Clean 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!
CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - Court #05 - 18-March-2010!
Mark Christopher CROUCHER vs. Greg LANCE-WATKINS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 09:50hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 20-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 21-Mar-2010 01:40hrs.
A very sad reflection on UKIP!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 25-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 29-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 07-Oct-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
I had intended NOT to comment on yesterdays events in Cardiff Crown Court - however I note Junius has commented CLICK HERE
The Junius write up came about as one of them called my home before I had returned, and I had on leaving the Court phoned Lee to say that we had effectively won the case. That Croucher's claim for some £8K had not stood as 3 examples given by the Judge of similar cases were for C£600 which all involved National Newspapers and commercial organisations and that a not for profit blog as run by the defendant commanded a fractional comparison. It was noted that a further claim for a per diem charge was completely out of order (UKIP's Croucher was claiming £75/day/picture x 3 as a punitive rate as no permission had been granted, about £90,000!).
It was also made clear that Croucher had failed to establish Copyright and as Paul Nuttall chairman of UKIP and Clive Page also of UKIP had put their name to the copyright ownership it was clear that this was a UKIP action.
Croucher has been ordered to pay my full costs, as 'accounted' item by item by the Judge in Court, within 28 days.
The above is a reasonable outline, I believe, however I was rather embroiled in the proceedings and may have misunderstood the niceties of the legalise.
As stated it was not my intent to publish until I had the full public judgement to hand, which I will publish.
Present in the Court was my solicitor who took a legal note and will provide a report - I shall seek his advice and if he approves I shall also publish his report.
Also in Court was a freelance journalist who I believe has or will be seeking to write up the story for a commissioning paper - should this third party report come to hand I shall similarly post same.
It is not my intent to 'crow' about this outcome as it does seem more a tragic tale as it seems to me that a particularly weak and venal little man, having failed at much that he has touched in life, has been, in his greed or desperation, manipulated by his employers UKIP, for whom he clearly either works or is some kind of agent, to act/front an attempt to silence my blog and the facts it publishes, by a very personal financial attack on Lee and I.
I take no pleasure in having won the case and obviously as Croucher has been acting in the interest of UKIP and his current employers the Racist, anti Jewish pro EU EFD, which would seem to be little more than a vehicle for Nigel Farage's personal career in the EU, it would seem to be a tragic reflection of just how debased UKIP would seem to have become - willingly using its staff, their sock puppets and their misguided supporters to seek to attack private individuals who take an unpaid role of conviction in opposition to membership of The EU, the dishonesty and corruption, bullying and abuse by UKIP & their staff would seem to know no limits!
I note there has been reflection on the situation pertinent to the BNP, I can throw very little light on this beyond the fact that Croucher gave mention of some pyricc victory prior to Christmas in his submissions to the Court. We understand from the Court in Welshpool that the case was in some manner set aside to be heard again in May, I would submit based on my understandings of costs that Croucher/UKIP could well be facing a bill that makes the £8,000+ payable to my lawyers seem paltry in extricating themselves from the BNP case.
I have portrayed these details in accord with my honest beliefs and understandings of this matter and would ask that others do not SPECULATE in the clear understanding that I will post the legal report if authorised, the journalist's report if obtained and the judgement when received.
Thank you to the many who have so clearly supported me throughout, particularly Lee (others left out to avoid them becoming victims of any attack by UKIP &/or its agents.)
I now call on Mark Croucher, UKIP & The EFD to ensure a rapid settlement of their respective debts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 09:50hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case Number: 9DA01429
HEARD BEFORE: The Hon. W. GASKELL
DEFENCE BARISTER: Ms. Isabel JAMAL
8, NEW STREET CHAMBERS Intellectual Property Specialists
DEFENCE SOLICITORS: Mssrs. HUGH JAMES Solicitors
Acting : Richard LOCKE & Rhodri JONES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also call on UKIP to disassociate itself from The EFD as violence, personal attacks, racism, xenophobia, anti Judaism and a pro EU stance as are the views of some in the EFD - a position which is reprehensible, distasteful, un British and clearly at variance with the principles and aims of UKIP electorate and grass roots members.
I further call on UKIP and its agents to cease smearing and attacking those with honestly held beliefs at variance with the personal ambitions of UKIP's leadership and the largely parasitic staff and funded praise singers.
As you will know I have been a dedicated supporter of UKIP for many years and have devoted much of the last 10 years at least to activities opposing membership of The EU, I had hoped it was possible to clean up EUkip to reinstate a cleaned up UKIP electable by vision, values and example rather than fluke, opportunism and spin!
Since that has to date failed I am now an active supporter of:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Details of which can be found at http://www.Leave-the-EU.org.UK
I hope and believe that this new organisation can deliver what genuine supporters of UKIP have wished for all along - I appreciate the dishonest of EUkip in an attempt to keep their snouts in the troughs on the EU gravy train may well seek to smear and defame this new organisation as some sort of spoiler party - this is clearly not the case though I fear the EUkip wrecker claque will do all they can to suppress the truth - we have seen many of their sad efforts to date!
I trust this posting helps clarification of my position - I wish UKIP every success in seeking to Leave-the-EU and would welcome the genuine members standing and supporting INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance & I look forward to hearing of the demise of the malevolent claque that has seized control of the Party for their own gain forming as I have called it EUkip coming to an abrupt end (ever the optimist).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 21-Mar-2019 01:40hrs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have noticed this afternoon that Niall Warry has kindly opened a defence fund to assist me - much as I would like to reject the kindness I can not reasonably do so financially (any little helps). When in my position there is no longer pride or ego having so far faced down cancer those matters become utterly irrelevant.
It has been humbling how many people have shown their support and their revulsion at UKIP's behaviour and Croucher's action. All of this is a bit petty when you think I spoke to two people for the last time this week and I expect to possibly be present when a friend dies in a week or so, it puts the squalid behaviour of the likes of UKIP and some of its more despicable supporters in perspective when decent men and women die too soon and some of the filth and parasites we see in UKIP and on Anthony Butcher's nasty little gathering malinger on assuming that everyone like they are dishonest and corrupt.
Many lack even the basic morality to put their names to their vile spin such as Skeptyk, Independent UKIP and their ilk.
Thank you Niall for the risk you expose yourself to of smear and innuendo, abuse and dishonesty that you have exposed yourself to from some of the most unpleasant low lifes and vermin I have ever noted - their behaviour is inexcusable and cowardly!
With regard to any monies I am fortunate enough to receive I will personally phone each person and thank them and provide them with such accounting as they may reasonably request - if they are unsatisfied even at that stage I shall refund their donation.
The current situation is I have in place borrowings to cover my costs to an expected figure of about £12,000+.
The figures are hazey as yet since I have not received a full accounting schedule from my solicitors - I expect that within the next week or so but I shall not risk yet more costs by pestering them.
Part of the reason that the costs were so high was that had I lost I would have been liable for a sum in excess of £100,000 for the use of 3 publicity snaps on a blog!
I had little choice but to seek out the best legal advice that I could NOT afford, since that would prove cheaper and more survivable than the ignominy and problems of bankruptcy. You may not be aware that I have had cancer since November 1998 and had a radical nephrectomy in September 2001. Unfortunately my wound was infected with MRSA or similar a type of necrotising facaeitis (please accept the spelling - I am no doctor!) - this gave rise to a volume around the size of a fist literally rotting ajoining the muscles of the spinal column - to cut a long story short I was fortunate to survive but it left me without stomach muscles or normal peristalsis - thus although Lee struggled on we eventually had to shut our shop.
We managed to pay ALL our creditors and now no longer work living on not a lot but adamantly resisting state assistance.
We do occasionally receive money from media but there again I refuse to receive any money relative to any story pertaining to EUkip or the Freedom Struggle - I act out of duty and patriotism - working to save my Country and the future of its peoples is NOT about money! No amount of money justifies one drip of British blood nor one fraction of prostitution of principles.
To return to the Costs forced upon me by UKIP & Mark Croucher as I have said they amount to some £12K - I have not as yet received my Barristers account nor further sums.
O will post the sum total here and together with the Judgement when it is received the figure work will become more intelligible.
Please accept my apologies but I am myself somewhat hazey at the actual situation but as I understand it some time ago my legal team advised I should make an offer to try to bring the matter to a rapid close to save on expenses - which I did, not because I believed it would deliver justice for me but because it seemed the cheapest way out!
You will understand I had absolutely no knowledge of copyright law and as with virtually all other bloggers I acted in good faith assured by those I asked that use of pictures was OK on not for profit blogs and the like and as long as copyright was shown where known, credit was given where identified and removal effected if asked failing the choice to then buy. Had the matter been handled ethically I would I understand have received a phone call, eMail or letter showing copyright and a request that I either pay a fee, place a credit or remove the item timeously.
Up to the stage at which my offer was made (settling what I perceived to be a blackmail demand by UKIP through their agent Mark Croucher) - (it was in fact the Judge who defined Croucher as an agent of UKIP, though he seemed to me to intimate he saw it more as extortion!). To that stage my costs were, I understand about £4,000.
The offer was rejected and I gather the costs then are split. I continue to pay them but IF at Court the Court awards the same or a lower sum than the offer made (I think it is called a part 33 offer!!) then the plintiff is liable for the subsequent costs - subsequent to the offer. IF the Court awards a higher amount as defendent one is liable for those additional costs. The plaintiff is liable for their own costs throughout UNLESS they are awarded by the court against either the defendant or in some unusual cases the Court.
I have been asked why I did not defend the action myself but incurred lawyers and costs.
Firstly the enormity of the claim made against me.
Secondly the complexity of copyright law when involving virtual reality images freely available uncopyrightED on the internet. Thirdly the complexity of documentation and nomenclature
Fourthly the fact that had I sent a wrong document or been late it would have been exploited without any moral humanity or tollerance as had been proven.
I trust this helps clarify the situation and once again my sincere thanks for even the smallest of contributions - it WILL help.
My particular thanks to Niall for having the courage to face the twisters and dissemblers who are so much a part of EUkip and so undermine the possibilities of UKIP's success - who would want such dishonest and vicious cowards in any position of authority in any Country. Patriotic achievement is a matter of inclusivity, generosity and care taking people with you not battering them into submission and fear, exploitation and abuse.
If EUkip can not be cleaned up then its demise should be welcome as it represents no Patriotic values any decent people would accept!
Thank you again and as I have nothing to hide and have ALWAYS made a point of rigid honesty please be assured, even for the bullies, liars, cheats and cowards of EUkip I will publish all that I reasonably can regarding my costs and records thereof.
O shall not openly publish totals but will account to any donor making a contribution of 5% or more of the oal due. I will ask Niall to contact the 10 largest donors should it be required to decide how best any sum over the amount I have directly outlayed may be spent. I would ask that IF there is any excess sum it could go towards:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Clearly if UKIP was honourable it would settle the full amount of my expenses not the bare minimum awarded by the Court. I fail to see the morality of a political party seeking to destroy a member of the public however much their views may differ.
A very sad reflection on UKIP!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, 20 March 2010
#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks.
#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks.Clean 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!
re: Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict, 18-Mar-2010 - My thanks!
I have been amazed at howmany people have clearly been following this case for a long time and have realised its huge significance to Lee and I and also to Bloggers and the internet in general.
When one realises, as many who have contacted me seem to have done, the incredible significance that in a Court of Law under a law of 1988 which has had very little realistic amendment except by the seat of the pants in various relatively minor cases and Courts by usage.
In 1988 there were in real terms no common usage of electronic transfer of photographic images.
It was not until December 1997 almost 10 years after the act that the first realistic blog was written and transmitted for 'common' consumption on the internet though there had been some experimentation within web sites and on Intra Nets starting in late 1994.
The first meaningful usage of a blog was December 1997 however I have been unable to ascertain when the first pictures were posted on a blog.
The most up to date figure I could find for the number of blogs world wide was somewhere over 200,000,000!
Astonishingly the law in use was designed for paper printed copy now with a quite reasonable guestimate running to Billions of pictures on the internet amongst the blogs etc. (I have just noted ONE individual with 15,400+ photos).
We are now talking of many millions of bloggers each day posting blogs with pictures in the virtual reality format in a transient nature where I have failed to identify a single solitary not for profit private blog who pays for readily available pictures.
Further I was unable this afternoon after the case had ended to locate any way in which copyright can be established of the many versions of the pictures for which I was taken to Court being sourced to UKIP or even to Mark Croucher.
I am not attempting to deny UKIP holds the copyright and was unable to afford to front the battle over the claim that Croucher owned the copyright though I am relieved to note his Hon. W. Gaskell specifically stated that Croucher had failed to establish his right of copyright to the Court's satisfaction despite UKIP having made themselves party to the Court Case by encouraging Croucher with documents put before the Court.
It is an incredibly messy business as it seems copyright is something of a movable feast and not just many facetted but many layered which is why we opted to obtain the best advice I could not afford!
There are after all only 4 Chambers in Britain which specialise in IP, clearly Intellectual Property is a complex and very specific area of law - that my Barrister's first qualification was Phys.Phil. at St. Hildas and a couple of years measuring the distance between binnary stars before moving on to further qualifications and Law is a measure of her chambers which I understand demands a top level scientific qualification before considering a new associate! The rigor of the discipline denoting the complexity of future cases.
The entire area of law is fascinating but the staggering ramifications of this case were clearly not lost on the legal team as had the quantum endorsed by UKIP and claimed by their agent Croucher been endorsed then it could have led to £1,000s of millions of claims and the shut down of the internet as we know it - thus clearly the case was unlikely to succeed IN MY OPINION - that is not to say that Croucher acting as UKIP's agent was not in a position to act in a reasonable manner and request removal of the pictures having shown reasonable provenance of copyright beyond reasonable usage and that he had made electronic efforts to show copyright to be retained.
The internet functions on the basis of reasonable trust whereby we the bloggers use pictures on the understanding that we show copyright where displayed, provide credit where it is attributable and use pictures to a greater or lesser extent in the clear understanding that IF a picture's author having shown right of copyright request the specific removal then of course we (by and large) honour the request whether for credit of for removal.
That UKIP's agent as their EFD group Media Manager has acted in the manner in which they have does little for the credibility of UKIP and would seem to be something of a monumental own goal for the Party, for it was THEIR staff member with THEIR Chairman's encouragement that has led to this unhappy affair when a phone call and some polite banter would have solved the entire matter at no cost to UKIP or their agent some 15 months ago.
I am happy to unreservedly apologise to UKIP for using a picture it would seem the Court has deemed to be their copyright, all be it shakily, and will be only too happy to acceded to any reasonable request of removal in the future should I accidentally infringe their copyright over pictures, other than of course pictures which are deemed to be common usage publicity photographs which are by deffinition for publicity, as I would of course for any other individual or organisation whose pictures I have used.
I trust now that UKIP will act expeditiously to ensure the payment ordered by the Court is made rather than further damage their reputation as it would seem in this instance.
There is I understand a photograph of Roger Knapman used somewhere on one of my 40 or so blogs and if UKIP would be so good as to identify the specific picture and show it is not merely a common usage picture for publicity and that they are deemed to hold the copyright I will be only too happy to oblige by removing same, in a spirit of co-operation and conciliation.
May I again thank the humbling number of people who have written articles on the internet or infringed copyright by reproducing articles on the matter!!!!! all over the internet I am truly humbled by the sense of fair play that has been shown by so many thoroughly decent people. Sadly we note the unpleasant remarks or obvious silence from some of the EUkip supporters who are even yet determined to bring EUkip into further disrepute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 25-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
as promised here is the 'Note of Judgement' received from my solicitor today which supplements and clarifies my earlier postings on the matter at #912* & also #913*
Note of Judgment
His Honour Judge W Gaskell stated that this was an application by the defendant to strike out the claim. He stated that today was the trial date and that the claimant was not in attendance.
The first question which the Judge had to address was whether he could be confident that the claimant was aware of the hearing date.
He stated that the matter had previously been listed for trial on 27th January 2010 . This had been vacated and directions were given, including a new trial window. Notice was given on 15th February 2010 stating that the trial had been listed on 18th March 2010 .
The Judge had also heard that the defendant’s solicitor had spoken to the claimant the previous Friday and mention was made of today's hearing date during the call. The Judge stated that an email had also been sent to the claimant setting out the various matters which needed to be resolved prior to the trial.
That email was in the bundle at page 139 and carried the date 15th March 2010 .
The Judge had also heard evidence that the claimant was currently active on the internet and clearly there was an overwhelming likelihood that he had access to his emails.
The Judge then set out the background to the claim. He stated that the claimant alleged that monies were due to him in respect of the use of 3 photographs used by the defendant on his internet blog.
The 3 photos were of head and shoulders of UKIP members (IJ later corrected the fact that one of the photos was a full body photograph of Nigel Ferrage).
The first issue was whether the claimant was the owner of the copyright and the photographs. The Judge noted that Mr Croucher would have to overcome the fact that it seemed that the photographs had been taken by him in his capacity as an employee or at least as an agent employed by UKIP.
The Judge then turned to the issue of quantum. If the claimant managed to overcome the issue of appropriate ownership the issue of quantum arises. The Judge noted that the claimant claims £8,000. On the material provided to the Judge, and he noted that he had not heard evidence from the claimant, he stated that it appeared to be grossly excessive.
The Judge referred to the freelance fee guides and specifically to the online prices.
The Judge noted that newspapers charge £625 for one year's use and that business use was £850 for one year.
However, he noted that the use in question was by a not for profit website and stated that he was entitled on the basis of the material before him to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the claimant would achieve anything near that which he claimed. However, the Judge noted that those issues could be put to one side for the moment.
The Judge referred to the freelance fee guides and specifically to the online prices.
The Judge noted that newspapers charge £625 for one year's use and that business use was £850 for one year.
However, he noted that the use in question was by a not for profit website and stated that he was entitled on the basis of the material before him to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the claimant would achieve anything near that which he claimed. However, the Judge noted that those issues could be put to one side for the moment.
The Judge stated that the fact was that the claimant had failed to file a pre trial checklist and the filing fee. He had also failed to pay the hearing fee. In accordance with the previous order made on 24th February 2010 , the claim should be struck out due to this.
The claimant had now failed to attend Court also.
The Judge stated that he was wholly satisfied that the claimant was aware of proceedings and had failed to take necessary steps in proceedings. He had also failed to attend Court. Had he attended Court and paid the money the Court would have heard the claimant's claim.
The Judge stated that taking in to consideration the claimant's breach of procedural requirements and his failure to attend Court and the difficulties he faced in relation to proving liability and quantum, it seemed appropriate to strike out the claim. The Judge therefore struck out the claim.
Having heard submissions by the defendant’s counsel on costs, the Judge ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs assessed at £8,448.50 within 28 days.
Rhodri Jones (Solicitor),
Messrs. Hugh James Solicitors,
Cardiff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 29-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 07-Oct-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Currently Mark Croucher has an unresolved debt to me by order of The British Courts of C£8.5K + any additional costs I may accrue.
Currently UKIP have an unresolved debt to me of £12.5K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 29-Mar-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Greg
I trust you received my email last week attaching the note of the judgment. I today received a copy of the order from the court, a copy of which is enclosed.
I have already sent a letter to Mr Croucher by email enclosing the order and stating that payment is indeed expected within 28 days. A copy will also go out by recorded post to avoid any difficulties.
I will, of course, update you with any response I receive from him.
Kind regards
Rhodri
| Rhodri Jones Solicitor Commercial Litigation Hugh James | |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL FACTS ADDED 07-Oct-2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have today thus instructed.Dear GregI hope that you are keeping well.I am pleased to confirm that our process server has served Mark Croucher on 29th September 2010. If payment is not received within 21 days, we can issue a bankruptcy petition against him if those are your instructions.I will update you with any news in the interim.Kind regardsRhodri
Insider Property Law Firm of the Year 2010
Rhodri Jones
Solicitor
Commercial Litigation
Hugh James
Currently Mark Croucher has an unresolved debt to me by order of The British Courts of C£8.5K + any additional costs I may accrue.
Currently UKIP have an unresolved debt to me of £12.5K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#912* > CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - 18-March-2010
#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above article was first published at CLICK HERE
to
Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
&
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
to Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
