Monday, 7 May 2012

LPUK - still struggling with the veritas

I can't help keeping an eye on what's left of LPUK, in case they one day say something correct or truthful. Here's a little gem, which will be funny for those who were present at Nic Coombe's visit to the meeting in Southwark last year:
"The previous party chairman attended a meeting in London last year with the protagonists in order to come to a similar understanding."
The 'protagonists' were the active (ex-) members of the London party, and other people who came to the meeting - it was a regular monthly meet-up, and I for one had no prior knowledge of his visit. The 'similar understanding' refers to them holding the break-away Scottish party to ransom over what name the latter can register. Nothing of the kind was under discussion during Nic's visit.
"The meeting was generally hostile ... "
The only one who was hostile was Nic, who swore throughout, and at one point shouted and swore at one of the people in the room (one of the most mild-mannered people you could know), who he thought was recording the meeting (he wasn't). Other than that little outburst, he focused his hostility on me (for some strange reason), and was polite to the rest of the group. It was water off a duck's back as far as I was concerned, and we shook hands at the end.
"and an examination of the names who attended that particular meeting showed that they were not members of the party."
You what? There was no list of names taken! No doubt Nic knew some of the people in the room, and I identified myself to him, when he asked, by my actual name and my blogging name. As for the majority of the people in the room, there's no way he would know their names. Whether I was a member of the party at that point, I can't say. That would depend on whether it took place before my membership ran out, which I believe would have been some time in November. In any case, it makes no difference to me, as I had already given up on LPUK prior to that meeting, and I didn't want to prevent other people who may have had more reason to listen to Nic from doing so, so I didn't intervene that much, especially as it caused Nic to lose his rag when I did.
"Following that encounter it was felt that there was nothing further to be gained from engagement and it was correctly assumed that they would form splinter groups."
Ho ho. That's no skin off my nose, as I've indicated, but it does reveal Nic's duplicity, because he made a number of pledges to other people as to providing information on the outstanding controversies over Withers and the accounts - which he didn't honour. As for splinter groups, no such groups have been formed, and maybe if Nic had honoured his commitments to provide information on the party finances, there would have been no reason to form any splinter group.

I'm not sure what Nic expected to achieve. Were we all to fall at his feet and declare; 'we're sorry we ever doubted the great Withers. Please tell him we'll never mention the accounts again, or the fact that he resigned and tried to de-register the party name'? Perhaps so.

5 comments:

James Higham said...

I really do think that such things are now part of the past, that those for freedom all vaguely join in a movement, not necessarily a party, to dislodge the bstds.

Trooper Thompson said...

I know it's not massively important, but unsuspecting libertarians should be warned, before wasting time, effort and money on those tossers.

I'm all for a broad movement, as long as we can agree on what liberty means.

jgw2001 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jgw2001 said...

***The 'similar understanding' refers to them holding the break-away Scottish party to ransom over what name the latter can register.***

This statement is completely untrue.

-----
On the question of registration with the electoral commission with the name of a new party “Scottish Libertarians”, as it is too similar to the “Libertarian Party” the official response from the EC as follows

“extremely unlikely that we would register ‘Scottish Libertarians’ and/or ‘Scottish Libertarian Party’ on the basis that it would be ‘likely’ to confuse the elector under part 4 (a) (ii) of PPERA”

The only way we can register the “Scottish libertarian” name is by the “Libertarian party” voluntarily changing its registration status to not stand in seats in Scotland. For us to be successful in the long term, it is important to have the rights to the “Scottish libertarian” name north of the border thus we are having discussions with the “Libertarian party”.

Due to the major changes or sacrifice the Libertarian party is taking, these discussions could take few months and it is unknown what/if strings may be attached to any agreement. So far discussions are going well, and see no reason why we won’t come to any agreement.

-------------


Also point out, back in October we considered several options in Scotland including being part of the LPUK federal structure. However as months passed we deemed we would be more successful as a separate party, specially with the political differences north of the border. No one is holding the Scottish libertarians to ransom.

I can not talk for Nic, but from my understanding per-conditions at one point was issued from some individuals in the South East on Nic.

Also from my understanding, there was demands from some individuals that the FULL accounts to be released to the public domain , not limited to members or ex-members of the LPUK. This includes all Individual donations and Individual declared expenses (even when an individual used his/her own money).

Trooper Thompson said...

"This statement is completely untrue".

I bow to your greater knowledge with regard to your on-going discussions with LPUK, but, leaving aside my characterisation of these discussions, the point still stands that no such discussions were or are occurring between the London people and Withers' bunker. In any case, it sounds like they do have you over a barrel, due to the EC's attitude, although maybe LPUK will let you off easy if you're nice to them. I am under no such constraints, and I am responding to a fictitious account of a meeting where I was present. I have no complaint against the Scottish Libertarians, and wish you well.

"Also from my understanding, there was demands from some individuals that the FULL accounts to be released to public"

There was never any demand for names of individual donors to be released, but there was a definite desire to see that no wrong-doing had occurred, and Nic claimed at that meeting to do what he could to satisfy that desire, and did nothing, therefore destroying what chances existed for a reconciliation between the London activists and LPUK, at least that's my impression of what others in London think.

Personally I was past caring, and my presence at the meeting (which was not a party meeting) was unrelated to Nic's visit.