Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Still dreaming of past glory

Ashley Mote, the convicted fraudster who used every twist in the European legal system to avoid British justice seems to be missing his time at the Brussels Parliament.
Contact me

Ashley Mote MEP
PO Box 216
GU34 4WY
After al the election was only 17 months ago


Anonymous said...

What a mean-minded little man you are, Gwain.

And how typical that you choose to ignore the fact that there is a full appeal in a long and slow moving queue, and has been ever since the court case.

You also choose to ignore the fact that the British government initiated the question of alleged immunity. It was not me. They used mine as a test case for their own good reasons. Ask them. Criticise them, if you must. But at least get your facts straight first.

Meanwhile, I have every intention of clearing my name. The good news is that most people with any knowledge of, or interest in the facts, know that I was set up and the UKIP leadership was a party to it.

But then you work for him, don't you. What a waste.

Ashley Mote

Gawain Towler said...

Ashley, I saw that you hadn't removed the MEP after your name whilst I was find your contacts for a freelance journalist who liked something you said about the financial crisis. I was happy to pass on your details. However the retention of the initials tickled my fancy and I note that they are still there. They are not like a life peerage, once you cease to be an MEP, you cease to have the right to use the initials.

If, on appeal, your conviction is quashed, then I will make a wholeheated and fulsome apolgy.

However the idea that you were set up is preposterous in the extreme. How could you have been when the firsty that UKIP knew of your case was when it was in the Telegraph, you had neglected to mention it earlier.

If you were set up, I would have known about it and would have disapproved strongly.

As it is the idea that you were a test case for the British Government stretches credulity. Why would they want to do that? And if they did and you were no doubt a willing accomplice to your usage in this way. Indeed the way that you launched an appeal on the day of the hearing in Lewes without anyone's knowledge which resulted in delays and ramped up costs suggests otherwise.