UKIP-vs-EUkip

UKIP-vs-EUkip
CLICK THE PIC for More on UKIP

Friday 30 April 2010

#973* - The ICO Finds AGAINST UKIP - John WEST Totally Vindicated!

#973* - The ICO Finds AGAINST UKIP - John WEST Totally Vindicated!

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!

The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque
&
the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

 

The ICO Finds AGAINST UKIP - John WEST Totally Vindicated!

Let us see if UKIP have the basic integrity to make a public apology!


A statement from John West

I am pleased to announce that the Information Commissioner’s Office has upheld my original complaint against the UK Independence Party. Again, I have been completely vindicated.

This complaint concerned UKIP’s refusal to send me any data that mentioned me.
The request was made under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I made this request to John Whittaker, as I wanted a full record of all documents held by UKIP which mentioned me.

I first contacted UKIP with this request on 3/9/8. John Whittaker, UKIP Party Chairman, was the recipient.

Initially, he arrogantly ignored my request.

I persisted. This started yet another a vicious and dishonest campaign of smears and lies directed against me, a campaign which emanated from UKIP’s leadership.

Finally, on 11th September I received a copy of my membership details! 
Nothing else was included. In an accompanying dismissive letter it was dishonestly claimed that UKIP held no other ’discloseable personal data’.
The letter was signed by John Whittaker on behalf of Paul Nuttall.

I knew this to be untrue as I have a listing of a large number of emails, letters and reports that specifically refer to me.

On 18th September I sent a letter to Paul Nuttall requesting his compliance under the law to the Data Protection Act.

On 24th October, I received the following email from him.

After taking legal advice, I am advised to inform you to refer to the letter sent to you by Dr. Whittaker on 11 September 2008.

Best wishes

Paul Nuttall

It was subsequent to receiving this email that I decided to inform the ICO of UKIP’s failure to comply with the legal requirements of the Data Protection Act.

The ICO started an investigation in July 2009. On 23rd October I received a letter from the ICO.

UKIP had now changed their story, clearly showing their first version was untrue and unsound.

UKIP now admitted to holding data on me but declined to comply with my request as the documents were subject to ‘legal professional privilege’, yet failed to give any explanation as to how they had reached such a perverse conclusion.

As I expected, the ICO did not agree with UKIP’s claim as ‘legal professional privilege’ only applies where ‘the communication has been made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice’ and had no legal connection with UKIP’s misrepresentation of the law.

On 20th April 2010 The Information Commission ordered UKIP to comply with my original legal request, something which UKIP had previously made numerous efforts to avoid.

I sincerely hope that UKIP’s leadership will now fully comply with this order and supply me with all the requested documentation.

To date they have mailed me a jumbled muddle of emails which does not include much of the material in my original list.

I hope that UKIP is still not trying to avoid full compliance with the ICO’s order.

UKIP has only 28 days ( dated from the 20th April) to fully comply with the said order.

It saddens me that I was forced to resort to further action against UKIP. All this could have been avoided if Nigel Farage, John Whittaker and Paul Nuttall had not seen fit to ignore my original request and had acted ethically, professionally and honestly rather than abuse the law and the terms of the Data Protection Act.

UKIP aspire to government, though some may ask if this will be as UKIP or as a Pearson led pressure group within the Conservative Party!

UKIP’s leadership clearly believe that the law can be ignored if they don’t happen to agree with it:

  • Stuart Agnew and David Bannerman can illegally pay Peter Reeve without fear of censure from Farage and Pearson.
  • UKIP is willing to accept illegal donations. 
  • Thousands can vanish from UKIP’s accounts without any questions being asked. 
  • UKIP allows Mark Croucher to avoid his liabilities to the British Courts by continuing to employ him in Brussels. 
  • Nigel Farage and Annabelle Fuller lie to The Mail and The Independent about the reasons behind her ‘departure’ from UKIP.
  • The list is endless and is still growing.
  • UKIP has already lost one court case against me after they were found guilty of a breach of confidence.

I really thought that they would finally come to realise that even their dishonesty will not be ignored by the Courts!

Sadly it appears UKIP have no apparent integrity or visible professionalism.

UKIP is a party led by the untrustworthy, duplicitous and corrupt. It would be a tragedy if such people were elected to Westminster. We need honest politicians, not liars and crooks.

John West

I have the ICO letter which I will add but I have to find time to work out how to load a .tif


INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
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

Thursday 29 April 2010

#972* - UKIP WANT YOU TO VOTE TORY - EXPLAINS THE OLD MEN & TALKING HEADS!

#972* - UKIP WANT YOU TO VOTE TORY  - EXPLAINS THE OLD MEN & TALKING HEADS! 

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable! The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

UKIP WANT YOU TO VOTE TORY Which Probably EXPLAINS THE OLD MEN & TALKING HEADS!! 

Hi,

when you compare this with either the Adolecent's Party of Lib.Dim. and the British Nasty Party let us face it UKIP's broadcast is tedious and old fashioned but that was the aim to ensure the maximum vote could be swung to their chums the Tory Party.

The length and breadth of Britain the LibLabUKipCon old school Parties are doing what parties are good at - incestuous deals to keep the Party with its snout in the troughs.

UKip os a bit different across the country they are doing deals with Tories and doing a knife job on their own loyal supporters to get UKip voters out to vote Tory.

You will remember back last year that was what we claimed on this blog was UKip's cunning plan and it was!

It explains this dull video!
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
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

#971* - Almost Reads AS - ANDREASEN vs. Robin Collett

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: robin.collet@btopenworld.com
To: william dartmouth (william@williamdartmouth.com); dcbdcbuk@yahoo.co.uk; derek clark (mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk); gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; johnbufton@tiscali.co.uk; martaandreasen@hotmail.com; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk; paul nuttall (ukipbootle@yahoo.co.uk); Douglas Denny (greg_l-w@btconnect.com); stuart.agnew@btconnect.com; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevorcolman@btconnect.com
Subject: Transparency
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000

Hello all,

I hope you do not mind, but I have attached transparency drafts for all MEPs to this e-mail – it saves me time to do it that way

The only one you need to look at is your own one.


I would be grateful if you would confirm that you are happy with it (or advise any changes) – ideally asap – and by end of weekend as I hope to send to Kevin Bonici for putting on EFD MEPs website late Monday, before I disappear to Spain for a week, early on Tuesday


One general point –as you know, we have removed all ?? amounts. On the text in first para on Parliamentary Assistance Allowance, I have added an extra sentence at the end – not least at Marta’s request. I hope you will find this acceptable – as ideally you should all have the same text


For individual MEPs

Godfrey’s is blank – and I am talking to him this pm

Marta has to revise her numbers, from these initial estimates

Mike N ‘s expenses are round sum guesses and he will tell me correct figures on Monday (and figures for item 3 & 4)

William D is hopeful of Expense figures later today (and number of days)

Nigel – did you get figures for return trips and number of days


So I hope to hear from each of you soon, please

Thanks



Robin
PS – Just to remind – I will not be at next Strasbourg but to be at next Brussels on 24/25th March

Robin Collet robin.collet@btopenworld.com

Home Office: The School House, Wimble Hill,

Crondall, Farnham, Surrey GU10 5HL.

Home Tel : 01252 850824.

Mobile: 07774 107471

Mobile is best for contact


-----Original Message-----
From: Marta Andreasen [mailto:martaandreasen@hotmail.com]
Sent: 27 February 2010 22:29
To: Robin Collet; william@williamdartmouth.com; David C. Bannerman; mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk; gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; john bufton; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; Kirsten Farage; Paul Nuttall; stuart agnew; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevor colman
Subject: RE: Transparency


Dear Robin,


Thank you for sending this.


I can live with the comment that you have added to the secretarial allowance about any amount not claimed going back to the EU budget, even if this is not my preferred option.


In the case of General Expense allowance however I cannot adhere to the text you propose, for the reasons I explained at the meeting last week and which I reiterate below.


Section 3 Article 25 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament states that " members shall be entitled to a flat-rate general expenditure allowance to cover expenses which arise in the course of their parliamentary activities and which are not covered by other allowances under these implementing measures or other Parliament rules".


There is no mention on where you incurr the expense whereas in the paragraph you propose you limit the "cost of carrying out the duties of the MEP, incurred in the United Kingdom". I do not see the need to add this limitation when the regulation does not require this and moreover you have advised me to use the general allowance to cover costs that I have incurred in Brussels, such the case of the media training by Martin Jay for example.


I therefore propose that the paragraph to be used in reference to General Expenses should be the text of Section 3 Article 25 of the Implementing Measures as quoted above.


I await for your final version to introduce my final numbers.


I take the opportunity to inform all that the travel reimbursement office can issue a summary of amount paid for daily allowance and number of missions.




Best regards
Marta

Marta Andreasen MEP
Rue Wiertz, 60
ASP 4F154
B-1047 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 0032 22845726
Email: marta.andreasen@europarl.europa.eu
Website: www.martaandreasen.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: robin.collet@btopenworld.com
To: martaandreasen@hotmail.com; william dartmouth (william@williamdartmouth.com); dcbdcbuk@yahoo.co.uk; derek clark (mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk); gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; johnbufton@tiscali.co.uk; martaandreasen@hotmail.com; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk; paul nuttall (ukipbootle@yahoo.co.uk); Douglas Denny (greg_l-w@btconnect.com); stuart.agnew@btconnect.com; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevorcolman@btconnect.com
Subject: RE: Transparency
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:51:27 +0000

Dear Marta – and for all MEP’s

Thanks indeed to allow this to go forward – I would have preferred this only between Marta and me - but she has sent to all

Authorities

For clarification, you quote word for word the basis set out in Article 25 – which is as you say is just these 3 lines and no more

This 42 page document covers lots of other things – Document Reference 2.1.2

Where I have taken authority on is the another 42 page document - known as the PEAM rules – reference number 2.1.1. (Rules governing the payment of expense and allowances to members) My last copy was drawn down on 11th November 2009 – It needs updating on some things – but not yet published (as you will know)



This document at Chapter 4 – article 13 - giving a whole page to it, - not just the 3 line you quote, explains the headings of expenditure, but also says, in the heading

“This allowance is intended to cover, inter alia, the following expenses incurred in the member state of election”

Discussion

From the above, I think you have not seen all the rules

We do not have time to discuss this



Action suggested



While I am very unhappy about it, I propose to all MEPs that we remove the words “incurred in the United Kingdom” , but leave all other words as is

You know my viewpublish soon the minimum and add extra later if demanded

Marta – please

Would you be happy to publish with those words removed

Please

And Marta

Update on figures please – - I have a very tight timetable to work to

Please provide now

Thank you

Robin


Robin Collet robin.collet@btopenworld.com

Home Office: The School House, Wimble Hill,

Crondall, Farnham, Surrey GU10 5HL.

Home Tel : 01252 850824.

Mobile: 07774 107471

Mobile is best for contact

-----Original Message-----
From: Marta Andreasen [mailto:martaandreasen@hotmail.com]
Sent: 28 February 2010 00:33
To: Robin Collet; william@williamdartmouth.com; David C. Bannerman; mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk; gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; john bufton; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; Kirsten Farage; Paul Nuttall; stuart agnew; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevor colman
Subject: RE: Transparency



Dear Robin,

I copied all because we have been having this discussion among all and because I think my observation is valid for all. I did not understand we needed to have separate conversations on different matters and I had already expressed my views during the meeting where you agreed.

I have seen all the rules but the paragraph I refer to is the one in the implementing rules which is the specific application rule. I frankly do not understand why you insist on limiting this to the UK when implementing rule does not but what worries me more is that I have incurred expenditure in Brussels out of this allowance upon your advise and I refer to Martin Jay?s fees for media training.

So I am sorry but in my page I will state the paragraph of the implementing rules.

As regards the final figures I have now obtained the official report for the number of missions and daily allowances and I have 18 return trips and 65 days allowance instead of the numbers I put in my draft. But I still need to confirm certain figures in the general allowance and this may take until next week.

Assuming you have all the accurate info from the rest of the MEPs I have no problem in that their figures are published on Monday and mine are published some days later when I am happy the information is accurate. If you leave for Spain I can ask Kevin Bonici to load mine in your absence.

Best Rgds
Marta

Marta Andreasen MEP
Rue Wiertz, 60
ASP 4F154
B-1047 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 0032 22845726
Email: marta.andreasen@europarl.europa.eu
Website: www.martaandreasen.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: robin.collet@btopenworld.com
To: martaandreasen@hotmail.com; william dartmouth (william@williamdartmouth.com); dcbdcbuk@yahoo.co.uk; derek clark (mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk); gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; johnbufton@tiscali.co.uk; martaandreasen@hotmail.com; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk; paul nuttall (ukipbootle@yahoo.co.uk); Douglas Denny (greg_l-w@btconnect.com); stuart.agnew@btconnect.com; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevorcolman@btconnect.com
Subject: RE: Transparency
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:49:17 +0000


Dear Marta,

Thanks you – you may have missed it? - I had said in my email below to remove the words ”incurred in the United Kingdom”



The wording used had been discussed and agreed at a number of previous meetings with MEPs, but when you were unable to be present



I think it is far better that all MEPs have the same wordingso my new suggestion is not only removing the words “Incurred in the United Kingdom”, but adding instead “not covered by other allowances”, so it reads



“This allowance covers the cost of carrying out the duties of the MEP not covered by other allowances, and includes running an office and associated expenditure.? All costs incurred meet the published Parliamentary rules”



Are you able to accept that please?



(and hopefully others will agree too – I will assume so, unless I hear differently)



Very good wishes



Robin





Robin Collet robin.collet@btopenworld.com

Home Office: The School House, Wimble Hill,

Crondall, Farnham, Surrey GU10 5HL.

Home Tel : 01252 850824.

Mobile: 07774 107471

Mobile is best for contact

-----Original Message-----
From: Marta Andreasen [mailto:martaandreasen@hotmail.com]
Sent: 28 February 2010 15:49
To: Robin Collet; william@williamdartmouth.com; David C. Bannerman; mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk; gerard.batten@btinternet.com; gbloom@ukip.org; john bufton; mikenattrass@hotmail.com; Kirsten Farage; Paul Nuttall; stuart agnew; susanpalfrey@btinternet.com; trevor colman
Subject: RE: Transparency


Dear Robin,

I don´t like your way of treating me with contempt. Yes I have read your emails and the rules and I have only been absent from one of these meetings but this did not preclude you from facilitating the info agreed to me on hand or by email. Nor does it preclude me from having a different opinion.

I regret to say I have lost trust in you. You will not assume responsibility for MEPs expenditure but want to dictate your differing interpretation of the rules according to the circumstances.

Others may not have the professional experience to deal with their own expenses but I certainly do and lost a very well paid job for defending transparency and accountability in the EU something that few or no one can boast of.

While I have put effort on reaching a common presentation of expenditure for all of us UKIP Meps I reserve the right to put the comments I wish and will also deal with the publication directly myself.

NOW I ask that in the name of transparency you deliver to me without delay the same type of presentation for UKIP´s portion of group expenditure which we all contribute to finance - this should include the 4000 budget line plus all the group recruits under UKIP´s part of the group´s budget and for which at least I was not consulted upon - and make available to me - I leave to others their choice to request the same- all supporting documents for me to audit this expenditure.

I am aware that you are trying to help without even being paid for your work but this is not an arrangement that I have been given the opportunity to agree to nor does it imply that I grant my authorization to you to decide what should be published and what should not.

Best wishes
Marta





Marta Andreasen MEP
Rue Wiertz, 60
ASP 4F154
B-1047 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 0032 22845726
Email: marta.andreasen@europarl.europa.eu
Website: www.martaandreasen.com




INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
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

Wednesday 28 April 2010

#970* - UKip Candidate Vic MATCHAM DISRUPTS Dover Baptist Church Hustings!

#970* - UKip Candidate Vic MATCHAM DISRUPTS Dover Baptist Church Hustings!

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!  
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque 

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

UKip Candidate Vic MATCHAM DISRUPTS Dover Baptist Church Hustings & Makes a Fool of Himself!

But not such a Fool as Lord Pearson & Mark Croucher Make of Themselves Regularly as they drag the party in the gutter!


Political showdown disrupted by UKIP man
Vic Matcham makes his point

KENT NEWS: UKIP candidate Vic Matcham caused a political public meeting to be temporarily abandoned as he demanded a place on the podium.

Dover Baptist Church was the venue for the hustings-style event which saw Labour’s Gwyn Prosser, Conservative Charlie Elphicke and Liberal Democrat John Brigden answer questions from the audience.

But as the meeting started, Mr Matcham – seated in the front row – stood up and demanded that his voice be heard.

As he refused to be seated, the church organisers of the event asked the three rivals for the Dover and Deal seat to leave and go to an adjacent room.

During the disruption a small group of BNP members seated at the back of the hall also heckled the speakers – particularly targeting Mr Prosser.

They then left as the candidates filed back into the room.

Questions then followed on the subjects of immigration controls, the environment and several Christian-related topics, including the relevance of religion in today’s society.
To view the original article with video of idiotic UKIP candidate CLICK HERE
 

INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
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
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...