GUEST POST> This Rather Looks Like A Sad Reflection On British Justice!
You may find some of the facts below; and there many downloads and screen captures which I have supporting the opinions below; of interest IF you value campaigning for British Justice, responsible & competent police and cleaning-up Ukip to make it fit for purpose!
Junius : http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nigel-farages-useful-idiot-john-ison.html
Yours : http://markcroucher.blogspot.co.uk/
Croucher/ Ison blog : http://allaboutukip.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/ms-sinclaire-and-how-she-dare-not-sit.html
On the, at the time, UKip controlled BDF:
It is believed that John Ison used to post occasionally as “Paul Beech”, which is BP backwards - Bob Pacific on blog also. It was removed (changed to Dave Briggs!) I hear this was done after it was shown to a UKIP MEP in Sept 2010!
“The Common Man” (Oh so Very common!) was MC backwards - Mark Croucher. This was verified for me by a UKIP Brussels insider (Croucher admitted it) at the time.
Mjolnir post on the subject was removed by BDF Moderators!
I can’t find an internet archive of Skeptyk’s BDF entry on the subject or his sordid and dishonest blog, and my source of screenshots have gone missing! It was December 2010, and posted Gregg Beeman’s salary details, but I doubt it was Ison as he was driving to the Alps about that time, so my guess is Croucher.
The information in the downloads was seemingly obtained in a burglary of Nikki Sinclaire’s office by John Ison and I hold a copy of the eMail he sent, containing copies of the material he obtained, somedozens of scans, obtained either by burglary or at very least dishonestly, supplied to the duplicitous and dishonest Mark Croucher - who worked as Nigel Farage’s sewer rat seeking out any material that could be used by Farage and his cronies to manipulate and control people – Notably it was Nigel Farage’s son who commented to Roger Knapman that he was the only person on whom his father did not have a (black) file!
The so called evidence against Nikki Sinclaire would seem to have been obtained by theft including burglary also recordings of phone calls recorded by John Ison and edited by Mark Croucher is also available – whether the police know that the evidence was stolen and the recordings edited I know not! However after almost 30 months on bail it is clear the police have had to drop a number of their original claims against Sinclaire & the 3 members of her staff originally bailed, as they obviously have failed to stand them up even when aided by the dishonest and self serving John Ison or anyone who worked for Farage!
There is absolutely no doubt that any errors of claiming by Nikki Sinclaire (or more likely her staff and most probably deliberate claims inserted into her accounts by third party efforts to damage her) do NOT justify the prolonged period of bail used to smear her name on the grounds of ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’!
The standards of behaviour by the police and others in these allegations give one every concern for the calibre of justice that can be expected and even a guilty verdict would not seem justice in the long run!
Clearly Justice should be seen to be done and much of the behaviour of those involved in the accusations and allegations, not to mention gathering of information and the vile gutter commentaries of a personal nature against Nikki Sinclaire by many of the low lifes associated with Ukip that this shoddy police activituy has caused is a matter not of dignity or competence on the part of the police or Ukip and its associates but a slur on both the body politic and the tennets of Justice in these United Kingdoms.
It has been suggested by a retired police Acting Chief Supt. of 30 years distinguished service that:
'....no interview / charges presented face-face + hand delivered summons (charges) (after this period on bail+ investigation) = possible' “strong grounds for malicious prosecution charge”.
Misconduct in Public Office does carry a maximum life sentence and is presented under common law, not statute.
An easy “catch all” - but it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt!
May I also draw your attention to:
ALSO the fact that despite his many lies and efforts to deny his crimes and seek to claim they were invented by myself Derek Clark UKIP MEP was found guilty by OLAF of extensive false claims of EU expenses and was merely ordered to repay somewhere between £50K & £100,000 and seemingly no further action was taken.
In the case of Stuart Agnew MEP UKIP no action was seemingly taken to recoup the numerous £1,000s he falsely claimed as expenses as he admitted on camera to The Sunday Times nor against David Bannerman MEP UKIP (now a Tory MEP!) similarly implicated and neither have cleared their name!
Similarly UKIP leader & MEP Nigel Farage and a previous MEP leader of UKIP Jeffrey Titford were ordered to repay monies they had falsely claimed in expenses!
It is also worthy of note that Nigel Farage has also been accused of dishonest accounting having failed to declare donations to UKIP of over £200,000 and there is also still the issue of what happened to what may have been as much as £1M collected through the Ashford ‘scheme’ which he described as 'UKIP’s best ever money maker', however the party chairman, David Bannerman spoke on a point of orderr in reasponse to Richard Suchorzewski at a public meeting in Derbyshire, conceding that less than 15% of the money raised was ever presented to UKIP!
There was it seemed extensive money laundering in that large sums of money were processed through credit card donations which were processed through the credit card machine of Graham Booth UKIP MEP’s Hotel in Torquay!
Similarly there were many £1,000s collected in buckets and if accounted at all only loosely, as the outcome of the Court case brought against UKip by The Electoral Commission, which UKip lost, though UKip turned the issue to advantage seeking to raise the money and costs by bucket collections at a series of public events and by seeking donations. Contrary to claims the donation made by Alan Bown was clearly a breech of the rules as Alan Bown had removed himself from the electoral register as, I understand a part of his divorce proceedings when he left his wife and was co-habiting with one of his betting shop manageresses. Thus the donation was not legal!
A situation bearing many similarities to the donation UKip received some years previously when they accepted a sizeable donation from the owner of a UK football club who was not on the electoral register. UKip, without complaint, refunded the money that had been an unlawfull donation and arrangements were made by thwe donor to have it re-donated in a legal manner (in that case I believe it was by his wife who was on the electoral register) - Just as could have been done relative to Alan Bown's donation.
Despite claims by dishonest or ill informed UKip members this was not a case of ElCom picking on UKip relative to the large donation made by an individual, subsequently found to be criminal, made to the Lib.Dims. as in that case they had carried out due diligence, even going so far as to contact ElCom for a ruling on the matter before utilising the money. I understand at the time of rec eipt of the money the individual was on the electoral register and neither the Lib.Dims. nor ElCom could have had any idea he was subsequerntly to be found guilty of criminality!
I was reliably informed, at the time of the start of this sorry debacle, that as soon as the tampering with her accounts took place and she was aware of it she immediately contacted the EU Payments Office and provided all the details she could and whether the EU Payments Office arranged repayment or merely wrote it off as being a paltry amount relative to the normal level of squandering of tax payer's money that is endemic in the undemocratic and corrupt EU, I know not.
On these few comments alone and the links given it becomes all too apparently clear, in my opinion, that this is little short of malicious prosecution, seemingly for political gain or pure malice, of some sort, of individuals or groups of individuals and that the lack of ethical behaviour in extending the bail period from Feb-2012 (after Nikki Sinclaire herself had made public, and I believe had reported this to the police, she had reason to believe her accounts had been maliciously tampered with by a member of staff she believed had possibly made false claims and stolen from her) until this week.
Some 29 months on bail, with no further questioning and apparently no details of the police claims supplied, is little short of harassment and could justifiably be claimed as having ensured she was not re-elected as an MEP and is thus currently unemployed, technically, with a case pending which ensures she will be unable to get responsible employment until justice has been seen to be done and her name cleared – presumably with a healthy level of compensation!
Particularly as it is clearly shown and provable, in her accounts, that Nikki Sinclaire injected a sum in excess of £120,000 of her own money from salary and other personal sources also used a large sum of fully audited money, raised through donations, to fund her work and responsibilities, as she believed them to be (viz: obtaining 220,000 signatures to her petition to HM Government which was the direct and sole cause of David Cameron being forced to hold a debate of the House of Commons relative to Britain's membership of the EU and thus the undertaking of an IN/OUT referendum, which he clearly led thwe public to believe would be binding).
It is bizarre to believe that an individual who donated a sum well in excess of £100K would then bother with some penny ante sum (by the standards of fraud in the EU by MEPs) - had she wished to gain more income a few £1.000 on mistakenly claimed travel expenses would be dwarfed by her net loss of personal monies through her donations. Even were the police able to engineer a conviction I do not believe Justice would be seen to be done and it is my opinion the entire matter is seeking to 'get egg off the face of The police' for having firstly believed the miscreants who would seem to have dishonestly and deliberately 'set her up' and for secondly having so tardily acted to bring the matter to Court even if they believe they have a case.