#937* - THE PERFORMING MONKEY, THE PEER & THE UKIP NEANDERTHALS
#937* - THE PERFORMING MONKEY, THE PEER & THE UKIP NEANDERTHALSClean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
THE PERFORMING MONKEY, THE PEER & THE UKIP NEANDERTHALS!
NOT TO MENTION OUTRIGHT CRIMINALITY!!
"We did it in the European elections.
We passed on £80,00 from one person in effect...
and that caused no difficulty at all," Lord Pearson
You will be aware that Nigel Farage endlessly willing to lie on the media to the public, makes much of the claim that when HE found out that Ashley Mote and Tom Wise had fallen foul of the law UKIP, unlike other parties acted ruthlessly and decisively.
Minded of Farage's status:
Having had the fact that David Bannerman is similarly involved in this fraud and deception which is known to be illegal:
Will Stuart Agnew & David Bannerman both be suspended as UKIP MEPs and party procedure be followed for a full disciplinary hearing?
That Peter Reeve was also involved in this criminal activity will Farage on Monday morning fire him also?
Let us see what value Farage's lies on TV are worth in dealing with the criminal money laundering carried out and the further conspiracy to criminally launder money on the part of Lord Pearson will he too be suspended pending the inevitable criminal proceedings.
That of course leaves Nigel Farage in the position where the only honourable action as not only did this all occur on his watch as leader but also clearly he was party to the crimes as committed - One assumes he will, as effective leader, have the integrity to resign pending such criminal proceedings as now seem inevitable.
Do be minded that Nigel Farage has no alternative but to suspend each man involved and resign for you will recall that he states very clearly in his little book that he said if Tom Wise was not voted out by the NEC he himself would resign and as he also proudly boasts he was standing as a witness for the prosecution in the Crown Case against Tom Wise and Lindsay Jenkins.
Nigel Farage, with his dishonesty and braggadocio, has rather painted his way into a corner - either he must resign his seat as an MEP or carry on utterly discredited in shame to preside over the party he destroyed.
Do remind me but how did the idiot Nattrass get on when with all that bluster he threatened to sue The Sunday Times for telling the truth! Interestingly although he openly states he isn't racist and is unhappy about membership of the racist, xenophobic Pan EU Political Party EFD grouping he is too shamelessly gutless to leave The EFD - even though he and Batten, Coleman & Buffton all mutter about leaving AFTER the General Election they are perfectly happy to lie to the electorate in the mean time it seems - they lack the moral fibre to stand on their own feet and are frightened of not having Farage to wipe their noses for them it seems!
With two MEPs jailed for fraud and a number of MEPs it would seem still under a cloud with OLAF who have passed the files on within the EU pending passing them to British Police they are 'still at it'.
Then we have Derek Clarke who stood up in a public meeting and openly boasted of how he defrauded the tax payers through his EU expenses and allowances - not to mention paying his Regional Organiser £800 a week despite the fact he lost his driving license as a drunk!
We now have it on the record that Peter Reeve does virtually no work for the tax payers who pay his salary laundered through the liar and cheat David Bannerman and the bullying NFU MEP Agnew who openly states he has paid enough money to buy his MEPship!
Is it any wonder that UKIP are considered little more than a ship of fools when having guaranteed a Tory donor anonimity they glibbly bandy round the name of Partick Barbour as involved with UKIP and Lord Pearson in a criminal conspiracy to defraud!
Every word of Claire Newell's film is a part of a criminal conspiracy with intent to defraud!
Tom Wise was sentenced to 2 years in prison for his criminal money laundering which amounted to about £30K with a seeming intent to continue for a further 4 years.
Here we are talking of:
The titular leader Lord Pearson
The real leader Nigel Farage MEP
The deputy leader David Bannerman MEP
Stuart Agnew MEP
Patrick Barbour
Peter Reeve
ALL to a greater or lesser extent involved in actual criminal fraudulent money laundering, criminally obtaining money by deception, conspiracy to criminally obtain money by deception, or so it would seem based on the facts as presented in The Sunday Times.
I had always warned that UKIP were being incredibly stupid in the likes of Douglas Denny, Mark Croucher, Michael McGough and other low lifes in UKIP either in their own names or fake names endlessly insulting the media and the journalists and the biggest single loss Farage would seem to have made was in his foolish weenie waggling competition with the Sunday Times when they paid him to go away - just look at the publicity he has had from the Times Group since - even his naff book got totally panned! & UKIP's spring Conference and General Election launch gained ZERO publicity beyond Farage's scrotum which is as depleted as UKIP's morality, principles, competence, integrity, vision or ability.
Is it any wonder EUkip's only backer of serious substance Stuart Wheeler finally walked away two weeks ago in some disgust - he was it seems unwilling to go on pouring his hard earned money into an unaccounted structure where many believe Farage and others have trousered £Millions; where Nattrass memorably stated:
'we can't let Tom (Wise) get done , we are all at it for F***'* sake, how do you think we fund things'
We understand the last straw for Stuart Wheeler was the endless squabbling and back stabbing within the leadership cabal and finally the utterly dishonourable behaviour towards Nikki Sinclaire in breech of even EUkip's jaded rules! But then again the rules do not apply to EUkip's own in house spiv Nigel Farage!
Read the article below and YOU decide if it was wise of EUkip to keep insulting the media in general and Daniel Foggo, myself and Junius in particular!
You may well remember Agnew even threatened to beat me up on a couple of eMails and Croucher acting seemingly as an agent for UKIP saw fit to abuse the Court process to try to bankrupt me to silence the truth, Douglas Denny endlessly lies about me and makes a fool of himself insulting Daniel Foggo, Michael McGough tries desparately to link Foggo with MI5 - I wonder in the light f facts whether they still consider such actions are wise!
This at a time when due to the unbridled dishonesty and corruption of Andrew Smith, Nigel Farage, David Lott and others they earned a Guilty verdict in the Courts that left them with an unsecured debt of £3/4 million - such that they seemingly could not pay and so rather than go bankrupt it seems they yet again appealed the clear verdict which will escalate the debt to aroind £1.2Million when they are re-established as guilty as there is absolutely no doubt they are in breech of both the letter and the spirit of the law!
On would have thought even the most stupid of individuals would, with such a problem hanging over them, TRY to keep within the frame work of the law.
There’s more than one way to hide a donor
DESPITE having one of its former MEPs jailed for expenses fraud last year, the UK Independence party has benefited from the current distrust of the larger parties and is fielding its candidates in the general election on an anti-sleaze platform.
Yet its commitment to upholding political standards has now been revealed as less than perfect.
Stuart Agnew, a UKIP MEP, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the party’s leader, have told undercover reporters how a real donor's name could be kept secret by passing tens of thousands of pounds through intermediaries. If carried out, one or more of the suggested methods could have been illegal.
Our disclosures will embarrass UKIP and Pearson, who also told the undercover reporter that some UKIP members were “neanderthals” and described Agnew, 60, as “one of our only really sane MEPs”.
An undercover reporter approached Agnew last month, saying that her aunt wanted to make a substantial donation to UKIP while keeping her identity secret. This was, the reporter explained, because her aunt was a senior civil servant who would find it professionally embarrassing to have her name publicly linked with the party.
Agnew, who joined UKIP 11 years ago and was elected to the European parliament in 2009, was initially circumspect. Asked if the real donor’s name would have to be revealed publicly, he said: “I’m afraid if it’s significant it would have to be.” But within minutes he appeared to contradict himself.
“If she can trust you she could give you a huge sum of money and you could give it to the party,” he said.
“I will try and look into all these things though to see what can be done so there are a few options,” he added.
A few days later, Agnew rang to say that after taking advice from “experts” he had “encouraging information” and suggested a meeting.
Last Thursday he met the undercover reporter at a hotel in Colchester, Essex. Agnew began by outlining the law on giving anonymous donations. Any donation of more than £7,500 to a party headquarters, or £1,500 to a party individual or branch, must be declared to the Electoral Commission and the donor’s name given.
Although Agnew did not mention it, if a donation of more than £7,500 is made via a third party or agent, the details of the real donor must also be given to the political party so that they can be supplied to the commission, which then publishes them on its website. Making anonymous large donations by proxy is not allowed.
After summarising for the reporter the level permitted for anonymous donations, Agnew said: “Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated. She [the aunt] can give money to what’s known as an unincorporated association.”
Unincorporated associations, which do not have to file accounts, are allowed to make donations to political parties. There have long been suspicions, however, that they can be used as “filters” to pass money from donors who want to remain anonymous.
New rules state that donations totalling more than £25,000 a year from an unincorporated association will result in further scrutiny from the commission. It then demands a full list of everyone who has given to the association over the course of the previous year.
Even for donations of less than £25,000, however, the association is still required to disclose the true name of any donor who is using it as a proxy to give money.
Agnew suggested using Global Britain, which was set up in 1997 by Pearson and two other peers and now also includes fellow UKIP peer Lord Willoughby de Broke. It describes itself on its website as a “geo-political think tank” which conducts Eurosceptic research. Last May it donated £80,000 to UKIP in the run-up to the Euro elections.
Agnew said: “I’ve spoken to Nigel Farage [the UKIP MEP and former leader] and he says at the moment you can put £25,000 into Global Britain and you will remain anonymous.”
He went on: “Of course, there is an element of trust though that your aunt wants that money into UKIP. Now, as the thing is run by Malcolm Pearson and as he is the leader of UKIP, there’s a pretty good chance, isn’t there, that that money will go in the right direction.” Agnew later rang Farage in front of the reporter to recheck the possibility of giving the amount to UKIP via Global Britain.
Agnew continued to run down his list of ways of giving anonymously. He said: “Another thing she [the aunt] could do: you are her niece — she could give you £3,000 before April 5, in other words before the end of the tax year ... as a present, as a gift. You would then immediately give UKIP a donation of £3,000.” Agnew said she could then do the same next week — now in a new financial year — and in both cases avoid any tax penalties.
Adding all those methods together would allow the “aunt” to donate £38,500 anonymously, he said.
Then he raised the stakes even higher. “Your mother [sic] can make you a loan of £100,000 to buy a house ... and you would then become a donor to the party for £100,000 and your name would go up on the [commission] website.” Agnew said when the real donor died, she could state in her will that the loan was now a gift, thus writing it off. “You are seen to be the donor rather than her,” he said.
He added: “A loan can be for any amount if you are looking at a way of getting a substantial sum of money in your name. But remember, your name would then go on the website. And it would take quite an investigative journalist to try and work out [who you are].
“Nobody knows your particular status, you could have inherited money.” During the meeting Agnew also admitted that he was using taxpayers’ money to pay half the salary of an assistant — UKIP regional organiser Peter Reeve — whose amount of actual work for him was “virtually none”.
“I can tell you that Peter is paid partly by me out of my assistance allowance here partly by David [Campbell] Bannerman [another UKIP MEP]. He does very little work for us, virtually none. He is working for the party. And that’s strictly illegal.”
Salaries paid via MEPs’ assistance allowance must not fund party work. The EU’s anti-fraud watchdog Olaf has been investigating some of Agnew’s fellow MEPs over a similar matter.
The day after the meeting, Agnew spoke on the phone to the reporter a number of times. He said he had talked to Pearson about the possibility of making the donation to UKIP via Global Britain.
“He did confirm that two anonymous donations can be made. Up to £7,500 can be made directly to the party and £25,000 to Global Britain,” he said, describing the latter method as a “loophole”. “If your aunt is willing to give us £32,500 [£25,000 plus £7,500] then it can be done anonymously.”
Another undercover reporter then spoke to Pearson, who said the money given to his unincorporated association would be passed “straight on” to UKIP: “I could pass it on the same day.”
He insisted: “The Electoral Commission knows that we will be doing all this, because someone else who is a major Conservative donor also wanted similar anonymity. The main thing is that it mustn’t be a straight filter.”
Asked if he could guarantee her name would not come out, he said: “Yes, we did it in the European elections [in 2009]. We passed on £80,000 from one person in effect ... and that caused no difficulty at all.” He said he would check with the Electoral Commission and “if there was any doubt I would honestly rather go without rather than risk it”.
When confronted, Pearson said he thought unincorporated associations were allowed to pass on donations of not more than £25,000 directly. He also said he would have given the donor’s name to the commission, although he said he was “not sure” if he had passed on the name of Patrick Barbour, a former Tory donor who he said was the person who donated £80,000 to UKIP through them last year. He claimed Barbour had given Global Britain £100,000 saying he would be “happy” if most of it went to UKIP.
He explained why he thought Barbour had wanted to stay anonymous: “He’d rather the Conservative party didn’t know he was giving that sort of money, you know,” he said.
He said: “It still is my understanding that I do not think that what I said yesterday to your [undercover] reporter is wrong. I’m sorry if it is, and I’ll apologise.” Pearson said he was regularly in touch with the commission over Global Britain and donations.
Agnew said: “It’s not cut and dried and the acts are complicated. The law is often very difficult to interpret.”
Bannerman denied Reeve did no work for him and Agnew. He said Reeve worked for UKIP only “in his spare time”. Reeve agreed.
Farage said: “I said to Stuart Agnew, I can’t take this any further, that she [the aunt] would have to come and meet face to face with Lord Pearson and talk about it.”
Barbour said of his donation last year: “I am pretty sure that I left it up to [Pearson’s] discretion what it was spent on.”
In a later call he said he had not given to Global Britain in order to conceal an anonymous donation to UKIP.
A spokesman for the commission said it would take “appropriate action” if breaches of the rules had occurred.
Yet its commitment to upholding political standards has now been revealed as less than perfect.
Stuart Agnew, a UKIP MEP, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the party’s leader, have told undercover reporters how a real donor's name could be kept secret by passing tens of thousands of pounds through intermediaries. If carried out, one or more of the suggested methods could have been illegal.
Our disclosures will embarrass UKIP and Pearson, who also told the undercover reporter that some UKIP members were “neanderthals” and described Agnew, 60, as “one of our only really sane MEPs”.
An undercover reporter approached Agnew last month, saying that her aunt wanted to make a substantial donation to UKIP while keeping her identity secret. This was, the reporter explained, because her aunt was a senior civil servant who would find it professionally embarrassing to have her name publicly linked with the party.
Agnew, who joined UKIP 11 years ago and was elected to the European parliament in 2009, was initially circumspect. Asked if the real donor’s name would have to be revealed publicly, he said: “I’m afraid if it’s significant it would have to be.” But within minutes he appeared to contradict himself.
“If she can trust you she could give you a huge sum of money and you could give it to the party,” he said.
“I will try and look into all these things though to see what can be done so there are a few options,” he added.
A few days later, Agnew rang to say that after taking advice from “experts” he had “encouraging information” and suggested a meeting.
Last Thursday he met the undercover reporter at a hotel in Colchester, Essex. Agnew began by outlining the law on giving anonymous donations. Any donation of more than £7,500 to a party headquarters, or £1,500 to a party individual or branch, must be declared to the Electoral Commission and the donor’s name given.
Although Agnew did not mention it, if a donation of more than £7,500 is made via a third party or agent, the details of the real donor must also be given to the political party so that they can be supplied to the commission, which then publishes them on its website. Making anonymous large donations by proxy is not allowed.
After summarising for the reporter the level permitted for anonymous donations, Agnew said: “Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated. She [the aunt] can give money to what’s known as an unincorporated association.”
Unincorporated associations, which do not have to file accounts, are allowed to make donations to political parties. There have long been suspicions, however, that they can be used as “filters” to pass money from donors who want to remain anonymous.
New rules state that donations totalling more than £25,000 a year from an unincorporated association will result in further scrutiny from the commission. It then demands a full list of everyone who has given to the association over the course of the previous year.
Even for donations of less than £25,000, however, the association is still required to disclose the true name of any donor who is using it as a proxy to give money.
Agnew suggested using Global Britain, which was set up in 1997 by Pearson and two other peers and now also includes fellow UKIP peer Lord Willoughby de Broke. It describes itself on its website as a “geo-political think tank” which conducts Eurosceptic research. Last May it donated £80,000 to UKIP in the run-up to the Euro elections.
Agnew said: “I’ve spoken to Nigel Farage [the UKIP MEP and former leader] and he says at the moment you can put £25,000 into Global Britain and you will remain anonymous.”
He went on: “Of course, there is an element of trust though that your aunt wants that money into UKIP. Now, as the thing is run by Malcolm Pearson and as he is the leader of UKIP, there’s a pretty good chance, isn’t there, that that money will go in the right direction.” Agnew later rang Farage in front of the reporter to recheck the possibility of giving the amount to UKIP via Global Britain.
Agnew continued to run down his list of ways of giving anonymously. He said: “Another thing she [the aunt] could do: you are her niece — she could give you £3,000 before April 5, in other words before the end of the tax year ... as a present, as a gift. You would then immediately give UKIP a donation of £3,000.” Agnew said she could then do the same next week — now in a new financial year — and in both cases avoid any tax penalties.
Adding all those methods together would allow the “aunt” to donate £38,500 anonymously, he said.
Then he raised the stakes even higher. “Your mother [sic] can make you a loan of £100,000 to buy a house ... and you would then become a donor to the party for £100,000 and your name would go up on the [commission] website.” Agnew said when the real donor died, she could state in her will that the loan was now a gift, thus writing it off. “You are seen to be the donor rather than her,” he said.
He added: “A loan can be for any amount if you are looking at a way of getting a substantial sum of money in your name. But remember, your name would then go on the website. And it would take quite an investigative journalist to try and work out [who you are].
“Nobody knows your particular status, you could have inherited money.” During the meeting Agnew also admitted that he was using taxpayers’ money to pay half the salary of an assistant — UKIP regional organiser Peter Reeve — whose amount of actual work for him was “virtually none”.
“I can tell you that Peter is paid partly by me out of my assistance allowance here partly by David [Campbell] Bannerman [another UKIP MEP]. He does very little work for us, virtually none. He is working for the party. And that’s strictly illegal.”
Salaries paid via MEPs’ assistance allowance must not fund party work. The EU’s anti-fraud watchdog Olaf has been investigating some of Agnew’s fellow MEPs over a similar matter.
The day after the meeting, Agnew spoke on the phone to the reporter a number of times. He said he had talked to Pearson about the possibility of making the donation to UKIP via Global Britain.
“He did confirm that two anonymous donations can be made. Up to £7,500 can be made directly to the party and £25,000 to Global Britain,” he said, describing the latter method as a “loophole”. “If your aunt is willing to give us £32,500 [£25,000 plus £7,500] then it can be done anonymously.”
Another undercover reporter then spoke to Pearson, who said the money given to his unincorporated association would be passed “straight on” to UKIP: “I could pass it on the same day.”
He insisted: “The Electoral Commission knows that we will be doing all this, because someone else who is a major Conservative donor also wanted similar anonymity. The main thing is that it mustn’t be a straight filter.”
Asked if he could guarantee her name would not come out, he said: “Yes, we did it in the European elections [in 2009]. We passed on £80,000 from one person in effect ... and that caused no difficulty at all.” He said he would check with the Electoral Commission and “if there was any doubt I would honestly rather go without rather than risk it”.
When confronted, Pearson said he thought unincorporated associations were allowed to pass on donations of not more than £25,000 directly. He also said he would have given the donor’s name to the commission, although he said he was “not sure” if he had passed on the name of Patrick Barbour, a former Tory donor who he said was the person who donated £80,000 to UKIP through them last year. He claimed Barbour had given Global Britain £100,000 saying he would be “happy” if most of it went to UKIP.
He explained why he thought Barbour had wanted to stay anonymous: “He’d rather the Conservative party didn’t know he was giving that sort of money, you know,” he said.
He said: “It still is my understanding that I do not think that what I said yesterday to your [undercover] reporter is wrong. I’m sorry if it is, and I’ll apologise.” Pearson said he was regularly in touch with the commission over Global Britain and donations.
Agnew said: “It’s not cut and dried and the acts are complicated. The law is often very difficult to interpret.”
Bannerman denied Reeve did no work for him and Agnew. He said Reeve worked for UKIP only “in his spare time”. Reeve agreed.
Farage said: “I said to Stuart Agnew, I can’t take this any further, that she [the aunt] would have to come and meet face to face with Lord Pearson and talk about it.”
Barbour said of his donation last year: “I am pretty sure that I left it up to [Pearson’s] discretion what it was spent on.”
In a later call he said he had not given to Global Britain in order to conceal an anonymous donation to UKIP.
A spokesman for the commission said it would take “appropriate action” if breaches of the rules had occurred.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
These are the people who if ever elected would be responsible NOT TO the Law but FOR the Law - clearly on every count they are unfit for purpose.
TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples - they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU's CAP - In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS - GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country.
Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.
to
Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate
LEAVE THE EU
to Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
No comments:
Post a Comment