After some weeks of deliberation and back biting, punctuated by some extraordinary arguments and innuendo, it would appear that the chairman of the Libertarian Party has finally found a method of publishing the results of his promised investigation into the ‘allegations made against the Party and its (then) leader, Andrew Withers’ on this blog. The report was published by a Max Adronichuk, a name which may be relatively unknown to most of you.

Personally, I would have thought that most of what I had to say on that blog post came under the heading of ‘comment’ rather than allegations. Those items which I would have considered to be allegations were the points I made specifically, that 1)Andrew was an undischarged bankrupt, who 2)had signed an undertaking that he was a person unfit to hold public office, and that along with borrowing money from me, and credit from others, he 3) had also failed to repay a loan to another party member within his own stated time frame, and 4) that I found it puzzling given that the reason for the party’s existence was to allow Libertarian on the ballot, that he had chosen to stand as an Independent. Crucially, only two of those allegations have been covered under section 7 and 8.

However, the investigation has widened considerably since then, and now covers ‘inferences’ allegedly drawn by persons unknown, from my blog post. So that the ‘Chairman’s report’ now covers 15 separate points.

So, here goes.

1) The Chairman’s report says that my ‘allegation that the blog/ forum was closed to me on the grounds of her sex can be repudiated.’

I’m heartily relieved to hear that – I have never at any time alleged that I was excluded on the grounds of my sex; I said that as a new member I had not been invited nor told of its existence. I said that the inner sanctum was reserved for the gentlemen – a fact which should be read, indeed followed on directly from a passage where I had said that Libertarianism seemed to be anything other than female friendly.

So, an allegation that I have never made is ‘repudiated’, but then the ‘lack of professionalism which may be indicated’ by the way the Party handled new members is described as an ‘entirely different matter’, which is not addressed.

As a matter of interest, I joined the party on February 18^th 2009. The Chairman doesn’t appear to have access to party records, and relies on the inference drawn from my opening words in the post describing when I developed an interest in Libertarianism to ascribe a joining date for me.

2) My blog post states ‘that was the last newsletter I ever received. I seemed to have fallen off the mailing list’. The Chairman’s deliberations conclude – It is entirely conceivable that she did indeed fall off the mailing list; what is not at all clear to me that this was a deliberate or malicious act as she implies. [sic]

Once again, he is answering an inference rather than an allegation. I neither said, nor implied that it was a malicious act – I would say that ‘seemed to have fallen off the mailing list’ is a fairly good humoured way of ascribing the fact that I didn’t hear from them again, rather than implying a malicious act.

3) The Chairman says that it would have been helpful if I had voiced my ‘misgivings’ within the party.

I did. To Andrew Withers. I had no contact with anyone else, and was not able to access the party forum nor attend meetings in England nor was I even aware of when they were held.

4) The chairman says the timescales seem not to be accurate – what time scales?

5) Andrew had asked me several times to provide money for the party…..the Chairman says this is a perfectly legitimate activity for the Treasurer to undertake. Indeed it is. I neither said nor implied otherwise.

6) The Chairman claims ‘another timescale issue’. Was I a member when I nominated Andrew? As the Chairman says – an important issue to get clear. Surprising then, that he makes no attempt to get it clear and merely moves onto the next point…perhaps he doesn’t have access to party records, allow me to help him out. I renewed my membership on the 5^th March 2010.

7) Probably one of the most important points. Again the Chairman is addressing an inference rather than an allegation. My choice of words were quite specific. That Andrew had not yet handed over the books – quote ‘until he had time to put them in order’. Andrew’s own words.

However, the Chairman says: “the implication in the blog is clearly that ‘put them in order’ should be construed as ‘cook them’.”

No sir; the statement in the blog was quite specific – four months after the new Treasurer had taken on legal liability for the accounts, he hadnt set eyes on them. The reason given was that time was needed to ‘put them in order’. Since nobody except Andrew has yet set eyes on a full set of accounts, it is impossible for anyone to speculate as to whether they are cooked, warmed through or even non-existent – and I was scrupulous in my adversity to so speculating.

The Chairman agrees and says that it is only now, ‘four months’ – currently almost six months – after the new Treasurer took over that financial activities are – quote: ‘in the final stages of being handed over to the new Treasurer’. A quite extraordinary state of affairs, given that the new Treasurer has been at the forefront of the ‘investigation’ – and yet doesn’t yet have all the records.

The Chairman says that Andrew has said the accounts are – again quote – “A1”, and therefore ‘we there is no more to be said and we should consider the matter closed’.

8). Finally we get round to addressing an ‘allegation’. I said that a party member had granted a three month loan, and it had not been paid back within the three months. I agreed that part payment had been received – after the expected repayment date of the three month loan. Apparently ‘the loan has not been recorded as well as it might’.

Indeed, the purpose of the loan – paying for Nic Coome’s election leaflets is a perfectly valid purpose. What has not been addressed is the reason for the loan – why a party which had taken in several thousand pounds in subscription fees, and paid no deposits for candidates, needed a loan. Where had the subscription fees and donations gone?

9) Yes, I will be only too happy to see why my access to the lpuk web site was changed, and also why my blog posts were removed. Both events occurred before I posted my article on Andrew Withers.

10) The idea of a party office may well have been dismissed as ‘unaffordable’ some time ago – I am not responsible for Mr Withers announcement that he HAD set up a new office in his home village.

11) My comment that I was surprised that Mr Withers was standing as an Independent in his local council elections when he himself had told me that the very reason for the existence of the Libertarian Party was the ability to put ‘Libertarian’ proudly on the voting slip is described as a ‘pointless dig’. Mr Withers has subsequently given as his reason for doing so the fact that:

My reasons for not standing as a Libertarian Party candidate in the local elections ? because I would not have secured a seat.
Google my name as a Libertarian and what to you get, a pack of lies from a mad bint living in France, who thinks she is a lawyer, plus a large photograph of me with CUNT underneath it, and the LPUK website that seems to have forgotten there was an election, putting an Easter competition up about cannabis instead, and failing to support the people who had the balls to stand. Why do you think ?

Which is very interesting in the light of the following information.

When nominations closed for the post of Parish Councillor for Clevedon Walton on April 4th, a full ten days before my blog post, Mr Withers was fully aware that there were only two candidates for the three advertised vacancies. As such there would be no ballot slip, no voting required, and nothing said ten days later could possibly have affected his chances of being put in charge of the local duck pond and dog mess clearing up that is the lot of the Parish Councillor. He could have described himself as a fully paid up member of the Raving Looney Party or whatever it is called, and still been ‘elected’ to the role.

Less candidates than vacancies at Parish level and there is no election ballot.

12) I contacted Tim Carpenter on Friday 8^th April. On Saturday 9^th April he told me the matter was ‘being investigated’ and I should be patient. He didn’t reply to a further e-mail asking ‘how long’. I posted on Thursday 14^th April and included the phrase that it was over a week ago since they had said they were investigating.

Mea culpa, six days does not a week make. I agree, I only waited six days, not a week.

13) ‘Leaving aside the jibe’ concerning the time limit.

Not a jibe sir, a direct allegation. The loan was not repaid within three months. No payment was made at all until the member contacted you after the three months had expired and asked when you might start repayment.

Quite the most extraordinary part of this ‘report’. It seems great exception is taken by the Libertarian Party to Chris Mounsey, the ex-leader of the party being open and honest when asked a direct question. It is described as being ‘less than entirely supportive of the party he used to lead’.

Chris had just received his membership renewal demand when I spoke to him – it did request payment to an entirely different account than the one the loan had been directed to. There is no reason why the party should not have seventy three different accounts. However, the member concerned had asked for reassurance that his loan had gone to the lpuk. He received a copy of a bank statement showing an account in the name of ‘Mr A Withers Libertarian Party’, at, for obvious reasons, Mr A Withers home address. It contained no other information than a bank account number which differed from the one in which we were invited to send our subscriptions.  Raising this matter was an entirely legitimate question. The answer appears to be that there is “nothing contentious about having more than one bank account”.  Nope, but it doesn’t answer the perfectly reasonable question posed.

Quite why posing that question should result in the slur that Chris Mounsey ‘may be the source of more information than might be thought reasonable’ is unfathomable. I am no supporter of Chris Mounsey, I thought he was a disaster in PR terms, as he is well aware – but I fail to see how telling me the account number for which subscriptions were sought – when I had not received a renewal demand myself, is indicative of ‘unresolved issues’. It seemed a thoroughly Libertarian response to me.

14) I am not conflating two issues sir, you are. I have neither mentioned nor am interested in what accounting software you use. The ‘accounting units for regions’ is a phrase used by the electoral commission and has naff all to do with accounting software.

The 2009 accounts as lodged with the electoral commission says that the party has ‘concentrated its expenditure on ensuring […] that allows for future ‘accounting units for the Regions’ – had the ‘accounting units for regions’ materialised, loans of lesser value than £7,500 would have had to be shown.

Nor did I say that ‘no one knew about the loan’ I said it came as a ‘surprise to all but the parties involved’. The fact that it was mentioned at the ‘recent NCC meeting’ is irrelevant’ – the loan commenced last November.

Finally – the reference to Chris Mounsey’s election was contained in a statement of my dealings with Andrew Withers and exchange of e-mails – over a long period of time commencing with the events of Dr Kapur. In no way did I attempt to reference this to membership renewals, or any timescale. I said that Andrew had been supportive and said that things would change. I said they did. Chris Mounsey was appointed. Quite how this is ‘inconsistent with actually events’ is beyond me.

I note that events overnight have included the current Treasurer resigning, and that he is still not in possession of the full accounts and statements, despite this ‘Chairman’s report of an investigation’.

Andrew Withers has apparently re assumed his position as Leader of the Party ‘since the investigation is now over’. Since the Treasurer has now resigned, he has also decided that under electoral rules he is now once again the Treasurer as well as the leader (and esteemed councillor of Clevedon parish council).

All I can say to that is, if it is true, it is the first time in the last six months that the Treasurer has also been in possession of all the paperwork….

The Chairman says that he has been unable to post this report on the party web site, he is ‘locked out’ and it has in fact been posted by one Max Adronichuk, who is, I believe a 20 year old Ukrainian student, that I spoke to a few days ago at the urging of John Watson the Treasurer. He is a party member, but not a member of the NCC. However, he has been party to the NCC discussions, and Mr Withers has sent out e-mails to members urging them to “Please consider staying or rejoining under Max.”

I do hold a list of those people who have resigned in the past few days – difficult to compile since they were coming in thick and fast – however it is now so lengthy that you will be reading this for the next three weeks if I post them all up.

Such is the state of the party the day before the Rally against Debt. It should have been the perfect opportunity for the Party to stand alongside respectable organisations such as the Tax Payers Alliance, and show the world that they were a reasonable and rational party, fielding candidates in elections no matter how humble, and generally showing how totally different they were to other fringe political parties like the Monster Raving Looney Party…..

I sincerely hope that individual Libertarians will support the Rally; Libertarianism is desperately needed in Britain.

Unfortunately, as the chairman said just a few hours ago:

The faction in control of it is currently blocking publication for reasons I can only guess at. Frankly, the projected lifespan of LPUK can be measured in hours as things currently stand.

I am currently looking for an alternative platform on which to publish – unlike some in the Party, I do not believe in censorship.

Nic Coome
Party Chairman

Feel free to comment; I am taking the rest of the day off, frankly I’m sick to death of the lot of them.

Malcolm Saunders
May 17, 2011 at 09:54

Thank you TT.

It can only be good for libertarians to get together and discuss things.
There is merit in what Simon Fawthrop said about the future of the Party being
better with London centred regular meetings.

I will copy here some comments I have posted on the LPUK site:

Over the last month amid all the acrimony, resignations withdrawn
resignations and the report we have not really been told anything that could
satisfy members and potential members that we are a political party capable of
building trust and expanding understanding and acceptance of
libertarianism.

At the same time, the welter of emails and chat has revealed some sort of
picture of what has happened.

We are a tiny party with always fewer than 1,000 members, but the
subscriptions and donations of those people are not a trivial amount, and for
a lot of hard up members their contributions have been a sacrifice. We also
know that almost everybody who did Party work saw it as a personal
contribution to building a cause and they didn’t ask for any expenses. In fact
it is probable that the only person who took significant expenses is Andrew
Withers and he was also controlling Party finances for most of the time of its
existence.

Because of the refusal to provide information it is impossible to know
whether the money taken was reasonable or not. I use the word ‘taken’ because
we have no evidence that there was a process of claiming and approval of
expenses and we have been told that there were no rules or procedures by which
expenses could have been considered to be reasonable or otherwise.

As we railed against the duck houses, moat cleaning and porn videos and
derided the appalling lack of oversight that allowed MP’s and Peers to engage
in the corrupt practices that have now given them criminal convictions, our
own little party had no procedures at all and apparently no oversight.

We may only be talking about flights, burgers and biros for all I know, but
the trouble is that I don’t know and nor does anybody else other than Andrew
and maybe one or two others.

John Watson and Max Andronichuk keep asking us to look to the future. They
must understand that it will be impossible to do that without completely
revealing what has taken place to get us where we are. Without that there can
be no trust and no guide for building an organisation with proper protection
against a repeat of the situation.

The solution is in the hands of Andrew Withers. Tell everybody how much
money the Party has received since it was founded and how much you have had in
expenses. More needs to be done, such as establishing how the loan from MH was
approved and why it could not be repaid within its agreed period, etc., but if
Andrew made a clear and open statement about his own affairs in the Party the
ground would be laid to allow examination of weaknesses in procedures.

The cause of libertarianism in Britain has been badly damaged. An open
statement of what has happened would bring dignified closure and permit a
libertarian movement to emerge stronger than it has been before.

Trooper
Thompson May 17, 2011 at 01:19

Does anyone from the London party want to meet up at the usual place some
time soon? The venue: the Rose & Crown pub on Colombo Street in Southwark.
We can either discuss the party, or reminisce on the good times!

Anyone interested can comment here, or find me at my blog.

Malcolm, I must say, I’ve agreed with what you’ve contributed to this
debate.

Malcolm Saunders
May 16, 2011 at 18:45

Sorry I should have edited the email addresses myself. Getting weary.

Malcolm Saunders
May 16, 2011 at 16:29

Whoever is now moderating the LPUK site has not approved my last comment so
I will put it on here.

Max Andronichuk said that Nic Coome and Andrew Withers are the remaining
legal officers of the LPUK. I asked why that was the case when Nic Coomes sent
this email to me:

“You got what you wanted so enjoy it, shithead

–Forwarded Message Attachment–
Subject: That’s All Folks
From:
niccoome@—com
To: andrew_janes@——-com; apwithers@———com; jgw2001@—–com;
pagaris@———-com; liam-hillman@———–uk; simon@————uk; simonmslade@——-com;
stuart_heal_2000@———uk; timbeauhk@—–com
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 22:59:43
+0100

After the latest outburst from Malcolm, I’ve had enough. I hereby resign as
Chairman and as a member of the party.”

I also have an email from Andrew Withers some days before saying that he
was ‘off’ and he was sending his form to the Electoral Commission. They seem
to resign regularly, but stay in office.

[Email addresses edited by SBML]

Malcolm Saunders
May 16, 2011 at 14:32

This is just going round in circles John and I’m afraid you haven’t
understood the constitution. I didn’t demand the position of Treasurer or
anything else. I offered to help at my own expense and within the
constitution.

Malcolm Saunders
May 16, 2011 at 12:18

My only wish is that libertarianism has a decent voice in Britain.

As you know John, I offered my own time and money to help resolve the
financial matters in an open way. That was accepted by you, but rejected by
Nic Coome and Andrew Withers.

I have never made any threat to anybody. What I have said is that I will
report the facts as far as I know them.

The people who put their money in need to be told how it was used. It is
very wrong to suggest that my questioning could result in the accounts
remaining concealed. Whistleblowers are usually attacked and this is a good
example.

If the Party does collapse, and I don’t want that, it will not bring an end
to finding out what happened.

John Watson
May 16, 2011 at 12:55

“Malcolm”

I am getting sick of having to repeat my self to you time and time
again.

If the party disbands, there is no way of us investigating the past
accounts.

We need a new SGM, new constitution, new team at the top.

SGM has been called, constitution is open to discussion.

MAX is preparing proposals, it may be posted to the mailing list for
members to discuss.

What else do you want?

You demanded position of treasurer however the treasurer needs to be
elected. When the treasurer stands down this responsibility goes to the
legal leader (one on the election register) which in this case is
Andrew.

I agree with you that Andrew needs to be side lined, however this has to
be done in the proper way via a SGM. Doing it otherwise would undermined the
party constitution which ever member agreed to when joining up and may be
legal laws as well.

So, an SGM has been called, discussion have started about changing the
constitution, Andrew is being side lined from ALL responsibilities, and an
investigation can take place from a willing team (Not the current one)

John Watson May 16, 2011 at 10:55

We all what the same thing.

We need a libertarian party, a new constitution, new leadership on top, and
re-raise the libertarian party.

A SGM is being called, plans are being put in place, things are happenings,
members have been invited to get involved via a mailing list.

However comments and email threats from people such as Malcolm Saunders
does not help, unless these individuals really wants the party to tip
over.

We have NIC and Andrew the last remaining legal officers, if they are
tipped over the edge with threats such as the ones from Malcolm, then the
party will be disbanded.

If the party is disbanded, the past year accounts will never be
investigated.

Malcolm, keep this up and your wish may be granted.

Thanks

John

Anna
Raccoon May 16, 2011 at 12:16

We are not aware of any threats issued via this blog John.
If you are
aware of threats you should report them to the police – not make vague
allusions to them on this blog.
We, who are reading here, have no way of
knowing what you are referring to.

Eleanor May 15, 2011 at 14:00

Oh Dear, what a mess. And I don’t even know what it is all about.

Wormit Steve
May 15, 2011 at 10:59

Distractions aside, there are still individuals seeking a voice and wishing
to undo the countless infringements placed upon them by force. While this news
trickles out those that would love to see an end to such a group of
individuals are rubbng their hands with glee. The fights that are worth
fighting are those that mean the most to each. Otherwise we waste time and
effort in areas where they will do least good for ourselves and those we
purport to speak for are left voiceless. Let those that have been wronged seek
resolution else, as been pointed out earlier by another contributor, we become
no better than those we wish to rid ourselves from.

Malcolm Saunders
May 15, 2011 at 10:25

There is a difference between being bankrupt and serving a period of
disqualification from being a Company Director as a consequence of making
people lose money by operating a company which you know to have been
insolvent. The Insolvency Service shows Andrew Withers as being disqualified
until 2016.

Irrespective of whether Mr Withers has signed a declaration that he is not
disqualified from holding office as a Parish Councillor, residents of that
Council area should be aware of his financial history. Parish Councils don’t
have significant powers, but when they make recommendations on things like
planning applications they can be influential and these matters have important
financial implications.

Shades May 14, 2011 at 23:29

As WOAR says, a Parish Council can choose to call itself a Town Council if
that suits. It makes absolutely no difference in terms of Parish Council law,
other than the Chairman of a Town Council can call himself Town Mayor
instead.

Woman on a
Raft May 15, 2011 at 00:04

What does make a difference is whether bankruptcy – which is a public
record – was discharged by the time Andrew Withers put in his nomination
form to Clevedon Town Council. It is a bar from office if a bankruptcy order
is outstanding. ( It may be the order is unfair, but that is a separate
issue. )

Being accepted as a candidate and then automatically declared in the seat
is not proof that there is no bankruptcy order. It is false to claim that
“if he were, he wouldn’t have been accepted as a Town Councillor” a
candidate may simply have made an inaccurate statement either , because they
didn’t know it violated the eligibility criteria or because they did know
and decided to claim to be eligible when they were not.

Jiks May 14, 2011 at 18:16

My feelings on all this are that I’m just sorry you have been subjected to
so much of this rubbish, Anna.
The whole business is a disgrace IMO.

Engineer May 14, 2011 at 18:37

It’s certainly an object lesson in how not to start a political party,
and leaves the interested but somewhat bemused bystander with the distinct
impression that wannabe politicians are even less suitable to represent the
electorate’s interests than the real ones.

One can only hope that Mr Withers is in a position to settle his debts in
the very near future, so that the whole episode can be chalked up
experience. Currently, sadly, there is unfinished business.

Saul May 14, 2011 at 17:54

Never mind the Libertine Party, where’s the Eurovision thread?

Harrumpph!

Lerxst May 14, 2011 at 15:51

Oh dear. Doesn’t say much for the thoroughness of the investigation if it
can’t even pick up on matters of public record which have been given to it on
a plate. Being generous one could describe it, at best, as monumentally inept
and it really just raises questions as to what else was ignored and glossed
over. Whatever, the implication is that neither the current leader/treasurer,
nor the rest of the leadership involved in the ‘investigation’ are fit to run
a whelk stall, let alone a poltical party with aspirations to being taken
seriously.

A.Highlander
May 14, 2011 at 15:09

As a Highlander, I would like to complain about some inaccuracies in the
preceding film about the poet Ewan McTeagle. Although his name was quite
clearly given as McTeagle, he was throughout wearing the Cameron tartan.

youtube com/watch?v=Kc_iWPnjtC

tuesdayweek May 14, 2011 at 14:27

Dear Nic Coome
Sod your grammar.You should be apologizing for rubbish
leadership & pr skills.
Get Andrew Withers away from LPUK – and that
freak from north london.Every comment here in defence of that broke-ass conman
sounds like the same tripe the government spout at us when they’ve been caught
with their hand in the till.They need to be gone.GONE.No ifs or buts.Your
treasurer had been in office for 4 months and not seen the books? What the
shuddering f*ck?
Andrew BrilloPad bent DK over a table and shafted him till
his eyes blinked sheepishly.The incident caused DK to censor his blog and
change his whole style of writing.The formidable gobshite DK reduced to
blinking sheepishly at the camera.Can you imagine what Marr would do to a
mealy mouthed shyster like Withers?I cannot promote LPUK to disillusioned
red/blue/yellow voters when you knowingly and willingly employ an evil conman
like Withers to be your leader.Look at how he has handled criticism.He has
tried to slur his critics rather than clarify his position.
Censoring
blogposts,denying critical comments..insisting all is well when they are very
obviously a fucking disaster.We have a parliament full of Withers already and
we are sick to death of them.If he is a fifth columnist from common porpoise
then well done you commie filth.Another possible adversary very effectively
neutralised.I don’t actually believe that.He’s just another career politician
lining his pockets surrounded by gullible and weak subordinates.Fuck the
libertarian party.Not a credible entity at this moment in time.

Gordo May 14, 2011 at 13:28

A lot of these chaps don’t seem very, how shall I say, stable?

Anyway, libertarianism and a multi-racial society do no mix, so it is
impossible to have personal freedom and responsibility here in Britain as it
is today.

Blue
Eyes May 14, 2011 at 13:34

Blog post of the century, I think. Without a hint of irony.

Malcolm Saunders
May 14, 2011 at 12:59

It is obviously ridiculous for Nic Coome to claim that Andrew Withers is
not the Leader of the LPUK, but that the Treaurer’s role reverts to Andrew
Withers as Leader now that the Treasurer has resigned.

What it amounts to is that they pretended to transfer the Leadership to Nic
so that there could be an appearance of proper investigation into Andrew’s
conduct, but they didn’t really do it.

In justification of his claim that The Electoral Commission endorse the
transfer of the Treasurer role to Andrew, Nic has published an extract of an
email from the EC. He has not published the question they asked the EC.
Obviously we would need to see the full text of question and answer see the
picture properly.

The email address for the party and election finance section of the
Electoral Commission is:

pef@electoralcommission.org.uk

Concerns by anybody about whether Party finances are being properly managed
can be sent to them.

Nic Coome May 14, 2011 at 12:26

The first paragraph above should be limited to the words, “A few points”. I
apologise for rubbish typing and editing skills.

Nic Coome May 14, 2011 at 12:24

A few points.I will address a few of the points Anna makes about the way
the four points Anna makes at the top of the piece

Andrew is not an undischarged bankrupt – if he were, he wouldn’t have been
accepted as a Town Councillor. Whether or not he is fit to hold public office
is clearly a matter of opinion; many people would consider that neither Gordon
Brown nor David Cameron fitted that category. The point is that people voted
for them. In the same way, as he was the only leadership candidate, he was
appointed as leader (back to Gordon Brown!). Of course the Party could
legitimately be criticised for not finding anyone to stand against him (or
even criticise the person who signed his nomination papers, eh Anna!),
although the old adage about leading a horse to water does apply.

As for his current position; all I can do is to repeat myself from other
websites.

Andrew HAS NOT “re assumed his position as Leader of the Party ‘since the
investigation is now over’”. Unfortunately for me, I remain as acting Leader
until we hold the SGM and a new one is elected. The matter of the role of
Treasurer is a legal matter on which we have consulted the Electoral
Commission (EC). Whilst Andrew stood aside as Party Leader, that was strictly
a temporary measure and so we did not notify the EC; his substantive role as
leader was, in the eyes of the Electoral Commission unchanged and thus their
ruling is that, in the absence of a Treasurer, the responsibility becomes
Andrew’s. That is clearly not satisfactory to most members but is nonetheless
the way matters currently stand. Once again, it will be resolved at the SGM.
For those, and many other reasons, the sooner we can hold the SGM the better.
Then I can go back to tending my beans, which have been somewhat neglected
over the last few weeks.

I shall leave it there; Anna’s opinions of the report are legitimate, even
if I consider many of them to be unjustified but it would be fruitless to go
through them all line by line. I don’t think that would add anything to the
debate. I will be happy to try to answer any direct questions, either from
Anna or the many people who’ve commented.

Anna
Raccoon May 14, 2011 at 12:41

Nic – Andrew has been accepted as a Parish councillor, not a much grander
Town Councillor. A matter of public record.

If you refer to my
original post I provided a link to the official Insolvency Service.
Insolvency. Compulsory Liquidation. Should provide you with a few useful
clues. Definitely neither Scotch mist nor a figment of my imagination.

Whether or not he is a person fit to hold public office has been decided
by the District judge at Bristol registry – he decided that he wasn’t – for
five and a half years! Again a matter of public record. Not Scotch mist nor
a mere ‘opinion’ – a learned judgment from an expert who had exhaustively
listened to evidence from both sides.

Edited to add: I’ve just been advised that Andrew is proclaiming himself
a ‘Town Councillor’ on his blog. Oh dear……I’ve added a link above to the
public record. One of two candidates for the three
humble positions available as Parish Councillor.

Sheesh, what is about these people and truth?

I am getting monumentally bored with this subject.

Woman on
a Raft May 14, 2011 at 22:34

http://www.clevedon.gov.uk/ward_walton.asp

This is the up-to-date website which confirms that Andrew Peter Withers
is a councillor representing the Walton ward. As there were only two
candidates for the three seats the ward holds on the Clevedon town
council, his declaration was automatic. There is a third vacancy if anyone
in Walton is interested.

Also, Companies House clearly lists this Andrew P Withers as barred
from acting as a director under Company Directors Disqualification Act
1986 s.7.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/1d52aa654b06a290b9718d430a8c54ee/dis_pers_apps?row=18

Whether this is unfair and will be over-turned is a separate matter;
for the moment he is barred from being a director and, crucially, carrying
out director’s tasks while using a different job title. The whole point of
s.7 was to prevent people who have been barred from doing directorial
roles from continuing under a different job title.

I would have thought this was problematical for a party leader
proposing to hold the accounts of an organization, but I don’t know
whether a political party comes within the scope of the act.

Woman
on a Raft May 14, 2011 at
22:47

Re: parish or town council; the town itself changed its status:

Clevedon reverted to Parish status, and kept the title of TOWN. The
Town Council, although losing many of the functions of the former Urban
District Council, retains the important rights of consultation

http://www.clevedon.gov.uk/council_default.asp

Libertarian_John
May 13, 2011 at 22:57

Max, its not even a party.

As things stands the party is no more than a blog with the odd meeting.
Even the private member ship forum was taken away. There is virtually no
campaigning, and I would consider the Rally against debt a first. Under the
current structure it is very difficult for the NCC to come to a decision. I
hope these issues will be addressed at this upcoming SGM

Simon
Gibbs May 17, 2011 at 13:32

Ken Ferguson was elected on a platform of taking the private forum away,
explaining that the lack of external input created a bad atmosphere.

Various solutions were discussed, you’ll recall I favoured a forum which
allowed single sign on across the blog area and forum and common navigation
elements.

Simon Gibbs

Cascadian May 13, 2011 at 22:44

Well done Andrew Withers and Nic Coomes, you have made Gordon Brown seem a
prudent manager by comparison.

Thats quite a feat.

BTW Anna, now that report is out the way I’m sure you will receive
repayment next Tuesday (always assuming there are no deaths in the family or
African adventures).

Max Farquar
May 13, 2011 at 22:05

“…it is a shame that a blog post can bring the party to a virtual
halt.”
As a casual and outside observer with no particular axe to
grind, I find myself thinking that, if ‘the party’ were so well organised and
had such a rock solid foundation … then how could this be so.
Just
wondering

Gildas theMonk
May 13, 2011 at 22:15

Well observed Sir Max

ivan May 13, 2011 at 21:37

Anna,

In this I agree with Gildas – it is time to cut them adrift and maybe even
cut your losses.

How a political party can allow an undischarged bankrupt to be treasurer is
beyond me and I wonder what the electoral commission think about it. That
being said the ‘report’, if it can be dignified with such a name, reads more
like a rambling blog post than any sort of official report that would stand up
to public scrutiny but then this seems to represent the party. I notice the
very few voices in the comments on the party site re the ‘report’ that
actually appear to be trying to be professional are scorned and put down or
ignored – not the way professional people should act.

Gloria Smudd
May 13, 2011 at 21:33

“I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”

I think Groucho got it about right.

Gildas theMonk
May 13, 2011 at 21:39

I agree. I got thrown out of a club last night at about 3.am, and I would
certainly like to join it. As it happens it was a special club for disco
obsessed northern Finns. A ” Lap, Dancing”” club, as I recall

Gloria Smudd
May 13, 2011 at 22:19

Ssssshhhhh! Don’t tell everyone where I work or the club’ll have queues
round the block till I finish at 04.00.

Gloria
Smudd May 13, 2011 at 22:38

And there’s a lovely young lass on between 03.15 and 03.45 who does a
mesmerising turn with a hair-shirt – I think you’d like her.

TimOfEngland
May 13, 2011 at 23:45

Or as I used to say: “Hah! I’ve been thrown out of better places than
this before”

woodsy42 May 13,
2011 at 21:32

I always thought the Monster Raving Looney party were actually quite well
organised. Their aim was to take the piss, and they were quite good at it.

JohnW May 13, 2011 at 21:20

The faction in control of it is currently blocking publication for
reasons I can only guess at. Frankly, the projected lifespan of LPUK can be
measured in hours as things currently stand.

I am currently looking for an alternative platform on which to publish –
unlike some in the Party, I do not believe in censorship.

Nic Coome
Party Chairman

Oddly enough, the full response was posted, apparently with Nic Coome’s
permission and full hour before this comment, on http://andrewwithers.com/

Nic Coome May 14, 2011 at 11:52

In fact, this wasn’t odd at all. I did indeed give Andrew permission to
publish it on his site, but only after it seemed as though it wasn’t going
to be published on the LPUK website. What’s more, it was about to be
published here (or somewhere else controlled by Anna) thanks to a kind offer
from her, only for it to appear, somewhat belatedly, where it should have
appeared originally. So, no mystery, no cover up, no …anything really.

Span
Ows May 13, 2011 at 21:02

Agree with Gildas and Morgan (not to be confused with a dodgy solicitor
practice although it has that ring)

Indeed, why is it that small parties fight so much…or do they fight the
same as the big parties but because the membership is a smidgen the size it
seems like the whole house in caos? The same “personal level” hoohah happened
with the English Democrats Party and the Witanagemot Club (both wanting an
English parliament) How are any of us going to make any effing difference if
it is only local squabbles every 5 minutes?

Anna
Raccoon May 13, 2011 at 21:04

Gildas he speak wise words (as usual!)

Gildas
theMonk May 13, 2011 at 21:23

Hic! Burble! Hic Hic!

Morgan May 13, 2011 at 20:41

I agree with Gildas … and I’m a BNPer. We know all about shenanigans party
leaderships get up to.

Gildas theMonk
May 13, 2011 at 19:24

Anna,
Don’t you think you should be rid of this lot? It seems so.
Good!
They are not worth worrying about!
G the M

JuliaM May 14,
2011 at 05:56

Seconded! Reading the bit on Leg-Iron’s blog about the inference made
about his tobacco plant post, they seem to be a liability everyone could
well do without… :/

backwoodsman
May 16, 2011 at 09:06

Absolutely not ! You couldn’t invent copy like this, its priceless. (If a
tad unfortunate that it relates to a cause most of this parish would like to
support).

Leg-iron May 13,
2011 at 18:50

…the LPUK website that seems to have forgotten there was an election,
putting an Easter competition up about cannabis instead,

I have a vague memory of that competition. The link is here –
http://lpuk.org/2011/04/easter-competition/
-but all I get
is a redirect to the front page.

If it is, as I think I recall, the competition to name the plant in the
photo I posted here –
http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/2011/04/baby-photos.html
–
then this is a very serious allegation indeed that could result in my
greenhouse (which contains no illegal plants) being subjected to a raid.

So if it is a reference to my little plants, I will not be at all pleased.
As I said, I cannot access the link but that might be because I am not a
member. Could someone check?

Span
Ows May 13, 2011 at 21:04

looks like watercress…

Libertarian_john May
13, 2011 at 21:15

Anna…

I haven’t read the article in full as I am busy with real life, however I
will respond in full in weeks to come, but my views will be virtually
critical of every one including Anna(Sorry).

As things stands the last legal officers of the party is Nic and Andrew,
for me its important to keep them in power irrelevant of the reasons until
the SGM is held, at which point a new committed team can take over.

It is important to have a decent team in place, to push liberty forward
in the UK. In Scotland we have the SNP, who have a majority power who will
issue law after law to the point we might as well say good bye to
liberty.

As far as I care the Libertarian party is the only movement in the UK
fighting for true freedom, and it is a shame that a blog post can bring the
party to a virtual halt.

At the moment I can’t comment on the current NCC team, however you need
to ask if the current NCC team in the current climate is able to conduct any
investigation. For me, if any investigation to take place into anything
needs to be done by a new team, and this can happen at the SGM. (Hopefully
anna raccoon will be part of this team )

Due to the weak election laws and the constitution there is clearly not
enough check and balances to satisfy party members, more check and balances
need to be in place so members know exactly how money is spent. This will
require updating the constitution and issuing minimum account practises
which currently don’t exist but rather depend on UK election laws.

For the sake of liberty, it is important that the Libertarian Party
survives, hopefully with a new committed team at the head, with an updated
constitution and practises, the maybe to maybe the libertarian party may
become an icon for liberty.

If you respect your liberty, freedom I only ask you to join (only £15 )
and put your own voice forward at the upcoming SGM. If there was another
libertarian party in the UK, I would be the first to leave however we need
to fix what we have and the SGM is the opportunity for this to happen, but
it requires people to step forward rather than stepping back.

John

Libertarian_john May
13, 2011 at 21:20

Sorry grammar, should have checked before positing.

A nonny mouse
May 13, 2011 at 23:08

“the Libertarian party is the only movement in the UK fighting for true
freedom”

Ha! The only thing it appears to be fighting for is it leader’s bank
balance!

Simon
Gibbs May 14, 2011 at 20:52

Leg Iron, the post you’re talking about was controversial within the
Party because it touched on religious themes. Pending further discussion I
took it off the site, on the grounds that it was poor quality filler anyway.
Nobody ever asked for it to be restored and it’s probably still there behind
the scenes, un-looked for until today. Nobody brought up this post until
Andrew Withers made the quoted remark.

For the record, no officer of the party was ever “blocked” from posting
by any “faction”. At the time, getting a post onto the site required a
positive intervention by an “Editor” to make it live – as a matter of policy
– and the two editors were both available on the phone and/or email. By
co-incidence the two “Editors”, myself and Ken Ferguson, were both of the
opinion that an audit was mandatory and urgent and could be facilitated
easily by Andrew Withers using features of the HSBC online banking facility,
but a heated argument had occurred over this. I went “on strike” on the 11th
to exert pressure on the NCC for a simple review of the books. In the
meantime Ken the other editor was already on holiday. The report was
allegedly submitted for publication by Nic on the 12th, but not via the
normal channel and Nic did not follow up with me, despite knowing of my
role. I followed up on the 13th when the issue was raised with the editors
by Malcolm Saunders, after discussion on the blog. Ken asked me to action
the publication by SMS but I had been removed as editor by unofficial means
before I got to it that lunchtime.

I may have lost my temper more than once with the NCC, but I stand by the
way I conducted myself with regards the “Editor” role.

* note “Editor” is a use type within WordPress, and reflects a particular
workflow set up within the Party.

bella
gerens May 15, 2011 at 12:55

Where exactly did Andrew Withers publish the quoted remark?

Malcolm
Saunders May 15, 2011 at 14:39

It was in an email on Monday, 9 May, 2011, 9:21 sent from Andrew
Withers to several members of the LPUK.