News: Robin Page Press Release

Mark Croucher · 03-09-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

Oh, you heard about the other press release too? I only heard mention of it after I started this thread. It's been suggested it was a draft sent by mistake?

If so, I understand it was widely circulated, and about 153 pages long

It was certainly the first one around, and referred in one paragraph to the late forms being due to illness, then a research trip and then illness again. Strangely, this has been narrowed down to a single cause on the final version.

Best rgds

Mark

SponPlague · 03-09-2008, 02:09 PM

153???

Mark Croucher · 03-09-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

153???

I may exaggerate slightly

M

SponPlague · 03-09-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Croucher

I may exaggerate slightly

M

Who do you think you are: A Press Officer?

mrabody · 03-09-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Wilson

I have read Christopher Gill's response to Robin Page's press release and it appears to be a very reasonable stand point. What do others think?

It appears reasonable, but then so have the letters written by Robin Page to Piers Merchant which have been published on this forum. So who to believe, Robin Page or Christopher Gill. Unfortunately I expect it will be for the court to decide this one as it is going to come down to who the judge believes on the issue of how long Robin Page was given to get his papers in.

SponPlague · 03-09-2008, 03:15 PM

I suspect the courts might look to see if any other aspects of the elections were disputed...

Henry IX · 03-09-2008, 03:24 PM

For those not in the know, what does the 'paperwork' consist of? Is it really very onerous and time-consuming? For a party that's anti pointless bureacracy/ regulation, I trust it's not any longer than necessary???

SponPlague · 03-09-2008, 03:32 PM

You need to visit paid up party members, and get them to sign your nomination form, quoting membership number. If you're ill (or abroad

), that would be a pain...

Quote:

Nominations to include:
Completed application form which will contain names of proposer, seconder and eight assentors. All must be members in good standing; proposer and seconder must have been members for at least a year. A member may not propose or second more than one candidate in the same region.
£250 non-returnable deposit (£100 in 2004)
standardised personal details including 200 word personal statement and recent photograph to be sent to Head Office.
All applicants will be required to undergo an enhanced CRB check. The cost for this will be covered by the £250 deposit.
Head Office may demand confirmation in March 2009 that all information given by listed candidates on their application forms remains accurate.

Geoffrey Collier · 03-09-2008, 03:40 PM

Mark Croucher: Your comments are irrelevant to the issue. Many UKIP members have, and possibly still do, seek election to their local councils as independents, or claiming similar candidate appellations. Answer the central question. Did the paid employees, have the the authority to fill in Robin Page's documentation, which was clearly implied by their offer to do that work, on behalf of another person? Why, when RP asked for the documentation himself, was his request refused in favour of an alternative course of action? If they were in breach of the rules, they must be held to account. If they were within the rules, but the dereliction of duty was their fault alone, again, they must be held to account. What kind of reasoning are we being subjected to by your desperate mental excursions. No fair minded person could argue that R.P. has had a fair deal.

Page was assured, by those who made the offer to complete the documentation, that they would ensure their submission, in time to comply with the rules. It was not done, and Robin Page was not to blame.

mrabody · 03-09-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

I suspect the courts might look to see if any other aspects of the elections were disputed...

Unfortunately I suspect that there will be other aspects of the elections that will be disputed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-09-2008, 02:09 PM	#22 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,115	153???

03-09-2008, 03:15 PM	#26 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,115	I suspect the courts might look to see if any other aspects of the elections were disputed...

03-09-2008, 03:24 PM	#27 (permalink)
Henry IX Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 80	For those not in the know, what does the 'paperwork' consist of? Is it really very onerous and time-consuming? For a party that's anti pointless bureacracy/ regulation, I trust it's not any longer than necessary???

03-09-2008, 03:40 PM	#29 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,158	Mark Croucher: Your comments are irrelevant to the issue. Many UKIP members have, and possibly still do, seek election to their local councils as independents, or claiming similar candidate appellations. Answer the central question. Did the paid employees, have the the authority to fill in Robin Page's documentation, which was clearly implied by their offer to do that work, on behalf of another person? Why, when RP asked for the documentation himself, was his request refused in favour of an alternative course of action? If they were in breach of the rules, they must be held to account. If they were within the rules, but the dereliction of duty was their fault alone, again, they must be held to account. What kind of reasoning are we being subjected to by your desperate mental excursions. No fair minded person could argue that R.P. has had a fair deal. Page was assured, by those who made the offer to complete the documentation, that they would ensure their submission, in time to comply with the rules. It was not done, and Robin Page was not to blame.