From memory, I think that Gwain Towler said, that the NEC are involved only at an administrative level in the Party's affairs. (I think that is more-or-less what he said). Towler appeared to disagree with my asssrtion, that the NEC are the supreme governing body. The organisation and arranging of the 'Selection Process' for MEPs' was decided by the Political Committee Towler said/suggested. It appears that the NEC approved the 'Selection Process' under the stewardship of Christopher Gill. It transpired that Gill disappeared on holiday, and the NEC were unable to contact him. His holiday, arranged to coincide with the selection process, was unknown to the NEC. Was it known to the Political Committee, or for that matter to our Leader, or even Whittaker? The difficulties, which subsequently occurred, happened when the conditions of the 'selection' organaisation, which had been agreed by the NEC, had been surreptitiously abandoned. Surely the NEC cannot be held liable; those who knew of the totally changed conditions under which the 'selections' were being made, must take full responsibility and bear any legal costs? The conduct of Christopher Gill has been most reprehensible, and the Disciplinary Panel should take an interest in this matter.
Concerning Annabelle Fuller, which, incidentally, is getting in the way of clear thinking, let us first ask, who paid her employer's NI Contribution? Secondly, in what status was she involved in the process: employee, party member, volunteer, etc? Who approved her involvement, and what was their authority to do so? The same questions must be asked of Clive Page.
Concerning BobFM's comments gleaned from a QC, that it is the liability NEC, members both individually and severally, to be ulimately responsibility for debts. (Banker of last resort). That is why NEC members have evry right to see the accounts, and be made privy to all pending expenditures. The same thing applies to regional committees where large capital movements are involved. Are we making progress at last?
|