Well what a day today has been.
We knew that when Mark Croucher admitted that his pubs had failed (no shame in that if it was purely down to our politically mis-managed economic environment) he would be spending more time on UKIP matters. But we had no idea the storm he was going to create and the potential for landing UKIP 'in the Dock' again.
Let us explain:
On the British Democracy Forum this morning, Mark Croucher reveals that he 'set a trap' in order to reveal the identity of the 'UKIP Leadership thorn in the side' Junius. This was based around the sending of 'false emails' (for the purposes of entrapment, and unencrypted - more on this later) in the knowledge that a blind copy was allegedly being sent to Piers Merchant (former Tory MP and UKIP MEP - Roger Knapman assistant).
This information was apparantly 'leaked' to Junius and Greg Lance Wakins; Mark Croucher has come to the conclusion therefore, that Junius must be Piers Merchant' and this, to some degree, was supported by NEC member Douglas Denny.
At the same time, Mark Croucher publishes a report from the Information Commissioners Office (under the terms of the DPA), criticising UKIP for its 'shoddy' (our words) security over data and insisting on a number of steps UKIP must take or action will be taken against them. One such stipulation was that all sensitive data must be sent encrypted - yet MC admits the emails were despatched - unencrypted - BREACH.
It would also seem from details in his original posting, that they have also mailed their entire database 'willy nilly' without encryption subsequent to the serious warning given.
But this next bit is even more interesting.
Mark Croucher admits that he is not employed or paid by UKIP presently (and on previous postings that he is not a member of UKIP). So we ask 'Why has Mark Croucher been given access to UKIP's data and computer systems?' - is this not in breach of the Data Protection Act? - and runs contrary to the recent warning mentioned above?
Now we have to admit, we are not lawyers, and we are not waking our solicitor up at this time for his opinion, as it would cost us around £500, but we think UKIP may have broken the Law here!
Comments would be appreciated.