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.