The UKIP Donation Ruling.

The treatment of UKIP by the Electoral Commission and the courts is so perverse and unlike the treatment of other parties that it is hard to believe that it isn't malicious. Even the BBC's Michael Crick, who I think it is fair to say is unlikely to be a UKIP sympathiser, finds the difference between how UKIP are being treated and how the Lib Dems were treated for a seemingly much more serious offence to be staggering.

The facts of UKIP's offence appears to be:

1. A UK citizen and resident, Alan Brown, gave them money.
   
2. They accepted his donation.
3. It later emerged that the local authority had omitted him from the electoral register a few months prior to the donation.
4. When he found out about his omission he re registered.
5. This meant that the donation was made while he wasn't on the electoral register.

In the circumstances it might seem logical that UKIP would have to repay the donor (who would presumably give the money back to UKIP now he is on the register), however they have been ordered to pay the money to the Treasury, meaning that both UKIP and Alan Brown lose out even though neither of them have attempted at any time to circumvent the law.

Incidentally the amount of the donation is roughly the equivalent to the deposits required to stand in every seat in the UK at the next election.

Note I'm not a member of UKIP and won't be voting for them at the next election, but even so this is an absolutely scandalous decision and hopefully it will be overturned at some point if the Electoral Commission is to retain any integrity.