douglas denny

I see a great hypocrisy in your statement above Geoffrey - when you were very condemnatory to me personally with the expletives I used to the pony-tailed one in a private communication to him when he had been grossly insulting to me, and which he, being a cad and certainly no gentleman, published widely.

I recall you referred to it constantly and widely for maximum damaging effect against me for some weeks, especially as we approached the selection for the Chichester PPC. It was quite vindictive I recall.

Perhaps you have now changed your world-view on this issue and have a better "understanding" that expletives used though never justified, but when used because of provocation or in justifed anger, or if you have bashed your thumb with a hammer, they can be at least "understood".

I am glad to have been of some service in your continuing education.

Regards,
Douglas.
-

Geoffrey Collier

Douglas Denny: An expletive used when the victim of the 'proverbial hammer' or a heated encounter, is quite different from gratuitous filth deliberately circulated on a website. Your encounter with G L-W was not something to which I was privy. It was, I understand, later placed in the public domain. As you have, at least for some years, proclaimerd your detestation of G.L-W, it was unwise to print anything which could be used by him, or anyone else for that matter, which could come back to haunt you. Did not the Immortal Bard tell us that, 'Good name in man and woman is the treasure of their soul' ? It was your lack of judgement, more than your language, which was your offence on that occasion. We should never yield to provocation, it can cause others to think that they are more important than they are. Excited by their newly perceived
importance, they threaten the natural order: It is that which must be avoided.

I certainly never communicated your error to anyone, other than making a small reference on this forum. As far as I know, none in Chichester read this web, Health Review and the Epilogue is more their type of thing. Don't worry about it Douglas, just let everything evolve.

Anthony Butcher

I have made the same point elsewhere. I used the term 'lost her job' to cover both possible scenarios

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

Mark Croucher

Just out of interest, does that include yourself as you just reposted it, thereby increasing its chance of being found by search engines? Are you now guilty of perpetrating a libel, albeit against yourself?

M

Bob FM

Absolute rubbish. In no way are the membership of UKIP the employers. Why would you think or post such an utter piece of nonsense?
So which is it C, the NEC are members, who it has variously been claimed are legally liable for Annabelle's failings. I am also reliably informed by a leading QC, (reporting on a different matter, although contextually the same) that unless the constitution of any party or club actually has in place specific rules that put the onus on the committee legally (they would require insurance to indemnify themselves), that all the membership would jointly be liable in any court proceedings. In a membership organisation the employees work for the membership, or are you disagreeing with those who say even though she was actually employed by the Ind-Dem Grouo, she was paid out of contributions from UKIP MP's, or was she, was she merely allocated to UKIP by the Group? Has anyone seen her employment contract. As with most things on these threads it can be spun however one wishes, which is why I frequently comment that there is little or no substantive evidence ever produced by those wishing to damage the party.

Geoffrey Collier

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?

Bob FM

GC for the second time it's Gawain, well at least that is how he spells it, or shall we use Jeffrey for you in future. What a past master you are at distorting what is written, who mentioned debts, bankers, accounts, expenditure etc. NOT I.

Clive Page

Mr Collier.
Things have sunk to a low point when you can post on a public forum disparaging remarks as the character of a man like Christopher Gill.
To call his conduct reprehensible when your opinion is based on wrong information makes it even worse.
Mr Gill did not disappear on holiday.He went on holdiday.And yes the Political Cttee and the NEC were made aware of his holiday dates well in advance.
His holidays were NOT timed to coincide with the selection process.
Mr Gill was able to oversee all the regional selection committees work.
He was also at the Political Cttee meeting when the question of appeals were discussed.
Only when the Cttee had ruled did Mr Gill take holiday.
He did an enormous amount of work for the Party.
Mr Gill was not out of contact with party leaders or the NEC.I personally contacted him during the time you claim he was in communicdo.
As to who authorised the Press Office to run the Media tests then quite simply it was the NEC and confirmed by the Political Cttee.
And the tests were carried out in a role as employess -in what other capacity could we act.

I have followed your slurs on an honourable and honest man for several postings.I believe Mr Gill is owed an apolofy Mr Collier.
Clive Page

Clive Page

Sorry for typos towards end.Working on strange computer.
Clive

Geoffrey Collier

BobFM: Sorry, I will try and get Gawain's name write (sorry, again, right in future).