UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[10 Pence Short]

Jinx said:

If Nige gets his way he will no longer get this allowance - how many other MEPs are looking to stop this gravy train?

What, do you suppose, is 'Nige's way'?

For my part, I think 'Nige' is a very happy bunny who would like things to stay just as they are. He is a turkey and a vote for christmas is not really on his agenda.

Perhap this is why he spends so little time visiting the EU Parliament? The last thing he wants is to be successful at doing what he purports to aim for.

People are quick to suggest politicians of all creeds say one thing and mean another. My belief is that 'Nige' is perhaps one of those you should watch the closest in that respect.

[Jinx]

Wombat3 said:

How does that apply to the Westminster troughers then? (or doesn't it?)

Nigel isn't an MP. Westminster troughers had one golden rule - do not claim for anything that would bring the House into disrepute. Failed that one didn't they?
I'm not sure it is possible to bring the EU into any further disrepute (how is that audit going again? ) and given as the MEPs do not have to even admit to what the money is being spent on there is not an obvious parallel.
Admittedly I would have liked a little more involvement by the UKIP MEPs - maybe setting a good example and help corrupt the other MEPs into a dissolve the EU way of thinking - but I'm ever the optimist......

[Wombat3]

Jinx said:

Wombat3 said:

How does that apply to the Westminster troughers then? (or doesn't it?)

Nigel isn't an MP. Westminster troughers had one golden rule - do not claim for anything that would bring the House into disrepute. Failed that one didn't they?
I'm not sure it is possible to bring the EU into any further disrepute (how is that audit going again? ) and given as the MEPs do not have to even admit to what the money is being spent on there is not an obvious parallel.
Admittedly I would have liked a little more involvement by the UKIP MEPs - maybe setting a good example and help corrupt the other MEPs into a dissolve the EU way of thinking - but I'm ever the optimist......

Whoosh.

Try again. How is it that an MEP troughing or mis-using his "allowances" is any different to what happened in Westminster (specifically given that said MEP has designs on being an MP). ?

Its a mis-use of public money.

The fact that MEPs don't have to account for money they are given arguably makes it worse if its abused. There is a "trust" system (and obviously it doesn't work across the board).

The point was simply being made that Farage (or St Nigel as perhaps we should address him since he seems to be so revered hereabouts) is evidently no more above abusing the system (whatever it may be) than are others of his ilk both in Westminster and the EU.

[einsign]

Nigel is extremely good value for money. Move on!

[Wombat3]

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

Jinx said:

10 Pence Short said:

It's money given out for a particular purpose. Whether you call it an allowance or an expense, it doesn't change the purpose. It is not intended as salary or a perk.

If you were anti-car and pro cycling, would you take the car allowance and spend it on something else instead whilst continuing to use your old bike?

If Nigel was the only one taking the allowance then you may have a point - as every MEP cheerfully takes bundles of EU tax payers money then what is the point you are making? If Nige gets his way he will no longer get this allowance - how many other MEPs are looking to stop this gravy train?

How does that apply to the Westminster troughers then? (or doesn't it?)

I see you have come out of hiding now Miller has resigned Wombat

Nice to see the petition I signed to get her out has resulted in your return to the front line

I never went into hiding. She should have gone much earlier that's clear.

However the real issue is the standards committee. It doesn't work & it put the PM in the ludicrous position of either over-ruling it & sacking her (at which point he gets nailed by all & sundry for "having a dog & then barking himself") , or doing as he did & accepting its findings - despite the fact that opinion to those was hardly favourable.

There needs to be a independent body.

Seems as though we need one of those for MEPs as well though

[Wombat3]

einsign said:

Nigel is extremely good value for money. Move on!

[Timsta]

Wombat3 said:

I never went into hiding. She should have gone much earlier that's clear.

However the real issue is the standards committee. It doesn't work & it put the PM in the ludicrous position of either over-ruling it & sacking her (at which point he gets nailed by all & sundry for "having a dog & then barking himself") , or doing as he did & accepting its findings - despite the fact that opinion to those was hardly favourable.

There needs to be a independent body.

Seems as though we need one of those for MEPs as well though

I don't know. He did a very good job of supporting her. They always do support them when they are wrong, don't they?

[anonymous-user]

10 Pence Short said:

Jinx said:

If Nige gets his way he will no longer get this allowance - how many other MEPs are looking to stop this gravy train?

What, do you suppose, is 'Nige's way'?

For my part, I think 'Nige' is a very happy bunny who would like things to stay just as they are. He is a turkey and a vote for christmas is not really on his agenda.

Perhap this is why he spends so little time visiting the EU Parliament? The last thing he wants is to be successful at doing what he purports to aim for.

People are quick to suggest politicians of all creeds say one thing and mean another. My belief is that 'Nige' is perhaps one of those you should watch the closest in that respect.

UKIPs aims cannot be achieved by spending time in the EU Parliament. They can only be achieved in the UK.

As for voting for Xmas, again, you seem to misunderstand what UKIP is about, through the clue is in the name.

[Jinx]

Wombat3 said:

Whoosh.

Try again. How is it that an MEP troughing or mis-using his "allowances" is any different to what happened in Westminster (specifically given that said MEP has designs on being an MP). ?

Its a mis-use of public money.

The fact that MEPs don't have to account for money they are given arguably makes it worse if its abused. There is a "trust" system (and obviously it doesn't work across the board).

The point was simply being made that Farage (or St Nigel as perhaps we should address him since he seems to be so revered hereabouts) is evidently no more above abusing the system (whatever it may be) than are others of his ilk both in Westminster and the EU.

Has it been shown as "abusing" yet - from what I've read it is the allowance all MEPs get with no obligation to use it for any particular reason. Unlike the Westminster bunch who couldn't even manage to stick within the rules they set themselves......
The EU is a corrupt undemocratic non-representative entity that wastes money on a scale MPs can only dream of - Nigel Farage isn't perfect but he's the only choice for getting out of this mess.

[WinstonWolf]

Wombat3 said:

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

Jinx said:

10 Pence Short said:

It's money given out for a particular purpose. Whether you call it an allowance or an expense, it doesn't change the purpose. It is not intended as salary or a perk.

If you were anti-car and pro cycling, would you take the car allowance and spend it on something else instead whilst continuing to use your old bike?

If Nigel was the only one taking the allowance then you may have a point - as every MEP cheerfully takes bundles of EU tax payers money then what is the point you are making? If Nige gets his way he will no longer get this allowance - how many other MEPs are looking to stop this gravy train?

How does that apply to the Westminster troughers then? (or doesn't it?)

I see you have come out of hiding now Miller has resigned Wombat

Nice to see the petition I signed to get her out has resulted in your return to the front line

I never went into hiding. She should have gone much earlier that's clear.

However the real issue is the standards committee. It doesn't work & it put the PM in the ludicrous position of either over-ruling it & sacking her (at which point he gets nailed by all & sundry for "having a dog & then barking himself") , or doing as he did & accepting its findings - despite the fact that opinion to those was hardly favourable.

There needs to be a independent body.

Seems as though we need one of those for MEPs as well though

If she had defrauded the benefits system of a few quid she would be in jail. The money she took came from the same pot we all contribute to, she should suffer the same punishment.

[10 Pence Short]

REALIST123 said:

UKIPs aims cannot be achieved by spending time in the EU Parliament. They can only be achieved in the UK.

Really? Do you see that- the sight of the EU stopping what it's doing completely because Farage and a couple of others don't bother to turn up? Of course, we know that doesn't happen. The votes go on and the UK interest isn't registered at all.

How much influence is that exerting on the EU?

Somewhere between zero and 0%.

[DAVEVO9]

http://www.ukip.org/times_story_falls_apart_as_key...




Times story falls apart as key source reveals his responses were distorted by the paper

David Samuel- Camps who was quoted in The Times smear piece today has written to the paper making clear that the story has distorted his responses to the questions he was posed. We publish his full unabridged letter below:

"I am extremely concerned that in your report you have distorted my responses to your questions regarding the Lyminster office costs.

"On the front page you quote me as stating that the costs were £3000 per year. This is grossly incorrect. I told you that the previous manager had tied the office into some supply contracts and as a result the monthly costs were some £2000. I told you several times that I eventually reduced the costs to £700 per month. When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?

"At no time did I say that “electricity, heating, and business rates at the office totalled less than £250 a month”. I told you that I could not remember the individual amounts as it was over four years ago but they would have been in the region of £200 each.

"Later, you then contradict yourselves by quoting me as saying that the costs were £700 per month - which is correct. You asked me a number of times about the £700/month figure which I confirmed several times; again I have to ask how does £700 per month equate to £3000 per year? I should also point out that our conversations were witnessed.

"To the best of knowledge and belief I was completely honest in my answers and resent the fact that those answers have been completely distorted. I did warn you that there is a small minority who are 'mischief makers' – one in particular who would go to any lengths to destroy Mr Farage’s reputation.

"I expect you to publish corrections as outlined above.

"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas!"

David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA

[TKF]

Farage on the Miller case:

"She has taken the mickey out of the system. Yet again this is the political class looking after its own and letting down the electorate. I think it reflects badly on David Cameron that he has completely misjudged the public mood on this"

[FredClogs]

Before the whole shennanigans of Nige's expenses blows up into a conpiracy theory can we just settle the basic facts.

He claimed £15,500 a year to run his constituency office? Yes or No.

UKIP also fully funded the cost of running that office? Yes or No.

The in and outs, the letter of the law, EU regulations (which would be an irony were he to fall back on them as a defense), whatever. If the answer to the above two questions is Yes then the only crux question is, who has he defrauded? The UKIP bank rollers or the EU.

[WinstonWolf]

FredClogs said:

Before the whole shennanigans of Nige's expenses blows up into a conpiracy theory can we just settle the basic facts.

He claimed £15,500 a year to run his constituency office? Yes or No.

UKIP also fully funded the cost of running that office? Yes or No.

The in and outs, the letter of the law, EU regulations (which would be an irony were he to fall back on them as a defense), whatever. If the answer to the above two questions is Yes then the only crux question is, who has he defrauded? The UKIP bank rollers or the EU.

http://www.ukip.org/times_story_falls_apart_as_key_source_reveals_his_responses_were_distorted_by_the_paper




Times story falls apart as key source reveals his responses were distorted by the paper

David Samuel- Camps who was quoted in The Times smear piece today has written to the paper making clear that the story has distorted his responses to the questions he was posed. We publish his full unabridged letter below:

"I am extremely concerned that in your report you have distorted my responses to your questions regarding the Lyminster office costs.

"On the front page you quote me as stating that the costs were £3000 per year. This is grossly incorrect. I told you that the previous manager had tied the office into some supply contracts and as a result the monthly costs were some £2000. I told you several times that I eventually reduced the costs to £700 per month. When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?

"At no time did I say that “electricity, heating, and business rates at the office totalled less than £250 a month”. I told you that I could not remember the individual amounts as it was over four years ago but they would have been in the region of £200 each.

"Later, you then contradict yourselves by quoting me as saying that the costs were £700 per month - which is correct. You asked me a number of times about the £700/month figure which I confirmed several times; again I have to ask how does £700 per month equate to £3000 per year? I should also point out that our conversations were witnessed.

"To the best of knowledge and belief I was completely honest in my answers and resent the fact that those answers have been completely distorted. I did warn you that there is a small minority who are 'mischief makers' – one in particular who would go to any lengths to destroy Mr Farage’s reputation.

"I expect you to publish corrections as outlined above.

"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas!"

David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA

[FredClogs]

Guam said:

FredClogs said:

Before the whole shennanigans of Nige's expenses blows up into a conpiracy theory can we just settle the basic facts.

He claimed £15,500 a year to run his constituency office? Yes or No.

UKIP also fully funded the cost of running that office? Yes or No.

The in and outs, the letter of the law, EU regulations (which would be an irony were he to fall back on them as a defense), whatever. If the answer to the above two questions is Yes then the only crux question is, who has he defrauded? The UKIP bank rollers or the EU.

Oh do keep up, it has been blown apart already by the interviewee for that article, you usually troll much better than that Matt, we have come to expect better from you!

Did he or did he not claim two lots of expenses for running that office, one from the EU and one from UKIP HQ, Yes or No, it's a simple question.

[WinstonWolf]

FredClogs said:

Guam said:

FredClogs said:

Before the whole shennanigans of Nige's expenses blows up into a conpiracy theory can we just settle the basic facts.

He claimed £15,500 a year to run his constituency office? Yes or No.

UKIP also fully funded the cost of running that office? Yes or No.

The in and outs, the letter of the law, EU regulations (which would be an irony were he to fall back on them as a defense), whatever. If the answer to the above two questions is Yes then the only crux question is, who has he defrauded? The UKIP bank rollers or the EU.

Oh do keep up, it has been blown apart already by the interviewee for that article, you usually troll much better than that Matt, we have come to expect better from you!

Did he or did he not claim two lots of expenses for running that office, one from the EU and one from UKIP HQ, Yes or No, it's a simple question.

David Samuel- Camps who was quoted in The Times smear piece today has written to the paper making clear that the story has distorted his responses to the questions he was posed. We publish his full unabridged letter below:

"I am extremely concerned that in your report you have distorted my responses to your questions regarding the Lyminster office costs.

"On the front page you quote me as stating that the costs were £3000 per year. This is grossly incorrect. I told you that the previous manager had tied the office into some supply contracts and as a result the monthly costs were some £2000. I told you several times that I eventually reduced the costs to £700 per month. When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?

"At no time did I say that “electricity, heating, and business rates at the office totalled less than £250 a month”. I told you that I could not remember the individual amounts as it was over four years ago but they would have been in the region of £200 each.

"Later, you then contradict yourselves by quoting me as saying that the costs were £700 per month - which is correct. You asked me a number of times about the £700/month figure which I confirmed several times; again I have to ask how does £700 per month equate to £3000 per year? I should also point out that our conversations were witnessed.

"To the best of knowledge and belief I was completely honest in my answers and resent the fact that those answers have been completely distorted. I did warn you that there is a small minority who are 'mischief makers' – one in particular who would go to any lengths to destroy Mr Farage’s reputation.

"I expect you to publish corrections as outlined above.

"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas!"

David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA

[Timsta]

FredClogs said:

Did he or did he not claim two lots of expenses for running that office, one from the EU and one from UKIP HQ, Yes or No, it's a simple question.

No, he didn't.

[FredClogs]

WinstonWolf said:

FredClogs said:

Guam said:

FredClogs said:

Before the whole shennanigans of Nige's expenses blows up into a conpiracy theory can we just settle the basic facts.

He claimed £15,500 a year to run his constituency office? Yes or No.

UKIP also fully funded the cost of running that office? Yes or No.

The in and outs, the letter of the law, EU regulations (which would be an irony were he to fall back on them as a defense), whatever. If the answer to the above two questions is Yes then the only crux question is, who has he defrauded? The UKIP bank rollers or the EU.

Oh do keep up, it has been blown apart already by the interviewee for that article, you usually troll much better than that Matt, we have come to expect better from you!

Did he or did he not claim two lots of expenses for running that office, one from the EU and one from UKIP HQ, Yes or No, it's a simple question.

David Samuel- Camps who was quoted in The Times smear piece today has written to the paper making clear that the story has distorted his responses to the questions he was posed. We publish his full unabridged letter below:

"I am extremely concerned that in your report you have distorted my responses to your questions regarding the Lyminster office costs.

"On the front page you quote me as stating that the costs were £3000 per year. This is grossly incorrect. I told you that the previous manager had tied the office into some supply contracts and as a result the monthly costs were some £2000. I told you several times that I eventually reduced the costs to £700 per month. When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?

"At no time did I say that “electricity, heating, and business rates at the office totalled less than £250 a month”. I told you that I could not remember the individual amounts as it was over four years ago but they would have been in the region of £200 each.

"Later, you then contradict yourselves by quoting me as saying that the costs were £700 per month - which is correct. You asked me a number of times about the £700/month figure which I confirmed several times; again I have to ask how does £700 per month equate to £3000 per year? I should also point out that our conversations were witnessed.

"To the best of knowledge and belief I was completely honest in my answers and resent the fact that those answers have been completely distorted. I did warn you that there is a small minority who are 'mischief makers' – one in particular who would go to any lengths to destroy Mr Farage’s reputation.

"I expect you to publish corrections as outlined above.

"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas!"

David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA

Feck me this is getting a bit Paxmanesque, I have no desire to come across that way but this letter does not answer my question, do you really think it is? Mr Howard, I shall ask you again, did he or did he not claim for the running of that office from both the EU expenses system and UKIP head office?

[mrpurple]

Timsta said:

FredClogs said:

Did he or did he not claim two lots of expenses for running that office, one from the EU and one from UKIP HQ, Yes or No, it's a simple question.

No, he didn't.

Didn't appear to be an allegation made in the article, and I am sure it would have been made if it was at all possible.