security as he is already in breech of any trust.
More to come and the various letters proving Denny to be a liar, when I can find time!!
As an interim showing that despite his contentions to the contrary I DID contact the Bedfordshire Constabulary:
For further documentary data showing that Tom Wise fraudullently obtained money acting in the name of EUkip and aided by his researcher Lindsay Jenkins and we know that he then went on to embezzle the money through a privately controlled Bank account in an obfuscated name and identity such that the entire process constituted a crime under the money laundering laws.
To view the documentary proof CLICK HERE
Douglas Denny is both incompetent and a liar to an extent some may consider criminal.
Many will remember that Douglas Denny was for a brief time the Party Secretary of EUkip, which speaks volumes of their standards! During the leadership elections of 2006 Douglas Denny appointed himself the Returning Officer.
Eventually due to his personal dishonesty and corruption of the leadership election by his personal actions Douglas Denny was deselected for the job by a majority vote of the NEC and Geoffrey Kingscott was appointed in his place but sadly he was little better putting his own interests before the duties of the appointment!
As a result of this dishonesty and the lies of Mark Croucher and members of the press office and the smearing of candidates by Croucher in a telephone campaign and in print in the Party magazine. The campaign was not only ugly and corrupt with clearly established dishonesties and smears that undermined the validity of the outcome and the appointment of Farage, as it was founded on lies.
Here are the press articles in which Daniel Foggo made known the facts pertaining to Tom Wise's criminality, the determination of the then Chairman Petrina Holdsworth to force transparency on the party was what undelied her resignation, which was withdrawn when Roger Knapman the then titular leader, presumably with the permission of the defacto leader Nigel Farage, gave an undertaking that included her demands.
It became clear that being a dishonourable and duplicitous individual he had absolutely no intention of honouring his undertaking and there was even an effort made involving, we undertand David Lott, Mark Croucher and others to frame the Chairman seeking to transfer some of the stolen money to her or at least leading people to believe she had demanded the transfer or had received it - the details are perforce hazy now several years after the event, though at the time a matter in the hands of the police as I recall.
Chairman resigns (twice) in furious UKIP row
Petrina Holdsworth resigned twice
Everyone's talking about party leadership: Tony, Gordon, David, Ken, David (the other one) and even a Malcolm.
The internecine warfare at the top of the main political parties, however, cannot rival the self-destructive tendencies of the UK Independence Party.
Last week, as its leadership acknowledged that the party's fortunes had ebbed severely since the European elections, this minor parliamentary grouping saw the biggest of political spats among some of its senior figures.
On the eve of its party conference, which ended yesterday, a furious, expletive-filled exchange of e-mails took place that precipitated the resignation - twice over - of the party's chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, despite an apology being issued to her by Roger Knapman, the party's leader.
The UKIP MEP Nigel Farage tried to play down the significance of the resignation by saying: "You are on-call seven days a week and all you get is aggravation. I can't blame anybody in a voluntary capacity walking away."
But the row between Ms Holdsworth and Mike Nattrass, the party's deputy leader and MEP, has scandalised the Eurosceptic movement and left its grassroots supporters stunned. Although the correspondence at the centre of the row began innocuously enough, it soon escalated:
September 26
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: UKIP MEPs and members of the National Executive Committee
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: UKIP MEPs and members of the National Executive Committee
"At the moment we have an awful lot of people employed by MEPs over here and I'm not sure that all of them are fully utilised."
September 28
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"Petrina, when you take your swipes at MEPs you should first understand what you are saying. You suffer from a blind ignorance of the facts and refuse to understand even when your nose is pushed in it. We are expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm, leave our businesses and families to fly backwards and forwards for UKIP and then look forward to a load of crap from a chairman who does not even try to understand."
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
To: Mike Nattrass
"This sort of reply is not helpful, it is just plain rude. If you are incapable of keeping a civil tongue in your head you should keep quiet."
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"You are the rude one. To send a message of effective 'no confidence' in the way MEPs employ their staff and copied to the NEC is BLOODY RUDE and DESERVES A RUDE REPLY."
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
To: Mike Nattrass
"Mike, there seems little point in continuing this exchange."
September 28, 8.53pm
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
"Mike, I revisited your e-mails once the dust had settled and on reflection believe you have gone completely beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour both in your language and in the assertions which you made. I demand an apology as I do not see that anyone on the National Executive Committee should be subject to such extraordinary abuse by a fellow member."
September 29
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"Petrina it has been increasingly clear that you have a view of what MEPs do and the benefits they get which is not based on reality. Also you feel that the membership 'think we have gone native'.
"I want an apology from you on this issue… If you as chairman make these misguided statements to the National Executive Committee there is no hope."
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
To: Mike Nattrass
"I have warned you all of the feeling within the party. What more do you want? Blood probably. I am still waiting for my apology!"
Shortly after this e-mail, Ms Holdsworth decided to resign, but was persuaded back from the brink by Roger Knapman, the party leader. He and eight of the party's other MEPs wrote an open letter addressed to her.
October 2
From: Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford, Gerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Graham Booth, Derek Clark, Tom Wise and John Whittaker
To: Petrina Holdsworth
From: Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford, Gerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, Graham Booth, Derek Clark, Tom Wise and John Whittaker
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"We were very sorry to see the intemperate, inaccurate and unnecessary e-mails that you were sent. This sort of thing achieves nothing except to damage our cause. We are, however, delighted that you will stay on as chairman for the last year of Roger's period as leader."
Ms Holdsworth considered the letter to be adequate, but only as a "holding statement" pending a more fulsome apology and preferably the removal of Mr Nattrass from his position. Within days, however, it had all gone wrong again. By Tuesday, Ms Holdsworth had resigned for a second, and apparently final, time. She sent an e-mail to the party's NEC members to explain.
October 4
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: All NEC members
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: All NEC members
"I was approached by Roger Knapman to rescind my resignation as chairman on the basis that Roger was willing to remove Nattrass from the deputy leadership for his recent behaviour. I agreed to that.
"Roger then told me that it would be very difficult to remove it forthwith as the conferences were so close in time with all the attendant publicity. He said that he would obtain a letter from the other MEPs apologising for Nattrass's behaviour.
"I went to London on the 3rd of October. On my return… nothing had been added to the short holding statement…
"I am left with no alternative in my view but to resign yet again as chairman of the party and from the NEC in order to preserve my own integrity and self-respect."
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Interestingly the above correspondence was leaked to me at the time and I have no reason to correct my belief at the time that the leak emmanated from Mike Nattrass' office. Had they provided their identity clearly I would neither speculate nor divulge it - I felt the leak to be 'underhand' at the time.
Anti-Europe MEP claimed £36,000 for his researcher, then paid her just one sixth
Tom Wise, UKIP MEP
An MEP with the UK Independence Party, which condemns politicians for exploiting the "European Union gravy-train", is claiming £36,000 a year of public money for a researcher he is paying just £6,000.
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed that Tom Wise, who was elected to the European parliament last year, gave Lindsay Jenkins only a sixth of the amount he has told the EU that he is paying her as his assistant.
The parliament has paid Mr Wise the full £36,000 in the belief that it is being passed on to Ms Jenkins, a freelance author and researcher.
When confronted, Mr Wise, who is one of UKIP's two MEPs for the eastern region of Britain, admitted that the extra money was in his bank account. He claimed that he had not intended to spend it and that he was keeping it for Ms Jenkins.
However, she had been unaware that, in claiming her salary as an expense, the MEP had told the European parliament that it was six times higher than it actually was.
Mr Wise's actions will be of interest to the holders of the European parliament's purse strings since their rules state that they will pay the salaries of MEPs' assistants only when the amount being claimed matches the sum paid out.
A spokesman for the EU said: "MEPs must submit the labour contracts as well as proof of social security, health and accident cover."
UKIP's 10 MEPs make much of the wastefulness of the EU, including the profligacy of MEPs expenses and how they are abused.
In press releases, Mr Wise, who is entitled to an annual salary of £59,095 plus a range of expensive perks, denounces the EU for being "a hideous waste of your money".
He said recently: "UKIP are the only party who think that the whole concept [of the EU] is built on a succession of lies. The proponents of the 'project' [the EU] will not tell you where it is going, if indeed they know. They will not tell you what it will cost as they have no idea. Yet you - and I - have to pay for it."
Mr Wise, a wine-loving 57-year-old ex-policeman, first became financially connected to Ms Jenkins last autumn when they agreed a deal in which she would be paid £500 a month to work as a statistical researcher for him.
He gave her European parliament forms to sign to make her an official assistant but they did not contain the specified amount of her salary. When he applied to the parliament's payments office to register her he told them he was paying her an annual salary of £36,000.
In the past year she has received the agreed £6,000 in the form of monthly £500 cheques personally signed by Mr Wise, plus several hundred pounds for some extra work done for him. Mr Wise, however, has received the full £36,000 of her supposed salary from the European parliament.
A father-of-two Mr Wise, who is from Linslade in Bedfordshire, said: "I have a contract between Lindsay Jenkins and the European parliament. I am not going to comment on the amount she has had." He later admitted that he was claiming £36,000 "in her name" from the payments office but that her actual payments added up to just £6,000 plus a small amount for extra work done.
When asked why there was a discrepancy between the amount he was claiming and the sum he had agreed to pay Ms Jenkins, he said: "I don't fancy answering."
He said that the £36,000 was for a full calendar year's work and then implied he might now pay her the remaining balance before the end of December.
A friend of 59-year-old Ms Jenkins said: "The agreement was always that she would be paid £500 a month as a retainer and for that she would work a certain number of hours.
"The sum of £36,000, or anything like it, was never mentioned to her. It was only by accident that she found out there was a lot of extra money being claimed in her name."
Ms Jenkins, who lives in London, declined to comment.
To view the original of the article above CLICK HERE
Copies of the bank account in the name of STAGS which were signed by Tom Wise & Lindsay Jenkins were handed over by me to Bedfordshire Constabulary at Chepstow at my first secure opportunity and now that the case is completed can be viewed at: CLICK HERE
MEP in wage row will refund £21,000
A British MEP who claimed £36,000 for a researcher he had agreed to pay just £6,000 has been forced to refund the extra cash after his actions were revealed in The Sunday Telegraph.
Last week, this newspaper showed that the UK Independence Party member Tom Wise has been claiming £3,000 per month from the EU's payments office for Lindsay Jenkins, even though he was paying her only a fraction of that. The EU is now investigating, while Mr Wise has said that he will reimburse the parliament.
Last night he admitted breaching the rules which state that payments to MEPs' assistants must be made directly to the employees or a third-party "service provider", not to members themselves.
There was further confusion after The Sunday Telegraph was told by EU sources that Mr Wise did not use his own name as a service provider, and the money was paid to an account in the name of Stags.
Mr Wise has told UKIP bosses that he invoiced for the money using the term "Tom Wise trading as Stags".
Party sources said last night that although Mr Wise's agreement with Ms Jenkins was to pay her £500 per month, he also gave her an additional £4,000 over the past year for extra work done.
Another payment of £5,000 was channelled to her account from his but this was for another matter unnconnected to work done for him.
The total discrepancy between what he claimed "in her name" and the amount he paid to her is £21,000, the sources indicated.
To view the original of this article above CLICK HERE
Copies of the bank account in the name of STAGS which were signed by Tom Wise & Lindsay Jenkins were handed over by me to Bedfordshire Constabulary at Chepstow at my first secure opportunity and now that the case is completed can be viewed at: CLICK HERE
These articles clearly show that UKIP has been brought into disrepute in the media by behaviour attributed to Tom Wise UKIP MEP.
Here is a series of 'eMails which clearly show the duplicity of Douglas Denny:
----- Original Message -----
From: Foggo, Daniel
To: Douglas Denny
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Mr Denny,
You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension.
Greg does not and never has had the documentary evidence relating to Tom Wise.
I have it, not he, and I only acquired it recently.
And the EU did not "exonerate" Tom Wise, they simply took no further action, which is not actually within their remit.
OLAF are, as you know, now investigating.
Sincerely,
Daniel Foggo.
>G.L-W. - I had the full letter read to me at the time and it stated, as I recall, 'no further action will be taken by us at this time', this letter was from the EU payments office and the matter was then passed by both they and the media to OLAF for comment and further investigation.
EUkip however duplicitously put on their web site (to which Tom Wise DID NOT have direct access) a statement, believed to be from dishonest members of EUkip press office, stating that Tom Wise had been exhonourated. I, and probably others, who knew that he had fraudullently stolen the money and embezzeled it (modern terminology I understand to be 'Money Laundering'). The dishonest misrepresentation by EUkip on their web site was removed!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Denny [mailto
ouglas.denny@btopenworld.com] Sent: 01 March 2007 13:31
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Re: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Mr Foggo,
Your comments are highly interesting to me.
Mr. Watkins has been labouring on various public platforms about "irrefutable evidence" of fraud about Tom Wise since your fist article appeared. (Remind me- was it two years ago?).
23-Oct-2005 a copy can be read above! There was indeed irrefutable evidence sufficient for every word of Daniel Foggo's articles to be accurate as assured by the lawyers at the time of publication.
You will note this correspondence is some 2.1/2 years after the event!<
I challenged him at the time to produce any evidence he might have to prove his assertions (or by implication to point me in the right direction). He did not.
>G.L-W. - Correct as I had absolutely no reason to trust Douglas Denny as on numerous occasions he had proved beyond all shadow of doubt he was untrustworthy and delusionally able to re-write history to his own duplicitous benefit. I mader it clear to others who I did trust in EUkip that I would be happy to attend a Disciplinary Hearing of Tom Wise with such evidence as I did hold.
I made it very clear both in conjunction with Niall Warry and separately that I believed there was absolutely no doubt that the articles had brought EUkip into disrepute and that Tom Wise should face a Disciplinary Hearing at which he would either be found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute or exhonourated - if the latter the party should strenuously support any efforts he made to prosecute the press for their libel. If the former then he should immediately be suspended from the party, application be made to The Home Secretary to have his MEPship withdrawn and efforts made to assist the Police to bring him to Court, 'seemingly' with his co signator to the instruments of fraud Lindsay Jenkins.<
If such evidence was available it should have been brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities as soon as possible. i.e. the EU or British government financial authorities, or the police.
>G.L-W. - the matter was first brought to the attention of the police by Daniel Foggo on 23-Oct-2005, being a journalist via his employer's paper which is what journalists do for a living! I however make a phone call on Monday 24-Oct-2005 - it is also a matter of public record that I took strenuous action to ensure the Police and The Office of Standards in Public Office addressed the matter - I also assisted others in various complaints when the matter was dragging on - one wonders what the odious little Denny did to acquit his duty - no doubt as with Knapman, Colman and others absolutely nothing honourable - merely as we can see seek to orchestrate cover-ups and collude in the crime after the event.<
I too was one such authority as the Party Secretary of UKIP at the time, and responsible as per the constitution for disciplinary action within the party.
>G.L-W. - You are also a duplicitous, dishonourable proven liar and fantasist seen to be embroilled in the cover-up.<
Watkins was castigating me publicly at the time for not "ordering disciplinary action against Tom Wise for his indisputable fraud".
>G.L-W. - Events have proved just how right I was - that you saw fit to insult and denigrate me when clearly I was right speaks volumes of your rather unpleasant character and dishonest nature. That as at 20-Jan-2010 you have still not been man enough to apol;ogise for your lies, distortions, corruption and dishonesty yet are still on EUkip NEC speaks volumes of the integrity and calibre of EUkip and shows that they are unfit for any public office.
That Douglas Denny, Trevor Colman, Mark Croucher, Roger Knapman and others of their ilk have not been brought before a disciplinary hearing and tossed out of the party shows just how dishonestly and corruptly they can be expected to carry out office when granted to them.<
You did not, it seems, share your information with any of the appropriate authorities who could deal with the matter. You certainly did not share it with he Party Secretary of UKIP.
>Untrue the authorities were made aware right at the outset - that there was difficulty over areas of juristiction is an inherent fault of the EU. We note no effort whatsoever was made by EUkip or its officers to bring this to the attention of the authorities, nor to refute the matter if they believed it to be untrue - We note Tom Wise would seem to have been in good company amongst individuals bereft of integrity, morality, probity or ethics such as yourself Mr. Denny.<
It is reasonable to ask why did you not bring this documentary evidence into the public domain until now? - you are after all a journalist. What was your motive in keeping it to yourself?
I have been brought up to believe that wrongdoing of a serious nature like fraud should be exposed and dealt with immediately if you come across evidence of it.
Also:
You say: Greg does not and never has had the documentary evidence relating to Tom Wise. I have it,
Please answer for me the following question: At what date did you first acquire the documentary evidence about Tom Wise?
Further:-
Mr. Watkins recently said the following to me in an e-mail:
.......IF he(D.Denny) has not yet realized that I have known Daniel for many years as a friend he is woefully stupid as almost everyone has worked that out. That Daniel Foggo has been maligned repeatedly in eMails and on UKIPForum............
Is it not unreasonable to assume therefore that Mr. Watkins did indeed have evidence available to him through you from the time you first acquired it?
I shall be most interested in your comments.
Yours faithfully,
Douglas Denny.
>G.L-W. - I'm bored!
I may come back and continue dismantling Denny's dishonest, disingenuous dissemblings but I do feel that it is more than clear this unpleasant little man is merely self justifying dishonourable and dishonest.
It is as well to remember that both Daniel Foggo and I did all we reasonably could to see Justice done and Douglas Denny and his cronies did absolutely nothing and colluded in a series of dishonest attempts at cover-up.
I understand we can all expect another utterly dishonest fudge of events at EUkip's NEC on 01-Feb-10 when I understand it is planned that Farage, Nuttall, Gill and others will seek to shift the blame for their dishonourable and dishonest behaviour to the NEC - when as a collection of nebishes it is clear the NEC acts as little more than dishonestly misguided puppets.
Full responsibility for the outrageous behaviour of Farage, Nuttall, Gill, Pearson, Bennett and others is theirs and theirs alone - it is they who have brought EUkip into disrepute AND association with some of the most vile individuals in EU politics in the EFD. I do not believe there is any honourable action that can be taken other than accepting their resignation together with those who colluded with them<
----- Original Message -----
From: Foggo, Daniel
To: Douglas Denny
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Mr Denny,
I don't want to get into an extended dialogue over email at this time, but as I said, the "documentary" evidence has only come into my possession recently, within the last week in fact.
As for the previous articles, they were substantiated by information, some of which came from Tom Wise himself. As for UKIP's inquiry - well, they never asked me for any help with their internal inquiry. I'm not that difficult to find, as you have proved!
Regards,
Daniel.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Denny [mailto
ouglas.denny@btopenworld.com] Sent: 02 March 2007 13:35
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Re: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Dear Mr. Foggo,
I am sure you would not want to extend a conversation about your articles, but it is important to establish the truth.
It was you who offered the information that Greg does not have the evidence but you do. He must however,have received evidence from someone to be so ****-sure of himself to declare that the "fraud" was "indisputable" and that there was evidence available, and continue in this vein for two years. The question arises - was it from you he received it, or did you receive it from him?
I know that journalists don't publish articles of a sensitive nature which are likely to attract libel cases against the newspaper without evidence, so it is safe to assume your legal branch and editor would not allow your previous article to have appeared without substantive evidence - which usually means definite documentary evidence. I know of no editor who would publish a potential libellous article without.
You say the previous article was substantiated by 'information' (some by Tom himself).
I have two questions which should conclude my interest in this -
1) Was this other information (about the first article) in documentary form or only by word of mouth?
2) Have you received or transmitted any information about Tom Wise with your friend Greg Watkins?
I would appreciate your being open with me about these points.
Sincerely,
Douglas Denny.
----- Original Message -----
From: Foggo, Daniel
To: Douglas Denny
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Dear Mr Denny,
You are now delving into the territory of journalistic sources or potential sources which I am not prepared to go into. Suffice to say, I had evidence of Wise's behaviour at the time and I have more now. The new evidence is documentary, the former evidence was verbal, albeit on tape recorder.
The articles were all written in good faith and with a view to their legal ramifications.
Sincerely,
Daniel Foggo
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Denny [mailtoouglas.denny@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 02 March 2007 14:53
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Re: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Dear Mr. Foggo,
Thank you for your assistance; you have been quite helpful.
You made the implication that you would have been prepared to advise at a previous UKIP investigation if asked.
My last request is simple: are you prepared to give this evidence to a committee of UKIP if the NEC request it? I can put this to them on Monday 5th.
>G.L-W. - Note the date! 2.1/2 years after Denny and the NEC should have called a disciplinary hearing had they any understanding of ethics, morality, duty or politics - it is noted that on a Friday afternoon Denny, after near outright abuse, now seeks help from Mr. Foggo on the following Monday, his one day off in the week - even then it is a mere maybe from Denny who has already shown he is orchestrating a cover-up.<
In fact, depending on your commitments for the day, might I suggest if your are in any way likely to be available to answer questions by the NEC and they would like to do so, I could telephone you on the day.
The meeting is at the Farmers Club, Whitehall Place. Starts 1-00PM ends 6-00 PM.
If this is of interest, let me have your mobile or other telephone number and I can suggest it to the NEC there and then.
On the other hand, they might be horrified at the thought of course. I have no idea how they would take such a suggestion. Probably negatively.
For my part I am interested in the truth and your evidence.
Regards,
Douglas Denny.
ouglas.denny@btopenworld.com] Sent: 02 March 2007 14:53
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Re: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Dear Mr. Foggo,
Thank you for your assistance; you have been quite helpful.
You made the implication that you would have been prepared to advise at a previous UKIP investigation if asked.
My last request is simple: are you prepared to give this evidence to a committee of UKIP if the NEC request it? I can put this to them on Monday 5th.
>G.L-W. - Note the date! 2.1/2 years after Denny and the NEC should have called a disciplinary hearing had they any understanding of ethics, morality, duty or politics - it is noted that on a Friday afternoon Denny, after near outright abuse, now seeks help from Mr. Foggo on the following Monday, his one day off in the week - even then it is a mere maybe from Denny who has already shown he is orchestrating a cover-up.<
In fact, depending on your commitments for the day, might I suggest if your are in any way likely to be available to answer questions by the NEC and they would like to do so, I could telephone you on the day.
The meeting is at the Farmers Club, Whitehall Place. Starts 1-00PM ends 6-00 PM.
If this is of interest, let me have your mobile or other telephone number and I can suggest it to the NEC there and then.
On the other hand, they might be horrified at the thought of course. I have no idea how they would take such a suggestion. Probably negatively.
For my part I am interested in the truth and your evidence.
Regards,
Douglas Denny.
----- Original Message -----
From: Foggo, Daniel
To: Douglas Denny
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
I can't do next week at all since I am not at work.
In theory, yes, I would give help, but the idea is naive, since everything I have was in possession of Trevor Colman a year ago and we both know what happened to that inquiry.
The will within UKIP, I would suggest, is not there to get to the bottom of this and you should ask why.
I am.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Denny [mailto
ouglas.denny@btopenworld.com] Sent: 02 March 2007 15:33
To: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Re: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Mr. Foggo,
I take it then you are not free even though you are not at work.
I also take it you would agree to give your evidence to a UKIP committee at a later date, as you say In theory, yes, I would give help, ....
Please indicate to me specifically on this point as I do not want to stick my neck out and say you are willing to attend a UKIP committee when if fact you are not.
I do not see what is naive in getting to the bottom of the issue if you have evidence of this. I don't see what is naive if it is put to them that you can come along to elucidate, and the NEC say they would like to hear what you have to say to find out, especially in the present circumstances.
That would be one way of getting to the bottom of the issue would it not? - if you have the evidence and are prepared to divulge it to the committee that counts in UKIP -the NEC.
Are you getting cold feet?
Regards,
Douglas.
>G.L-W. - One really should give credit where it is due - after a long series of sneering, ill mannered and assumptive 'e'mails from Denny and minded of the ill mannered attacks on Foggo and myself in the public domain by Denny - Foggo is never once abrupt or rude to the ill mannered self important little squirt!<
----- Original Message -----
From: Foggo, Daniel
Sent: 02 March 2007 15:42
To: 'Douglas Denny'
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Sent: 02 March 2007 15:42
To: 'Douglas Denny'
Subject: RE: Apologies wanted by Greg Watkins - What a Cheek!
Mr Denny,
I don't have time for this round the houses correspondence and nor do I appreciate your slightly sneering tone. I am not hiding anything other than protecting sources.
Don't bother replying to this.
Sincerely,
Daniel Foggo.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Denny [mailto
ouglas.denny@btopenworld.com] Sent: 03 March 2007 14:26
To: Sunday Times Letters
Cc: Foggo, Daniel
Subject: Formal Complaint - Refusal to share information about alleged fraud by your newspaper.
Dear Sir,
On the front page of 'The Sunday Times' on 25th February 2007 appeared an article by your reporter Daniel Foggo entitled "UKIP in embezzlement scandal".
This article details potential financial irregularities about the MEP Tom Wise which amount to fraud if proven.
I have no complaint about the content of the article which, if proven to be accurate, will constitute reasonable investigative journalism.
Mr. Foggo contacted me by e-mail on Friday to correct me in an erroneous assumption I had made with reference to a friend of his who calls himself Greg "Lance"-Watkins.
A short correspondence ensued by e-mails, in which he initially implied he was willing to assist with information, and implied he would have helped in a previous UKIP investigation after his first article about this issue surfaced over a year ago, - if he had been asked.
In this e-mail exchange he admitted to me that he is in possession of the documentary evidence of the alleged fraud by the MEP Tom Wise which gave rise to the article as above. Having admitted this, he has refused thus far to co-operate in sending me the documentary evidence which he says he has. I asked him to fax it or scan the documents and send as e-mail attachment.
>G.L-W. - I wonder what this ill mannered pompous self important little prick thinks this sort of posturing achieves - beyond yet further alienating EUkip.
Why not keep antagonising people to ensure enemies and and bad press - almost as effective as the lies of Mark Croucher and I know for a fact the idiocy of Douglas Denny and Mark Croucher has ensured various items of bad publicity for the party.<
I advised him that there is an NEC meeting of UKIP on Monday next (5th) and that any documentary evidence which he possesses will be of material importance to that committee if there is discussion about Tom Wise; also that such information might be of crucial importance in the deliberations and decisions of that committee, and would he, therefore, forward to me as a member of that committee a copy of the crucial document or documents.
>G.L-W. - Denny still does not seem to have twigged that his pesonal credibility is even lower than that of EUkip - why would ANYONE wish to co-operate with this sneering little jackass?<
I have not asked him to disclose his sources of the information, only the information itself. I advised him that this information, being of such a serious nature involving allegations of fraud, should properly be placed in the hands of the appropriate authorities - government; police and the authorities of the political party involved.
He has not responded to two e-mails requesting this information.
>G.L-W. - Oh but he has responded and his responses are shown above.
It is also interesting that Denny is STILL stalling on a disciplinary hearing 2.1/2 YEARS after Tom Wise had initially brought EUkip into disrepute and Douglas Denny had taken absolutely no steps to acquit his duty.<
I hope you can assist me in obtaining the information before Monday's meeting.
Yours faithfully,
Douglas Denny. Former Party Secretary UKIP. Member of the National Executive Committee. UKIP.
>G.L-W. - Denny forgets to include amongst his self congratulatory titles: liar, cheat, dissembler and fantasist toadying to collude in a cover-up of Tom Wise's criminality. We note the frequency with which Denny profers lies regarding me yet has never once substantiated a single instance of dishonesty on my part which is not a figment of his imagination or a part of his construted fantasies.<
So let us consider an 'e'mail Denny put out to justify his incompetence or was it outright dishonesty - you must be the judge, clearly I have an opinion based upon the facts and the serial dishonesty of Denny with his endless lies and false speculations which I know to be libellous and dishonest, corrupt and self serving becaus I KNOW the facts and the people he lies about such as myself, Daniel Foggo, Niall Warry and others. I believe Douglas Denny is beneath contempt in his fantasies presented as fact but you may wish to give him the benefit of the doubt based on that same evidence and may just consider him to be staggeringly foolish, however may I suggest the consistency of his corruption is such that it would seem to stretch beyond stupidity!
This 'e'Mail is published as are previous ones to show Denny's dishonesty such that he would seem to have wished to lie and defame individuals who beyond doubt were acting honestly and responsibly by suppressing one side of the facts - Denny can not reasonably expect those he defames to suppress 'e'mails that give the lie to his fantasies!
Denny sent the following 'e'Mail:
Reply With Quote by Niall Warry:I have already said on the forum you wrote to the party (actually Party Secretary i.e. me) - AFTER you had done so with an e-mail to me first, when I had to point out the disciplinary rules to you and that a written complaint had to be made. I have all the correspondence on file in archive but cannot be bothered to look at it for you.
You letter was rejected by ME as there was no documentary evidence regarding Tom Wise. Your bosom buddy GLW was also invited by me to send me the evidence he said (lied) he had - but never did. Nor did the Johny-come-lately journo Foggit come up with any evidence though invited to do so. He was even given the opportunity to speak to the NEC (by me) - he did not.
You were all just a bunch of tossers as far as I am concerned. You have banged-on about "cleaning up the party" and all that bullshite - yet when given the chance DID NOT come up with the goods. I have been on to you and GLW ever since as just empty vessels who are anti-UKIP agent provocateurs. Who pays you characters incidentally? Lord Ashcroft perhaps? Let me into your secret - who do you work for?I would like it to be confirmed as I have quite a good idea I think.
Also: Don't expect any further response from me after this one at any time in the future as I despise you on a personal level as I do Edmond and GLW. I shall please myself if and when I may wish to make any response to you. You will soon be out of UKIP and that is a good thing as you have been nothing but destructive in your anti-UKIP agenda. You are neither use nor ornament to your country. You and GLW are just fifth columnists determined to bring this country down.
So from this intemperate reply we can see what sort of chap Dougals Denny is.
1. As Party Secretary he didn't know the rules for Disciplinary Hearings which when involving 'Bringing the party into disrepute' don't really need evidence.
2.Incidently had he held the meeting he would have the evidence he said he needed.
3. Foggo has proved he had the evidence and Douglas FAILED to get it because he adopted a superior attitude and pi**ed on his chips!
4. All those who are trying to clean up corruption in UKIP are 'agent provocateurs'. What planet does Douglas Denny live on??? Oh yes and we are all 'Tossers' which is very grown up language for debate!!
5. We are of course paid by Lord Ashcroft - is Douglas smoking wacky backy!?
6. He despises us on a personal level So again no room for debate he despises us?!
7. Finally we are fifth columnists determined to bring this country down.
keeping smoking the weed Douglas!
So there you have it.
Douglas Denny took TWO years to try and get the evidence against Tom Wise, evidence he didn't need, to prove Tom had brought the Party into disrepute.
Furthermore the evidence was there to get but Douglas Denny failed to get it.
I guess this proves Douglas Denny did NOT perform his job of Party Secretary as he should.
But as a Nigel sycophant he scores top marks.
It is ghastly to watch the wrigglings and performance, the personal attacks on people who were working with the police and authorities and even trying with EUkip to find justice yet this ghastly little oiyk with clearly no understanding of honour, duty, integrity or basic duty lies and wriggles but squeels like a stuck pig when hard evidence of his lies is put forward and rewrites the meanings of the obvious in long winded (even by my standards) self serving false accusations and abuse to hide from the truth!
A measure of the integrity of Douglas Denny in particular & EUkip leadership in general despite the fact that Daniel Foggo exposed the truth in October 2005 EUkip took no meaningful action against Tom Wise who was still a full member of EUkip when his membership ran out in February 2009 and he was still a branch chairman and continued using EUkip logos etc. with EU funded staff trying to pretend he had done nothing serious wrong.
The proof that Daniel Foggo and I and later Niall Warry had done the right thing was when Tom Wise was sentenced to 2 years in prison for his crimes - when all Denny and his corrupt chums ever did was orchestrate cover-ups and abuse those seeking justice!
What a sad reflection on EUkip - but it is not unusual!
I believe I have prefixed and suffixed my comments in black sufficient for clarity.DENNY WAS EITHER INCOMPETENT
OR INVOLVED IN A CORRUPT COVER UP
Regards,
Greg L-W.
