Adam Walker, BNP staff manager, should not have visited the Yasukuni shrine during his visit to Japan, representing, as he was, the British National Party in an official capacity.
To quote Mr Walker's own words, which may also be seen reported in an article on the party web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, "We realize terrible things happened in the war on both sides and we do not condone them. We are simply here to show the Japanese people that we have respect for their culture, traditions, and values".
Mr Walker's statement is tantamont to an exoneration of the Japanese nation in respect of the atrocities perpetrated by their armed forces during World War II. Note the way in which Mr Walker seeks to exculpate the Japanese, his hosts on the junket, from their war guilt, by saying that "...terrible things happened in the war on both sides...". It is as if Mr Walker believed that we, the British, and our Commonwealth and American allies, were in some unspecified way equally as guilty as the Japanese.
Mr Walker, a former teacher, speaks Japanese it seems. I have no reason to believe that he is other than an intelligent man, which makes his behaviour all the more blameworthy, since, presumably, he would have fully understood the significance of what he was doing when he visited the Yasukuni shrine, and made the statement quoted above.
Visiting the Yasukuni shrine was an odd way to show the Japanese people that the BNP has "...respect for their culture, traditions, and values", since even the Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, refuses to visit the shrine because, in his own words "As Class-A war criminals are enshrined there, an official visit by the prime minister or cabinet members is problematic". This is a polite Japanese way of saying that it is impolitic to do honour to the memory of war criminals, even of one's own nation.
They were criminals indeed.
Murder, massacres, death marches, rape, mutilation, human vivisection, and cannibalism were all perpetrated by members of the Japanese armed forces, and countenanced by the High Command, and home government. The mass murder of British troops by starvation and forced labour that turned tens of thousands of healthy men into emaciated invalids, was intentional military and governmental policy.
Mr Walker should learn one thing, if nothing else, from his Japanese hosts: that one's first loyalty is to one's own nation.
It is a great pity that he does not appear to know this.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Monday, 16 August 2010
VoF spin cannot hide leadership disarray
On page five of Voice of Freedom, #117, in an article entitled "A tale of two MEPs: one went to the Palace...the other went on television", the fiasco of Mr Griffin's barring from the queen's garden party is presented as a public relations coup for the British National Party.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact it was more like a comedy of errors.
Error number one: Mr Griffin should not have attempted to make political capital out of his invitation to what is generally regarded as a non-political event. More particularly, he should not have asked, on the BNP web site, for suggestions as to what he ought to say to the queen should he meet her. This was naturally regarded as provocation by the Palace authorities, and as an attempt by a politician to embroil the queen in party politics - a constitutional faux pas, if not a case of lese-majesty.
Mr Griffin's defence: that nowhere in "...the book of rules..." does it state that a guest should not give media interviews about their invitation is either disingenuous or crass. The "book of rules" cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and some things are so obvious that it is assumed that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be aware of them.
Mr Griffin should have known that attempting to upstage the queen by turning her garden party into a political circus, with himself hogging the limelight, would be viewed with displeasure by the Palace authorities.
Their subsequent barring of him should then have come as no great surprise to him.
Error number two: Mr Griffin clearly believes, contrary to all the evidence, that the British public cannot get enough of him. His tour of the TV studios, following his barring from the garden party, did not help the party's image. This was demonstrated by a local election result on the same day, in Basildon, in which, whereas in the past the BNP's share of the vote had been approximately 15%, this time it was less than 4%.
This was another Pyrrhic victory of the BBC Question Time variety.
Error number three: Andrew Brons MEP should not have attended the garden party after Mr Griffin had been turned away from it. Despite the fact that Mr Griffin had courted his own humiliation, indeed had brought it upon himself, through his poor judgement and lack of common sense, and that Andrew Brons had not made the same mistake, Andrew should have shown greater solidarity with the party leader, and not attended the garden party.
Both MEPs should then have held a joint press confrence, in which they issued a joint statement, in which the tardiness of the withdrawal of Mr Griffin's invitation, and the Palace's failure to communicate with Tina Wingfield, as promised, could rightly have been censured.
The point should also have been made that it is infra dig for any elected representative of the BNP to treat what is essentially only a social event as being of greater importance than it actually is. Which is, frankly, not much.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact it was more like a comedy of errors.
Error number one: Mr Griffin should not have attempted to make political capital out of his invitation to what is generally regarded as a non-political event. More particularly, he should not have asked, on the BNP web site, for suggestions as to what he ought to say to the queen should he meet her. This was naturally regarded as provocation by the Palace authorities, and as an attempt by a politician to embroil the queen in party politics - a constitutional faux pas, if not a case of lese-majesty.
Mr Griffin's defence: that nowhere in "...the book of rules..." does it state that a guest should not give media interviews about their invitation is either disingenuous or crass. The "book of rules" cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and some things are so obvious that it is assumed that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be aware of them.
Mr Griffin should have known that attempting to upstage the queen by turning her garden party into a political circus, with himself hogging the limelight, would be viewed with displeasure by the Palace authorities.
Their subsequent barring of him should then have come as no great surprise to him.
Error number two: Mr Griffin clearly believes, contrary to all the evidence, that the British public cannot get enough of him. His tour of the TV studios, following his barring from the garden party, did not help the party's image. This was demonstrated by a local election result on the same day, in Basildon, in which, whereas in the past the BNP's share of the vote had been approximately 15%, this time it was less than 4%.
This was another Pyrrhic victory of the BBC Question Time variety.
Error number three: Andrew Brons MEP should not have attended the garden party after Mr Griffin had been turned away from it. Despite the fact that Mr Griffin had courted his own humiliation, indeed had brought it upon himself, through his poor judgement and lack of common sense, and that Andrew Brons had not made the same mistake, Andrew should have shown greater solidarity with the party leader, and not attended the garden party.
Both MEPs should then have held a joint press confrence, in which they issued a joint statement, in which the tardiness of the withdrawal of Mr Griffin's invitation, and the Palace's failure to communicate with Tina Wingfield, as promised, could rightly have been censured.
The point should also have been made that it is infra dig for any elected representative of the BNP to treat what is essentially only a social event as being of greater importance than it actually is. Which is, frankly, not much.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Griffinism - a suitable case for treatment
Leafing through a medical dictionary the other day, I came across the following entry.
Griffinism: a disease of political parties, it attacks their immune system, leaving them vulnerable to opportunistic infection by "industry experts", and other similar parasites. Treatment: carefully titrated doses of democratic reform, administered internally, under hospital supervision. Prognosis: often fatal due to its insidious onset but may be cured if correctly diagnosed, and treated in its early stages. Case study: British National Party, 2007-2010.
Griffinism: a disease of political parties, it attacks their immune system, leaving them vulnerable to opportunistic infection by "industry experts", and other similar parasites. Treatment: carefully titrated doses of democratic reform, administered internally, under hospital supervision. Prognosis: often fatal due to its insidious onset but may be cured if correctly diagnosed, and treated in its early stages. Case study: British National Party, 2007-2010.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Statement by Lee Barnes
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
My Resignation Letter From the BNP
Formal Resignation Letter.
10th August 2010.
Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.
The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.
For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.
I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.
As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.
Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;
1) The Marmite Case
2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections
3) The EHRC court cases
4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie
5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others
All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.
Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.
Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.
This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.
What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.
I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.
Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.
The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.
This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.
As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.
Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.
As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.
This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.
Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.
If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.
This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.
In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.
It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.
During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.
I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.
It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.
My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.
All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.
These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.
Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.
The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.
Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.
The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.
Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.
The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.
Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.
The law is clear.
BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.
To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.
The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.
I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.
The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.
But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.
I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.
I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.
As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.
The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.
Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.
Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.
Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.
If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.
If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.
Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.
Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.
They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.
This is intolerable.
The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.
All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
All such allegations must be investigated.
The issue is simple enough to understand.
Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.
This must be done for one simple reason.
A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.
Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.
A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.
If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.
And we would never know about it.
Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.
In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.
Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.
But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.
It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.
Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.
If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.
Unless the BNP begins ;
1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.
2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.
3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.
4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from potential legal liabilities.
5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.
6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.
7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.
8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.
If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.
I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.
In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.
If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.
I am not prepared to do that.
I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.
L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)
My Resignation Letter From the BNP
Formal Resignation Letter.
10th August 2010.
Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.
The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.
For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.
I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.
As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.
Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;
1) The Marmite Case
2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections
3) The EHRC court cases
4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie
5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others
All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.
Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.
Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.
This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.
What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.
I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.
Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.
The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.
This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.
As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.
Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.
As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.
This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.
Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.
If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.
This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.
In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.
It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.
During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.
I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.
It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.
My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.
All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.
These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.
Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.
The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.
Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.
The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.
Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.
The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.
Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.
The law is clear.
BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.
To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.
The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.
I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.
The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.
But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.
I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.
I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.
As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.
The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.
Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.
Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.
Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.
If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.
If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.
Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.
Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.
They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.
This is intolerable.
The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.
All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
All such allegations must be investigated.
The issue is simple enough to understand.
Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.
This must be done for one simple reason.
A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.
Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.
A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.
If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.
And we would never know about it.
Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.
In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.
Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.
But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.
It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.
Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.
If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.
Unless the BNP begins ;
1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.
2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.
3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.
4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from potential legal liabilities.
5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.
6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.
7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.
8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.
If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.
I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.
In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.
If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.
I am not prepared to do that.
I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.
L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)
Griffin subverts constitution in bid to dodge contest
The flurry of unconstitutional letters of suspension recently issued to the best and bravest of the British National Party, namely those organizers and activists supporting Eddy Butler's leadership challenge, is a mark of the desperation of the rotten clique that is running, or rather, ruining the party - two of whom are not even members of the BNP.
I have a proposal for our national chairman: collect all of the unconstitutional and unlawful letters of suspension and hold a public bonfire of inanities, on the model of Savonarola's "bonfire of vanities".
Mr Griffin is behaving like Bad King John with his barons, or a pope of the early Reformation, issuing nugatory bulls of excommunication for heresy, from the Vatican, near Welshpool. Actually, "bull" is a very apt description of their contents, such as they are.
One has to marvel at the panic which induced such an otiose bureaucratic manoeuvre. Does Mr Griffin seriously believe that the genie of democratic dissent can be put back into the bottle by such methods? From their strange behaviour one might be forgiven for suspecting that Messrs Griffin and Dowson have something to hide from the members of the BNP.
Be sure your sin will find you out, Numbers 32:23 - as Rev West might say.
I have a proposal for our national chairman: collect all of the unconstitutional and unlawful letters of suspension and hold a public bonfire of inanities, on the model of Savonarola's "bonfire of vanities".
Mr Griffin is behaving like Bad King John with his barons, or a pope of the early Reformation, issuing nugatory bulls of excommunication for heresy, from the Vatican, near Welshpool. Actually, "bull" is a very apt description of their contents, such as they are.
One has to marvel at the panic which induced such an otiose bureaucratic manoeuvre. Does Mr Griffin seriously believe that the genie of democratic dissent can be put back into the bottle by such methods? From their strange behaviour one might be forgiven for suspecting that Messrs Griffin and Dowson have something to hide from the members of the BNP.
Be sure your sin will find you out, Numbers 32:23 - as Rev West might say.
Monday, 9 August 2010
BNP news item removed from party web site
The news item to which I referred in my last but one post, on Saturday, 7 August, has been removed from the party web site. Could this be a tacit admission of its falsity, as regards the leadership's risible claim of fairness in its conduct of the nomination process? Or has Mr Kemp had second thoughts about the wisdom of a public threat of further disciplinary action against the party's organizers and activists?
"The Lost Leader"
Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a riband to stick in his coat -
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote;
They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allowed:
How all our copper had gone for his service!
Rags - were they purple, his heart had been proud!
We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die!
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley, were with us, - they watch from their
graves!
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,
He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves!
We shall march prospering, - not thro' his presence;
Songs may inspirit us, - not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done, - while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire:
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declined, one more footpath untrod,
One more triumph for devils and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!
Life's night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,
Forced praise on our part - the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!
Best fight on well, for we taught him, - strike gallantly,
Menace our heart ere we master his own;
Then let him receive the new knowledge and wait us,
Pardoned in Heaven, the first by the throne!
ROBERT BROWNING
Just for a riband to stick in his coat -
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote;
They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allowed:
How all our copper had gone for his service!
Rags - were they purple, his heart had been proud!
We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die!
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley, were with us, - they watch from their
graves!
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,
He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves!
We shall march prospering, - not thro' his presence;
Songs may inspirit us, - not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done, - while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire:
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declined, one more footpath untrod,
One more triumph for devils and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!
Life's night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,
Forced praise on our part - the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!
Best fight on well, for we taught him, - strike gallantly,
Menace our heart ere we master his own;
Then let him receive the new knowledge and wait us,
Pardoned in Heaven, the first by the throne!
ROBERT BROWNING
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Leadership lies and threats
'In an organiser’s bulletin sent out yesterday, the BNP said it “wishes to place on record that no communications of any sort are being sent by the party favouring one particular candidate over the others in relation to the nomination process for the leadership elections [sic]."'
The foregoing is an extract from an item posted on the British National Party's web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, today, entitled 'BNP Statement on Unsolicited Leadership Campaign Emails.'
IT IS FALSE AND MISLEADING! The unconstitutional and unlawful 'official', yellow, nomination form sent unsolicited to (supposedly) every party member with at least twenty-four months' continuous membership as at 1 July 2010, flagrantly and UNFAIRLY favours "...one particular candidate over the others in relation to the nomination process for the leadership elections". No prizes for guessing which "...particular candidate..." the yellow form favours, readers. That's right, one Nick Griffin - the only candidate whose name appears on the nomination form sent out by the party leadership, and the only candidate of the four seeking (yes, one SEEKS nominations, everywhere but on planet Griffin) nomination who does not even require a single nomination in order to contest the leadership election as a validly nominated candidate.
The threats of disciplinary action against members who support Eddy Butler's campaign by obtaining nominations on his behalf are unconstitutional and unlawful, and are rightly being disregarded by all those who understand the party constitution, and English and Scottish law.
Remember: "WE ARE BRITISH AND WE DON'T LIE DOWN TO BULLIES - EVER."
The foregoing is an extract from an item posted on the British National Party's web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, today, entitled 'BNP Statement on Unsolicited Leadership Campaign Emails.'
IT IS FALSE AND MISLEADING! The unconstitutional and unlawful 'official', yellow, nomination form sent unsolicited to (supposedly) every party member with at least twenty-four months' continuous membership as at 1 July 2010, flagrantly and UNFAIRLY favours "...one particular candidate over the others in relation to the nomination process for the leadership elections". No prizes for guessing which "...particular candidate..." the yellow form favours, readers. That's right, one Nick Griffin - the only candidate whose name appears on the nomination form sent out by the party leadership, and the only candidate of the four seeking (yes, one SEEKS nominations, everywhere but on planet Griffin) nomination who does not even require a single nomination in order to contest the leadership election as a validly nominated candidate.
The threats of disciplinary action against members who support Eddy Butler's campaign by obtaining nominations on his behalf are unconstitutional and unlawful, and are rightly being disregarded by all those who understand the party constitution, and English and Scottish law.
Remember: "WE ARE BRITISH AND WE DON'T LIE DOWN TO BULLIES - EVER."
Friday, 6 August 2010
Three days to save the party we love
CALLING ALL NATIONALISTS!
British National Party members with at least twenty-four months' continuous membership, as at 1 July 2010, have until Monday, 9 August, to submit their nomination of Eddy Butler, as a candidate for party leader, to PO Box 287, Waltham X, Herts EN8 8ZU, as shown on the face of Eddy's white nomination form which may be downloaded from his blogspot: http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/.
Don't be intimidated by threats. Remember: "We are British, and we don't lie down to bullies - ever!"
British National Party members with at least twenty-four months' continuous membership, as at 1 July 2010, have until Monday, 9 August, to submit their nomination of Eddy Butler, as a candidate for party leader, to PO Box 287, Waltham X, Herts EN8 8ZU, as shown on the face of Eddy's white nomination form which may be downloaded from his blogspot: http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/.
Don't be intimidated by threats. Remember: "We are British, and we don't lie down to bullies - ever!"
Monday, 2 August 2010
"If Nick only knew..."
During the years of the Third Reich in Germany, 1933-45, it was common for ordinary German citizens to say to one another, in response to one or other of the excesses committed by Nazi party officials, "If only the Leader knew". For them this was a way of absolving the leader, in their own minds at least, of responsibility, or blame, for the particular action they found unacceptable, or shocking. It was, of course, what psychologists call a "rationalization", or "mental defence mechanism" - a form of self-delusion.
Why? Because of course the leader knew what was being done in his name. If any leader does not know that then they are too incompetent to be the leader, and will not remain the leader for very long.
One sometimes hears British National Party members saying the same kind of thing with regard to the calamitous mismanagement and leadership of the party - "If only Nick knew what was being done".
Unfortunately, Nick does know, and if not directly responsible for every bad decision (though, naturally, as the party's chief executive the most serious ones have his finger-prints all over them) is still nevertheless
personally responsible for having appointed incompetents, and having retained them in office, to the party's and the members' detriment, long after it was clear to the bulk of their colleagues, and the active members of the party, that they were unsuitable.
One has to wonder whether in fact it suits Mr Griffin to have incompetent personnel in senior positions. After all, knowing, as they must, their own incompetence, they are most unlikely to ask any awkward questions, and would be only too happy merely to do as they are told by Messrs Griffin, Dowson, and Harrington (the two last-named not even BNP members, and the latter the leader of a rival political party) and draw their salary, without rocking the boat. Such incompetents are also highly unlikely to challenge for the leadership of the party, unless put up to it by Mr Griffin himself - yet another benefit of their inadequacy from his selfish point of view.
Why? Because of course the leader knew what was being done in his name. If any leader does not know that then they are too incompetent to be the leader, and will not remain the leader for very long.
One sometimes hears British National Party members saying the same kind of thing with regard to the calamitous mismanagement and leadership of the party - "If only Nick knew what was being done".
Unfortunately, Nick does know, and if not directly responsible for every bad decision (though, naturally, as the party's chief executive the most serious ones have his finger-prints all over them) is still nevertheless
personally responsible for having appointed incompetents, and having retained them in office, to the party's and the members' detriment, long after it was clear to the bulk of their colleagues, and the active members of the party, that they were unsuitable.
One has to wonder whether in fact it suits Mr Griffin to have incompetent personnel in senior positions. After all, knowing, as they must, their own incompetence, they are most unlikely to ask any awkward questions, and would be only too happy merely to do as they are told by Messrs Griffin, Dowson, and Harrington (the two last-named not even BNP members, and the latter the leader of a rival political party) and draw their salary, without rocking the boat. Such incompetents are also highly unlikely to challenge for the leadership of the party, unless put up to it by Mr Griffin himself - yet another benefit of their inadequacy from his selfish point of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
