The Electoral Commission is to appeal against a ruling that UKIP should repay only a fraction of £367,697 it received in "impermissible donations".
Earlier this month a district judge ruled the party should pay back £18,481 - but found the breach was accidental.
But the Electoral Commission said it was disappointed and was appealing in order to clarify the law on donations.
The Electoral Commission sees absolutely no difference, I should stress, between the three big parties and the smaller ones. Naturally, of course, the EC are doing this for our own good.
"We are disappointed that the court did not order forfeiture of all the donations in question which, by UKIP's own admission, were impermissible," it said.
Well, it's an interesting question, isn't it? UKIP's position was that Alan Bown was a British resident, and has been for all of his life: the relevant law states that the legislation is designed to stop foreign powers having any control over British elections (and rightly so). In the case of Alan Bown, this is clearly not the case: he is not foreign, his companies are not foreign and he is resident in Britain.
Unlike, for instance, fraudster and liar Michael Brown—who was involved in some rather dodgy dealings before he gave £2.4 million to the LibDems—who was resident overseas and who donated the cash through a non-trading British shell company in direct contravention of not only the letter but also the spirit of this legislation.
Let us remind ourselves of what the Electoral Commission said then, shall we?
"The Electoral Commission has previously made clear its view that it was reasonable for the Liberal Democrats - based on the information available to them at the time - to regard the donations they received from 5th Avenue Partners Ltd in 2005, totaling just over £2.4m, as permissible.
It remains the Commissions view that the Liberal Democrats acted in good faith at that time, and the Commission is not re-opening the question of whether the party or its officers failed to carry out sufficient checks into the permissibility of the donations."
Anyone see a mild discrepancy here? After all, at the time that UKIP received the donations from Alan Bown, they were acting in good faith. And why is the EC asking of UKIP (a small party with a part-time Treasurer) "whether the party or its officers failed to carry out sufficient checks into the permissibility of the donations" and not the LibDems? There is clear partiality here.
Still, as UKIP leader Nigel Farage said, after the verdict:
"We have always admitted that we made mistakes over these donations, but they were human error, rather than evasion.
"Other parties have full time treasurers and receive money from the tax payer towards running costs, but a small party like UKIP does not have these luxuries."
Quite clearly this is the case and the lack of a full-time Treasurer is something of an issue but, on limited funds, what is a party to do, eh?
But the EC are atill ranting on.
"As it is the first time that the law on forfeiture of impermissible donations has been tested in court, we believe it is important to clarify the law in this area."
Um, hello? Mr Electoral Commission? The law has been tested in court; it was tested in court and you lost. Do you see?
"We will continue to intervene when parties haven't complied with the law, to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process."
Fuck that, you bunch of fucking spastics: go and crawl back under your rocks! You just keep drawing those fat, quangocrat salaries and pensions, you bastards, and fuck right off. Oh, and get yourself some decent legal advice too, because you were quite obviously in the wrong over this case.
You are wasting taxpayers' money pursuing a case that should never have come to court in the first place, whilst ignoring the far more dodgy practices of the Big Three parties. Go fuck yourselves: all you care about is your jobs. You know damn fucking well that if you went after one of the Big Three and they ended up in government, you fucks would all be pensioned off before you could say, "impermissable!"
There is no "public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process" because our democratic process involves cheating, lying politico scum. In fact, you EC cunts pretty much summarise everything that is wrong with our democracy: a lack of accountability, coupled with innate corruption, a petty-fogging desire to abide by the letter and not the spirit of the law and, above all, a sly and avaricious selfishness that ensures that the only real concern that you have is to ensure that you continue in your cushy job and retain your gold-plated benefits.
Fuck off, you perfidious cunts: there is little that we can do to restore people's faith in our democracy, but abolishing the corrupt, venal and party-partial Electoral Commission might be a really positive step.