courtesy of anonymous
An AltNewsMedia reader who wishes to retain their anonymity raises some searching questions about UKIP Deputy Leader Mike Hookem that warrant detailed answers. We invite Mr Hookem to respond!
“Why Mike Hookem MEP is not fit for public life and we demand an enquiry into his behaviour”
Much is wrong with UKIP and frankly, this is nothing new. What is new is the internal battle for the leadership, direction and future of the party and one particular person standing for leader when Gerard Batten stands down. I refer to MEP for Yorkshire, Mike Hookem and deputy leader of UKIP.
Mr Hookem is the reason for the near collapse of UKIP’s regional branch structure with decent people leaving to join the For Britain party, set up by former leadership candidate, Anne Marie Waters. They claim they left because of his allegedly belligerent and bullying attitude and that he is unfit for public life. Despite repeatedly complaining to UKIP head office, they were ignored.
So let’s unwrap Hookem, this obscure MEP, who is deputy leader and spokesman for fisheries and defence.
He was elected in 2014, third on the Yorkshire regional list, an area where UKIP thought they could not win three seats as previously they had one MEP, the great Godfrey Bloom.
Hookem, a political unknown and former regional organiser on UKIP’s payroll, suddenly found himself thrust into the spotlight, but the only spotlight he seems to have inhabited since is the sleazy side of UKIP, one they are spectacularly good at – sleazy sex.
And Hookem appears to have form.
Hookem allegedly had an affair with jailbird, Stephanie Todd, former UKIP councillor and high profile member, who was jailed for defrauding a frail and elderly man.
She also worked for Hookem on his MEPs’ payroll. The legacy media failed to pick up on this little nugget.
Other women are now coming forward to complain about Hookem’s allegedly inappropriate sexual advances and bullying. One MEP claims his drunken behaviour left her feeling violated, disgusted and frightened at his unwanted advances.
Former UKIP members complain about his bullying and harassment but are frightened to come forward, fearing reprisals.
Hookem sacked an Accredited Parliamentary Assistant, based in Brussels, and had her escorted out of the building, for allegedly rejecting his sexual advances. This woman is now considering retrospective action against him via the European Parliament’s‘Advisory Committee dealing with Harassment Complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its Prevention at the Workplace’, headed up by Ms Morin Chartier MEP.
This is significant as this committee has real teeth. It can act as judge, jury and executioner of MEPs it deems to have acted inappropriately and can strip the member of their mandate if so inclined to do so. No police investigation required.
It is also well-known within UKIP that he had an alleged affair with Christine Hewitt, MEP Atkinson’s former assistant, also a convicted criminal. They shared hotels, chauffeur driven Parliament limousines, candlelit dinners, they plotted to run away together and some senior people in UKIP even suggested that Hewitt’s mis-handling of an invoice that got her a criminal record, was a Runaway Fund (RAF), for her and Hookem’s love nest.
Hewitt paid dearly for her mistakes, a criminal record and a divorce.
Yet Hookem is still with his long-suffering wife, with his allegedly long history of affairs, he still sits taking the huge salary as an MEP and is also rewarded with the title of deputy leader. He also harbours delusions of becoming the next UKIP leader and is very open about this.
Leaders of prominent libertarian and free speech campaign groups have urged their members to support UKIP while Batten is leader but after meeting Hookem, they expressed grave doubts about his suitability, credibility and trustworthiness as leader. They said that they and their supporters would not continue to support UKIP if he became leader.
Then there is the unanswered case of Hookem v MEP Steven Woolfe in the infamous punch-up of two years ago. There are some fundamental questions that still need to be asked:
- Despite protesting his innocence, Hookem has failed to follow-up on an investigation urged and supported by the then President of the EU Parliament Martin Shulz. Shulz said he was disgusted that two members of the institution had brought the Parliament into disrepute by this unsavoury episode. Shulz had asked the Strasbourg police to investigate the brawl. Why did Hookem not agree to this if he is innocent? One could argue that UKIP MEPs would not work with the Parliament because of their ideological position. Yet, MEP Jane Collins asked for diplomatic immunity when facing prosecution by a Labour MP in the UK courts (she was refused). Yet, this is also a civil matter, a matter of one’s personal reputation and a serious assault charge.
- Why didn’t Hookem report the incident to the police in Strasbourg or in the UK?
- Why hasn’t Hookem asked for Woolfe’s medical records to be released which could show whether a punch was meted by Hookem or self-inflicted by Woolfe, as claimed by UKIP?
- Why hasn’t Hookem asked for a Parliamentary enquiry to take place to clear his name?
- Why has UKIP not pursued this matter?
- Why does UKIP protect such a man?
MEP Collins, also from Yorkshire, was left with an horrendous legal bill and facing bankruptcy for speaking on a platform using a speech approved by the party chairman and former press officer and MEP, Patrick O’Flynn. UKIP threw her a few pennies and MEPs had a whip round. They left her under a bus. Many see her as head and shoulders above Hookem, but yet they protect Hookem, why? One rule for the women and another for the men?
We know Gerard Batten is losing MEPs by the day. Some are taking early retirement, some are rich enough to walk away, others harbour a future with other parties, some are detoxifying themselves and others want a quiet life – no campaigning or financial commitment to UKIP.
We understand why Batten does not want to lose any more MEPs, but at what cost when there are so many serious allegations to be answered by Hookem?”
A concerned UKIP Member