UKIP - vs - EUkip

**Barboo**

Originally Posted by Arthur Fonzarelli

Depending on which side of the Miss Sinclaire/Mr Ison 'conflict' one finds oneself on, one could feel that the other is only interested in smearing them.

One could, or one could try to think beyond the purely superficial.

In January 2010, UKIP's NEC unwisely allowed itself to be dragged into what was basically a personal spat between two MEPs, Sinclaire and Farage.

The correct course would have been to tell Nigel Farage that the NEC had no constitutional power to compel MEPs to join a particular group (which it hadn't), and that any complaint about Nikki Sinclaire leaving the EFD should be submitted through the party's disciplinary channel. That would have forced Farage to demonstrate exactly how Sinclaire had breached UKIP's rules (if she had), provided an opportunity for mediation, and ensured that if necessary the matter be decided in the proper way by the discipline committee (from which NEC members are barred).

Instead of which, the chairman of the NEC foolishly issued a statement Statement from UKIP chairman - UK Independence Party on behalf of the committee, announcing that Sinclaire would not be permitted to stand for UKIP at future elections on the grounds of her having left the EP group, and having "failed to declare other relevant issues to the interview panel when she was selected as a UKIP candidate" (which she denied). If Sinclaire chose to challenge this legally, as past experience suggested she might, any breach of normal disciplinary procedure or evidence of her having been treated less favourably than others in similar situations, would obviously disadvantage UKIP hugely.

Within a matter of months, first Mike Nattrass then Trevor Colman followed her out of the EFD, yet no action was taken against them by the NEC and, unlike Sinclaire, both are still accepted as UKIP MEPs and listed as such on the party website.

Now we see that the article linked by Alex McKee at #9 raises the possibility that the second of the accusations levelled at Sinclaire - that of failing to declare relevant issues to a candidate selection panel - may also have applied to John Ison.

Ison stood as UKIP candidate in Redditch in 2005 and Solihull in 2010, being bound by the party constitution on both occasions to make "a written application and shall make full disclosure of any fact, political or personal, that may have a bearing on their suitability for selection as a candidate". In 2010 the application form stated: "I am not aware of any circumstances from my past that might cause embarrassment to the party were it to be revealed".

Did Ison fail to declare that he had been banned by court order from seeing his children, and lie by signing the form anyway? If so, now that the story is known through circulation on the internet, the NEC will be guilty of victimizing Nikki Sinclaire if it doesn't ban Ison from standing in all future elections just as it has banned her.

If he did declare it and was allowed to stand despite this, the party and all its future candidates will be at risk from resulting bad publicity, but why would a party that goes to the length of demanding CRB checks on its candidates precisely in order to screen out potential problems, regard a court order protecting five-year-olds from their own father as not having a bearing on his suitability as a candidate?

**Steve Morson** · Yesterday, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Barboo

One could, or one could try to think beyond the purely superficial.....

And indeed you do, Barboo. A quite stunning post, extraordinarily well-informed and astute.

The questions it raises, which I asked myself on being informed of the archive article on the court case only recently, are for members of the party. Which is why I did not ask them publicly.

What a mess.

**Independent UKIP** · Today, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Barboo

Did Ison fail to declare that he had been banned by court order from seeing his children, and lie by signing the form anyway?

I've no idea what Ison has or has not declared but he was pre-UKIP a notable public campaigner for fathers rights. How have you come to the apparent conclusion that his own circumstances were not already in the public domain?

**Barboo** · Today, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Steve Morson

And indeed you do, Barboo. A quite stunning post, extraordinarily well-informed and astute.

Thank you, Steve!

**Barboo** · Today, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Independent UKIP

I've no idea what Ison has or has not declared but he was pre-UKIP a notable public campaigner for fathers rights. How have you come to the apparent conclusion that his own circumstances were not already in the public domain?

I haven't come to any conclusion on the matter and that is not the point. UKIP's constitution does not put responsibility onto candidate selection panels for acquainting themselves with applicants' personal circumstances from what is in the public domain. It states categorically that candidates shall make full disclosure.

If John Ison did not do so then natural justice demands that he should be treated the same as Nikki Sinclaire in what the NEC claims was a similar circumstance (failure to disclose, which she denies), and banned as she was from standing in future elections. Not to ban Ison would be a second example of Sinclaire being treated more harshly than others, the first being that action was taken against her for leaving the EFD but not against Nattrass and Colman.

**Niall Warry** · Today, 09:07 AM

It is very simple really Nigel doesn't concern himself with rule books, as I've had experience of, by his selfish standards there is one rule for him and his mates and another for his foes.

UKIP - vs - EUkip

USE THE RIGHT SIDEBAR, LINKS & PAGES

The EU an Evil Union

Sunday, 4 March 2012

#0761* - A Summary of some aspects of the John ISON farce!

A Summary of some aspects of the John ISON farce!

No comments:

Post a Comment

FIND US ON:

POLITICS DIRECTORY

Followers