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 18th 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 5th 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 8th April. On Saturday 9th 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 14th 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.
Feel free to comment; I am taking the rest of the day off, frankly I’m sick to death of the lot of them.