Monday 30 December 2013

Farage does UKIP good on Syrian refugees

Nigel Farage is an excellent political opportunist. His widely reported views that we should admit a small number of Syrian refugees got a huge amount of publicity for UKIP and cost UKIP nothing politically. After all Farage is never going to be in a government position where he will be called to honour his commitment. Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages as Baldwin put it although the phrase was coined by his cousin Rudyard Kipling.

This ticks a number of boxes for Farage. He is a devotee of tokenism and to that end has been careful to get on board token black people, homosexuals etc. but only for decoration. If they show signs of being good like Del they are quickly marginalised and ousted by the all white, heterosexual cabal. It does however give Farage cover from the racist attack by the media. He loves to point out to the media UKIP has black/homosexual etc candidates.

Secondly as David Davies points out, "Its about Mr Farage trying to reposition his party so that the anti-immigration argument which is so important to them (UKIP), is not seen as a barbaric argument". That's politics Mr Davies!

The Telegraph leader puts it rather better, "Yet again Nigel Farage has wrong footed the Prime Minister". Again that's very good politics.

Its a pity Farage bears grudges against any who disagree with him on non-policy issues. That limits him and UKIP as a political force. You need as big an army as possible to win.

Saturday 28 December 2013

Londonistan will soon be the capital of the UK

Londonistan as Andrew Neil calls it is not the capital of my country. It will however soon be the capital of UKIP's England. Already 55% of births in London are to foreign born mothers many of whom will be Islamic. UKIPers are literally dying out! In 20 years London will be a Muslim city as the Islamics outbreed the diminishing residual indigenous population. Cynical? No that was the description of HMG's Northern Ireland policy of the UK government I heard from a very senior civil servant in 1972. Keep the lid on things and wait until the Catholic population outnumbered the Protestant and hey presto problem solved.

In London however the increase in the Islamic population will be a growing problem. The British parliamentary electoral system rewards geographic concentration of votes. Hence UKIP with roughly 5% of the popular vote has and will get no MPs in 2015 and with roughly the same vote share there are currently 20 or so Islamic MPs and that number will increase post 2015. Most are Labour MPs in safe seats but it will be impossible for a non-Muslim to be selected as Labour candidate in these seats in future elections. (I will be interested to see if J Straw's son gets selected in Blackburn.)  Thirty or so Muslim MPs will be quite enough to hold any UK government that does not have an overall majority to ransom in the way that Clegg's Lib Dems have done to the Tories.

Muslims do not integrate. They cluster in Muslim areas and wiil increase their dominance of these areas year after year. This will lead to the UK becoming divided along religous groupings. It will be Northern Ireland on the UK mainland but on a much bigger scale and if unchecked will eventually return us to the Dark Ages. The French have a strong secular  tradition keeping religion out of government, schools etc which we do not have. That is why the French have passed laws banning veils etc in schools and public places. They are aware the dangers to social cohesion these items cause. Not only are we unaware but the political elite actively promote these items under the banner of diversity!

The problems M&S is now experiencing with Muslim staff refusing to sell pork or alcohol items is only the start. M&S have created their own problems in this respect by having given Jewish staff similar 'rights' many years ago. UK courts have recognised Beth Din judgements on divorce and civil disputes. The Muslims are only asking for similar status for their Sharia courts. There are stong similarities between Sharia law and Halaka Jewish law as there is in food laws, burial customs etc. The Muslims are only asking for what has been given to Jews in the UK as the former Archishop Williams pointed out.

This is dangerous stuff. I remember when Mugabe came to power in Zimbabwe he did not have to pass any repressive legislation. Smith had already put that in the statute  book. All Mugabe had to do was apply it to the Whites! Thus it will be when we have an Islamic government and laws designed to be applied to Muslim 'terrorists' will be applied to the C of E, High Tories and golf clubs!

That, best beloved is why I will be voting SNP in 1314. I would rather be ruled by Edinburgh than the coming Islamic Caliphate of Londonistan.

Saturday 21 December 2013

Godders agrees with Del & me on Farage - at last!

The Bloom interview with Decca Aikenhead published today in the Guardian confirms what Del and I have been saying about Farage for many years. I quote Godders views on Farage below:

"He's not interested (in policy). He's not interested in the running of the party, or in making policy. He's Ukip's chief salesman, that's what Nigel is."

"Farage, he despairs, can't take criticism, goes to pieces in a crisis, is really a conservative, and doesn't even want to lead the party. "He's not a team player, you see. He didn't play rugger. Plays golf!" Bloom accuses Ukip's leader of pursuing an "Ein Führer" leadership policy and a "No-policy" policy agenda, and claims Farage has already struck a secret election deal with the Tories in return for a seat in the Lords."

Years ago Del and I sussed this was Farage's real agenda. I wrote it, Del spoke it but few in UKIP believed it some because it suited them financially but most because they believed Farage would lead them out of the EU. They have in Del's words been fooled, used and abused. I hope they will believe us now!

"Relations (between Bloom and Farage) had been breaking down since the spring, when Farage appeared to change his mind about flat tax in the middle of Question Time. Bloom asked what was going on, and "I got a quite hysterical text back: 'Your job is to get out there delivering leaflets instead of asking me about policy!'  

Most telling is this part

Farage complained to him: "Whenever I'm interviewed now, people want to talk about you." Bloom thinks his friend became threatened by his media profile  and public popularity, and that Crickgate had a lot to do with jealousy. "I'd taken the spotlight off his speech, that's what it was all about! It was toys out of the pram. Let's be brutally honest. He panicked."

If you upstage Farage in any way you are viciously attacked by the UKIP's mercenary ruling cabal. They know if Farage is ousted their meal ticket goes with him.

"He parodies the speech Farage did actually make, putting on a petulant, high-pitched wail and flapping his arms over his shoulders. "That's it! Conference is ruined! "

Farage phoned him up, Godders comments "He'd lost it badly. Oh, he was really in pieces. It was: 'Conference is over! No one's going to look at my speech now!'" But later that day the party secretary told Bloom not to worry, assuring him, "We'll smooth it all over. We can't afford to lose you, you're too popular." Bloom woke up the next day, "and there was Nigel Farage on the television, sacking me. I turn on and I'm being sacked on the telly! 

That is the Farage way as I have often pointed out.

Bloom rightly says, Ukip is in the grip of an internal battle for its future. At HQ "they are all stabbing each other in the back", and the grassroots are being deliberately squeezed out. "They have been purged. This is 1933 Germany, night of the long knives. I'm waiting to be dragged out of the pub and butchered. This is New Ukip now. And they are looking for a deal with the Tories."

This blog has pointed this out for the last 4 years. Look at how many ex Tories are now running UKIP and on MEP slates. Moles may be a better description of these people.

"UKIP's radical libertarian ideas frighten Farage. More importantly, they would make an electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 much trickier. And so, says Bloom, he has been marginalising grassroots members, sacking troublesome rivals, and turning himself into "a professional politician, with a professional party, so he can be within some alliance with the Conservative party". Bloom had to be elbowed out before a pact could be agreed. "And," he says with confidence, "the deal has already now been done."

He's unclear on its precise details, but certain that Farage's reward for standing down Ukip candidates in key seats is a title and a seat in the House of Lords. Would he want that? Bloom chuckles knowingly – "Not for him, of course!" – and adopts a weaselly, ever-so-'umble voice. "'But should one be forced upon me, then for the good of the party, and if people felt I could better serve there, well then … ' Of course he would!"
Its a well written devastating critique of the effect of years of Farage rule of UKIP. I bought the Guardian just to read it. Click on this link to read it:
If after reading this piece  you still think UKIP has a future under Lord Farage of Brussels then you need help.


Friday 20 December 2013

Molly the dog sniffs a phoney on This Week

You can't fool children and animals. Farage found this out on last night's This Week. Molly, AN's labrador parked herself next to Diane Abbott wisely eschewing the Fuerher's company. She obviously did not like the smell of  Farage's false bonhommie

Abbott and Portillo then started to forensically disect Farage's arguments whereupon  Farage started trying to shout Portillo down. Not a smart move. He used to do it to me on the NEC when the Cabal claimed I was doing the shouting. It was Farage then and now who shouts rational atgument down. I am glad its now in the public domain.

UKIPers can now see it for themselves by clicking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03mnkg3/This_Week_19_12_2013/



Monday 16 December 2013

Men in Wheelchairs

My two favourites in this category are mein Fuerher::






and





I may add to my collection.

Thursday 12 December 2013

Time to privatise the BBC

This has been one of Mrs Edmond's themes for many years. Her views were in part generated by the persistent misreporting and bias in children's medical care stories. Tim Congdon has also recently been banging this drum at a lecture he gave on 12th Nov. I reproduce his introduction below:

"In the early 1950s the British Broadcasting Corporation was – by a wide margin – the largest and most influential broadcasting organization in the world .
But the world has moved on – and so must our thinking about the structure of broadcasting in our country."

His central argument is:

• License free is obsolete and impractical in modern world of on-the-move electronic communications, and has to be phased-out and/or abolished.
• In a world without the license fee, the BBC should finance itself like the existing ‘global media businesses’ from market sources. Fair competition requires that it be privatized.
• The BBC should therefore be privatized, and planning for that outcome should already be in hand.

That is the strong economic/financial case for privatisation but there are other aspects to the argument. The BBC has a dominant position in political reporting. ITV, C4 and Sky 's political output is a small fraction of the Beeb's. Adding up Andrew Neil's programmes alone comes to 7 hours a week.This output is largely well researched and balanced. Question Time the most widey watched 'political' show is not. Worse it has a live audience which in high profile shows has been very unbalanced and biased as has been the chairmanship of Dimbelbey.

Dimblebee's elitist patronising attitude is mirrored by his bosses, Patten and Hall has rightly annoyed
 the Commons Culture and Media select committee who have described Patten, known as Fat Pang in Hong Kong, decsribed by one MP as 'contemptuous' and 'lofty'.

This was documented thus in today's Guido Fawkes blog:



Culture, Media & Sport Committee MP: Patten Must Quit
Second Member Slams ‘Contemptuous’ and ‘Lofty’ Lord


After waiting ten months to admit that it would be ‘preferable’ for a different version of the Pollard Review into the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal to have been published, the Chairman of the BBC Trust is now facing calls to resign. Philip Davies, an MP on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has called on Patten to walk:
“The last shred of credibility that Lord Patten had as Chairman of the BBC Trust has now gone and I think he should go.”
Another member of the committee, Conor Burns, adds:
“The Pollard report and the appointment of Tony Hall as Director General of the BBC was meant to allow the BBC to draw a line under a discreditable period in the BBC’s recent history. Yet myself and others on the Culture Select committee have repeatedly pressed Lord Patten and Tony Hall on the matter of Helen Boaden’s submissions to Polland and why they were excluded from the report. My questions were treated at best with lofty disdain and at worst as if I were just an irritant. The stone walling has now resulted in a completely avoidable questioning of trust in the BBC Trust and their handling of this matter. It may be excusable if there were not repeated warnings from MPs that the BBC could not move on until all information was fully in the public domain. The Trust and the Director General now have very serious questions to answer – not least why did they not answer questions to a Parliamentary committee when they clearly had the information to do so. It is not my role to call for resignations but it is to demand answers to questions that were posed and contemptuously ignored. I hope the Culture Committee will afford Lord Patten an opportunity to answer them very quickly before this episode yet again engulfs the BBC in yet another avoidable crisis of trust.”
The BBC say they are “not getting into numbers” over the amount of media requests that Patten has turned down in the last 24 hours, but it seems he will not be able to run away from scrutiny for long…
UPDATE: Another CMS committee MP, Angie Bray, who was Patten’s PA when he was Tory chairman, calls for him to explain himself to parliament:
“I challenged Chris Patten on this issue at the select committee hearing on 25 April and he was very very adamant then that there was nothing more to be said about it. I felt dissatisfied with the response I got then and it now seems at last that the BBC has woken up to it. It’s time that Chris Patten gave some answers. I think it would be right for Chris Patten to come and answer questions in front of our committee. I was always dissatisfied with the answers I got from Chris Patten back in April. I thought he gave very evasive answers in April. We need to get to the bottom of this and the best way of doing that is for Chris Patten to come and speak to our committee.”


I applaud the MPs. Its high time someone hit  the Beeb in their  huge salaries.

My wife and I never watch the BBC news. C4 and Sky are vastly better best of all cost nothing!

Sunday 8 December 2013

Crowther's fate was written 500 years ago

Machiavelli has been getting a lot of publicity recently mainly about his manual of political dirty tricks, the Prince,written 500 years ago. He had been secretary to the Florentine Republic sandwiched between two periods of Medici rule. After the Medii restoration he was kept under house arrest at his farm outside Florencee. The book was wriiten in an attempt to curry favour with the Medici and get his old job back.. In this he failed but the book published after his death lives on helped by the Pope immediately banning it after publication in 1530 along with all Macciavelli's other much better works.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kqdnb/imagine..._Winter_2013_Whos_Afraid_of_Machiavelli/

One of Machiavelli's favourite stories concerns one Roberto Dordo who Cesare Borgia sent to snuff out a brewing revolution in the Italian town of Ceseena. Dordo certainly did that using the most brutal measures and in the process made himself the most hated man in town. When this started to effect Cesare's status with the people he had Dordo killed one dark night and his body hacked into two pieces and placed on a chopping block in the town square for the good citizens to awaken to. The citizens were very impressed by this brutal action but praised Cesare for ridding them of this hated man but they were equally terrified the same fate might befall them.

Thus did Renaissance princes rule. They knew that it was more important the people feared them and love was secondary. It was the same in the Godfather film.

Crowther seems to be becoming very unpopular with a number of UKIP branches. When his actions eventually become a serious embarassment with the party faithful to the Fuerher, Crowther will suffer metaphorically the same fate as Dordo. He will suffer as others have done in UKIP who were an encumbrance to Farage and were no longer useful. Denny springs to mind, dismissed after years of loyal unquestioning obedience and devoted service to Nigel. He surely deserved better.

The UKIP faithful will praise the wisdom of their great leader in ridding them of this man Crowther and the Cabal will get the message toe the Farage line or you will be next for the chop. Farage will get the praise and others the blame. That has been the political way since the dawn of time.

The Cabal are an ill educated bunch. If they knew history they might just recognise their impending fate. Bannerman jumped back to the Tories before he could be terminated. It is time for others to consider the fragility of their positions. Put not your trust in princes!

Tuesday 3 December 2013

UKIP is a South East pseudo Tory party

The evidence for this is on the UKIP web site list of NEC members. Look there to see full details and photos of the NEC. I list them at the end of this article as brief summary suffices to make my point.

There is a total of 20 members listed of whom 12 are elected. Of the remainder 7 are Farage placemen nominees, Crowther, Wheeler, Duffy, Reeve, Richardson, Arnott & Hamilton. Batten is a Farage approved MEP. Farage's name strangely is absent. This must be an error. Farage was at every NEC meeting I ever attended!

Of the 12 elected members  2 Bours and Wolfe are from the NW, Nuttall.s region, 6 from the South East, 3 from the Eastern region and 1 from London

Of the Farage placemen  Duffy/Reeve are Eastern Arnott was put in place by Nuttall, Wheeler lives in a castle in the South East and although nominated onto the NEC by Farage because of his wealth is clearly the one genuinely independent member of the NEC. Hamilton is a disgraced old Tory, former MP for  Hatton now Gideon's seat dependent on Farage's favour to try and fan the embers of his political career. I fear he may be disappointed.

Couple this with the total disintegration and inter-necine equabbles of UKIP in Scotland and the East Midlands and you have a South of England old Tory rump cult party. Does anyone seriously believe such a party can deliver us from the EU? All it can deliver is loads of EU dosh for the favoured friends of Farage who inevitably will become MEPs for the 5 years 2014 to 2019.

National Executive Committee

Steve Crowther
Party Chairman

Stuart Wheeler
Party Treasurer
Ex officio

Lisa Duffy
Party Director
Ex officio
 
Peter Reeve
Party Nominating Officer
Ex officio

 
Matthew Richardson
Party Secretary
Ex officio

Jonathan Arnott
General Secretary
Ex officio
Piers Wauchope
SE Region
(2012-2015)

Louise Bours
NW Region
(2011-2014)

Alan Bown
SE Region
(2012-2015)

George Curtis
Eastern Region
(2013-2015)
Gerard Batten
London MEP

Steven  Woolfe
North West Region
(2011-2014)

Mick McGough
Eastern Region
(2012-2015)

Neil Hamilton
Party Deputy Chairman
Ex officio

Adrianne Smyth
Eastern Region
(2013-2016)
 
Lucy Bostick
London Region
(2013-2016)

Rob McWhirter
South East Region
(2013-2016)

Andrew Moncreiff
South East Region
(2013-2016)

Tom Bursnall
South East Region
(2013-2014)

Harry Aldridge
South East Region
(2013-2014)
   

source UKIP web site

Monday 2 December 2013

Bootle gets it right on Scottish Independence

I don't have much time for economists and Roger Bootle in particular but he has written a very good piece in today's DT click http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/10487194/Scotland-may-prefer-to-go-it-alone-but-the-EU-has-lessons-for-countries-that-secede.html

He supports my view that the ecomomic red herrings that are being dragged in are worthy but secondary to the issue voters must vote on, "Who will rule Scotland, the Scottish people or the English Metropolitan elite?"

Bootle has dug up some interesting stuff on optimal size of a country or more correctly political association. He makes clear the distinction between the two. A country is more than an association. A country has a common language and legal system. He points out the problem with the meddling EU is that is trying to be a country without the necessary cultural and historical underpining particularly a common language. As he points out they have only recently stopped fighting each other but the old enemities are still there. We mainland Britons used to fight each other but not for the last 260 years. Only a diminishingly few Irish seem to want to continue the feud.

Its an excellent article and well worth reading.  I won't attempt to plagirise it. The conclusion I draw is that the best way out for the EU  is to agree on English as its only official language and the French could never accept that. I suppose Esperanto is a possibility but it has zero cultural history - maybe not a bad thing.

Sunday 1 December 2013

Towler, Denny and Fuller: More UKIP deja vu

On perusing my Sunday Telegraph this morning I found in the Mandrake column that Gawain Towler is being eased out of his press officer role and Annabelle Fuller, last seen escorting Godders into oblivion, is being eased in. I have described in my previous blogs how GT and AF only survived in UKIP because they were supported by Farage. Fuller is well known as a very close friend of Farage.

Then on reading my emails I find a copy of a long rambling statement by Mr Denny, a former friend of Farage, describing the shortcomings in the UKIP MEP selection process administered by Mr Crowther which has caused huge divisions in UKIP faithful. There are so many Johny come lately UKIP members wanting to get their snouts into the EU trough  that Senor Barroso will have to build a bigger money trough.

I reproduce below what I was sent of Mr Denny's statement:

"NOTES REGARDING SUBMISSION OF STEVE CROWTHER
 
 
Mr. Crowther states an "independent panel"  was used. 
 

 
The panel finally used (and it was not appointed by the NEC when actioned) has at least six people who, in my opinion and personal knowledge of people within UKIP,  I would NOT select for such a panel on the grounds of them having either potential self interest (as employees for example whose salary is dependent on the patronage of the Leadership), and/or,  of being potentially subject to undue influence from the Leadership by being close friends (like John Moran and Mr Crowther);  or very close to the Leader's organisation for his European election campaign (such as Roger Bird).
 
I believe the pre-selection part of the process to be flawed,  and fatally so from a democratic point of view for UKIP members.

The pre-selection process over which you have presided which you freely admit was carried out without proper resolutions obtained is, in my opinion, seriously flawed.

I believe the results are so anomalous, and have caused such widespread dissent in the party with those affected,  as to indicate that one of two things has happened, or both:-
 
1) either that part of the process of selection has been seriously deficient in how it was developed and/or applied; or
2) there has been maladministration in some form or another applied by one or more persons involved.
 
I  disassociate myself from it  as being the exact opposite of what was intended.
I believe it allows the possibility of, and certainly allows the accusation of, potential gerrymandering,  and I believe is fatally flawed as a democratic process by not conforming properly in its development to the Party Constitution and Rules, also by potential maladministration and/or misapplication of the rules by the party chairman Mr. Crowther. 
 
--------------------------------
 
Ref Minutes of NEC 13th May discussion of MEP Selection.

 
 
NEC Minutes of 13th May clearly state certain people who are well known in the party, of good repute, and of good standing were to be used for that panel.
There was no dissent of these people in the NEC and an amendment to T.3.2  was proposed and carried.
Those people listed were:-
 
George Curtis (NEC member);
Sebastian Fairweather (NEC member);
Jeffrey Titford (Ex Party Leader);
Rachel Oxley (Ex-NEC member and head of an Independent school);
Roger Bird (Chairman of the SE selection committee and Nigel Farage's organiser for the European elections);
Steve Crowther (chairman of the NEC);
Peter Reeve (Party Nominations Officer).    
 
 
The selection panel actually used however,  was considerably different and was NOT approved by the NEC at that time,   and contained people who would in my opinion, most certainly have caused considerable debate in the NEC as to their suitability.

...... with near 100% certainty one in particular,  who was associated in one previous UKIP EU election in assisting the present Leader,  as manager and director of a Telephone Call Centre for donations, which had a bank account set-up for the Leader's region without the knowledge of the then Party Treasurer.{Refers to John Moran}
 

On the 17th Aug Steve Crowther requested a vote by e-mail of all the NEC,  to make a resolution for the acceptance of a selection panel of three including himself, as he had not finished the process. This is after I had questioned the legality of the selection panels vis a vis UKIP constitution and rules,  and is a tacit admission that the selection panels were indeed deficient by not having NEC approval.
 
The Party Secretary {Jonathan Arnott?} first claimed he had carefully examined all the papers regarding the MEP selection process,  and said the whole of the selection process was legally sound in all respects {assuming this is Arnott speaking, his ability to make a 'legal judgement' is somewhat limited}.  He then later changed this opinion to an acceptance of what he called a "technicality" whereby the selection panel was deemed to be ultra vires because it had not been approved by the NEC.
 
On the 18th August,   Steve Crowther then called for a retrospective vote of the NEC by e-mail to regularise the deficiency. He wanted a rapid resolution within 24 hours.  The Party Secretary claimed this was legally acceptable {see above},  and claimed it would have made no difference to the acceptance of these people if it had been put to the NEC properly earlier. 

This is an incredible statement.  As a long-standing NEC member I dispute this vociferously.
 
The selection panel contains a significant proportion of people who were NOT on the original list put to the NEC on the 13th May and would certainly have caused considerable debate and some dissent in the NEC with some of the newly introduced people.
 
It was discussed briefly at NEC that party employees should not be a part of the selection process because they might be considered to have a interest in that their salary is dependent upon the patronage of the party leadership; but that was never resolved one way or another with a vote.
--------------------
 
Further to Ref:  Paragraph 10
 
Para 13 states:-

 
"In this iteration of elections UKIP has worked especially hard to ensure that the process for selection of candidates has been as fair and transparent as possible".
 
This is an incredible statement.
 
As an NEC member I do not feel this process has been transparent regarding the selection process at all.   In fact it is completely opaque to me as an NEC member representing the UKIP membership.  I cannot possibly say to the UKIP members "I know the process was undertaken with complete transparency and think it to be fair and equitable".   I do not think that at all.

A sub-committee was formed but its required  functions were never satisfactorily carried out, nor its deliberations presented properly to the NEC for ratification.
 
This resolution for the formation of a sub-committee is contained in the following:
Document:        MEP Candidate Selection Process 2013  Revised 29.04.13
provided by Steve Crowther says:-
The sub-committee will establish a Selection Panel comprising five members selected for their experience, judgement and availability who will oversee and manage the process.
 
This sub-committee and its formation is mentioned in document to the NEC from Steve Crowther: marked:
NEC 7 January 2013   MEP SELECTION
which says:-
An NEC sub-committee was set-up in October, comprising members of the NEC who are not intending to stand for MEP selection.
NEC sub-committee:-
 Steve Crowther, George Curtis, Douglas Denny, Toby Micklethwait, Alan Bown, Lisa Duffy (a), Peter Reeve (a), Michael Greaves (a)   
(a=Advisory)
 
That sub-committee only sat for two sessions only  that I remember, (possibly three),  but no minutes were taken, though they should have been,  (which is why I cannot remember if two or three meetings occurred),  and not even the sub-committee's outline decisions were given as written presentation to the NEC;  and no specific criteria for selection/assessment were ever discussed by that committee or the NEC.   As a committee it might as well have not existed.  Correct due process of the sub-committee, required by the NEC in a resolution (as above) was NOT carried out.
-------------------------
 
Another example of maladministration of the process used for MEP selection by Mr. Crowther, is that at the NEC discussion on the process, it was agreed that no member of UKIP of less than one year's good standing would be eligible to stand as a candidate, ......
 
I am given to understand this NEC requirement in the selection rules of at least one year's membership in good-standing for eligibility appears to have been ignored completely. 
--------------------------

I have tried to ameliorate the problems by suggesting modifications to the process which could be easily implemented by resolution(s) of the NEC (obtained within the 24-hour format that Mr Crowther has already done in this case to retrospectively obtain correct due process),   and for an extraordinary meeting of the NEC to be called rapidly (within the week) when I first raised my concerns with the party chairman; but all these protestations have been turned down by the Party chairman and NEC chairman Mr. Crowther."

Note: The author of the above, Doug Denny, was removed from the NEC for submitting these statements to the Party. 

It is ironic that when I raised similar issues in the run up to the 2009 European election Mr Denny was my severest critic. Mr Denny's favourite phrase was to label  those complaining about bias and unfair treatment in the selction process, "malcontents".

I console myself with the thought that there is much joy in heaven when a sinner repents.

No minutes of crucial meetings being taken has been a long standing feature of the Farage regime as is no audit trail via emails. Phone calls are Mr Farage's admin tool of choice of which no definitive record can be obtained.