Mark Croucher

So what percentage do you think were sold to non-members, and how would this compare with the local Sea Scouts prize draw in percentage terms? In terms of premises, they were mailed out to members of the society, so that is neither here nor there.

It is hardly clear cut, but Collier is presenting his argument as if it is beyond doubt. Perhaps it was registered elsewhere and the copy simply wasn't changed: Birmingham City Council, for example. Perhaps, and I think it's quite likely, it qualifies as a private lottery given the negligable amount of tickets likely to have been sold externally. Collier is complaining that it is illegal, but when pressed is unable to define what is and is not legal, is unaware of the existence of a class (several classes, in fact) of lottery which are exempt from registration, is apparently unaware of the relevant legislation and resorts in the last instance to simply restating the same faulty facts repeatedly a la Liar-Watkins. If he's going to sling allegations of misappropriation, he should at least temporarily stop talking through his hat and find out what he's talking about before resorting to Liar-Watkins style smears: he wants to change the cultural climate of UKIP, don't you know, but clearly it doesn't apply to him.

I don't know any more than you what the answer is, Rob: neither of us are lottery experts! But there is certainly an arguable case that nothing was done incorrectly apart from it saying 'Registered with...etc' and not being, assuming that he has actually done some research with Westminster City Council which is more comprehensive than his research into lotteries generally.

I think we've pretty much exhausted the subject of prize draws now, haven't we?

M

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: I have been informed, admittedly through a third party, that Nikki Sinclaire said that our lotteries were producing £15000X2 annually. I can't confirm that, but the bank statements should give a figure. I cannot believe that the UKIP lotteries were, within the meaning of the Act, private lotteries. I am sure that you will agree with me, that those whose actions could precipitate a full and impartial audit could provide that evidence from which the party could benefit : at least the truth, whatever it is, would be known.

Mark Croucher

The party accounts have already been audited by a recognised firm of accountants who are not connected to UKIP. They have also been passed by the party membership at the annual business meeting. UKIP is under no obligation, legal or moral, to do more.

M

Barboo

I know nothing about your complaint apart from what is in the public domain, but you have referred to it as a 'formal' complaint and UKIP rules regarding these are specific about the procedure to be followed.

You told Geoffrey Kingscott in August 2006, "As you know, I submitted a formal disciplinary complaint against Abbott for being in breach of his branch officer's declaration", and you have said here that you made a "formal complaint" when you realised Abbott was standing for the NEC. That would have been at the latest in the second half of January 2006, so by the first meeting of the new NEC on 20 March there would have been ample time, at least two months, for the disciplinary process to have been completed. Was your complaint upheld or dismissed? Or have you been lying by claiming to have made a formal complaint?

Independent UKIP

Could you please quote the rules concerned with the definition of a "formal complaint" and the obligatary consideration thereof at the time relevant? My brief perusal of the constitution and certain other published rules did not show that. Perhaps I wasn't looking closely enough though if present those rules just possibly might not relate to the period you are referring to here?

Thanks very much.

SponPlague

You start by writing the party secretary. he decides if there is an initial case to answer, and if so, refers it to 4 discipline committee members for further discussion. If they agree, it then goes to a full blown hearing with 6 DC members, and the accused...

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: Are those accounts to which you refer, the same ones which at the Business Meeting, Marta Andreasen was unable to explain to a NEC member what donations had been received from Ramsgate Call Centre during that same Financial Year?
I think that you should just relax about this matter for a little longer. Based on their own experiences, it is widely believed that the Electoral Commission will be amenable to approving a forensic audit. At least that should be able to answer your question about the legal status of the lottery: that will be a blessing. Other things like 'Ashford',
redundancy payments, etc, could be finally explained. You may agree with me that things could be changing for the better in UKIP, and inquisitive people like yourself, must be given much of the credit. What changes are necessary before you renew your membership; surely this is what your efforts are all about?

Barboo

Rules dated 2.9.02 posted to this forum by Anthony, but which I cannot now find here. Maybe someone can direct?

The thing which has always set formal complaints apart from any other is that they must be put in writing to the Party Secretary, and must then be dealt with according to the party's complaints procedure by the party secretary and the Discipline Panel, not by the NEC. It is possible for the party secretary to dismiss the complaint as unsubstantive; for the Discipline Panel to decide there is no case to answer; for the DP to decide there is a case to answer but to dismiss it on hearing the evidence; or for the DP to uphold the complaint.

In view of Mark Croucher's continual repeating of his allegations against David Abbott, I think it should now be made clear whether the Discipline Panel dismissed or upheld his formal complaint.

SponPlague

The first step is to find out whether the Party Secretary actually referred it to the discipline panel, or dismissed it himself...