Who is the liar? (continued)

If we assume that David Soutter is telling the truth when he states that somebody told him I had submitted an expense claim to the party, then that person was clearly lying. If so we can then make the following further assumptions:

1. That person wished to weaken my influence within the party.

2. That person must have been of sufficient seniority and insider knowledge for his lie to have been believable.

3. As I was working for nothing for the party out of strong beliefs in the principles around which the party was founded - that individual therefore wished to damage the party and hinder what it sought to achieve. That person cannot wish the party to succeed.

4. That person is most likely in his senior position to this day and should therefore be exposed and removed.

As David Soutter has been unprepared to reveal the source of this lie and still working on the assumption that it is not Soutter himself who is the source for the slander we can make a further stab at the identity of the liar by looking at the recipients of the e-mail circulated by David Soutter in which he first made the accusation known to me. After all, if he really was told such an untruth by another person and was then passing it along it would seem logical that he would copy his own source on the email addressee list. In looking at the e-mail it appears most senior figures in the party were indeed included. It was as follows:

T0Martin Cole

Cc: Damian Hockney , Michael Harvey , Richard Vass, Robert Kilroy-Silk, Patrick Eston

It is ludicrous to believe that Robert Kilroy-Silk was the source of the story, he presumably was the one intended to be duped.

That leaves the Deputy Leader of the party, the Party Secretary, the Party Chairman and the man now rumoured to be the most likely candidate for the party in the South Staffordshire by election.

If any of these gentlemen were indeed the source of the lie that was clearly designed to smear my name and undermine my position within the party then they are clearly unfit to continue in office or represent Veritas for parliament.

I will copy this posting to each of these gentlemen this morning so that each can have the opportunity to publicly declare their innocence. Their replies will then be posted on this blog.

If, as I expect, all deny spreading this maliciously untrue story, we will have to conclude David Soutter fabricated the matter to defend his present position, one that he will then be seen as unworthy of filling.