CaterpillarsAndButterflies Docs.

Greg_L-W.

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

Friday, 22 July 2011

UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

ORIGINAL CASE NOV-2010
FULL JUDGEMENT
UKIP APPEAL AGAINST GUILTY VERDICT
JUDGEMENT & VERDICT
UKIP GUILTY

Please Be Sure To
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.

~We may have A VERDICT TODAY?
I believe yet again UKIP are ONTO A LOSER IN COURT!

They are happy to duck dive lie and defame to use members' money to dishonestly renege on their moral duty to pay their bills with integrity!

I wonder if they would be so free with legal costs if it came out of their pockets but as was recently published by a UKIP MEP £140,000 of legal costs is not considered significant - well it wouldn't be it is from other peoples pockets!

VERDICT ADDED

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

I gather we may well see a verdict to my posting made a week or so ago which I have posted as a repeat below to remind you.

The case came to Court yesterday so we may well have a verdict later today:

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

.

Win, Draw or Lose The Members Will Again Be The Losers!

Just as UKIP's failure to honour the British Courts and their verdict to pay me the £12.1/2K has done nothing but show them for the dishonest, corrupt incompetents that they are!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

so yet again UKIP will be in Court squandering members' money or has some gullible fool put up the £30 - £40 - £50,000 it will take to yet again learn their lesson!

Time and again UKIP finds itself in Court and rarely it seems do they win - each time costing members money and almost without fail garnering bad publicity.

Many will have heard how UKIP set out to harass me and not only did they lose their case but they have failed to honour their debt resultant which runs to something over £12.1/2K - UKIP lack even the integrity to settle that moral debt and have utterly ignored the British Courts whom they clearly hold in contempt having on various occasions sheltered behind The EUropean Courts and employment in EUrope to seek to duck their responsibilities or hide their fundamental corruption.

This time rather than honour the Court Judgement and pay compensation of £750 reinstating a member who they had accepted in full knowledge of his background and fully approved by Nigel Farage - now we see them gambling with other peoples' money when they KNOW that their costs will far exceed the £750 the Court ordered them to pay.

UKIP whether it wins, draws or loses will be 10s of £1,000s of pounds out of pocket.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

It may be worth their while reading Marta Andreasen's call for removal of Farage as leader once again and in detail!

"Party members and supporters are justifiably angry. After promises of success and claims that the party would triple the number of its seats, after large amounts of party members and donors money was spent on what was a poorly led campaign, the result was frankly dismal. I do not for one minute lay any blame for the results at the candidates or party workers door. Their work-rate and commitment to UKIP is beyond reproach. This campaign was masterminded at the top and that is where the axe must fall.

"As someone who passionately shares UKIP ideals and who works day in day out to further the party message in the European Parliament and in my constituency of the South East, the result was a bitter disappointment.

"It is time for change. Mr Farage has abjectly failed to deliver and is not leading the party on the course to victory. Even he must recognise this fact.

"I am calling on him to step down as Leader of UKIP and make room for a new Leader who resonates more with the public and who will move us forward to where I know we should be.

"UKIP can become an even more significant and powerful voice of dissent towards the UK government's ongoing capitulation to the European Union. It should also build on articulating the concerns of the Great British public on a number of home policy fronts. With the Liberal Democrats in free-fall, Labour in a mess and the Conservatives popularity on the wane, there are opportunities to be grasped.

"I do not believe that these opportunities will ever come to fruition with Mr Farage as Leader." Ends

ADDITION:

It is noted that:

Marta Andreasen having circulated her statement yesterday afternoon finally let members of UKIP know on her blog at mid day 10-May-2011

CLICK HERE

For Further Data on Marta ANDREASEN CLICK HERE

ANDREASEN DATA END.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

How can such folly backing a sure financial loser be of ANY merit to Farage or UKIP or least of all its members and credibility.

Is this how UKIP sees itself acting were it ever to gain power in any context of consequence not merely Mare for a village in Cambridgeshire!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Extract & Comment From The Judgement:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

So Farage hates the BNP?

We think not. After all, he is more than happy to sit with fascists in The EFD PEPP Group!

Would you, indeed could you trust Farage's UKIP to run the country or any small part of it, based on its track record of dishonesty, bullying and corruption - let alone its associates! They can't even respect the laws of the land?

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

. Indeed, they have nothing but contempt for the laws of the land it would seem and here is yet another judgement against them in The Courts!

The Judgement in full:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MIDDLESBROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY

CASE NOS. 9MB03865
AND 0MB00631

BETWEEN

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

GORDON H. PARKIN (DEFENDANT)

……….

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

JUDGMENT

1. This is a consolidated action for damages and for a declaration that the Claimant’s purported expulsion from membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party is null and void.

2. As I shall explain, the narrative of the matter of complaint covers two episodes; hence two actions until they were consolidated by Order. The first episode concerns the actions of Mr Gordon Parkin who at all material times was, as he remains, Branch Chairman of the Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP as I shall call the Party; the second episode concerns the actions by officers of the Party in their central organisation. Because the Claimant has at no time been represented by solicitor or counsel and because the point emerged only in the course of the Defendants’ counsel’s closing submissions I allow the Claimant to add as a defendant in the consolidated action Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP. The reason for and significance of this will become apparent.

3. Essentially this is a hard fought political dispute in Stockton on Tees between Mr Hardy, supported by others some of whom have given evidence before me, and Mr Parkin the constitutionally elected Branch Chairman, no doubt with his supporters and apparently backed by the central organisation. In a nutshell Mr Hardy accuses Mr Parkin of being incompetent; dishonest and self seeking in his political ambitions so that the interests of UKIP are thereby ill served. Mr Parkin denies all this but accuses Mr Hardy of being so disruptive a member that it was impossible for the business of the branch to be done, as well as dishonesty in his attempts to unseat Mr Parkin from his position. Thankfully none of these matters is the concern of this Court which is able to determine the legal issues between the parties on a factual basis virtually of common ground, by which I mean an undisputed history of events and correspondence. I would add however, before turning to such uncontroversial territory, that having seen and heard Mr Hardy as his own advocate in these proceedings as well as a witness, and Mr Parkin as a witness, and given that the dispute between the two men is political, a subject invariably both powerful and sensitive in its nature, it is not difficult to see how temperamentally they could never work together in harmony. Mr Hardy is forceful of manner and frequently irrelevant in speech: Mr Parkin is quietly dogged and determined.

4. The following is, however, not in dispute and page numbering is with reference to the agreed trial bundle. For some time until he resigned in June 2005 Mr Hardy had been a member of the British National Party (BNP). In February 2007 his application to join UKIP was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton branch and was quickly active as such becoming its Press Officer as well as putting himself forward as a potential parliamentary candidate. Although unsuccessful in this latter ambition(Section 2 page 29) he received the commendation of UKIP’s head office in the former (Section 2, page 35). The significance of this factually is the actual knowledge which head office officials had of Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP, as also had Mr Nigel Farage MEP as may be seen from his correspondence with Mr Hardy(Section 2, page 26).

5. The date for membership renewal on payment of the appropriate subscription was 1st February each year. Mr Hardy’s membership was renewed in 2008 and 2009. Yet by this latter date all was not well within the Stockton branch. Indeed trouble had been brewing for some time. As early as 8th November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as Press Officer and by letter of that date (Section 1, page 26.43) wrote to Mr Parkin that he would not serve “the branch in any post so long as you remain as chairman”. At some time during the winter of 2008/2009 a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house or sufficiently on the Roseworth housing estate so that Mr Hardy and his supporter Mr Himmelblau conducted a partial enquiry door to door which in turn Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross accusations of lying.

6. On 8th January 2009 as Mr Himmelblau told me, and I accept, he and Mr Hardy met Mr Parkin by arrangement at the Central Library, Stockton and on grounds of incompetence and the fact that the membership was not increasing in size from a handful or so they asked Mr Parkin to stand down as branch chairman. He refused.

7. Branch meetings were approximately monthly. That for January 2009 was minuted (Section 1 page. 26.3) and held on 20th. That for February 2009 was held on 17th and as it was not minuted there is no record of the minutes for January being approved. There is only the notation (Section 1, page 26.7), “Minutes verified by GP before issue”. GP plainly refers to Mr Parkin and his perspective of that meeting and Mr Hardy’s part in it is clear. Worse was to follow because on 17th February the caretaker of the hall hired for the meeting of that date broke the meeting up and asked everyone present to leave the building on account of raised voices. Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin had each called the other a liar. The row was of such proportion that the building’s owners did not permit the Branch to return for a period of months.

8. On 10th March Mr Parkin wrote to all branch members (Section 1, page 26.20) that “Due to high campaign activity and the loss of our meeting venue we have decided that there will be no branch meeting this month……….. . Matters that were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as is practical”. Mr Parkin told me that “ we “ meant “I”.

9. From 29th March to 26th June Mr Hardy was in Saudi Arabia, teaching. Meanwhile, Mr Parkin having consulted a Mr Allison, UKIP’s regional organiser who had in turn passed the problem to Head Office, the Party Chairman Mr Paul Nuttall wrote to Mr Hardy on 30th March (Section 1, page 26.33) inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14th April. Naturally Mr Hardy did not and could not either receive that letter in time or attend the meeting. Yet from his reply (Section 1, page 80A) it seems very doubtful that he would have gone if he could. Of significance however, in my view is the reply Mr Hardy received from Head Office (Section 2 page 33), “I have decided that this office had better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you”.

10. Upon his return from Saudi Arabia and on 4th July Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr. Goyns (Section 1, page 26.56) asking him to telephone him. On 8th July Dr Goyns replied (Section 1, page 26.57) that on Mr Parkin’s advice, “it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you”. On 24th August Mr Hardy was writing to Mr Parkin (Section 1, page 26.18). On 11th September Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy (Section 1, page 79), “I feel it is time I must set this matter to rest…..I have decided on the following actions …. you will no longer be permitted to attend any branch meeting of which I am Chairman”. His reasons were that Mr Hardy had brought the January and February “meetings into disrepute”, that at the February meeting his “actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return “, that he and his “colleagues decided to withdraw your support from UKIP in January of this year at both local and national levels” and that in his, Mr Parkin’s, opinion that was disloyal. He concluded, “I strongly recommend that you withdraw from the membership of the party forthwith…… . I have advised the branch secretary not to enter into any further communications with you…… . Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through head office”. When he wrote this letter Mr Parkin told me he was aware that Mr Hardy had by then returned from Saudi Arabia. From the e-mails between Mr Hardy and Dr. Goyns it seems to me that Mr Parkin must have known that from early July.

11. There the matter lay until membership renewal time came round. Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office as was usual. He wrote on 30th January 2010 and 11th February (Section 2, pages 7 and 8) sending his subscription. On 19th February Lisa Duffy, Party Director, replied (Section 2 page 16) that when Mr Hardy left the BNP “to rejoin UKIP the National Executive Committee was not informed – as it should have been – and it was therefore unable to consider your re-application. This was an administrative error …… . In the circumstances I feel that before your membership is renewed the NEC must be given a proper opportunity to fully consider the matter. I am therefore referring this to the next meeting of the NEC and in the meantime am returning your £10 membership renewal cheque”. On 23rd March Mrs Duffy wrote again (Section 2 page 17) that the NEC had considered the matter and “would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”.

12. This is at serious variance with the content of a memorandum dated 8th September (Section 2, page 54) from Mr Arnott, UKIP General Secretary, addressed “to whom it may concern”. Its first paragraph plainly refers to Mrs Duffy’s letter of 23rd March. It has not been suggested it refers to any other. Her letter makes no mention of internal disciplinary proceedings being commenced immediately upon Mr Hardy accepting her invitation to re-apply and I have received no evidence that he was so informed. The second paragraph about there being 3 months grace for renewal and that thereafter “Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application” appears again without there having been evidence of any general notice of such a rule or specific notice of it to Mr Hardy. It is to be noted this document is dated only weeks before this hearing. The third paragraph needs citing in full: “It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds”. Mrs Duffy, whose evidence I find to be honest and accurate, tells me that the position is as follows. In November 2009 when she was a member of the NEC, which was until she assumed her present full time post as Party Director, that body made a policy decision that henceforth applications to join UKIP from people who had been members of the BNP should be referred “to the NEC for approval”. This was because there had been “infiltration” from a date in 2008. I infer she meant deliberate infiltration as fifth columnists in order to disrupt the work or besmirch the reputation of UKIP. This would be consistent with her letters to Mr Hardy in March the contents of which she tells me, and I accept, are true.

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage. There has, moreover been not the slightest suggestion made during this hearing that Mr Hardy has turned his political coat once again. I have no choice therefore but to hold Mr Arnott’s memorandum as a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds.

13. Moreover Mrs Duffy tells me, and I accept, that her second letter to Mr Hardy was badly worded and the meaning ordinarily to be attributed to her words does not reflect the true position which was not that Mr Hardy would need to re-apply for membership but that if he would send her back the cheque she wrongly returned to him his membership would continue seamlessly. I take it she now realises her words conveyed a different and adverse impression. Clearly they did in the mind of Mr Hardy and understandably so in the context of what had already passed. It was hardly to be relieved by Mr Arnott’s general communication.

14. Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of branch and party. Was either entitled in law so to do?

15. Although no reference was made to either document during the evidence, during his final submissions Mr Holland, counsel for both Mr Parkin and UKIP, and upon taking instructions, also for the Stockton Branch sought to rely upon UKIP’s written constitution and the Branch’s rules to be found at Section1 pages 66 and 71 respectively in the agreed bundle. No point was taken regarding this by Mr Hardy nor do I think could there be. The following points of fact emerge:

(1) That the party is authorised to raise funds, purchase property and invest monies (clause 3) – it is therefore in law a proprietary club;

(2) that membership is open to people who are not members of any other political party which the NEC has declared incompatible with membership of UKIP (clause 4.1), that if such a member of UKIP subsequently joins such a party his membership is automatically revoked (clause 4.2), that if a UKIP member is a member of such a party such a person will be given 28 days to leave that other party (clause 4.3), that members must maintain their subscriptions (clause 4.4.), that members shall accept the party’s Constitution and rules and do nothing to undermine the party’s reputation or bring it into disrepute, or act in a way intending to cause or causing damage to the party’s interests (clause 4.5);

(3) that by clause 4.6 upon which Mr Holland places particular reliance, where constituency associations are established membership shall be of that association and by affiliation of the association then of the party – there is no issue but that the Stockton Branch equates to a constituency association for this purpose;

(4) that by clause 5.3 the constituency association has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency rule book approved by the NEC – Mr Holland here submits that the Branch was and is for present purposes “autonomous” so that the party is absolved from the potential liability in this matter of either the branch or its chairman – a submission I have difficulty in accepting; it is not in issue but that the branch was affiliated to the party. Branch membership must then be membership “of the party” as well as of the branch.

(5) that by clause 14 the party shall establish a discipline committee;

(6) that by clause 15 the NEC shall establish the rules governing constituency associations, disciplinary procedures and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management; conduct and administration of the party.

(7) that the branch rules should be read in conjunction with the party constitution which shall take precedence;

(8) that all party members are members of the branch in which they live (rule 2.1) – Mr Hardy lives and has at all material times lived in Stockton;

(9) that Rule 3 is entitled Branch Committees

(10) that “branches are responsible for their own actions “rule 3.1) - a provision further relied upon in support of the autonomy argument;

(11) that the chairman “has principal responsibility of the direction of the branch” (rule 3.8.1)

(12) that rule 7 is entitled “Disputes”;

(13) that by rule 7.1 “instances may arise when differences within a branch threatens its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by branch committee or at a full meeting of the Branch. If this does not succeed the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser acting on behalf of the party chairman “- it is impossible to think of what transpired within the Stockton branch as other than a dispute but I have heard no evidence from any member of the branch committee, directly or indirectly or of its involvement in this matter – likewise there has been no evidence of a full meeting or for that matter any meeting of the branch attempting to resolve this dispute;

(14) that by rule 7.2 if the dispute remains irreconcilable the party chairman may suspend or dissolve the committee or dissolve the Branch in its entirety.

16. Mr Holland submits that the law of contract is to be applied. With that I agree - next that as the constitution does not provide for expulsion the Branch rules are to be applied and where they are silent as to procedure the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case. Again I agree that the constitution does not provide for expulsion in the particular circumstances of this case although I find clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are not without relevance when I come to consider Mr Arnott’s general memorandum of 10th September this year. In fact such reliance upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP is in the whole context of this case patently a fig leaf the removal of which discloses an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price. Clearly Mr Arnott had no regard for this clause had it been a real reason to expel. Save for this consideration which is not without its own significance overall I accept Mr Holland’s argument so far.

17. So he contends Mr Parkin’s banning letter of 11th September 2009 was an action he was authorised by rule 3.1 to take particularly when regard is had to his “principal responsibility for the direction of the branch” under rule 3.8.1. Thus the argument runs Mr Parkin had legitimate power so to regulate branch meetings and in doing so what he did was within a reasonable and proportionate range of actions open to him. It is not for this Court, he submits, to prefer an alternative, particularly with the advantage of hindsight which is within such a range. With this last proposition I entirely concur.

18. Yet applying these principles of law as well as the ordinary meaning to be attached to rules 3.1, 3.8.1 and rule 7 (disputes) it seems to me that Mr Parkin did not have the power to act as he did and wholly failed to invoke rule 7. I do not underestimate the real difficulty of chairing a meeting attended by such a strong opponent as Mr Hardy and he could not in my judgment have been criticised for suspending one or any number of meetings summarily, nor for invoking the rule 7 disputes procedure with regard to all or any of Mr Hardy’s complaints. But instead he appears to me to have acted autocratically, taking sole not principal responsibility even if, which I doubt, the proper meaning of the phrase “direction of the branch” includes doing what he did by his letter of 11th September 2009. That speaks for itself and Mr Parkin has not suggested any alternative construction. It was his decision and his alone to banish Mr Hardy from branch meetings. That act effectively at least suspended Mr Hardy’s membership and although a less stringent test is applicable in law compared with expulsion the principles are the same and in my judgment even suspension in such terms, being for at least as long as Mr Parkin remained branch chairman, was for the same reasons as I have already provided in the context of expulsion, without authority, unreasonable and disproportionate. There is no evidence whatever of his having convened a meeting of either the branch committee or of the whole branch to consider the question of Mr Hardy’s suspension or expulsion. Plainly in March he involved Head Office but by July they seem to have left him high and dry. By September he was on his own. The letter of 11th was his and his alone, without further consultation and without giving Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward any case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or expelled. He appears to have been both prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously pronounced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10th September. The only inference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back.

20. Part of the “factual matrix”, as Mr Holland puts it, in my consideration of this matter is he concedes that unlike other kinds of proprietary clubs such as an allotment association or a tennis club the UKIP party is the only political party available to Mr Hardy, given his particular political views and allegiance, that the Stockton branch is the only branch to which by reason of his place of abode he could belong, and further unlike other activities of a sporting or other recreational type, political activity so long as it is conducted within a democratic framework carries its own special importance. Such considerations are in my view germane not only to the question of compensation but also to that of being treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the branch rules. In each respect I find Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton Branch on whose behalf to the last Mr Parkin has, through Mr Holland, maintained he exercised lawful authority, to have failed so to do. Each party is therefore in breach of his and its contractual duty to Mr Hardy.

21. I therefore hold that their purported expulsion of Mr Hardy to have been null and void and upon his payment of his £10 membership subscription for the current year his membership of the party and the branch continues uninterrupted both to the present day, and until either by lawful means he is expelled or otherwise resigns or retires.

22. Before turning to the matter of compensation and for the sake of completeness I hold that Mr Hardy has not been excluded from any public meeting as he once maintained, neither has he a valid cause of action under the Human Right’s Act as he also contended.

23. With regard to damages Mr Holland submits they should be nominal but I disagree. In effect Mr Hardy has for almost exactly 12 months been deprived of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activity to which he has plainly been deeply committed. He would not however have held any office during that time nor I think been elected to either local or central government notwithstanding his clear ambitions. Neither do I find he is entitled to punitive damages in this case because I judge the unlawfulness of the defendants to stem from ill judgment and inattention to their own rules rather than bad faith. I therefore assess damages in the sum of £750.

His Honour Judge P Fox QC
The Recorder of Middlesbrough

END of JUDGEMENT - Subsequently Appealed by UKIP!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Appeal
VERDICT ADDED:

As Expected The Appeal Courts found against UKIP & Upheld the original Guilty Verdict.

Subject: UKIP APPEAL
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:54:34 +0100

Hello everyone,

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

Nigel Farage turned up, accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers), was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

ALL GOOD WISHES

ALAN HARDY

So let us consider:

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

How could a qualified barrister suggest his client takes such a case when from the facts in the public domain UKIP was clearly guilty AND surely the fact that they had already been found guilty was more than something of an indication and the fact they had to lodge acceptance of the full costs of both parties even if they had by some miracle won would have made a very hollow reversal which The Courts most clearly indicated was unlikely.

Nigel Farage turned up,

One has to wonder why Nigel Farage would turn up to such a minor case where any kind of victory would save UKIP £750 yet cost them very many £1,000s.

One could be forgiven for wondering if his escort and a weekend away was the motivation!

Could it possibly be that he had employed a salaried member of staff in the role or is she posiibly to be paid for her 'services' via her so called PR Agency and self publicist skills!

accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant.

He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me.

Hardly surprising as he must have had the intelligence to realise UKIP were unlikely to win and even if they did it would cost the membership fees of at least 1,000 members and most probably nearer 2,000 members - hardly a sound investment by a competent leader!

Little wonder that he slunk off to await the verdict beyond public view - I would speculate he was more than adequately filled in later in the day by his assistant.

She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

This could easily be a description of Mick McGough who is omni present licking any boots that may enhance his inadequacy he is ever willing to lie, cheat and dissemble in his own interest or it seems that of his owners.

However it seems more likely to have been Michael Greaves who pretends to some legal experience in the distant past - Though the last record I can find would seem to indicate he was fired as Councel some 10 or more years ago, for abrogation of his duties and professional responsibilities.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers),

See his URL CLICK HERE

was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

It does sound unlikely however it may well have meant his own fees.

One can only consider UKIP Leadership in their stupidity as having been ill advised to act so irresponsibly but perhaps the motivation was more influence from Nigel Farage's point of view by the interests of his assistant than by any measure of common sense or responsible adult behaviour!
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

#0597* - A VERDICT TODAY? UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

Please Be Sure To
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.

~We may have A VERDICT TODAY?
I believe yet again UKIP are ONTO A LOSER IN COURT!

They are happy to duck dive lie and defame to use members' money to dishonestly renege on their moral duty to pay their bills with integrity!

I wonder if they would be so free with legal costs if it came out of their pockets but as was recently published by a UKIP MEP £140,000 of legal costs is not considered significant - well it wouldn't be it is from other peoples pockets!

VERDICT ADDED

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

I gather we may well see a verdict to my posting made a week or so ago which I have posted as a repeat below to remind you.

The case came to Court yesterday so we may well have a verdict later today:

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

.

Win, Draw or Lose The Members Will Again Be The Losers!

Just as UKIP's failure to honour the British Courts and their verdict to pay me the £12.1/2K has done nothing but show them for the dishonest, corrupt incompetents that they are!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

so yet again UKIP will be in Court squandering members' money or has some gullible fool put up the £30 - £40 - £50,000 it will take to yet again learn their lesson!

Time and again UKIP finds itself in Court and rarely it seems do they win - each time costing members money and almost without fail garnering bad publicity.

Many will have heard how UKIP set out to harass me and not only did they lose their case but they have failed to honour their debt resultant which runs to something over £12.1/2K - UKIP lack even the integrity to settle that moral debt and have utterly ignored the British Courts whom they clearly hold in contempt having on various occasions sheltered behind The EUropean Courts and employment in EUrope to seek to duck their responsibilities or hide their fundamental corruption.

This time rather than honour the Court Judgement and pay compensation of £750 reinstating a member who they had accepted in full knowledge of his background and fully approved by Nigel Farage - now we see them gambling with other peoples' money when they KNOW that their costs will far exceed the £750 the Court ordered them to pay.

UKIP whether it wins, draws or loses will be 10s of £1,000s of pounds out of pocket.

It may be worth their while reading Marta Andreasen's call for removal of Farage as leader once again and in detail!

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

How can such folly backing a sure financial loser be of ANY merit to Farage or UKIP or least of all its members and credibility.

Is this how UKIP sees itself acting were it ever to gain power in any context of consequence not merely Mare for a village in Cambridgeshire!

VERDICT ADDED

As Expected The Appeal Courts found against UKIP & Upheld the Guilty Verdict.

Subject: UKIP APPEAL
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:54:34 +0100

Hello everyone,

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

Nigel Farage turned up, accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers), was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

ALL GOOD WISHES

ALAN HARDY

So let us consider:
Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

How could a qualified barrister suggest his client takes such a case when from the facts in the public domain UKIP was clearly guilty AND surely the fact that they had already been found guilty was more than something of an indication and the fact they had to lodge acceptance of the full costs of both parties even if they had by some miracle won would have made a very hollow reversal which The Courts most clearly indicated was unlikely.

Nigel Farage turned up,

One has to wonder why Nigel Farage would turn up to such a minor case where any kind of victory would save UKIP £750 yet cost them very many £1,000s.

One could be forgiven for wondering if his escort and a weekend away was the motivation!

Could it possibly be that he had employed a salaried member of staff in the role or is she posiibly to be paid for her 'services' via her so called PR Agency and self publicist skills!

accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant.

He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me.

Hardly surprising as he must have had the intelligence to realise UKIP were unlikely to win and even if they did it would cost the membership fees of at least 1,000 members and most probably nearer 2,000 members - hardly a sound investment by a competent leader!

Little wonder that he slunk off to await the verdict beyond public view - I would speculate he was more than adequately filled in later in the day by his assistant.

She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

This could easily be a description of Mick McGough who is omni present licking any boots that may enhance his inadequacy he is ever willing to lie, cheat and dissemble in his own interest or it seems that of his owners.

However it seems more likely to have been Michael Greaves who pretends to some legal experience in the distant past - Though the last record I can find would seem to indicate he was fired as Councel some 10 or more years ago, for abrogation of his duties and professional responsibilities.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers),

See his URL CLICK HERE

was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

It does sound unlikely however it may well have meant his own fees.

One can only consider UKIP Leadership in their stupidity as having been ill advised to act so irresponsibly but perhaps the motivation was more influence from Nigel Farage's point of vie by the interests of his assistant than by any measure of common sense or responsible adult behaviour!
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

~UN-PROFESSIONAL RESPONSES DEMEAN UKIP!
Alan Hardy's comments serve him ill but he is merely a member!
It does seem when Steve Crowther, Steve Allison or any of the other buffoons speaks out they damage the party credibility!!

.
Hi,

one has to wonder whose 'e'Mails are the more damaging to the cause they 'claim' to espouse.

I would submit that Steve Allisons are the more consequential as they are so clearly anti UKIP's best interests.

So let us see what they have to say for themselves:

Firstly I would contend that Alan Hardy's comments were far from wise when he stated:

Subject:	UKIP'S APPEAL
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:23:22 +0100
From:	alan hardy
To:	Gordon Parkin , Jonathan Arnott , lisa duffy , , Malcolm Goyns , Nigel Farage , Stephen Allison

Dear Sirs,

Courtesy of the Court of Appeal: those within UKIP who feel so inclined CANNOT do as they please, they are bound by the law as are the rest of society. And I may add that UKIP faces further legal action unless the decision not to allow former members of the BNP to stand as candidates for the party, as well as for internal posts, is reversed. Indeed I would like to see written evidence that it even exists.

Take note all of you, especially Mr. Farage.

ALAN HARDY
successful litigant.

Clearly one can empathise with Alan Hardy and just as Nigel Farage must have realised he had exposed UKIP to a hiding for nothing and a bill in the region of £30-50K. That Farage left hurriedly from The Appeal Courts in The Strand it ill becomes Alan Hardy to crow over so obvious a victory.

Perhaps Farage would have served the party better had he read the original judgement which I have posted in full - see The Right Sidebar & click on Alan Hardy etc.

You will note the judgement draws attention to the fact that The BNP issue was clearly no more than a fig leaf etc.

To seek to uphold the fundamentals of basic law is now branded by some of UKIP's enemies as being 'anti UKIP'.

Surely no one would deny UKIP the right to enact into their Constitution, Rules or Manifesto the resolution to prevent past members of The BNP from joining UKIP, on some grounds or other but clearly not on the grounds of Racism, anti Judaism, anti homosexuality or opposition to immigrants as UKIP's parners in The EU The EFD are not only pro EU membership but have advocated killing Immigrants from North Africa, are avowedly Racist espousing segregation on public transport etc., anti Homosexual advocating dressing them as rabbits and shooting them and include Holocaust Deniers.

That UKIP welcomes membership of such a group yet seeks to ban ex members of The BNP from joining makes their claimed ruling look a little foolish and more a petty rivalry than a point of principle sadly.

That UKIP has a track record of involvement with The BNP members and before them The National Front is indisputable. It is also worth reminding people of UKIP's own extremist past with the vetting of members by the criminal Gerry Gable via the equally dishonest Mark Croucher and false accusations of membership and association with The BNP.

That Alan Hardy sent his 'e'Mail makes it look as if he is fronting efforts at bringing in BNP members which I doubt he would be so foolish as to espouse but we may well find his 'e'Mail is little more than a venting of his anger at the dishonesty of UKIP as he has, I am given to understand, written confirmation from Nigel Farage that he had informed UKIP of his past membership of The BNP and Farage accepted him as a UKIP member specifically.

I still contend Alan Hardy's 'e'Mail was unwise whether he wishes to drift out of UKIP seeing them as a spent force or continue his active membership. He has also undermined his own credibility should he be serious in his bluster about further legal action.

I would contend Alan Hardy has harmed his own position but done little harm to UKIP save in costs, which are a mere bagatelle relative to the £Millions Farage has personally made from his position in UKIP.

Let us see if you think Steve Allison's comments are any more professional or are they effectively anti UKIP in the manner that they damage the party and its credibility since he speaks as an executive of the party, unlike Alan Hardy who is merely an ex member of The BNP who is in dispute with UKIP over his membership status!

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011
From: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
To: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
Subject:

You may have heard that UKIP lost its appeal in court today against the re-admittance to membership of a Mr.Alan Hardy. This is being spun by certain anti-UKIP Blogs and Websites as a defeat for UKIP and touted an example of how Nigel has been wasting UKIP's money on personal legal vendettas.

I do not think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Nigel Sycophant or someone who believes Nigel can do no wrong, However, in this case I am definitely 100% behind Nigel. Alan Hardy is a former member of the BNP and his case is AT THE MOMENT limited to him. However, I believe that he is being used as a Trojan Horse to force UKIP to accept BNP Members into out ranks and worse. I copy below an e-mail that Hardy sent after the Appeal Court Ruling.

UKIP has to fight this man to the bitter end! We have all worked too hard to destroy the myth that UKIP and the BNP are in any way alike, we must keep out the BNP, this is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

Steve Allison

Let us consider this in some detail:

You may have heard that UKIP lost its appeal in court today against the re-admittance to membership of a Mr.Alan Hardy.

The Court's ruled that Alan Hardy could not be barred from the party on the grounds given in the light of the facts - may I suggest that those who have UKIP's long term wellbeing at heart and genuinely support UKIP take the trouble to read the judgement and it becomes clear why The Courts not only found in favour of Alan Hardy but that the original judgement was upheld by The Appeal Courts in The Strand.

This is being spun by certain anti-UKIP Blogs and Websites as a defeat for UKIP and touted an example of how Nigel has been wasting UKIP's money on personal legal vendettas.

How else could any honest individual see this? I can not speak for anti UKIP blogs as i rarely read them and then only by accident - sadly the blogs UKIP controls do more than enough damage to UKIP!

Clearly no one is likely to take UKIP seriously as a part of the law making process when it is so clearly in abuse of the law itself and something of a vexatious litigant!

Those who actively seek to support UKIP seek to clean-up the party not provide costly cover for its dishonest executive!

I do not think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Nigel Sycophant or someone who believes Nigel can do no wrong,

Perhaps you could show where Steve Allison has intentionally spoken out to clean-up UKIP and make it electable other than in his personal interest!

However, in this case I am definitely 100% behind Nigel.

Steve Allison pretends to balance yet promptly defends Nigel Farage's ineptitude thereby showing a clear lack of judgement on his own part.

Alan Hardy is a former member of the BNP and his case is AT THE MOMENT limited to him.

Indeed it is and also to the irrefutable fact that UKIP leadership was aware of his past BNP affiliations and actively promoted or at least condoned his membership granting him not only membership of UKIP but as I recall a branch membership status!

However, I believe that he is being used as a Trojan Horse to force UKIP to accept BNP Members into out ranks and worse.

Were that the case do not forget it was Nigel Farage who threw open the gates of Troy and on precedent alone made the entry of The Trojan Horse possible to mix our poets it may be apposite to some to see the engineer hoist on his own petard but I as a supporter of UKIP over many years would like Laocoön caution as so aptly did Virgil with his notable line "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

I copy below an e-mail that Hardy sent after the Appeal Court Ruling.

As per the mailing I received previously and have posted above.

UKIP has to fight this man to the bitter end!

A wise General selects his ground and also his time for battle where an inept fool charges in and looses as have UKIP - Indeed the end will be bitter. You may yet find that in making much of this issue UKIP may yet throw open the gates and stand bereft of clothing for a battle - however aware of the ineptitude of Alan Hardy's message were it I seeking the well being of UKIP I would act with good grace and grant his membership as the Courts have legally shown in HIS CASE there were no legal grounds used in his removal.

Thereby no precedent will be set and the Trojan Horse can stand at the side of the road to the castle until it is shown to be of no use in smuggling the troops of the claimed enemy into the camp.

We have all worked too hard to destroy the myth that UKIP and the BNP are in any way alike, we must keep out the BNP, this is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

This of course is no more than self serving spin and clearly twaddle when you consider UKIP's fellowship with ex NF members and the use it has made of ex BNP members - that it is clearly twaddle is shown by UKIP's associates in The EU - merely BNP with funny accents!!

Steve Allison

Were it I seeking to serve UKIP I would not be wasting members' money nor undermining UKIP's credibility but as a long term supporter I would be considering the long term and to that end I would call an immediate NEC meeting. I would enact a rule empowering a sub committee of people seen as honest and of probity from within UKIP which would by deffinition preclude members of The NEC and leadership claque and I would empower them to review every member, starting from the top and reserve the right to refund the membership of any member who fulfilled certaimn criteria in terms of past memberships and Criminal Records.

One would have to take care as to how this was worded as it could well preclude individuals like Derek clark, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford, Graham Booth and the like from membership as they have all fallen foul of the law I understand and have had to repay monies they fraudulently obtained or dishonestly used. I understand we are yet to hear the outcome of the case against Stuart Agnew and that against David Bannerman though I gather Mike Nattrass has withdrawn his claim against The Sunday Times and they are to publish an update that subsequent to their earlier article OLAF have decided to take no further action against Mike Nattrass.

In the matter of cleaning up UKIP the party would be well served were it to put before the committee as constituted such individuals as Annabelle Fuller, Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Andrew Smith, Hugh Williams and others who through their fantasies and dishonesty have corrupted UKIP and demeaned its reputation as a credible political force.

I wonder what the anti UKIP bloggers that Steve Allison seems to follow will make of dealing with the truth and on what leg they would seek to stand if UKIP were cleaned-up and presented a credible professional stance with vision, strategy, tactics a plan - training and a structure that would make them presentable to the informed electorate and encourage activists to rejoin with probity and transparency.

Until that time UKIP defames itself daily on its own controlled blogs such that one wonders what an anti UKIP blog would find to write about - though Steve Alison has made a pretty fair fist of showing us by example.

As a supporter I am all too well aware that unless UKIP makes these moves towards professionalising they are increasingly a part of the problem when it comes to leaving The EU and have no place in the solution.

For more details regarding this particular case do CLICK HERE
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED 05-AUG-2011

From:	alan hardy [huntsman2000@hotmail.com]	Sent:	Fri 8/5/2011 3:22 PM
To:	Nigel Farage
Cc:	Stephen Allison; Steve Crowther; Gordon Parkin; lisa duffy; Colin Rigg
Subject:	BAN ON FORMER MEMBERS OF BNP STANDING AS CANDIDATES/BRQACH OFFICIALS
Attachments:	PRE-HEARING LETTER TO GORDON PARKIN.doc‎(26KB)‎

Dear Mr Farage,

Further to an earlier e-mail requesting the information, could you please let me have details of the decision supposedly made by the NEC.
It was/is a favourite subject of Gordon Parkin and was mentioned on the stand by Lisa Duffy during the original hearing in September last year at the High Court. I should like to know the following:

1. The date the NEC passed the decision.

2. Were minutes of the meeting kept and, if so, am I to be allowed sight of a copy? (And if not, why not

3. If minutes were not kept who was present at the relevant meeting.

I should like the information within seven days or a reason why it is denied to me. In the meantime perhaps you would care to read a letter I sent to Mr. Parkin two months before the above-mentioned hearing. Perhaps having read it you might care to enquire of him why he would not take up my offer, especially since, as he did not, the Party's funds are down by (I estimate) £30,000.

I look forward to hearing from you.

ALAN HARDY

member no. 43927

ATTACHMENT:

Flat 6

2 Cranbourne Terrace

Stockton on Tees

TS18 3PX

Mobile: 07930 217186

mailto: huntsman2000@hotmail.com

22 July 2010

Mr Gordon H Parkin

21 Ragpath Lane

Roseworth

STOCKTON ON TEES

TS19 9BA

Dear Mr. Parkin,

CLAIM NO. 9MB03865: ALAN HARDY -V- PARKIN

I acknowledge safe receipt of a copy of your signed witness statement.

Quite frankly (and taking account of all previous correspondence) if that is the best you and your lawyer can come up with by way of a defence, then I cannot foresee a happy ending for you in this matter. I respectfully suggest therefore that you take further counsel with him to – seriously – discuss my offer of resolution.

In the above connection, however distasteful the prospect of resigning from the UKIP may seem to you now it might, with hindsight, prove the lesser of two evils. That is, if you insist on facing me in court on 23^rd September.

And that day is drawing ever nearer…

Yours sincerely

Alan Hardy

What hearing on 23-Sep-2011 is alluded to is unknown to me at this stage - as is the reason for this letter - which surely would have been served better as a Freedom of Information Request.

I was under the impression that Alan Harvey had already won his case - as shown in earlier material published above!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP 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

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
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

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.

Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments ( PDF 90 KB)

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?

Posted by Junius at 16:25

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

LEAVE-THE-EU

CaterpillarsAndButterflies Docs.

UKIP-vs-EUkip

Pages

Friday, 22 July 2011

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

Friday, 22 July 2011

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

Monday, 11 July 2011

GREAVES, Michael

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

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

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

UKIP: The lies of Christopher Monckton

Search This Blog

HOT LINKS TO UKIP PEOPLE & MORE

My Blog List

Search 2.0

Blog Archive

LABELS A - Z

Britaine

ZIMBIO

CAVEAT

CaterpillarsAndButterflies Docs.

UKIP-vs-EUkip

Pages

Friday, 22 July 2011

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

Friday, 22 July 2011

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

Monday, 11 July 2011

GREAVES, Michael

Related articles

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

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

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

UKIP: The lies of Christopher Monckton

Related articles

Search This Blog

HOT LINKS TO UKIP PEOPLE & MORE

My Blog List

Search 2.0

Blog Archive

LABELS A - Z

Britaine

ZIMBIO

CAVEAT