10th July 2010

In the Matter of the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority and Holly Richmond

The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal hearing on Thursday 8th July was inconclusive. I cannot go into detail. A fresh Tribunal is now scheduled for 16th/17th August. It would be injudicious if I were to comment on the reasons. Suffice to say that the Chairman of the Tribunal was forthright in his agreement to setting a date for a new hearing. From the perspective of a novice, I have to say that I was impressed by the Chairman's handling of the matter and his decision was above reproach in respect of his fairness and understanding.
Nigel Lodge

26th April 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Member -- Do not be misguided or misrepresented....

"Equality for Veterans Association", also known as "EVA"

The above-mentioned organisation has been set-up by disaffected members of AFPG Limited.

EVA is NOT a part of AFPG Limited and any use of AFPG or AFPG Limited by EVA is calculated to misrepresent the authority of EVA.

Founding members of EVA, most notably Messrs Jeal, Langham and Sykes  have misappropriated subscriptions paid by members applying to AFPG, they have misappropriated monies obtained from the sale of goods belonging to AFPG and have withheld other monies that were rightfully belonging to the membership of AFPG.

EVA maintains that it has taken-over the membership of AFPG and this also is both inaccurate and illegal. The database of the AFPG membership is not transferable except by the wish of individual members. The action by Jeal, Langham and Sykes is contrary to the Data Protection Act.

AFPG Limited is still there for you. You are asked to continue to play your part - as do the 1000 who either attended the EGM/AGM or returned their proxy votes.

Nigel Lodge and Jim Filby are currently your Directors we would appreciate more coming forward to act in this role. Nigel has withdrawn his resignation in the light of the illegal action from the aforementioned who are not alone. Nigel's withdrawal of his resignation has also been influenced by the fact that he has been recently been discommoded by having had to have emergency surgery which put him out of action for several weeks.

It should be understood that whilst AFPG regards the breakaway movement as unhelpful to the cause we respect the right of others to pursue the right to a pension. In this way we also respect CAFF which for long has campaigned. If AFPG Limited has success in its campaign then the benefit will be to all those eligible whether they be members of AFPG,CAFF, EVA or none of these organisations.

In the meantime we respectfully ask your help in making it clear to EVA that whatever their motive for breaking away from AFPG they must not misappropriate funds and/or cheques made out to AFPG Limited. Currently Messrs Jeal, Langham and Sykes remain members of AFPG but they are not authorised by the Directors to act in the selling of goods and services in the name of AFPG and neither are they authorised to receive monies intended for AFPG.

In the next few weeks the revised Articles of Association (A of A) will be submitted to Companies House. In accordance with revised law there will no longer be a Memorandum of Understanding - the current version will be retained by Companies House as an 'historic record'. Also, in accordance with the current law there will be no formal need for Annual General Meetings but there will be a commitment by the Directors to hold and advertise regular General Meetings at no greater frequency than once in 15 months. The A of A has been assessed by a solicitor with the relevant qualification and the solicitors fees have been paid. Following publication of the A of A action will be taken to rescind the membership of those named and any others who have been found to act against the interest of AFPG.

Please - in reading this - do draw it to the attention of any fellow members. If you have any questions Nigel Lodge will endeavour to answer them but do bear in mind that he is not yet fighting fit.

23rd March 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have at last received the minutes of the EGM/AGM held in Grantham Guildhall on 2nd March 2010.

EGM Minutes
Download EGM minutes 2nd March
Download EGM Annex A - Attendees 2nd March

AGM Minutes
Download AGM minutes 2nd March
Download AGM Annex A - Attendees 2nd March
Download Annex B - Chairman's Report
Download Annex C - Profit & Loss

Dear Member 16th FEBRUARY 2010

Dear Member,

Copied below is a note' from Colin Challen MP for Morley and Rothwell. Colin has been a sponsor in the House of Commons for AFPG's Campaign to gain recognition and payment in respect of the right to a pension for those who, prior to April 1975 served for less than 22 years.

I suggest that you read Colin's note carefully and draw your own conclusions. However, there are certain disparities in the content, which it is only right that I should bring to your attention. The reason for so doing is that there appears to be both an attempt at manipulation of AFPG Ltd. through the furtherance of the personal ambition of more than one person and the accolade accorded to David Langham, the latter being particularly misplaced.

It appears it was not the intention of the author of the note that it should be read by the current Directors or indeed by all members of AFPG Ltd. It only came to my notice by chance on the 9th February. I have doubts that the note was produced solely by Colin because he would be well aware of the many inaccuracies and the unwarranted hyperbole used.

Without more ado then, in the letter you will find reference to –

1. The Directors "pursuing a failed legal case' – rather than ‘a legal case constructed by professional advisers was pursued, and which ultimately failed.’

2. The Directors are accused of “being passive onlookers” whilst David and Colin “'went the length and breadth of the land in support of the cause'”. This hyperbole is grossly misleading and untrue about the considerable effort expended by the Directors, who supported all the events that the Campaign Manager made them aware of.

3. “David and I (that is Colin) encouraged new members to join and produced the newsletter "Equality". In addition we (David and I again) developed merchandise etc” The involvement of David, the acquisition and sale of merchandise was agreed at meetings of the Directors with David who was co-opted to be the Campaign Manager.

4. There is reference to the decline in membership and that such decline was only stalled by the efforts of David. In fact, following the debacle with Richmonds, membership fell to 1300. However, through the efforts, almost solely of Mike Steel and the national publicity he obtained, the membership grew to a then new high of 2600. Since the appointment of David it has grown by a further (that we know of) c.900 as a result of everyone’s efforts, many of whom are wives and friends and not therefore direct beneficiaries of the campaign. They are in fact 'donors' albeit doing a worthwhile job by giving support to the campaign.

5. The cost of having a Campaign Manager has been considerable. David is only remunerated for his actual costs but the campaign over the last two years has cost over £25,000 against an increase in membership over the period, including those joining through the efforts of David, Area Coordinators and the Directors, of some 900 which has given an inflow to funds of £13500 in membership fees plus income from the sale of goods yet to be finalised. The campaign, principally through the Morley and Rothwell Constituency Office has therefore been costly.

6. The current Directors recognise that there has been a breakdown in communications but not before some Members acting unconstitutionally started to try and take things into their own hands. They did this whilst the Directors were working to provide the Campaign with the management and organisation structure that both they and the Directors had agreed on 31st March 2009 as the way forward. Even now there are members of, for want of a better word, an ‘unconstitutional’ group, who are suggesting tactics regarding the forthcoming EGM/AGM which could stall the progress of AFPG Ltd yet again. If they are successful the decline in AFPG Ltd will be caused by them and not the current Directors who hold their posts legitimately and not through the sham election of last October.

7. In his penultimate paragraph Mr Challen claims that he understands “ that the previous Directors have refused to accept this way forward “. This is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Challen and David Langham were well aware of the Directors intentions and progress that has led to the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association to be considered by the Membership at the EGM on the 2nd March. These documents, if adopted by the Members, will provide the lawful and strong basis for the campaigning by AFPG Ltd we all want.

Yours sincerely.

Nigel H Lodge Secretary AFPG Ltd.

Dear Member 16th FEBRUARY 2010

Many members of the AFPG will be confused as to what is going on within the organization – who is running it and what its current objectives are. As one who supports the AFPG and its campaign for justice for veterans who haven’t got military pensions, I want to make clear what my position is, as I have been the principle parliamentary supporter of the campaign over the last four years.

I became involved with the AFPG when a constituent, Sid West approached me about his pension – he did 17 years in the army and had nothing to show for it. I decided to do what I could to help, and my Parliamentary Assistant, David Langham, also ex-services, in his own time helped considerably in the cause. After our initial contact with the AFPG, we recognized the need to raise the political profile of the campaign – up until then the AFPG’s main, if not sole activity had been to pursue a failed legal case through the courts, costing its members over £1million. A new start was clearly called for, hence we organized a petition (now close to quarter of a million signatures), marches, a regional organization, and many other activities. David and I travelled the length and breadth of the UK to speak at start-up meetings. Sadly, this activity was not matched by the existing directors of the AFPG, who remained generally passive onlookers, albeit happy to attend a few of the activities we or others had arranged.

In the course of this period, we – and David especially – helped encourage new members to join, and well over a thousand joined, showing that there is a huge potential to build the organisation. We produced the newsletter “Equality” and merchandise was developed so that the AFPG had another way of making money.

For some reason, for which I still have no explanation, all this seemed to become a matter of concern to the existing directors, leading to a breakdown in communications. I was pleased therefore that some members, acting within their rights, set about arranging a process which would lead to the creation of a new management structure for the AFPG. This seemed to me to be about the best way of getting the AFPG onto a full, campaigning model, recognizing that the past failures, which had cost members so much for so little effect should be consigned to history.

I understand that the previous directors have refused to accept this way forward. It is my view that the previous directors should seriously reconsider their position, if the AFPG is to become a campaigning organization. I therefore fully endorse the actions of the group of members who have made preparations for a general meeting later this year, at which new directors can be democratically elected. Of course, the previous directors will be entitled to offer themselves as candidates in that election.

In conclusion I must say that the AFPG has a difficult campaign ahead, but if it can develop its membership – and we know the cause is popular – then it stands a far better chance of success. If it is run by people who recognize that, and are prepared to work at it, the AFPG will go from strength to strength. The alternative is a continuation of the steady decline it was in a few years ago.

Colin Challen MP