ex UKIP supporter Andrew Edwards, who was subsequently denounced on TV for his association with The BNP, would seem to wish to 'stir the pot' re: The UKIP & EFD MEP Gerard Batten, an openly racist individual, & the bloggers at 'Junius'!!
Much additional factual information on Gerard Batten can be found if youCLICK HERE
I freely concede my views relative to Gerard Batten are based upon his dishonesty, incitement of racial hatred based on religious superstitions and his corruption as proven, beyond any doubt, as shown in the public domain.
further to the posting regarding Gerard Batten published byJUNIUSand subsequently atCLICK HERE I have received an eMail from Andrew Edwards which I gather he has also widely circulated - I therefore take the liberty of commenting in text to clarify some of his inaccuracies and false assumptions.
I think this 'Junius' article is more than a little fishy! Can someone here pass these comments on to 'Junius', please, ASAP?
I understand Junius has been made aware of Andrew Edwards' comments and his rather 'fishy' effort to capitalise on the blog posted, by circulating it to his usual mailing list!
Junius needs to beware of a possibly sting operation
This is an omni present risk for those posting at Junius and one I am also exposed to - deliberately on some occasions by UKIP I believe, so that they can, by providing false information, dupe me to publish material that is false and they can be then use that to try to prove I deliberately lied or libeled them.
It is for this very reason that I tend only to publish when I have corroboration - fortunately I have clearly not fallen for such a ruse in the last 15 or 16 years of commenting as a UKIP supporter, laterly seeking to clean-up the party in an effort to try to make it fit for purpose and fit to represent decent British citizens, which it clearly is not currently.
Clearly I publish in good faith and have made it VERY clear that I only publish that which I have checked, received first hand or know to be fact - To cover for the 'possibility' that I may at some stage be duped by UKIP or a member of its clique or claque I have made it VERY CLEAR that I will always correct any posting and apologise should I unwittingly publish an error of fact or accidentally, thereby, libel someone or mislead.
I tend also, when posting, to reserve judgement and NOT publish material I am unable to substantiate however should material surface published in the public domain I incline to believe this is substantiation.
Fortunately I have never ONCE been asked to make a correction relative to any inaccuracy of any material substance, nor have I been asked to publish either a correction an apology or a 'right to reply'.
I am morally certain that had I EVER made an error of material fact and been shown to be wrong those I seek to expose for their corruption, dishonesty, criminality or abuse of privilege would make much of the fact.
For further clarity please viewCLICK HERE you will be well aware that various odious proven liars like Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Bob Feel Martinis, Matt Quinn, David Icke and similar low lifes lie and distort for their own gain regarding me - there are also numerous cowards posting distortions and lies about me whilst sheltering their vile behaviour behind anonymity or false names - as with those on UKIP staff and its claque.
IF anyone can identify a material factual inaccuracy please contact me and I WILL make suitable correction and apology as promised - should I fail to do so in a reasonable time by all means publish the fact widely and if I make no correction I would expect at very least a legal letter from your solicitor demanding published correction and apology by way of a cease and desist letter.
1 If this person is Batten's ex press officer, why does he hide his name? His identity must be known, not least from the industrial tribunal.
I understand the person in question was titled 'Press Officer' buy Gerard Batten either as a shorthand or as an official title under EU employment regulations, as a staff member.
The individual did NOT hide their name - Junius chose to redact it.
Of course the identity is known and is a matter of public record, easily ascertained from the text of the correspondence and the allegations therein - it being Jasna Balzak who originates from the former Yugoslavia currently domicile in Britain and I believe is possibly a Muslim with a Jewish husband.
2 Batten does not have Parliamentary immunity.
Indeed the 'immunities' of an MEP are somewhat limited - though there are clearly some instances of immunity as shown when Godfrey Bloom, another UKIP MEP, was, I am reliably informed, not charged having been arrested for his conduct having sex with a black prostitute on the bonnet of a car in a public highway - I gather he claimed 'immunity' on the grounds that he was a UKIP / British MEP.
This only exists in those nations were MPs from such countries enjoy this privilege.
Certain immunities/privileges do pertain for British MEPs in line with the British MPs.
The UK does not provide immunity to its MPs so it does not do so to its MEPs. This demonstrates that the information supplied is erroneous.
Edwards would seem to be in error and may I also point out that the claim he seeks to make much of was in fact an alleged statement of Gerard Batten's NOT of Jasna Balzak, where she has made the comment it would be relative to claims by Gerard Batten.
3 The English is flawed and illiterate, imho. Would Batten use an illiterate ASA press officer?
I wonder howmany languages Edwards is capable of coherency in!
4 Batten is married to an Eastern Asian. Would he therefore say the things attributed to him?
Sadly, having a wife of Phillipino origin, I have spoken with several people who can confirm the aspects of racist language are NOT unusual relative to Gerard Batten and perhaps you would care to follow the records in the public domain of organisations and publications which any decent person would consider racist and likely to invoke or incite race hatred if for no other reason than religion / superstition with which Gerard Batten is clearly associated.
5 Batten's solicitors/advisor's Solomon and Diamond are, in probability, Jewish - given the names. That suggests Batten would not have made such remarks.
Edwards' racist stereotyping speaks volumes - I know of individuals with such names who are of no chosen denomination belief or superstition.
Should Edwards be correct then it might go some way to explain the apparent phobic fear of Muslims!
6 There are Parliamentary requirements regarding the printing of stationary, etc, and competing quotes must be obtained. I therefore do not believe these statements about Batten's brother's printing activities.
7 Junius should be advised of these points, above. Junius is being led up a garden path, in my view.
Clearly Edwards' knowledge is limited, if not deliberately biased, this blog and I believe Junius have published copies of documentary proof that Gerard Batten has used family members to provide printing which it has been claimed was over priced to the advantage of the supplier. EU regulations on such matters are lax in the extreme with much regulation 'made on the hoof' by The EU payments officers.
Similar laxity is exploited by UKIP MEPs such as over payment of travel expenses, employment of family as proven relative also to Godfrey Bloom and in the case of Nigel Farage let us not forget he employs his wife @ £30,000 a year and despite his promises not only claimed the money but made a secret of it until exposed by The Sunday Times.
Let us not get too carried away in the pretence that UKIP MEPs are other than an untrusted and untrustworthy shower! Consider the publicity Nigel Farage has attracted, the lies and consistent dishonesty of Derek Clark MEP, the fact that Farage, Titford, Clark, Booth, Wise and possibly other UKIP MEPs have been found guilty of fraudulently claiming expenses and ordered to repay the sum,s stolen.
The question is why? I suspect, in answer to this, that a little truth (to provide credibility) has been mixed in with barrow loads of lies and exaggerations.
How right Edwards may be but the matter is clearly sourced and it is undeniable that Gerard Batten has a track record of duplicitously seeking to suppress the truth related to him and his activities!
The logical reason is that the Euro elections are due in a little less than two years. Farage wants Batten out, and I suspect he or one of his supporters is using Junius to spread rumours as the start of a campaign against Batten. Naturally, to hide the trail, a few snippets about Farage have been added but these are all well-known anyway, and there is certainly no additional damaging news about Farage in this!
Though Edwards makes a not unreasonable comment in line with the expectations of many his deliberate smear, without evidence or source, of Nigel Farage is in itself transparently self serving!
I'm fearful that 'Juniu's may also have exposed itself to legal action from Batten.
I doubt that Gerard Batten would have any reasonable grounds to take court actions against Junius as the material is clearly plausible in outline even if minor details, mostly linguistic, may not be 100% correct.
The comment 'F*** out' is clearly a linguistic error in reporting by Jasna Balzak as is the claim that the self styled 'Christian' organisation alluded to is provably NOT 'Proscribed' it may well be a linguistic misunderstanding but it may also be a claim made by Batten in Balsak's presence.
If so, then Farage, and/or supporter, accomplishes two goals: he disparages Batten and he potentially knocks out Junius with legal action.
I do question whether Farage's interests are served in the removal of Batten, firstly as his claimed replacement is of singularly little competence being unemployed having been a clerical functionary as a 'compliance officer' for a London financial company (I hope he has managed to find another job).
Farage may well find it of help to have someone of so little credibility criticising him and drawing fire relative to critics of his party!
Clearly Gerard Batten's open bigotry and fear of Islam is well documented as is his willingness to participate in the corruption of justice and abuse of his elected office.
I trust this helps clarify some of the misunderstandings that have arisen as a result of the publication of this small amount of the correspondence received recently by myself and Junius and no doubt others.
AGAIN I REPEAT - IF anyone can show any part of my posting is materially factually wrong they need only mail me their evidence to substantiate their claim and the relevant correction will be made as promised and should they wish they have a right of reply.
Fortunately NEVER have I been asked to correct any posting on a materially wrong fact that I have made on my blog. Therefore I do NOT believe that I have made any m,aterial errors of fact and obviously have not published any fact that I have ANY reason to believe was untrue.