Mark Croucher: Your arguments are as false as they are fatuous. We would not be dependent on donations for either auditing the accounts, or having our elections organised by the ERS. The actual size of our party account, is not much larger than those of the social club in a large company. Many golf clubs are richer than we are. What is the true cost that we actually pay? Andreasen's professional fees, plus her travel and accomodation costs whilst in England. We could give the whole lot to a main-line accounting company, at a cost cheaper than that which we pay at present.
UKIP do not have a good history where mony is concerned; that is irrefutable. When we were given an extension to produce the accounts by the Electoral Commission, we exceeded that extension by seven months and incurred two lots of fines for our misdemeanour. THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD. When a previous party treasurer became actively involved in orchestrating a deception against El Com, that was not deemed sufficiently serious to preclude him from being placed on the prospective MEP list. Do these kind of things imbue the membership with confidence?
I say, and have been saying it for years, that these things must change. You say that these things are acceptable and should continue. The two central problems, accounting and election organisation remain, and the evdence is so conclusive that it cannot be denied by any intelligent person.
You mention in your posting, Ashford Employment Ltd; that subject has still lagely unexplained. These was significant capital movement to them, from money raised by donations, and transacted by staff whose conflicting interests should have precluded them from any involvement whatsoever in UKIP'S affairs. In some instances their very employment status seems obscure. Why should this be? Redundancy money, termination grants, or whatever you like to call it, have been paid to various people under what appear ambiguous circumstances.
People, good people, try to change these things, but even when elected to the NEC, find that their questions, often about mundane matters of fact, are just ignored. They despair, and walk away. Would you deny that isn't true? Members write to seek answers to their concerns- I know from personal experience - but they are either ignored or given answers which are untrue. Again, that couldn't be denied. The answer is change, radical change, or we have no future. What we have been subject to over the years, is not only wrong, but no longer viable. You, obviously, are of a different opinion.
|