Friday, 30 July 2010

Court Ruling Saves UKIP



The UK Independence Party does not have to forfeit all of the £367,697 'impermissible donation", the Supreme Court has ruled. UKIP received the money from a donor who was not on the electoral register.

The party was initially told to forfeit £14,481 but that was increased after the Electoral Commission took the case to the Appeal Court. UKIP's victory at the Supreme Court has saved it from potential bankruptcy and it represents a defeat for the Electoral Commission which was pressing the party to return the full amount donated by retired bookmaker Alan Bown.

Since 2003 Mr Bown has given more that £1m to UKIP to help it fight elections and mount campaigns against Britain's membership of the EU. Due to what the party say was a 'clerical error', between December 2004 and January 2006 he was not on the electoral register - making him an impermissible donor under UK electoral law. He did not discover the error until December 2005 and was reinstated the following February.

This year's general election cost the party £229,000 in lost deposits.

source and others



10 comments:

Oldrightie said...

I have little doubt this action was ably supported by The EU puppeteers. Bet we paid for it though!

subrosa said...

Of course we paid for it OR. We always do.

Mr. Mxyzptlk said...

UKIP survives a thorn in the side of the Conservative party.....Hooray!

strapworld said...

Subrosa,

The deposit is an individual's responsibility not the party's. So Ukip did not lose the deposit money the twits that stood as Ukip candidates each lost £500!

subrosa said...

Haven't they always Niko?

subrosa said...

Strapworld, you know when I was copy typing that I wondered if UKIP refunded deposits because I knew it was the candidate's responsibility the deposit.

Joe Public said...

So MP's & Lords don't have a monopoly of 'administrative errors' and 'clerical oversights' then.

banned said...

Goosd for UKIP, living to fight another day; they are after all 'responsible' for todays coalition.

subrosa said...

No more than any others associated with the Establishment Joe. Didn't the libdems accept money from a dubious source along with other parties?

subrosa said...

Aye they are banned so we should, I suppose, thank them in a way.

Related Posts with Thumbnails