Regular readers will know of the Common Mans inability to read Mr Lance Watkins blog with a straight face, and this mornings offerings were the best yet.
Mr Lance Watkins, whose experience of the judicial system is normally to hear guilty verdicts against him on such diverse charges as receiving stolen goods and firearms offences, was commenting on John Wests attempts to 'hold UKIP to account'.
In Mr Lance Watkins words Mr West had " irrefutable documentary provenance displaying the guilt of EUkip and have numerous sworn affidavits and letters of support for the Judge/Courts makes the case all the more compelling....numerous witnesses both of fact and precedent makes their case even more compelling and that they have Party Officers, Celebrity and MEPs on their side leaves EUkip and the petty vindictive behaviour of the corrupt and insecure, childish and very foolish little Farage look like the clown he is "
So how did the district judge view this doomsday for UKIP? His words say it far more eloquently than the Common Man could.
District Judge Bazley White described Mr Wests case as 'an abuse of the small claims process and a waste of the courts time' and described UKIP as 'having no case to answer'. He also rubbished the idea of sending the matter for judicial review and dismissed the case out of hand.
The Common Man wonders if Mr Lance Watkins (who always apologises for any factual errors) will now apologise for suggesting that UKIP had done anything wrong, and agree with the District Judge who said in exonerating UKIP of any wrongdoing that Mr West was 'petty, vindictive and misguided..... making numerous allegations which have no legal basis and which abuse the process of the courts'.
The Common Man understands that Mr Lance Watkins own court date is fast approaching when he will answer yet more dishonesty charges in relation to theft of copyright. Is the Common Man alone in finding it strange that Mr Lance Watkins fails to mention the legal actions he is facing for dishonesty charges like this?
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Sunday, 15 February 2009
3rd time unlucky for Mr Haslam
The Common Man was the first to break news of Mr Haslams meeting with BNP leader Nick Griffin http://allaboutukip.blogspot.com/2009/02/disturbing-news-about-martin-haslam.html
Thus the Common Man is hugely amused to see Junius and convicted receiver Mr Lance Watkins doing their best to wriggle their way out of having someone they have used as a principled man caught inviting activists to a meeting with Mr Griffin.
The Common Man is hugely amused to see their amateur attempts at spin now that they have been wrong footed. Do any readers really believe that this news would have appeared on either of their blogs had it not first been revealed here? Mr Lance Watkins already knew about the meeting long before it came to the Common Mans attention, as did Mr Edmonds, and emails between several in the anti UKIP brigade make this more than clear.
The Common Man will make this clear. Mr Haslam was involved in organising the West Sussex meeting along with BNP emissary Buster Mottram. He knew who would be present, but invited a number of senior UKIP activists knowing they would be addressed by the BNP leader. He deliberately concealed who would be present to ensure that they attended. Do not believe the lies that he innocently invited one person!
To conceal this, Mr Lance Watkins and Junius have returned to the subject of the Independent journalist who called Mr Haslam. The truth is different. Mr Haslam attempted to speak to a number of journalists and repeatedly bombarded the Independent with requests for a meeting. Mr Haslam was trying to peddle the story that during the UKIP conference in Bournemouth there would be a serious attempt to remove Mr Farage as UKIP leader. This meeting would have been lead by Mr Abbott and Mr Edmonds with whom Mr Haslam was acting in concert.
Fortunately the Independent had more sense than to believe this and the story rebounded on Mr Haslam as seen. The Common Man asks that readers ask themselves this. How unlucky would an innocent Mr Haslam have to be to be set up by the party leader, to have accidentally invited the BNP leaders personal emissary Mr Mottram to the NEC and then to have been innocently invited to a meeting at which the BNP leader was a guest speaker?
Thus the Common Man is hugely amused to see Junius and convicted receiver Mr Lance Watkins doing their best to wriggle their way out of having someone they have used as a principled man caught inviting activists to a meeting with Mr Griffin.
The Common Man is hugely amused to see their amateur attempts at spin now that they have been wrong footed. Do any readers really believe that this news would have appeared on either of their blogs had it not first been revealed here? Mr Lance Watkins already knew about the meeting long before it came to the Common Mans attention, as did Mr Edmonds, and emails between several in the anti UKIP brigade make this more than clear.
The Common Man will make this clear. Mr Haslam was involved in organising the West Sussex meeting along with BNP emissary Buster Mottram. He knew who would be present, but invited a number of senior UKIP activists knowing they would be addressed by the BNP leader. He deliberately concealed who would be present to ensure that they attended. Do not believe the lies that he innocently invited one person!
To conceal this, Mr Lance Watkins and Junius have returned to the subject of the Independent journalist who called Mr Haslam. The truth is different. Mr Haslam attempted to speak to a number of journalists and repeatedly bombarded the Independent with requests for a meeting. Mr Haslam was trying to peddle the story that during the UKIP conference in Bournemouth there would be a serious attempt to remove Mr Farage as UKIP leader. This meeting would have been lead by Mr Abbott and Mr Edmonds with whom Mr Haslam was acting in concert.
Fortunately the Independent had more sense than to believe this and the story rebounded on Mr Haslam as seen. The Common Man asks that readers ask themselves this. How unlucky would an innocent Mr Haslam have to be to be set up by the party leader, to have accidentally invited the BNP leaders personal emissary Mr Mottram to the NEC and then to have been innocently invited to a meeting at which the BNP leader was a guest speaker?
Saturday, 14 February 2009
More lies from Junius
The Common Man was amused to see the lies put forward by the aptly named Junius (from Marcus Junius Brutus, the well known backstabber who was driven by ambition and not principle) on the Democracy Forum.
In his latest batch of postings, he accuses UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP of failing to back Lord Pearsons invitation to controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
The truth is that Lord Pearson was involved in a cross-bench move to highlight the freedom of speech issue involved, and did not want UKIP political involvement as that would dilute the message and make it party political. Both Mr Farage and UKIPs London MEP Gerard Batten accepted that this was so, and stayed in the background.
Subsequent developments in the story have proved this was the correct approach to take and perhaps it is this which has stirred Junius to dip his pen in poison and attempt to muddy the issue with his lies?
In his latest batch of postings, he accuses UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP of failing to back Lord Pearsons invitation to controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
The truth is that Lord Pearson was involved in a cross-bench move to highlight the freedom of speech issue involved, and did not want UKIP political involvement as that would dilute the message and make it party political. Both Mr Farage and UKIPs London MEP Gerard Batten accepted that this was so, and stayed in the background.
Subsequent developments in the story have proved this was the correct approach to take and perhaps it is this which has stirred Junius to dip his pen in poison and attempt to muddy the issue with his lies?
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Wests to display integrity and resign over breach of rules?
It was interesting (although rather tedious) to read the latest overly long rant about the Suffolk Coastal branch from the Wests, this one signed by Mrs Alison West.
It was truly fascinating to read
"John was re-elected as Branch Secretary and also as Treasurer. I was elected as Chairman. "
Unfortunately, this is contrary to party standing orders and the rules for branches which specifically state that husband and wife members can not occupy the position of Treasurer and either Chairman or Secretary simultaneously. This is to prevent the type of breach of trust where a husband and wife conspire, for example, to misuse branch funds in sending untrue, unauthorised and libellous letters to local members in pursuit of a personal vendetta.
The current position of the Suffolk Coastal branch is that its committee is improperly constituted. As Mr and Mrs West are so keen on the letter of the law I await their resignations in the interests of natural justice and decency and the surrender of all branch documents to the last legally elected chairman, Mr Whitmore. As legal Chairman, I am sure he would be justified in excluding Mr and Mrs West from standing in the next election of officers, as they have demonstrated that they are ignorant of the rules necessary to conduct a branch in proper order.
Should they not resign, what value can be placed on their statements that they are campaigners for truth, openness and honesty if they feel they are able to disregard party standing orders when it suits them? Imagine people connected with upstanding people like convicted receiver and BNP activist Mr Lance Watkins being guilty of blatant hypocrisy!
It was truly fascinating to read
"John was re-elected as Branch Secretary and also as Treasurer. I was elected as Chairman. "
Unfortunately, this is contrary to party standing orders and the rules for branches which specifically state that husband and wife members can not occupy the position of Treasurer and either Chairman or Secretary simultaneously. This is to prevent the type of breach of trust where a husband and wife conspire, for example, to misuse branch funds in sending untrue, unauthorised and libellous letters to local members in pursuit of a personal vendetta.
The current position of the Suffolk Coastal branch is that its committee is improperly constituted. As Mr and Mrs West are so keen on the letter of the law I await their resignations in the interests of natural justice and decency and the surrender of all branch documents to the last legally elected chairman, Mr Whitmore. As legal Chairman, I am sure he would be justified in excluding Mr and Mrs West from standing in the next election of officers, as they have demonstrated that they are ignorant of the rules necessary to conduct a branch in proper order.
Should they not resign, what value can be placed on their statements that they are campaigners for truth, openness and honesty if they feel they are able to disregard party standing orders when it suits them? Imagine people connected with upstanding people like convicted receiver and BNP activist Mr Lance Watkins being guilty of blatant hypocrisy!
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Gawain Towler and Mr Lance Watkins fascination with his genitalia
The Common Man is hugely amused by Mr Lance Watkins apparent fascination with Mr Towlers genitalia which he displays by posting a picture which he claims shows Mr Towlers todger at the slightest excuse.
Leaving to one side questions of whether this, along with Mr Lance Watkins raging homophobia, is a beard for his repressed homosexuality, the Common Man has to break some bad news.
Mr Towlers todger is - and how shall we put this delicately - slightly more semitic in appearance than the penis picture about which Mr Lance Watkins clearly has a voyeuristic fetish. The Common Man understands it is a fetish which is shared by many in the senior ranks of the BNP.
The Common Man understands that Mr Towler would cheerfully drop his trousers to prove that like all artists his wife uses models. Just not in arms reach of Mr Lance Watkins.
Leaving to one side questions of whether this, along with Mr Lance Watkins raging homophobia, is a beard for his repressed homosexuality, the Common Man has to break some bad news.
Mr Towlers todger is - and how shall we put this delicately - slightly more semitic in appearance than the penis picture about which Mr Lance Watkins clearly has a voyeuristic fetish. The Common Man understands it is a fetish which is shared by many in the senior ranks of the BNP.
The Common Man understands that Mr Towler would cheerfully drop his trousers to prove that like all artists his wife uses models. Just not in arms reach of Mr Lance Watkins.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Mathematically challenged Dr Edmonds massages UKRAL attendance
Steam enthusiasts barely noticed the untumultuous tea party sized meeting which had gathered to show support for international superstar Robin Page and exchange reasons on why UKIP would be successful if only they were in charge.
Addressing himself to the rows of adulating empty chairs, Mr Page explained at some length how UKIPs leadership had to recognise his fame or face the consequences. "Rules aren't made for people as important and famous as I am", boomed Mr Page before blaming the first two people to spring to mind and invoking the doctrine of Pagal Infallibility.
The burning controversy of the day has proved to be over the mathematical ability of former economist Dr Edmonds. Initially posting attendance on his blog as 45, within hours it had grown to 63, and all this hours after the conference had ended and everybody had gone home.
It can be reported with confidence that 37 was a fair figure, if the organisers and speakers were counted. As there were 13 speakers on the posted programme, non economists can work out the true attendance of 24 non-speakers less the organisers, or about 20. Some of those seemed to have a plentiful supply of BNP leaflets.
Questions have been asked as to the difference in these figures, and the answer is that while Dr Edmonds counted 45, Peter Cole, Tom Wise MEPs (that model of honest accounting) assistant counted 63.
We have a few simple tips for Mr Cole and Dr Edmonds. When counting attendees, the ones in shirts with the name of the venue on, the people on the food side of the counter and people pointing at exhibits and carrying cameras do not count. When people leave, you can not count them again when they come back in. Stewards and speakers are not part of the audience, they are the organisers.
Particularly interesting given the numerical challenges faced by Mr Cole and Dr Edmonds were the calls for the need for complete honesty and transparency in politics. Almost every speaker to the venue which was packed to the point of emptiness agreed that you could not trust people who manipulated the truth.
Addressing himself to the rows of adulating empty chairs, Mr Page explained at some length how UKIPs leadership had to recognise his fame or face the consequences. "Rules aren't made for people as important and famous as I am", boomed Mr Page before blaming the first two people to spring to mind and invoking the doctrine of Pagal Infallibility.
The burning controversy of the day has proved to be over the mathematical ability of former economist Dr Edmonds. Initially posting attendance on his blog as 45, within hours it had grown to 63, and all this hours after the conference had ended and everybody had gone home.
It can be reported with confidence that 37 was a fair figure, if the organisers and speakers were counted. As there were 13 speakers on the posted programme, non economists can work out the true attendance of 24 non-speakers less the organisers, or about 20. Some of those seemed to have a plentiful supply of BNP leaflets.
Questions have been asked as to the difference in these figures, and the answer is that while Dr Edmonds counted 45, Peter Cole, Tom Wise MEPs (that model of honest accounting) assistant counted 63.
We have a few simple tips for Mr Cole and Dr Edmonds. When counting attendees, the ones in shirts with the name of the venue on, the people on the food side of the counter and people pointing at exhibits and carrying cameras do not count. When people leave, you can not count them again when they come back in. Stewards and speakers are not part of the audience, they are the organisers.
Particularly interesting given the numerical challenges faced by Mr Cole and Dr Edmonds were the calls for the need for complete honesty and transparency in politics. Almost every speaker to the venue which was packed to the point of emptiness agreed that you could not trust people who manipulated the truth.
UKRAL and exagerrated attendance
The Common Man is prepared for the amusing claims of attendance at the UKRAL Swindon meeting yesterday, and is interested to compare them with the head count made by independent sources. A mass meeting it certainly wasn't!
The Common Man is unsurprised that the BNP were there trying to recruit members at its inaugural meeting, and is certain that with a BNP associate on the speakers list in the person of Mr Haslam their cause was greatly helped. With BNP supporter and self confessed anti-semite Mr Lance Watkins helping publicise the meeting Mr Griffins chums had plenty of advance warning.
The Common Man is unsurprised that the BNP were there trying to recruit members at its inaugural meeting, and is certain that with a BNP associate on the speakers list in the person of Mr Haslam their cause was greatly helped. With BNP supporter and self confessed anti-semite Mr Lance Watkins helping publicise the meeting Mr Griffins chums had plenty of advance warning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)