#Doc018* > CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - 18-March-2010

#Doc018* >  CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - 18-March-2010
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - Court #05 - 18-March-2010!
Mark Christopher CROUCHER vs. Greg LANCE-WATKINS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 09:50hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 20-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED  21-Mar-2010 01:40hrs.
A very sad reflection on UKIP! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 25-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 29-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 07-Oct-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
I had intended NOT to comment on yesterdays events in Cardiff Crown Court - however I note Junius has commented CLICK HERE
The Junius write up came about as one of them called my home before I had returned, and I had on leaving the Court phoned Lee to say that we had effectively won the case. That Croucher's claim for some £8K had not stood as 3 examples given by the Judge of similar cases were for C£600 which all involved National Newspapers and commercial organisations and that a not for profit blog as run by the defendant commanded a fractional comparison. It was noted that a further claim for a per diem charge was completely out of order (UKIP's Croucher was claiming £75/day/picture x 3 as a punitive rate as no permission had been granted, about £90,000!).
It was also made clear that Croucher had failed to establish Copyright and as Paul Nuttall chairman of UKIP and Clive Page also of UKIP had put their name to the copyright ownership it was clear that this was a UKIP action.
Croucher has been ordered to pay my full costs, as 'accounted' item by item by the Judge in Court, within 28 days.
The above is a reasonable outline, I believe, however I was rather embroiled in the proceedings and may have misunderstood the niceties of the legalise.
As stated it was not my intent to publish until I had the full public judgement to hand, which I will publish.
Present in the Court was my solicitor who took a legal note and will provide a report - I shall seek his advice and if he approves I shall also publish his report.
Also in Court was a freelance journalist who I believe has or will be seeking to write up the story for a commissioning paper - should this third party report come to hand I shall similarly post same.
It is not my intent to 'crow' about this outcome as it does seem more a tragic tale as it seems to me that a particularly weak and venal little man, having failed at much that he has touched in life, has been, in his greed or desperation, manipulated by his employers UKIP, for whom he clearly either works or is some kind of agent, to act/front an attempt to silence my blog and the facts it publishes, by a very personal financial attack on Lee and I.
I take no pleasure in having won the case and obviously as Croucher has been acting in the interest of UKIP and his current employers the Racist, anti Jewish pro EU EFD, which would seem to be little more than a vehicle for Nigel Farage's personal career in the EU, it would seem to be a tragic reflection of just how debased UKIP would seem to have become - willingly using its staff, their sock puppets and their misguided supporters to seek to attack private individuals who take an unpaid role of conviction in opposition to membership of The EU, the dishonesty and corruption, bullying and abuse by UKIP & their staff would seem to know no limits!
I note there has been reflection on the situation pertinent to the BNP, I can throw very little light on this beyond the fact that Croucher gave mention of some pyricc victory prior to Christmas in his submissions to the Court. We understand from the Court in Welshpool that the case was in some manner set aside to be heard again in May, I would submit based on my understandings of costs that Croucher/UKIP could well be facing a bill that makes the £8,000+ payable to my lawyers seem paltry in extricating themselves from the BNP case.
I have portrayed these details in accord with my honest beliefs and understandings of this matter and would ask that others do not SPECULATE in the clear understanding that I will post the legal report if authorised, the journalist's report if obtained and the judgement when received.
Thank you to the many who have so clearly supported me throughout, particularly Lee (others left out to avoid them becoming victims of any attack by UKIP &/or its agents.)
I now call on Mark Croucher, UKIP & The EFD to ensure a rapid settlement of their respective debts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 09:50hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case Number: 9DA01429
HEARD BEFORE: The Hon. W. GASKELL
DEFENCE BARISTER: Ms. Isabel JAMAL
8, NEW STREET CHAMBERS Intellectual Property Specialists
DEFENCE SOLICITORS: Mssrs. HUGH JAMES Solicitors
Acting : Richard LOCKE & Rhodri JONES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also call on UKIP to disassociate itself from The EFD as violence, personal attacks, racism, xenophobia, anti Judaism and a pro EU stance as are the views of some in the EFD - a position which is reprehensible, distasteful, un British and clearly at variance with the principles and aims of UKIP electorate and grass roots members.
I further call on UKIP and its agents to cease smearing and attacking those with honestly held beliefs at variance with the personal ambitions of UKIP's leadership and the largely parasitic staff and funded praise singers.
As you will know I have been a dedicated supporter of UKIP for many years and have devoted much of the last 10 years at least to activities opposing membership of The EU, I had hoped it was possible to clean up EUkip to reinstate a cleaned up UKIP electable by vision, values and example rather than fluke, opportunism and spin!
Since that has to date failed I am now an active supporter of:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Details of which can be found at http://www.Leave-the-EU.org.UK
I hope and believe that this new organisation can deliver what genuine supporters of UKIP have wished for all along - I appreciate the dishonest of EUkip in an attempt to keep their snouts in the troughs on the EU gravy train may well seek to smear and defame this new organisation as some sort of spoiler party - this is clearly not the case though I fear the EUkip wrecker claque will do all they can to suppress the truth - we have seen many of their sad efforts to date!
I trust this posting helps clarification of my position - I wish UKIP every success in seeking to Leave-the-EU and would welcome the genuine members standing and supporting INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance & I look forward to hearing of the demise of the malevolent claque that has seized control of the Party for their own gain forming as I have called it EUkip coming to an abrupt end (ever the optimist).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED  21-Mar-2019 01:40hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have noticed this afternoon that Niall Warry has kindly opened a defence fund to assist me - much as I would like to reject the kindness I can not reasonably do so financially (any little helps). When in my position there is no longer pride or ego having so far faced down cancer those matters become utterly irrelevant.
It has been humbling how many people have shown their support and their revulsion at UKIP's behaviour and Croucher's action. All of this is a bit petty when you think I spoke to two people for the last time this week and I expect to possibly be present when a friend dies in a week or so, it puts the squalid behaviour of the likes of UKIP and some of its more despicable supporters in perspective when decent men and women die too soon and some of the filth and parasites we see in UKIP and on Anthony Butcher's nasty little gathering malinger on assuming that everyone like they are dishonest and corrupt.
Many lack even the basic morality to put their names to their vile spin such as Skeptyk, Independent UKIP and their ilk.
Thank you Niall for the risk you expose yourself to of smear and innuendo, abuse and dishonesty that you have exposed yourself to from some of the most unpleasant low lifes and vermin I have ever noted - their behaviour is inexcusable and cowardly!
With regard to any monies I am fortunate enough to receive I will personally phone each person and thank them and provide them with such accounting as they may reasonably request - if they are unsatisfied even at that stage I shall refund their donation.
The current situation is I have in place borrowings to cover my costs to an expected figure of about £12,000+.
The figures are hazey as yet since I have not received a full accounting schedule from my solicitors - I expect that within the next week or so but I shall not risk yet more costs by pestering them.
Part of the reason that the costs were so high was that had I lost I would have been liable for a sum in excess of £100,000 for the use of 3 publicity snaps on a blog!
I had little choice but to seek out the best legal advice that I could NOT afford, since that would prove cheaper and more survivable than the ignominy and problems of bankruptcy. You may not be aware that I have had cancer since November 1998 and had a radical nephrectomy in September 2001. Unfortunately my wound was infected with MRSA or similar a type of necrotising facaeitis (please accept the spelling - I am no doctor!) - this gave rise to a volume around the size of a fist literally rotting ajoining the muscles of the spinal column - to cut a long story short I was fortunate to survive but it left me without stomach muscles or normal peristalsis - thus although Lee struggled on we eventually had to shut our shop.
We managed to pay ALL our creditors and now no longer work living on not a lot but adamantly resisting state assistance.
We do occasionally receive money from media but there again I refuse to receive any money relative to any story pertaining to EUkip or the Freedom Struggle - I act out of duty and patriotism - working to save my Country and the future of its peoples is NOT about money! No amount of money justifies one drip of British blood nor one fraction of prostitution of principles.
To return to the Costs forced upon me by UKIP & Mark Croucher as I have said they amount to some £12K - I have not as yet received my Barristers account nor further sums.
O will post the sum total here and together with the Judgement when it is received the figure work will become more intelligible.
Please accept my apologies but I am myself somewhat hazey at the actual situation but as I understand it some time ago my legal team advised I should make an offer to try to bring the matter to a rapid close to save on expenses - which I did, not because I believed it would deliver justice for me but because it seemed the cheapest way out!
You will understand I had absolutely no knowledge of copyright law and as with virtually all other bloggers I acted in good faith assured by those I asked that use of pictures was OK on not for profit blogs and the like and as long as copyright was shown where known, credit was given where identified and removal effected if asked failing the choice to then buy. Had the matter been handled ethically I would I understand have received a phone call, eMail or letter showing copyright and a request that I either pay a fee, place a credit or remove the item timeously.
Up to the stage at which my offer was made (settling what I perceived to be a blackmail demand by UKIP through their agent Mark Croucher) - (it was in fact the Judge who defined Croucher as an agent of UKIP, though he seemed to me to intimate he saw it more as extortion!). To that stage my costs were, I understand about £4,000.
The offer was rejected and I gather the costs then are split. I continue to pay them but IF at Court the Court awards the same or a lower sum than the offer made (I think it is called a part 33 offer!!) then the plintiff is liable for the subsequent costs - subsequent to the offer. IF the Court awards a higher amount as defendent one is liable for those additional costs. The plaintiff is liable for their own costs throughout UNLESS they are awarded by the court against either the defendant or in some unusual cases the Court.
I have been asked why I did not defend the action myself but incurred lawyers and costs.
Firstly the enormity of the claim made against me.
Secondly the complexity of copyright law when involving virtual reality images freely available uncopyrightED on the internet. Thirdly the complexity of documentation and nomenclature
Fourthly the fact that had I sent a wrong document or been late it would have been exploited without any moral humanity or tollerance as had been proven.
I trust this helps clarify the situation and once again my sincere thanks for even the smallest of contributions - it WILL help.
My particular thanks to Niall for having the courage to face the twisters and dissemblers who are so much a part of EUkip and so undermine the possibilities of UKIP's success - who would want such dishonest and vicious cowards in any position of authority in any Country. Patriotic achievement is a matter of inclusivity, generosity and care taking people with you not battering them into submission and fear, exploitation and abuse.
If EUkip can not be cleaned up then its demise should be welcome as it represents no Patriotic values any decent people would accept!
Thank you again and as I have nothing to hide and have ALWAYS made a point of rigid honesty please be assured, even for the bullies, liars, cheats and cowards of EUkip I will publish all that I reasonably can regarding my costs and records thereof.
O shall not openly publish totals but will account to any donor making a contribution of 5% or more of the oal due. I will ask Niall to contact the 10 largest donors should it be required to decide how best any sum over the amount I have directly outlayed may be spent. I would ask that IF there is any excess sum it could go towards:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Clearly if UKIP was honourable it would settle the full amount of my expenses not the bare minimum awarded by the Court. I fail to see the morality of a political party seeking to destroy a member of the public however much their views may differ.
A very sad reflection on UKIP!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Saturday, 20 March 2010

#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks.

#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks.
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
re: Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict, 18-Mar-2010 - My thanks!

Hi,
I have been amazed at howmany people have clearly been following this case for a long time and have realised its huge significance to Lee and I and also to Bloggers and the internet in general.
When one realises, as many who have contacted me seem to have done, the incredible significance that in a Court of Law under a law of 1988 which has had very little realistic amendment except by the seat of the pants in various relatively minor cases and Courts by usage.
In 1988 there were in real terms no common usage of electronic transfer of photographic images.
It was not until December 1997 almost 10 years after the act that the first realistic blog was written and transmitted for 'common' consumption on the internet though there had been some experimentation within web sites and on Intra Nets starting in late 1994.
The first meaningful usage of a blog was December 1997 however I have been unable to ascertain when the first pictures were posted on a blog.
The most up to date figure I could find for the number of blogs world wide was somewhere over 200,000,000!
Astonishingly the law in use was designed for paper printed copy now with a quite reasonable guestimate running to Billions of pictures on the internet amongst the blogs etc. (I have just noted ONE individual with 15,400+ photos).
We are now talking of many millions of bloggers each day posting blogs with pictures in the virtual reality format in a transient nature where I have failed to identify a single solitary not for profit private blog who pays for readily available pictures.
Further I was unable this afternoon after the case had ended to locate any way in which copyright can be established of the many versions of the pictures for which I was taken to Court being sourced to UKIP or even to Mark Croucher.
I am not attempting to deny UKIP holds the copyright and was unable to afford to front the battle over the claim that Croucher owned the copyright though I am relieved to note his Hon. W. Gaskell specifically stated that Croucher had failed to establish his right of copyright to the Court's satisfaction despite UKIP having made themselves party to the Court Case by encouraging Croucher with documents put before the Court.
It is an incredibly messy business as it seems copyright is something of a movable feast and not just many facetted but many layered which is why we opted to obtain the best advice I could not afford!
There are after all only 4 Chambers in Britain which specialise in IP, clearly Intellectual Property is a complex and very specific area of law - that my Barrister's first qualification was Phys.Phil. at St. Hildas and a couple of years measuring the distance between binnary stars before moving on to further qualifications and Law is a measure of her chambers which I understand demands a top level scientific qualification before considering a new associate! The rigor of the discipline denoting the complexity of future cases.
The entire area of law is fascinating but the staggering ramifications of this case were clearly not lost on the legal team as had the quantum endorsed by UKIP and claimed by their agent Croucher been endorsed then it could have led to £1,000s of millions of claims and the shut down of the internet as we know it - thus clearly the case was unlikely to succeed IN MY OPINION - that is not to say that Croucher acting as UKIP's agent was not in a position to act in a reasonable manner and request removal of the pictures having shown reasonable provenance of copyright beyond reasonable usage and that he had made electronic efforts to show copyright to be retained.
The internet functions on the basis of reasonable trust whereby we the bloggers use pictures on the understanding that we show copyright where displayed, provide credit where it is attributable and use pictures to a greater or lesser extent in the clear understanding that IF a picture's author having shown right of copyright request the specific removal then of course we (by and large) honour the request whether for credit of for removal.
That UKIP's agent as their EFD group Media Manager has acted in the manner in which they have does little for the credibility of UKIP and would seem to be something of a monumental own goal for the Party, for it was THEIR staff member with THEIR Chairman's encouragement that has led to this unhappy affair when a phone call and some polite banter would have solved the entire matter at no cost to UKIP or their agent some 15 months ago.
I am happy to unreservedly apologise to UKIP for using a picture it would seem the Court has deemed to be their copyright, all be it shakily, and will be only too happy to acceded to any reasonable request of removal in the future should I accidentally infringe their copyright over pictures, other than of course pictures which are deemed to be common usage publicity photographs which are by deffinition for publicity, as I would of course for any other individual or organisation whose pictures I have used.
I trust now that UKIP will act expeditiously to ensure the payment ordered by the Court is made rather than further damage their reputation as it would seem in this instance.
There is I understand a photograph of Roger Knapman used somewhere on one of my 40 or so blogs and if UKIP would be so good as to identify the specific picture and show it is not merely a common usage picture for publicity and that they are deemed to hold the copyright I will be only too happy to oblige by removing same, in a spirit of co-operation and conciliation.
May I again thank the humbling number of people who have written articles on the internet or infringed copyright by reproducing articles on the matter!!!!! all over the internet I am truly humbled by the sense of fair play that has been shown by so many thoroughly decent people. Sadly we note the unpleasant remarks or obvious silence from some of the EUkip supporters who are even yet determined to bring EUkip into further disrepute.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 25-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,

as promised here is the 'Note of Judgement' received from my solicitor today which supplements and clarifies my earlier postings on the matter at #912* & also #913*

Note of Judgment

His Honour Judge W Gaskell stated that this was an application by the defendant to strike out the claim.  He stated that today was the trial date and that the claimant was not in attendance. 

The first question which the Judge had to address was whether he could be confident that the claimant was aware of the hearing date.

He stated that the matter had previously been listed for trial on 27th January 2010.  This had been vacated and directions were given, including a new trial window.  Notice was given on 15^th February 2010 stating that the trial had been listed on 18^th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard that the defendant’s solicitor had spoken to the claimant the previous Friday and mention was made of today's hearing date during the call.  The Judge stated that an email had also been sent to the claimant setting out the various matters which needed to be resolved prior to the trial.

That email was in the bundle at page 139 and carried the date 15^th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard evidence that the claimant was currently active on the internet and clearly there was an overwhelming likelihood that he had access to his emails.

The Judge then set out the background to the claim.  He stated that the claimant alleged that monies were due to him in respect of the use of 3 photographs used by the defendant on his internet blog.

The 3 photos were of head and shoulders of UKIP members (IJ later corrected the fact that one of the photos was a full body photograph of Nigel Ferrage).

The first issue was whether the claimant was the owner of the copyright and the photographs.  The Judge noted that Mr Croucher would have to overcome the fact that it seemed that the photographs had been taken by him in his capacity as an employee or at least as an agent employed by UKIP.

The Judge then turned to the issue of quantum.  If the claimant managed to overcome the issue of appropriate ownership the issue of quantum arises.  The Judge noted that the claimant claims £8,000.  On the material provided to the Judge, and he noted that he had not heard evidence from the claimant, he stated that it appeared to be grossly excessive. 

The Judge referred to the freelance fee guides and specifically to the online prices. 

The Judge noted that newspapers charge £625 for one year's use and that business use was £850 for one year. 

However, he noted that the use in question was by a not for profit website and stated that he was entitled on the basis of the material before him to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the claimant would achieve anything near that which he claimed.  However, the Judge noted that those issues could be put to one side for the moment.

The Judge stated that the fact was that the claimant had failed to file a pre trial checklist and the filing fee.  He had also failed to pay the hearing fee.  In accordance with the previous order made on 24^th February 2010, the claim should be struck out due to this. 

The claimant had now failed to attend Court also.

The Judge stated that he was wholly satisfied that the claimant was aware of proceedings and had failed to take necessary steps in proceedings.  He had also failed to attend Court.  Had he attended Court and paid the money the Court would have heard the claimant's claim.

The Judge stated that taking in to consideration the claimant's breach of procedural requirements and his failure to attend Court and the difficulties he faced in relation to proving liability and quantum, it seemed appropriate to strike out the claim.  The Judge therefore struck out the claim.

Having heard submissions by the defendant’s counsel on costs, the Judge ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs assessed at £8,448.50 within 28 days.

Rhodri Jones (Solicitor),

Messrs. Hugh James Solicitors,

Cardiff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 29-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Greg

I trust you received my email last week attaching the note of the judgment.  I today received a copy of the order from the court, a copy of which is enclosed.

I have already sent a letter to Mr Croucher by email enclosing the order and stating that payment is indeed expected within 28 days.  A copy will also go out by recorded post to avoid any difficulties.

I will, of course, update you with any response I receive from him.

Kind regards

Rhodri

	Rhodri Jones Solicitor Commercial Litigation Hugh James

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 07-Oct-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Greg

 

I hope that you are keeping well.

 

I am pleased to confirm that our process server has served Mark Croucher on 29th September 2010.  If payment is not received within 21 days, we can issue a bankruptcy petition against him if those are your instructions.

 

I will update you with any news in the interim.

 

Kind regards

 

Rhodri

	Rhodri Jones Solicitor Commercial Litigation Hugh James

Insider Property Law Firm of the Year 2010

I have today thus instructed.

Currently Mark Croucher has an unresolved debt to me by order of The British Courts of C£8.5K + any additional costs I may accrue.


Currently UKIP have an unresolved debt to me of £12.5K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To View Further Details On This Issue:

#912* > CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - 18-March-2010  

CLICK HERE

#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks. 

CLICK HERE 

TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples - they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU's CAP - In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS - GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country.
Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leave-the-EU

to

Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate

LEAVE THE EU
to Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

#Doc014* - THE PAPER TRAIL OF THE LIES of DOUGLAS DENNY

#Doc014* - THE PAPER TRAIL OF THE LIES of DOUGLAS DENNY

UNDATED ADDITIONS TO THIS BLOG WILL OCCUR AS MORE OF THE DISHONESTIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF DOUGLAS DENNY COME TO LIGHT. DETAILS OF OTHER THREADS OF DISHONESTY AND CORRUPTION, LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS BY DOUGLAS DENNY MAY BE ADDED AT OTHER THREADS WHICH WILL BE LINKED FROM THIS POSTING.

THE POSTING COMMENCED AT 00:30 - 18-JAN-2010

THE MOST RECENT ALTERATION/ADDITION WAS MADE ON 24-JAN-2010

ADDITION MADE ON 20-Feb-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

There is a huge amount more to come when I have a chance, which proves conclusively

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

By Daniel Foggo
Published: 12:01AM BST 09 Oct 2005

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"Mike, there seems little point in continuing this exchange."

September 28, 8.53pm
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

"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

"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

"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

"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

By Daniel Foggo
Published: 12:01AM BST 23 Oct 2005

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

By Daniel Foggo
Published: 12:01AM BST 29 Oct 2005

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 [mailtoouglas.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 [mailtoouglas.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.

----- 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 [mailtoouglas.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!

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 [mailtoouglas.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:

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.

 Reply With Quote by Niall Warry:

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.

>G.L-W. - I may, if I can find time or choose to come back and add comments but Denny is nothing more than an example of the executive of EUkip - consider that each of the postings were made by Douglas Denny as a spokesman and/or representative of EUkip's executive!

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!

DENNY WAS EITHER INCOMPETENT
OR INVOLVED IN A CORRUPT COVER UP

I believe I have prefixed and suffixed my comments in black sufficient for clarity.

ADDITION MADE ON 20-Feb-2010

I was sent a posting made by this silly little chap, so full of bluster and lies, from Anthony Butchers corrupt Forum where Butcher upholds lies and defamation of me providing a platform for dishonesty in support of EUkip, for more details see CLICK HERE,

Here is an extract from one of the frequent lies by Douglas Denny:
"They try to irritate me with references to high heeled 'cuban boots' and such nonsense - and only succeed in making me laugh. GLW has published the most outrageous lies about me - but I just laugh at him and it's like water off a duck's back. I am safe in the knowledge he has made such a fool of himself over the years he is now just a laughing stock and on one believes anything he says because they know it's all lies."

The foolish little man earned the link 'little' by something of a measurement of serial inaccuracies, libels and lies about me, made in the most cowardly manner - I had at the time had the good fortune to never have met him - however I did have the misfortune to meet him when he was acting as errand boy for Deadwood Derek to try dishonesty to 'stitch up' Peter Baker the elected Chairman of EUkip East Midlands.

It was at that meeting where he portrayed himself so dishonourably aided and abetted by the undeniable corruption of Gerard Batten who was in collusion with Derek Clark to hold a Soviet Style kangaroo Court as a Show Trial - only then did I become aware that Douglas Denny was a small vain and insecure little man in stature also, even going so far as to wear high heel shoes, which we subsequently informed by him were imported from Cuba, to try to elevate his stature.

In all the years of lies and bluster from Denny whilst he has been irrefutably proven to be corrupt, a liar, a cheat and without principle for all his accusations and fantasies he has been completely unable to substantiate a single solitary claim that he has made to try to denigrate me.

The foolish little man has invented fantasy after fantasy but never yet found one that is remotely pl;ausible let alone that he could substantiate. He has serially accused me of lies and dishonesty yet he has never once identified a single instance to back his childish blather.

Mr. Douglas Denny is not only a liar and a cheat but a coward to boot - his corruption and dishonesty are a matter of public record as are his serial lies and fantasies. All have been proven.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

#Doc013* - Nikki SINCLAIRE RESIGNS FROM PAN EU EFD PARTY GROUPING

 #Doc013* - Nikki SINCLAIRE RESIGNS FROM PAN EU EFD PARTY GROUPING

Nicole Sinclaire MEP

44 Velsheda Road, Solihull B90 2JN

TEl 0794 146 1255 email nikkisinclaire@hotmail.com

Nicole Sinclaire MEP: Change of Group

With effect from 18 January, I shall move from the EFD Group in the European Parliament to the Non-Attached Group. The latter is composed of non-aligned MEPs, independent of each other.

I have decided to move to this non-attached group as I have found it increasingly difficult to justify sitting alongside one or two of the European parties within the EFD Group who have a variety of extremist views which includes anti-Semitism, violence and the espousal of a single European policy on immigration. One of these parties, Liga Nord which was expelled from the previous Ind Dem Group, currently holds the Group Presidency jointly with UKIP.

In addition, a particular difficulty has arisen for me with the prospect of EFD joining a PAN-European Party whose aim is Party enhancement within the EU rather than extraction from it, to which I am implacably opposed.

My working relationship and trust with EFD Co-President, Nigel Farage has broken down since his personal admittance to me recently that he wished I had not been elected. The comment “I wish I had only 12 not 13 MEP`s” was made to many people in the aftermath of the European Elections. I have found this personal animosity difficult to work with.

I would also like to point out that on a pre arranged interview on the BBC West Midlands Politics Show, Mike Nattrass and I had to spent two thirds of the time defending our membership of the EFD Group and Nigel’s public remarks made about leadership candidates ‘not being credible’.

I have discussed my position at length with the Leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson, who understands my viewpoint and has assured me of his support both now and in the future in my continued work for UKIP. My move to the non-attached group therefore will not affect in any way my position as a UKIP MEP for the West Midlands.

I shall continue to work closely with my West Midlands colleague, Mike Nattrass, MEP and with UKIP's other MEPs for the promotion of UKIP's cause in the forthcoming General Election and thereafter. And I will support Nigel Farage's fight for the Buckingham seat which would be a breakthrough for UKIP and our cause. I am committed to support the West Midlands and the Party financially, as previously outlined, and indeed, hope to increase this support in the near future.

I would sincerely hope that the usual process of disinformation does not ensue. We have bigger battles to face. I would be most grateful if you would kindly contact me directly to discuss any concerns you have.

Kind regards

Nikki Sinclaire MEP


To view other articles regarding this topic: CLICK HERE 

& several subsequent blogs on the same site.

#Doc010* - Niall WARRY'S RESIGNATION LETTER

#Doc010* - Niall WARRY'S RESIGNATION LETTER

First Published at: CLICK HERE
#792* - ANOTHER LONG SERVING ACTIVIST & SUPPORTER OF EUkip QUITS

ANOTHER LONG SERVING ACTIVIST WITH 12 YEARS SERVICE AS A SUPPORTER OF EUkip  FINALLY QUITS IN SADNESS AT THE PARTY'S BETRAYAL OF BRITAIN!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

During over 10 years in UKIP in which I was National Chairman of Wales, Officer Manager in Birmingham for 6 months, Branch Chairman of Cheltenham, stood in 3 General Elections (The first being with the Referendum Party in 1997), 1 Euro and 1 Local Election I am finally leaving the Party and will not be renewing my membership this February.

My last 5 years I have spent trying to raise the standards of the party to make it electable in its own right. Many of us believe it is not more politicians we need, but to leave the EU. Our failure to achieve this and set a clear direction for the party has been reflected by the abject failure of UKIP to achieve anything at all towards leaving the EU.

The lack of probity and transparency has dogged the party escalating under Nigel’s leadership. Sadly it looks as if UKIP have learnt from the EU and not exposed it! Furthermore and nearly as important the party has suffered from abysmal leadership and lacked an overall plan and has never adopted a workable strategy or tactics that would help it achieve its primary reason for being.

Many of UKIP’s most able and well informed members saw the writing on the wall when Nigel was elected leader and left the party then. Nigel never wanted to be leader, a job he was totally unsuited for, but he fought for the post to ensure that his comfortable EU existence on the gravy train was NOT disturbed.

Now of course despite a new puppet leader, in Lord Pearson, Nigel has marched his MEPs into the EFD Group, in the EU pretend Parliament, a group that has people in it who are even worse that our own BNP.

Despite an increasingly Eurosceptic public UKIP’s membership has declined from around a high of 29,000 in 2004 to 13,000 today. This is clearly an indication that all is NOT well in UKIP.

Life after the ratification of The Lisbon Treaty has changed many things and I now believe UKIP is not only beyond reform but that reformed or otherwise it is now largely irrelevant to us being able to leave the EU.

So before I finish I think it only fair to explain the type of party I hoped to be working towards:-

A party open to all regardless of race colour or creed which used its successes in the Euro Elections to fund the essential work in the UK to educate the public about the reality of being part of the EU.

UKIP MEPs should have had the strength of character to stand in the EU Parliament on their own while spending far more of their time in the UK rather than Brussels.

Full transparency of MEPs accounts should have been mandatory.

The party should have initially concentrated on providing electoral pressure on the LibLabCon turning success in this area to its advantage to build into a fully fledged party when the time was right.

The MEPs should have used their elected status to lead the drive to educate the British people cascading the information down through the membership to the general public.

Training and more training should have been carried out at every level and PPCs for General Elections should have received endless in house training to fashion them into a competent professional candidate.

Candidates should have been able to stand as UKIP then put in brackets New Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats thus instantly doing away with the need for any time wasting on producing ‘policies’ as it would have been all too clear as to a candidates beliefs.

So a UKIP (New Labour) candidate would have been saying to the electorate I believe in New Labour policies but on the EU I’m for coming out.

As to the future I believe that one of the existing parties will eventually have to offer the people a referendum on the IN or OUT option as it becomes increasing clear how disadvantaged we are by the Lisbon Treaty.

Having given up on UKIP and the LibLabCon I believe my only honourable option at the next General Election is to stand as an Independent candidate and have set this in motion already in my constituency having distributed 5,000 leaflets already with another 5,000 to follow in January (Why isn’t UKIP thinking this far ahead!).

Details of my initiative can be found at :-

http://niallwarry.blogspot.com

So farewell UKIP a party that promised so much and delivered so little for the PEOPLE of the UK that is apart from the self enrichment of its 13 MEPs.

  
I gather Niall Warry intends to stand as an Indipendent Parliamentary Candidate in The General Election in his home constituency of Sommerton & Frome. Niall's blog outlines his views on many subjects and makes it very clear that the aim is not only to stand as an Independent realising his unlikely lack of success but with a determination to ensure the constituency is not just another cosy LibLabCon stitch up and since at EUkip's last meeting only 2 people attended and although it was only the second meeting for Niall he had 11 people attend and over 15 named apologies.


As a result of his efforts in the constituency to date he has had offers of not only support but also financial contributions that have already covered his deposit and print costs - the leaflet is now in its second print run and he has at least one organiser in every main village in the constituency and the printing of his leaflet is already designed and with the printers all fully funded which is not bad since he started very recently and has only gone firm this week due to the complete lack of visibility of EUkip in the constituency and in the belief shown in his letter above that EUkip has completely lost its way and is now self serving and self enriching for the few who have reahed the troughs.

Sadly in view of the obscene level of bullying and lies presented by the face of EUkip in public I believe that EUkip has a steadily collapsing future acting as useful idiots for the EU as it helps them build Pan EU Political Parties and emasculates itself by the vile company it keeps sitting with Racists, Xenophobes, anti Jewish extremists who not only advocate violence but use it.


It is clear there are no levels of legalised depravity to which EUkip and its staff would not sink to gain their ends and seek to enrich  themselves at the expense of others.

Good luck Niall and I hope you show a lead for honest remaining members which they have the courage to follow.

Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62

PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS - GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!

I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

LEAVE THE EU
to
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK 

  Except of Course in Sommerton And Frome