The first of today’s letters addresses the terrorist attack in London yesterday. It is by our reader Hugo Jenks, who also sent the graph of the ‘terrorist arrow’:

Sir,

Yet another awful terrorist attack upon the West. London again. Politicians cannot be trusted to keep us safe. They either do not understand the root of the problem, or else they do understand and have decided not to be honest. Either way, we must all make the effort to understand it for ourselves.

Read the Koran, if not all of it then at least read chapter nine. It is freely available online.

The 22nd of March 2017 in the Islamic calendar is Jumada Al-Thani 24, 1438. This is a non-sacred month, the significance of which will be obvious to you when you read chapter nine. Yesterday appears to be a pre-planned attack. All of the preceding twenty eight pre-planned Jihadist attacks in the UK, Europe and Turkey over the last two years and two months were also in non-sacred months. By my calculation the probability of that happening by chance is just one in 127,834.

Read the Koran!

Respectfully, Hugo Jenks

(Arrow of terrorist attacks)

The second letter comes from our contributor Dr Tomasz Slivnik, who resigned from the NEC last September. He asks pertinent questions about the organisation of the NEC and the involvement of the Party Chairman – and why changes still have not been made:

Sir,

The latest saga involving UKIP and Arron Banks re-opens the wider question of chairmanship of our Party.

While I was a member of the NEC in 2016, I proposed a constitutional amendment which would split the role of the Party Chairman into three: the Chairman of the NEC (to be elected by members of the NEC from among the elected members of the NEC), the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive. The current role concentrates too much power in the hands of one man, who is not democratically accountable. Our Articles of Association already provide that the Chairman of the Board shall be elected by the board from among one of their own, but in practice this is not done, with the role automatically being given to the Party Chairman, concentrating even more power in the hands of a man already having too much power, and not consistent with either our Articles of Association or with principles of good corporate governance. The former provide that the Party Chairman shall not normally (unless expressly being so appointed at the discretion of the NEC) even be a member of the board of directors, let alone its chairman, and the latter of which state that the chairman of the board of a limited company should normally be a non-executive director (which the Party Chairman is not).

Paul Nuttall, when Deputy Leader, very much supported these ideas.

When Steve Crowther suddenly resigned as Party Chairman and attempted to impose Paul Oakden on the NEC as his successor, the NEC had reservations about the incoming candidate. We were uncomfortable giving our consent to his appointment (for which NEC consent is required). We only agreed on condition that the appointment was an interim one until the new Leader was elected. Indeed, consent was only given following Paul Nuttall’s representations that this was Nigel’s last wish as outgoing Leader and that we should not deny him his last wish. At the time, Paul Oakden assured us that we need not worry: he was not at all interested in the job of Party Chairman, and indeed firmly assured us that he would reject this job on a permanent basis were he to be offered it by the new Leader. He very much wanted to return to his job as Party Director, he assured us.

If we are to have a future as a Party, it is essential that we have credible people in leading positions. Credible people keep their word. Serious and credible people will not want to associate themselves with an organization where there are serious questions about the top echelons’ credibility. A large number of patrons have left the Patron’s Club (I understand about a half), many citing the lack of credibility of our senior team and the abandonment of the party’s traditional values as the reason.

The de facto splitting of the role of the Party Chairman does not require a constitutional change. It can be implemented immediately. Paul Nuttall can merely agree with the NEC to nominate the person they elect from amongst themselves to the role. A new CEO can be appointed and the incoming chairman can agree by convention to delegate his CEO-style powers to such a CEO. And the Articles of Association can be followed to elect the chairman of the board.

Will Paul Nuttall and Paul Oakden deliver on their representations made before Paul Nuttall was elected Leader?

Respectfully, Dr Tomasz Slivnik

Print Friendly, PDF & Email