Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
Mark CROUCHER, Brendan PADMORE & OTHERS USE The BDF TO LIE & BULLY as EXPOSED & ARE DAMAGING EUkip!
At the time and date Croucher’s faked ‘e’Mail was made and published on Anthony Butcher's corrupt web site, controlled by dishonest individuals such as the EUkip chairman Paul Nuttall and his staff - both paid and unpaid, seeking preferment, John West had not received any monies from what was called the defence fund. Regardless of the malicious and all too frequently dishonest and childish taunting and twisting claims and inferences of such as Mark Croucher his incubi and succubae, Brendan Padmore, Michael McGough and various cowards too ashamed to put their name to their postings.
Usually Croucher is quite good with his weasel words and computer fakes and set ups.
May I point out that he has shot himself in the foot by attributing the time line on TWO counts.
Firsty this item does not provide proof of anything relative to the point he is trying to make, it is a mere snap shot, taken out of context to try to prove matters long subsequent.
Secondly he has categorically stated the posting from West was made on the 18th. Feb 2009 – Croucher has foolishly failed to recognise that the thread he attributes this to was locked on the 17th. Feb 2009.
It is noted that Brendan Padmore is wriggling and squirming to supply ways to support the duplicitous and untrustworthy Mark Croucher a vile little failure of a man without honour, integrity or morality and proven on substantive matters to be both a liar and a cheat. Brendan Padmore yet again displays his dishonestyas he desparately tries to do as he is told by EUkip to suppress the truth.
I note the moderator CSteam would seem to have the measure of Croucher and comments 'he has not received the screen capture' Croucher CLAIMS to have the implication being that he is somewhat smarter than Padmore and does not trust the false evidence provided by Croucher. To comment the item has not arrived would indicate it was requested!
Here is the posting that shows Croucher’s dishonesty – but we can expect weasel words to try to wriggle out of the facts from him once he realises he has been exposed.
The bottom line is that Croucher CLAIMS to have evidence of a statement made by John West which somehow proves 8 months later that subsequent to the 18th.Feb 2009 John West did or did not get money from some private source or other!
This is no more than vexatious and spitefull mischief making of absolutely no relevance to the fact that there are those who have proved beyond doubt that there is every possibility that upwards of £10 Million may well have been industrially skimmed from UKIP by the corrupt individuals who have dishonestly and corruptly seized control of the party.
It is appreciated that as an official spokesman for EUkip, from time to time, and as a serial liar there is every reason to believe that Croucher is being used yet again to try to muddy the waters so as to shelter the undeniable lies, corruption and dishonesty of EUkip and its leadership.
You will note a poster ‘Barboo’ forensically exposes the dishonesty and duplicity of Mark Croucher.
First here is Croucher’s unsound claim followed by Barboo’s detailed evidence.
23-10-2009, 02:06 PM
#641 (permalink)
Mark Croucher
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dartford, Kent
Posts: 1,643
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I would have posted this in the proper complaints thread, but West ensured it wandered so far off topic that the thread was closed. I'm hoping all interested can find it here. It was posted on the 18th February 2009 and the time looks like 4:32pm, but as it was a screen print and the date and time text is in reversed print, it hasn't come out very well on my printer. The significance of the date was that it was after his case was thrown out at Ipswich court as an abuse of the court process, which was the only reason I printed it. You may recall there was a whole load of threads which were deleted at that time. To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted. I don't have all of my original post - just the last few lines of it, but I distinctly remember it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwest
I have not received a penny from any fund. You are a liar. You do not need to worry about my legal advice as Nigel and his cabal will find out how good my legal team is soon enough when certain other matters come to court as this is just the starting point. Already a national newspaper is interested and there will be more to come so you can mock now but your boss wont be pleased when the full story comes out and you will be laughing on the other side of your face when your corruption is exposed.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, West. And stop abusing the complaints system for your own ends: you know you said it, everybody else knows you said it, and yet you make a complaint after thinking that nobody had a copy of your comments. I'm surprised the moderators don't ban you for being such a glib onanist and making such a blatantly false complaint.
One wonders what Croucher has put in his pipe and smoked to be so damaging to what personality he may have had!
Barboo’s statement shows Croucher for what he is:
Yesterday, 05:18 PM
#647 (permalink)
Barboo
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 597
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.Ware
Thread re-opened as MC has provided his evidence.
Where is this evidence, BA? Have you retrieved a deleted thread and found John West's alleged statement? Can we see it, please, because what Mark Croucher has provided so far is an embellishment of his existing claim which does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not 'evidence'.
Mark Croucher informed us at post #592 of this thread So what did happen to the defence fund money? that John West's alleged statement, "I have not received a penny from any fund" was in a posting on a deleted thread http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post613761
Clicking on that link from #592 brings up an 'invalid thread' page, the full address of which shows that the deleted thread MC referred to was entitled 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process'.
Mark Croucher enlarged on this at #641 of this thread by giving the date and time of John West's alleged post on the deleted thread as 18 February 2009, 4:32pm, and saying, "To put it into context, I was mocking West's non-existent legal advice and pointing out that any competent firm of solicitors would have told him the correct court to file his case with, and had suggested that the defence fund money was wasted".
The problem with this is, the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process' was deleted on 17 February, as Mark Croucher himself complained at the time he started a new thread to replace it, so John West could not have made the alleged posting on the 18th. The sequence of events can be checked as follows:
In the Complaints section (P.25) at 02:11pm on 17 February, John West reported a post Reported Post by johnwest Mark Croucher had made to the thread 'Judge dismisses West case as abuse of small claims process', on the grounds that MC had given a link to a blog which had published what JW claimed to be an untrue version of his court case.
At 4:18pm on 17 February Mark Croucher started a new thread So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?, in which he referred to the previous thread as having being deleted, and restored the blog link.
At 07:43pm on 17 February John West made a further complaint Reported Post by johnwest saying, "Despite complaining about Mark Croucher's original posting I now see that he been allowed to repeat the allegations under a new title . . . . What is the point of removing a thread if you then allow the allegations to be repeated by the same person using a new thread?" Following this, moderator B.A.Ware allowed the new thread to remain open but removed the link to the offending blog.
Also, it was at post #3 of this complaint that John West made what is so far his only proven comment on the funding of his legal action: "I also noticed that in one of Mark Croucher's posts he accuses Geoffrey Collier of helping to fund my legal action. This is also not true". Geoffrey Collier has since confirmed at #464 of this thread that JW's statement was correct.
The new thread 'So now we can't talk about John Wests court case being dismissed?' continued and Mark Croucher did make the mocking comments about John West's legal advice that he describes above, but his barbs (at #23, #30 and #67) were aimed at Geoffrey Collier, not John West. JOHN WEST DID NOT CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO THIS THREAD so, despite all his spinning, Mark Croucher has still not provided the evidence of John West's alleged statement required by the moderators.
Will you repost it, please, if you have found such evidence in a now deleted thread that forum members can no longer access?
It is worthy of note that the thread Mark Croucher relies upon was started by Croucher as another malicious and spitefull thread to attack someone (John West) seeking to expose the truth of the corruption of EUkip.
The interesting FACT is that the thread was locked because of the undeniable FACT that Mark Croucher had in contempt of Court attributed a comment to a Judge firstly which was never made and was thus a lie and a libel a fact compounded by the fact he attributed the comment to a Judge who was absent from the court and had NOT attended The Court concerned.
The thread was locked because Mark Croucher had lied – yet again and for malicious purposes. This being not just a misrepresentation but and outright lie.
Interestingly Brendan Padmore in a desparate attempt to aid Croucher in his dishonesty again fails to seek the truth and makes the utterly implausible claim that he remembers the details of a posting from 18th. Feb 2009 – a posting we have shown beyond doubt did not exist and even if it had provides Croucher and his little help mate Padmore with no substantiation of their claims merely substantiation they are dishonest and untrustworthy.
I once again state that beyond any doubt, however Croucher his incubi & succubae may seek to rewrite facts to suit themselves – John West at no stage in time received a single penny piece as cash or cheque, nor any other sum of money, from the so called defence fund, Niall Warry or myself towards ANY legal costs he may have incurred in seeking to expose the corruption of EUkip nor UKIP nor any individual therein – either for past cases, current cases or ongoing cases. There was NEVER an intent to fund his costs, particularly in the light of the Sanders findings!
I can also confirm that none nor any donors to the fund in question have voiced or made any complaint as to the handling of the fund, and having spoken to all the donors known to me all bar one has stated they were entirely happy with the handling, were aware of the dishonest implications of Croucher and have offered further monies if required.
I trust Junius will post this on their blog at:
CLICK HERE
– where it will be more readily noticed than on
CLICK HERE
where although there is good traction and it is regularly read by the media and many others there is a great deal more factual data and it may be ‘swamped’ but it will be posted there eventually.
Please be so good as to pass this ‘e’Mail on or post it on your blog or web site if you can – it is important not only to expose the truth but to stand united against the dishonesty of EUkip and their vile little fixers and smearers. So redollent of Cultural Marxism and the smears of The Frankfurt School, Common Purpose, Searchlight, Fabianism and other such 'soft communist' organisations mainly of the extreme nihilism of the vexatious left of politics.
If you require further facts or clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.
TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU's CAP - In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS - GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
LEAVE THE EU
to
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment