UKIP-vs-EUkip

<b>UKIP-vs-EUkip</b>
CLICK The Pic. for TRAVEL!

Monday, 11 July 2011

GREAVES, Michael

Hi,

recently there was a further vomit of lies and dishonesty of Independent UKIP who posts in cowardly anonymity as a supporter, not of UKIP but of Nigel Farage and just as with liars like Annabelle Fuller, Mark Croucher, Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, The Common Man (Oh so very common and so very corrupt), they do huge damage to UKIP, with their lies and corruption and their attacks on anyone who dares to have a view point which might threaten their snout in the trough attitude.

A measure of the credibility of UKIP is shown by the catastrophic achievements for the Party in domestic elections where they constantly get trashed by the electorate - where the leadership is treated as a joke and only one person is allowed to shine.

Yet again in the pretence of profesionalism the imbecilic Independent UKIP comes forth with abuse of supporters and a full hand of obscenities and lies:

Independent UKIP Independent UKIP is offline Trusted Member Independent UKIP is a jewel in the rough Independent UKIP is a jewel in the rough

A certain interesting blog has commented on this topic without anyone yet remarking on the fact so I thought it worthwhile reproducing:
This is rich - one vituperative liar quoting another as his source! Please note that time and again both these cowards have been proven beyond doubt to be liars. Rarely to they publish a constructive comment it is endless cowardly attacks on supporters of UKIP!
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Collier wrong again, this time on Greaves.
The Common Mans attention has been drawn to a posting by Geoffrey 'Old Mother' Collier on the Democracy Forum, in which he demonstrates once again his formidable research skills.

Writing of Michael Greaves, he states "We now have appointed at public expense a Mr Greaves who claims to be a barrister and specialises in International Law. Further claims to his credit involve appearances before the International Court at the Hague. That Court has no evidence of him appearing in any capacity. Furthermore he does not appear on the Roll of Bar members who are currently practising."

The Common Man understands that this stunning piece of work is repeated elsewhere, particularly by the unfortunately not-yet-late convicted felon and self-confessed anti-semite Greg Watkins
May I suggest the liar and coward  with his pathetic comment regarding my well publicised cancer during the last 13 years (I even run a blog and a help line to assist others who may be fighting the disease).

My grievous felony was accidentally importing a legally held firearm and 50 legally owned rounds of ammunition into Britain in a 40 foot container of household effects as a result of using commercial packers some 30 years ago! Wow - master criminal!!

That I am an anti Semite is a lie with absolutely no evidence which can with any integrity support the claim. I am utterly indifferent to the superstitions, religions and beliefs of others regarding their chosen gods - as has been shown time and again over my entire life.

The comments/accusations of The Common Coward are nothing more than distortions, inventions and lies - as ever.

Repeating his lies as Independent UKIP and others do shows them also to be utterly corrupt.
and the morons at Junius. Watkins, remember, always apologises when he is wrong, although none have ever seen an apology.
Indeed never ONCE has any individual established a single material fact of consequence to be wrong in my many 1,000s of blogs. Despite the lies, misrepresentations and fantasies of the cowards who hide as trolls behind their childish names!
Michael Greaves was a court appointed defence barrister. Anyone capable of working a computer - which presumably Old Mother Collier is
Geoffrey Collier, for the record, was Chairman of one of UKIP's earliest branches and built it to be one of UKIP's largest and most productive branches. Now long retired this donor, supporter and patriotic man of conscience continues to support UKIP despite the filth that endlessly seek to belittle and demean him and thereby do such damage to UKIP as a party.
- could have discovered this through conducting a simple case search of the International Criminal Court searching case files rather than simply searching for web pages. There are actually some 40 documents which name Greaves as a defence attorney representing several defendants.
All of which are relatively obscure and somewhat dated!
The Common Man now awaits the attack on Greaves based on who he, as a defence barrister at the ICC, was appointed to represent.
Why would anyone do that? It is the duty of a Barrister under British Law and international law to defend or prosecute for their client.
Inventing scenarios as accusations is just the sort of dishonesty we see time and again but NEVER with the subsequent claimed outcome from these pond life!
The Common Man and Bob Pacific will be hugely amused at those who want a 'clean' UKIP attacking the right of a defendant, even at the International Criminal Court, to be represented, and somehow suggesting that because counsel is appointed to the defendants, this is somehow indicative of support for the crimes of which those defendants are accused.

The Common Man is also aware that, unlike solicitors, there is no requirement for Barristers to be registered with the Bar. Will Old Mother Collier now apologise for smearing an eminent lawyer?
You will note that more recent referrence to Michael greaves shows him to have been removed from a case for his failures of competence and it seems he has not or is not legally able to practice subsequently.
Past experience suggests that this is unlikely, and instead he will repeat his lies endlessly, thinking that that will somehow make them true.
Surely it ill becomes a liar and low life too cowardly to use his identity to dishonestly promote such a corrupt statement for which he can provide no provenance.
Needless to say, Colliers other allegations are equally well researched and equally false.
We note that this liar can provide a single example of a falsehood by Mr. Collier.
The Common Man wonders how he can have the gall to talk about 'we' when referring to UKIP, when clearly he is batting for the other team, but that's another rumour which it would be wrong of us to continue probing.
Since this very Common Coward is founding his claim on lies he does make a fool; of himself.
The Common Man merely observes that for someone ostensibly if dishonestly campaigning for a clean up of UKIP, Collier has provided a remarkable way of telling what is true and what is false. If he wrote it, it's false.
This Common coward should not judge others and present them as he himself behaves - it is bnoth corrupt, dishonest and cowardly.
Decision on Prosecution's Application to Admit Transcripts under Rule 92bis
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
Before:
Judge Patrick Robinson, Presiding
Judge Richard May
Judge Mohamed Fassi Fihri
Registrar:
Mr. Hans Holthuis
Order of:
23 May 2001
PROSECUTOR
v.
DUSKO SIKIRICA
DAMIR DOSEN
DRAGAN KOLUNDZIJA
__________________________________________________ _______
DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S APPLICATION
TO ADMIT TRANSCRIPTS UNDER RULE 92 BIS
__________________________________________________ _________
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Dirk Ryneveld
Ms. Julia Baly
Mr. Daryl Mundis
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Veselin Londrovic and Mr. Michael Greaves, for Dusko Sikirica
Mr. Vladimir Petrovic and Mr. Goran Rodic, for Damir Dosen
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Jovan Ostojic, for Dragan Kolundzija

Which can be found at http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/...383/373541.pdf
Posted by The Common Man at 16:17
This blogger is getting rather ahead of him/herself as nobody, here at least, has presently criticised Mr Greaves for defending accused persons in The Hague.

I'm not terribly surprised nobody at the "International Court" has heard of Mr Greaves as so far as I am aware no such body is in existence.

Had anyone wasted the time of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) they would have found Mr Greaves' activity there.

Here is a totally random page of transcripts involving Mr Greaves from the Sikirica trial mentioned above.

I would suggest that Mr Greaves has been rather active in international criminal trials held in The Hague in recent years. I do however fear Mr Collier will not be satisfied with this factual explanation.
It will be noted that when the comments regarding Michael Greaves were drawn to my attention by a third party I immediately published this comment:


Greg_L-W. said...
Hi, I believe Michael Greaves has been involved in trying to get The EU to pay some of Nigel Farage's large legal bills incurred as a staying motion on The Guilty Verdict against him and UKIP by the Courts. He may even be trying to raise the money he morally owes me in the UKIP sponsored Harassment case they prosecuted against me, which they lost in The Courts. Many will remember that Paul Nuttall & Clive Page were the closest thing Mark Croucher could find as plausible witnesses - However The Judge found none of their case plausible and they even had costs awarded against they - costs they have still dishonoured in UKIP's normal contempt for British values and Justice! Let us face it Farage and his claque all too often scuttle for cover behind the shirts of The EU - Clearly they are aware that without The EU jobs they would be unlikely to rise above Mare of some Parish Council - look at their UK results which have been a litany of failure and folly. Regards, Greg_L-W.
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.You may be interested to note that subsequently I found Michael Greaves would seem not to have been quoted in practice for some time that I could establish and it was then that suspicion led to further searches and I note that he has been shown to have been dismissed from a major case as follows:
Nairobi, 29 May 2002 (IRIN) - The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, has discharged Michael Greaves, the lead defence counsel for a genocide suspect, the Hirondelle News Agency reported. It said the tribunal's deputy registrar, Lovemore Munlo, had signed the decision on 23 May. In the document Munlo said Greaves had only partially responded to grievances his client, Rwandan former Civil Service Minister Prosper Mugiraneza, had put to him, Hirondelle reported. At the end of 2001, Mugiraneza had filed a request before the tribunal's registry for Greaves' dismissal, Hirondelle reported. Mugiraneza accused Greaves, a British national, of a lack of communication, lack of diligence and delay in filing a request for assignment of a co-counsel. He also accused Greaves of a breach of confidentiality, and complained of a lack of scheduling and evaluation of activities, as well as disagreements on the defence strategy. The registry said Greaves had been informed of all the grievances for his opinion, but in his reply on 10 January had "only addressed the grievance of lack of communication, one relating to breach of confidentiality and requested to be withdrawn from the case". The registry said, "His declining and refusal to get involved in a fee-splitting arrangement is the root of his client's request for withdrawal of his assignment." It added that despite four reminders this year, Greaves had failed to reply to the registry's letters. Eventually, the registry said, it had to rely on Greave's bar association to compel him to respond. Greaves had also failed to attend a hearing of 5 April, the registry said, and "as of today [Tuesday], despite the involvement of the General Council, he is still unwilling to cooperate with the registry".
To view the original of this article CLICK HERE I seem to be unable to locate signs that Michael Greaves has practiced as a Barrister in any Court subsequently - I do not leap to the conclusion that he has had his accreditation as a Barrister withdrawn but he may well have felt his reliability and integrity were no longer upto the job - I know not.

Much as the liars and low lifes posturing as maggots in the dung heap from which UKIP's risible leadership crow - as yet never once have any of these maggots shown me to have published anything but the truth, nor have they ever shown that I have in the last 30 years been funded from the public purse for political activity, nor that I have EVER published material in support of these United Kingdoms membership of the supra national and utterly corrupt undemocratic EU from which so many of them seem to draw their authority and incomes!

The endless posturing of these dishonest fools does nothing but harm to UKIP.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.I note today, after a conversation with them Junius has run with further links and details regarding Michael Greaves (there is no shortage on which to build!

Here is the Junius article:

Micheal Greaves

You may recall that we recently wrote about Micheal Greaves, Nigel's friend, EFD staff member and UKIP General Secretary. Greaves was appointed without any consultation with MEPs whatsoever, into a high-salary job with Farage's delegation in Brussels.

The story about Michael Greaves could be about to take a new turn. He was dismissed from an International Tribunal for gross incompetence.

Here is an interesting article:

RWANDA: International tribunal discharges lead defence counsel

Nairobi, 29 May 2002 (IRIN) - The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, has discharged Michael Greaves, the lead defence counsel for a genocide suspect, the Hirondelle News Agency reported. It said the tribunal's deputy registrar, Lovemore Munlo, had signed the decision on 23 May. In the document Munlo said Greaves had only partially responded to grievances his client, Rwandan former Civil Service Minister Prosper Mugiraneza, had put to him, Hirondelle reported. At the end of 2001, Mugiraneza had filed a request before the tribunal's registry for Greaves' dismissal, Hirondelle reported. Mugiraneza accused Greaves, a British national, of a lack of communication, lack of diligence and delay in filing a request for assignment of a co-counsel. He also accused Greaves of a breach of confidentiality, and complained of a lack of scheduling and evaluation of activities, as well as disagreements on the defence strategy.

The registry said Greaves had been informed of all the grievances for his opinion, but in his reply on 10 January had "only addressed the grievance of lack of communication, one relating to breach of confidentiality and requested to be withdrawn from the case". The registry said, "His declining and refusal to get involved in a fee-splitting arrangement is the root of his client's request for withdrawal of his assignment." It added that despite four reminders this year, Greaves had failed to reply to the registry's letters. Eventually, the registry said, it had to rely on Greave's bar association to compel him to respond. Greaves had also failed to attend a hearing of 5 April, the registry said, and "as of today [Tuesday], despite the involvement of the General Council, he is still unwilling to cooperate with the registry".


To read the original: LINK

So much for Nigel's promise to professional the party. So another incompetent is promoted to a position of authority within the Party. They never learn!

For more on Greaves: LINK 
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.FURTHER DETAILS c/o Geoffrey COLLIER Esq., Founder & Chairman of one of UKIP's largest & most productive branches until his retirement, still a dedicated supporter of UKIP dedicated to trying to clean-up the leadership and probity of UKIP as a party to try to make it worthy of the votes of its more informed and honest members!:
There is much about him (Michael Greaves) in the public domain. 

I cannot reveal, for want of evidence, whether he was breast-fed or raised on Cow and Gate, but presumably those basic facts are known to you. Mr Greaves was born in 1953, and is, or was, a resident in Northamptonshire. 

He attended Birmingham University where he obtained a LLB. 
He qualified as a barrister from Middle Temple Inn. 
He was a pupil at the chambers of James Hunt Q.C. 36, Bedford Row, London. 
In recent times he has not appeared on any the Law Society lists. 

There are threads about him, but accusations of pomposity conflict with my innate humility on which my entire reputation rests.

Is it not better that we comment on what we know about the gentleman within a political context? Is that not more relevant to the membership of UKIP? 

He was a committed 'Cameron Man' and does not seem to have ever been an EU withdrawlist.

That seems to remain his position with support for UKIP becoming a PEPP. That is not an opinion shared by many of the UKIP membership. 

More to the point, and this will need investigating, was he an employee within the EU Parliament prior to his semi-Pauline conversion? 

Was he a Conservative employee in that Parialment? 

I don't know, and furthermore, I do not have any contacts from whom I can glean that knowledge. Do you have contacts in Brussels? 

We have had a long history of adopting, to our disadvantage, Conservative Party employees, and in every case it has been a disaster. That is why I ask, and we should be given the information, who interviewed Mr Greaves? 

Was the post advertised, and who provided him with his references? Requests for such information is not a sign of pomposity, but that professionalism which Nigel commends to us all.
END of comment by Geoffrey Collier Esq.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.FOR MORE DETAILS DO VISIT EITHER JUNIUS OR MY BLOG AT: CLICK HERE and then eneter the name >greaves< in upper or lower case in the search box at the top of the right hand sidebar.

You will also note his name in the >Sidebar<
in the section >UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS<

as with many other characters and details you may wish to explore!

You may count on the FACT that every item of FACT which I have published you may relly upon as it has been scoured and checked by the enemies of UKIP as shown, named and shamed - NEVER ONCE requiring an alteration of material; consequence.

Sould you find a single detail to be wrong please contact me as soon as possible identifying my error and yourself and it will be corrected as soon as it can be substantiated.

Thank YOU.

.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 
LEAVE-THE-EU
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

UKIP: The lies of Christopher MONCKTON as at 01-Jun-2011

 UKIP: The lies of Christopher MONCKTON as at 01-Jun-2011
Updated at 18-Jul-2011
~UKIP's Deputy Leader & Head of Policy Christopher Lord MONCKTON Officially Rapped for HIS Lies!

For more on this dishonourable little mountebank check the Right Sidebar or CLICK HERE!

.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments



18 July 2011
Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio.

In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011

More news on: House of Lords, Members of the Lords, Lords news

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE
For more on this dishonourable little mountebank check the Right Sidebar or CLICK HERE!. .


UKIP: The lies of Christopher MONCKTON as at 01-Jun-2011

UKIP: The lies of Christopher Monckton



Would you really want this man leading UKIP?
It beggars belief that some UKIPPERS actually think that Christopher Monckton should replace Farage as leader. Quick, send for the white coats before it's too late!

The Irish Independent has picked up on the current UKIP leadership crises:

The UK Independence Party, which wants the country to get out of the EU, is now beset with internal crises of its own.

One of its top European Parliament members, David Campbell Bannerman, has returned to the Conservatives, saying he is 'impressed' by Cameron, a sharp contrast with a year ago when he said that trusting the prime minister on Europe would be "as misguided as trusting Blair on Iraq".

If Nigel Farage is forced out as UKIP's leader, the name in the frame to succeed him is Viscount Christopher Monckton, a right-wing maverick whose aunt, Lady Valerie Goulding, was the founder of the Central Remedial Clinic in Dublin.

It was his grandfather, Walter Monckton, who was the key adviser to King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis of 1936, which came close to destroying the monarchy.
To read the original: LINK

Here a few Monckton facts for you. And don't say we didn't warn you!

He claims to be a science expert. This is despite the fact that his paper-thin educational background lies in the Classics and his single academic credit is a diploma in journalism.

He claims to have found a cure for Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. There is no cure for these illnesses. He also claims to have found a treatment for HIV.

Votagra. As used by Nigel Farage MEP!

But what is more worrying is the fact that UKIP is happy to promote his lies on their official website:

2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue. See: LINK

He has been accused of deliberately manipulating scientific data. See: LINK
He has claimed to be a Member of a House of Lords. Here is one example:

In 2006 Monckton sent a letter to U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller.

Part of the letter read:

Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
To read the original: LINK

Monckton has attempted to get into the House of Lords. He tried in 1999. See: LINK

He also tried in 2007. He failed to receive a single vote. See: LINK

But perhaps he didn’t notice. Or did he just forget?

Monckton is best known for his lectures on climate change. At the start of these talks he is introduced as ‘Lord Monckton’. He even uses the emblem of Parliament, the Crowned Portcullis, on his PowerPoint slides.

Monckton has said:

“I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise.”

A quick call to the House of Lords will confirm that Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.

Here are the facts:

Christopher Monckton's father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.

Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father's death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.

It is interesting to note that use of the Crowned Portcullis is protected by legislation. This is what the UK Parliament website says on the matter:

The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House.

The House symbol is primarily used to authenticate communications from Members. Further background information can found in The Portcullis.

If you require further information about using the Crowned Portcullis, please contact
webmaster@parliament.uk

We sincerely hope that Monckton has not appropriated the symbol of the House for purposes "where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House".
The Lords and the Palace are extremely unhappy that Monckton has been misusing the portcullis symbol without the permission of the Queen.

A spokesman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such."


Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right). Naughty!
She said that Monckton's claim that the 1999 act was a general law was "misleading".
"The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term 'membership' not the 'right to sit/vote',".
"The emblem is property of the Queen, and Parliament has a Royal Licence granted for its use. Any misuse of the emblem by either members or non-members breaches this licence, and if a person refuses to stop using it the matter is drawn to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain, who is an Officer of the Royal Household. The Lord Chamberlain has been contacted regarding Lord Monckton's use of the emblem, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."
The spokesman added: "If, following the correspondence, Lord Monckton continues to claim to be a member of the House then the House authorities would need to consider and assess what options are available to them."
Buckingham Palace has confirmed that it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". See: LINK

In 2007, Monckton, or someone using Monckton's personal IP address, claimed on his Wikipedia page that he had won a libel judgment against the Guardian’s George Monbiot. He lied. When challenged, Monckton dodged the issue. See: LINK
Monckton also makes ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.

Monckton says that he is the author of a 1200-word article for the Daily Telegraph on the reasons in international law why the Falkland Islands are British. It was supposedly read out on the BBC World Service's Argentinian broadcasts every 20 minutes during the Falklands War.

But the BBC World Service deny this. They don't have an Argentinian service, and have never made specifically Argentinian broadcasts.

Monckton has said that he has won the Nobel Prize.

In an open letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he claimed to have been named a Nobel Peace Laureate for correcting the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel in 2007

Monckton also claimed on the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, that he “earned the status of Nobel Peace Laureate (through) his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.”
The website continued, “his Nobel Prize pin…was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.

In 2007 Nobel committee awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
Monckton claimed to also be a Nobel winner because he had done such good work trying to undermine their effort. Monckton claimed that he deserved the accolade because he was a "reviewer" of the IPCC report.

Monckton said he also deserved a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a “contributor to the IPCC”.
The IPCC accepts reviews, unsolicited, and actually invites reviews from people who have varied perspectives, scientific and otherwise. But that doesn’t mean they can claim to be a Nobel Laureate!

The Nobel Committee were less than impressed with Monckton.

Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton.

“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate - no way, no way.”

Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.

“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off as a Nobel Laureate.

And Monckton’s Nobel Prize pin?

“It certainly wasn’t issued by us,” said Lundestat. “We have no pin.”

Actually, Monckton got a friend to melt down an old science experiment so they could fashion a little Nobel Prize pin. It was later presented to Monckton in a highly unofficial ceremony! See: LINK
When Monckton was cornered by the Sydney Morning Herald, he reportedly said that the claim to have won the Nobel Prize was “a joke, a joke.” See: LINK
The admission was made several hours after he had said on a radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel - a claim that the interviewer did not question.

So why does the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, still state that:

His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.
To read the original: LINK

And don’t forget the time he said that he had been forced to sell his ancestral home after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle.

He later admitted that the story had been invented to boost sales of the puzzle. See: LINK

And this is the man now being touted as UKIP’s next leader! A serial liar and fantasist as a political leader? Whatever next?



A great deal more about the antics, stupidity and compliance with the style of being a 'Crank & Gadfly' with a visit to CLICK HERE and in the >SEARCH< box at the top of the >Right SideBar< enter >monkton< there is very little to be found about him that does not show him to be other than a liability, a fool all be it a clever fool, a self publicist, a clown, dishonest, duplicitous, a plagiarist and a total prat. 
This of course is the Crank, Gadfly and all around nutter who was made to look a complete fool and revealed as such by The US Senate, who then as leader of UKIP in Scotland made a complete fool of himself by espousing opinions on Hollie Greig without checking a single fact or knowing what he was talking about.

This is the buffoon who many consider to be next in line for Coronation as UKIP leader IF Nigel Farage MEP goes (unlikely) - The poor chap is a completely dellusional fruitcake!

See Also: CLICK HERE

& now Christopher Monkton takes on 
The Evening Standard & LOSES:


The Hon. Christopher Monckton complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of Consistent Hotel Staff Ltd that the Evening Standard had sought to obtain information through subterfuge in breach of Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) of the Code and by doing so had intruded into the privacy of a number of the company’s employees in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.

The complaint was rejected.

The complainant said that a reporter from the newspaper had gained employment with the company by misrepresenting herself and failing to identify herself as a journalist. He said the company accepted that there was a public interest in the question of illegal working, but under the Code subterfuge must not be used unless the information sought could not be obtained by any other means. In the present case, he contended, subterfuge could not be justified on the basis that material could not be obtained in any other way - the company had made it clear to the newspaper that it was happy to answer any questions that the newspaper cared to put to it, and had answered promptly and fully all questions which the newspaper eventually asked.

Further to his complaint under Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) the complainant contended that the actions of the undercover reporter were in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code. This contention was based on the fact that the journalist had shared company accommodation with genuine employees without identifying herself as a journalist – contrary, said the complainant, to the explicit statement in the Code that there is an expectation of privacy in a person’s place of residence – and had spoken to them, wilfully asking them questions that were designed to embarrass and distress them.

The newspaper said that it had received information from several sources that the company was employing and exploiting illegal workers. It considered that the use of subterfuge in order to establish whether the allegations were true was in the public interest as, consequently, was any resulting intrusion into the privacy of company employees.

The company said that it had given the newspaper clear, compelling and independently-verifiable evidence that it did not employ or exploit illegal workers and pointed out that the newspaper had provided no evidence to the contrary. For instance, it said, the newspaper had alleged that the company employed illegal workers and withheld their passports, but in fact the passport of each member of staff was sent to the Home Office on the day of recruitment, preventing illegal working and it was the Home Office that retained the passports pending the determination of the staff members’ applications for business visas. The company added that the newspaper had provided no evidence that its alleged sources existed or that, if they existed, their testimony was reliable. Moreover, it contended, the newspaper’s allegations were so unspecific that the company could not investigate them so as to put anything right that might be wrong.

The company said that the newspaper was under a duty to bear in mind the possibility that the company was innocent and would therefore have been willing to answer any questions the newspaper might have. The newspaper should, therefore, have telephoned the company to ask for information it sought before and not after it resorted to subterfuge. The newspaper could also have obtained the information it sought by a wide variety of other means but it had made no attempt to do so.
Decision:
Not Upheld
Adjudication:

The Commission has previously ruled that newspapers must not undertake ‘fishing expeditions’ - they can employ subterfuge only when they have a public interest justification for doing so and there are no other means of gathering the required information. In this case, the Commission considered that the allegations of impropriety made to the newspaper about the company were sufficiently serious and specific to justify further investigation in the public interest.

In coming to this view the Commission noted the concerns of the complainant that the newspaper had failed to identify its sources and provide proper details of the allegations that had been made about the company. However, it did not consider that simply because the sources were anonymous it could automatically discount their existence – indeed, newspapers have an obligation to protect confidential sources under Clause 15 (Confidential sources) and the Commission could not ignore this.

Moreover, the newspaper had provided what was, in the Commission’s view, sufficient detail of how it had received initial information from two separate sources – a freelance journalist and a former employer of the company – as well as further testimony from an individual whose clients had spoken of the company. Although much of the information was ‘second-hand’ the newspaper had given a clear indication of the nature of the allegations and had referred to specific, though unnamed, persons that their sources had cited. In particular the Commission noted that the newspaper had referred to alleged actual instances of apparent impropriety or illegality. The Commission did not consider that the newspaper’s inability to provide further, potentially compromising, details affected the decision in this case in relation to Clause 11 (Misrepresentation).

Having concluded that the newspaper had sufficient grounds to employ subterfuge in the public interest, the second task for the Commission was to decide whether other means of news-gathering were available to it. Ultimately, it accepted the newspaper’s argument that, given the nature of the allegations, it was appropriate to use subterfuge at the outset, before approaching the company directly. While appreciating that the complainant had said the company was ready to answer promptly any questions which were asked of it, the Commission did not consider it an unreasonable assertion that any company involved in wrongdoing might seek to suppress evidence of that wrongdoing were it to be questioned on its actions in a more traditional fashion.

At this juncture the Commission wished to stress that this adjudication does not deal with the truth or otherwise of allegations in a published article. The Commission’s task in this matter is to decide whether the newspaper has grounds for employing subterfuge within the terms of the Code. In doing so it acknowledged that the company had made the point that the allegations were wholly untrue and could have been checked by other means.

Ultimately the Commission concluded that the newspaper had legitimately sought to test serious allegations that had been made about the company – first by undercover investigation and subsequently by direct means. Previously the Commission has censured newspapers that have published intrusive or insignificant material that has been obtained as a result of subterfuge. In this case it noted that, having investigated this matter in the public interest, the newspaper had decided – at the current time – not to publish anything. Notwithstanding this, the Commission wished to state that this adjudication should not be taken as restricting the right of the newspaper to publish information in the future if it is in the public interest.

In relation to Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code, the Commission emphasised that Clause 3 (i) has generally been taken to refer to published material. In this case, of course, nothing had appeared in the newspaper and the Commission did not consider that an approach to the company’s employees by the newspaper’s reporter – even undercover – constituted an invasion of their privacy in breach of the Code.

Relevant precedents

Munro & Bancroft v Evening Standard, Report 54
Railtrack Plc v The Independent, Report 57
Report:
64

See CLICK HERE 
.
Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 12 May 2011

05-N0v-2010 - Mike NATTRASS MEP on UKIP LEADERSHIP

05-N0v-2010 - Mike NATTRASS MEP on UKIP LEADERSHIP

Dear All,

It may be too late but after all these years I can no longer stay silent.

In the previous Leadership Election I, together with all candidates EXCEPT LORD PEARSON were rubbished by Nigel Farage on TV and elsewhere. This ensured the election of Nigel's puppet Lord Pearson and allowed Nigel to continue to be the face of the party. That is Nigel's view of the election rules and I think it is only fair and high time that his methods were exposed, USING HIS OWN RULES.

Nigel already Leads the parliamentary Group and when he is also elected Leader this will amount to total control. Increasingly I am hearing the word "Spiv" used to describe him, from people who are not members but see his image. I am concerned that the UKIP party brand will be tarnished, even holed below the water line, by his monopoly of power.

Whilst Nigel is a very good speaker, he is also a control freak. He grabs all UKIP publicity to the detriment of any other UKIP spokesperson or MEP. He employs assistants with the MEP's budgets without allowing those MEPs any say. This, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs demanded a chance to interview those who were being employed with their money. Nigel agreed, then totally ignored that promise. Consequently he has his own "group funded" team around him and all "hiring" takes place via his close friend Godfrey Bloom MEP (this person is said to be banned by 4 hotels for urinating in the corridors)

Nigel's lack of experience in good staff management and his refusal to allow MEP consultation is complimented by the morals of an Alley Cat (and I will not go there). I have always said that this does not matter, because so long as we are all in the trench together with guns pointing at the enemy all are welcome. But he shot Nikki Sinclaire in the back when she became an MEP, for no Party reason, while she was giving all the effort she could give. She was expelled as a UKIP MEP for pointing out the Group facts. He does not like truth or competition.

I have put a lot of money, time and energy into promoting UKIP in the West Midlands and I watched it wrecked at the General Election by Nigel's chosen people (Lords Pearson and Monckton) who appeared from nowhere and failed to understand our basic strategy or even comprehend from where our votes are derived. Worse, Nikki, who has vast energy at election time, was stopped from being a UKIP MEP by Nigel and has not been given a chance to defend herself or to state her case (legal matters are pending). She and I were told by Lord Pearson not to get involved in the election and not to fund the campaign. In fact you will see that we both made considerable financial contributions but our campaign was deeply damaged. Also the subsequent enquiry into the campaign, requested by the WM candidates, was "dealt with" by Monckton (who thought I was behind it) and because of this we have had resignations from very keen activists.

All this West Midlands destruction because Nigel hates Nikki and wants to rubbish me!! Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party...next to nothing.

I found allegations of fraud were brought against me when I stood for Leadership. These were in the Sunday Times. They melted away afterwards and had no foundation in truth, but they did the job intended.(My legal case against the Times is pending) Nigel has had a number of very real cases against him.. funny how that word does not get out.

My first major annoyance with Nigel's manipulations stem from the time when I was first elected in 2004 and all UKIP MEPs had a meeting to agree three very basic points. One was that we could not employ wives (other Parties did) and this was agreed. In fact my wife comes to each Parliament and does not get paid (not even travel expenses) and I said that she wanted to contribute any proper payment to the Party, but no, rules were rules and she could be paid nothing. It was then later exposed that Nigel's wife was being secretly paid out of his budget, breaking this rule. He did not seek any permission (to change his own rule) from the MEPs. He was simply "caught out" with both hands in the till. I fear that the whole Parliamentary Group in the EU is run for Nigel's financial and public image. I left that ugly group.

Nigel has derailed every leader since the very first, except peacemaker Jeffery Titford (under whom I was Party Chairman). He is therefore hated by them all (except JT). plus never to be leader Kilroy Silk who must feel that Nigel gave him a wrong prospectus.

I expect that Nigel will be elected leader as no one else is effectively allowed to stand without a spin campaign against them. I can see less MEPs in the UKIP squad when he does win.

There is a false attack on Tim Congdon from Boggers 4 UKIP, this must mean he is a real threat! Good.

Mike


Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 

Saturday, 9 April 2011

#Doc061* - UKIP - MANIFESTO - LOCAL - 2011

#Doc061* - UKIP - MANIFESTO - LOCAL - 2011

We, The People
l Committed to cutting Council
tax and business rates
l Money for local services,
not the European Union
l Zero tolerance on crime
and anti-social behaviour
l Get more Police on the
streets
l Cut Council Executives and
managers, not front-line
services
l Control immigration, which
threatens our public
services
l Give real decision making
to local communities

2 UKIP LOCAL MANIFESTO 2011
UKIP believes in power for local people over
local councils, and for local councils over
central government. Elected councillors should
put their communities – not party politics –
first. That is why UKIP will give local people
the right to call referenda on any local issue
they want. When the people have spoken,
councils will be bound by the referendum
results.

Local government is under attack. Central
government is insisting councils slash their
services to the people they represent. Greedy
council executives are paying themselves vast
salaries while slashing front-line services like
libraries, social care, youth services,
transport and road repairs. The politically
correct brigade have run riot creating
non-jobs for “cheerleading development
officers” and “Twitter czars”, while cutting
care for the elderly. EU directives, such as how
to throw away rubbish, leave bins unemptied
for weeks. You pay. You suffer.
For more than 10 years, UKIP has argued
that power and money should be taken from
politicians and bureaucrats in Westminster and
Brussels and given to you and your councils.
Leaving the EU while keeping free trade with
it would be a good start. We’d save £48 million
a day and put power and wealth back where
it belongs – in your hands, not Theirs. We are
the only party honest enough to say how we’re
going to pay for our spending commitments.
In the last General Election, almost a million
people voted for UKIP. In the last European
Election we came second, beating the then
Labour Government and the Liberal
Democrats. With your help, we can do it
again. UKIP makes one pledge. The people
come first.
Power to local people

3 UKIP LOCAL MANIFESTO 2011

Message from Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of UKIP
Nigel Farage MEP

4 UKIP LOCAL MANIFESTO 2011

Democracy first. We, the
people, shall rule
We will –
l Empower local people by giving you the right
... to call binding referenda on local issues
l Let you, the people, decide major planning
... schemes like supermarkets by referendum
l Grant no right of appeal from the people’s
... decisions on planning schemes
l Introduce election for county health,
... education and police boards
l Expect your councillors to put the people’s
... needs first, ahead of party dogmas
l Make councils, schools, police, hospitals,
... planning and social care put local people first
l Keep central government out of local government
l Abolish regional government
l Restore our ancient county, borough and
... parish councils
l Let councils control their own finances by
... keeping half of local business rates
l Replace VAT with a Local Sales Tax, with a
... proportion going direct to councils
Council services: No
front-line cuts
To maintain and improve front-line council
services, we will –
l Halt all cuts to front-line council services
l Keep police on the beat to protect the people
... from anti-social behaviour
l Improve health care for the elderly
l Develop youth services
l Maintain the roads properly
l Give rates relief to local businesses
l Increase provision of free parking
l Invest in high-quality state education
l Preserve our public libraries
l Improve public transport
l Energise the voluntary sector
l Devolve budgets, not burdens
l End aspirational waffle about local
... communities. The Big Society is a big mistake
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Cut councillors’ allowances and expenses
l Audit councils’ performance externally
l Slash fat-cat pay deals for senior council staff
l Limit the number of high-paid council
... employees
l Restrict councils’ advertising and
... self-promotion budgets
l Sell surplus council land
l Abolish non-essential and “politically-correct”
... services
l Leave the EU
l Drop the EU Landfill Directive, which costs
... each council £3 million a year
l Control immigration and the costs of
... immigration
Protecting local people
from crime
To keep the people and the streets safe, we will –
l Oppose votes for prisoners
l Halt the scrapping of police jobs
l Refuse to tolerate any antisocial behaviour or
... petty crime
l Build more prisons
l Make sentences mean what they say
l Elect county police boards to let local people set
... police priorities
l Cut police form-filling and free officers for real
... police work
l Crack down on nuisance neighbours

UKIP LOCAL MANIFESTO 2011 5

To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Scrap council non-jobs
l Close unnecessary central government
... departments and quangos
Immigration: Britain for
the British first
To cut immigration and the heavy cost of immigration,
we will –
l End Labour’s immigration free-for-all, which let
... in three million in 13 years
l Withhold all State benefits from immigrants for
... five years
l Introduce proper border controls
l Increase UK Border Agency staff as needed
l Freeze permanent immigration for five years
... until we sort out the system
l Deport all illegal immigrants
l Target working visas only on those with the
... skills we need
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l End benefits in cash or in kind for all
... non-Britons
Planning for our green
and pleasant land
To put the people in charge of the decisions that affect
our countryside, we will –
l Put people’s wishes above central government
... and big business with planning referenda
l Ban new windfarms and subject existing ones to
... democratic local planning procedures
l Protect with new Conservators
l Annul the Localism Bill’s right to build on
... green belt
l Direct new housing and business developments
... to brown-field, not green-field, sites
l Build new nuclear and clean-coal power plants
... to secure our energy supply
l Use existing houses more efficiently by
... encouraging rentals
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Close the Climate Change Department, saving
... up to £18 billion a year
l End wasteful EU and UK subsidies to ugly,
... cost-ineffective “renewable energy” scams
l Stop all payments to the IPCC and other UN
... climate-related agencies
Health: Sorting out the
National Health Service
To keep the health service safe and protect our
elderly and disabled people, we will –
l Let the people elect county health boards to
... oversee vital services
l Halt all cuts in front-line NHS doctors,
... surgeons, dentists and nurses
l Axe failing, surplus NHS management
l Reintroduce proper matrons to run clean
... hospitals
l Make specialist care available as needed, to save
... lives now lost through delay
l Cut waiting lists to European levels – Poland
... treats cancer patients faster than we do
To pay for these commitments, we will–
l End free access to health care for non-Britons
l Require all visitors to exhibit adequate health
... insurance at the port of entry
l Introduce lifelong private insurance against
... the costs of long-term care

6 UKIP LOCAL MANIFESTO 2011

Education: Put pupils
and parents first
To bring Britain’s education up to international
standards, we will –
l Let the people elect county education boards
... to make our schools better
l Scrap useless paperwork and trust teachers to
... do their jobs
l Build more Grammar Schools
l Insist that schools teach the 3 Rs
l Close colleges using bogus courses as a back
... door into Britain for foreign students
l Reinstate the student grant and educational
... maintenance allowance
l Encourage vocational apprenticeships
l Give parents the right to choose where their
... children go to school
l Protect rural schools
l Encourage home schooling
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Let head teachers decide whether a qualified
... teacher is fit to teach
l Encourage major universities to pay their way
... by offering online degrees
Housing: Local British
people first
To address the housing shortage caused by three
million immigrants in 13 years, we will –
l Restore proper controls on immigration to
... ease the demand for housing
l Incentivise re-use of 970,000 empty houses,
... equal to eight years’ English house-building
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Audit all council-owned and State-owned property
l Sell most surplus or disused State-owned property
Transport: Keeping our
communities on the move
To keep Britain moving, we will –
l Let the people decide on local transport
... infrastructure by calling binding referenda
l Reopen local railway lines where needed
l Preserve wayleaves of disused railway lines in
... case they are needed again
l Halt widespread over-zealousness in parking
... enforcement
l Remove all speed cameras, except those
... proven to reduce accidents or demanded by
... the community
l Provide free parking at all hospitals
l Protect free parking for Blue Badge holders
l Protect rural bus services
To pay for these commitments, we will –
l Tax foreign lorries using British roads
l Put all road maintenance out to compulsory,
... independently-assessed tender
l Sell Network Rail to the private sector
BUT, whatever we, the
people, want or decide...

UKIP would like to point out that unelected EU
bureaucrats set overall policy in –
l Foreign affairs l Economic affairs
l Public health l Transport
l Justice l Energy
l Employment l Environment
l Police l Farming
l Social affairs l Fisheries
l Immigration l Law enforcement
And They won’t stop there. That is why we want
our national and our local democracy back. If you
want it too, vote UKIP with pride.

Published and promoted by
the United Kingdom Independence Party, Lexdrum House, Heathfield TQ12 6UT.
Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 

Thursday, 10 March 2011

#Doc060* - UKIP LEADER HIRES POLES & FAMILY PEOPLE TRAFFICKING BUSINESS

#Doc060* - UKIP LEADER HIRES POLES & FAMILY PEOPLE TRAFFICKING BUSINESS

Anti-migrant party leader hires Poles
Daniel Foggo and Rachel Mostyn
Published: 7 May 2006
Ex UKIP leader Roger KnapmanImage via Wikipedia

Roger Knapman, an MEP and UKIP’s leader since 2002, hired Polish workers through his son, who runs a company that specialises in bringing foreign labour to Britain.

Over the past 11 months they have been working 10 hours a day, six days a week, while living dormitory-style in Knapman’s attic. His son’s company claims east Europeans are up to 50% cheaper than their British counterparts.

Knapman, whose party was the only British group in the European parliament to vote against allowing east European states, including Poland, into the EU, boasted to an undercover reporter he could help supply Polish labourers to do similar work for British customers.

He said using cheap foreigners is much better since “they work so much harder”.

The disclosure will surprise supporters of UKIP, which has warned that enlarging the EU to incorporate east European states would lead to a “flood of migrants” that would be “bad for Britain”.

Its 2005 manifesto said the rate of immigration had to be stemmed because “the numbers of those permitted to enter legally has been rising sharply as a result of both the eastern expansion of the EU and deliberate government policy. The Labour government’s untenable excuse is that we need large numbers of immigrant workers”.

In public, Knapman, a former Tory MP, claims to take pride in supporting British business and boasts of owning two Rover cars. However, last week he told an undercover reporter that for the past 11 months he had been using a team of Polish workers to restore his grade II listed home in the west Devon village of Coryton. For much of that time he has had three or four workers, who have been provided with an old television, sleeping in his attic.

“They have a very good work ethic and work so much harder than anyone over here,” he said. “You know they are not going to go off to another job as they are there specifically for you.

“Many workers here just aren’t skilled enough to do the work involved in renovating an old property. These men work 10 hours a day, six days a week and then we give them Sunday off. It’s a 60-hour week, but they want to do it.”

Knapman said he could help arrange teams of east Europeans to carry out building work through the firm run by his son William. “He will bring over some Polish workers according to what you need and they won’t let you down,” he said.

William Knapman runs Billdar, a Polish-registered company that sources east Europeans for jobs in Britain. The workers, whom he described as “like an army of ants”, are paid about £50 a day — about half of the cost of a British builder.

William Knapman told an undercover reporter he used mostly Polish workers but also some Slovaks, Latvians and Swedes and quoted £4,000 for two men working for six weeks, from which the company takes an unspecified fee.

“I think it’s anywhere between 20% and 50% cheaper [than using British workers] doing it this way,” he said. “The important thing is we’re not talking Monday to Friday, nine to five, with a tea break. They work 8am-6pm six days a week.”

Roger Knapman said he would be employing the men, who have refurbished much of his property, for a further three months. When challenged yesterday, Knapman said there was “no contradiction” between what he was doing and the objectives of his party.

On UKIP’s opposition to letting Poland join the EU, he said: “That is talking about political union, that is not talking about people working.”

When it was pointed out to him that they could freely work here because of the political union, he said: “I don’t see that is relevant at all. We have three people who come here, they are very nice people and when they finish they go home.”
To view the original article CLICK HERE

Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 
Enhanced by Zemanta