Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Sunday, 31 October 2010

BNP still in business

Peter Strudwick, BNP Reform's legal officer, reviews the consequences of the May parliamentary elections, and points the way to future progress for the party on the economy and foreign affairs.

Elections come and go but nothing very much ever changes. The politics of liberal-internationalism remain dominant. This time, however, the people got what they didn't vote for - a coalition government of a distinctly pinkish hue. "Call me Dave" Cameron is installed as prime minister and Nick Clegg is sucking up as his deputy. Tweedledum and Tweedledee hold sway.

Cameron's politics are very far removed from the nationalist tendency which once influenced Tory party thinking through the likes of Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain, Percy Wyndham-Lewis, T S Eliot, G K Chesterton, John Biggs-Davison, Ronald Bell and Enoch Powell, to name but a few.

I doubt whether Cameron, who travels with the lightest intellectual baggage and who has never had a job outside the political milieu, sees himself as having anything in common with those scholars and luminaries. If he had been living in the 1840s, unlike certain of those named who were, he would have supported the Whig line and voted for the repeal of the Corn Laws which subjected British farmers to bankruptcy and ruin by allowing the importation of foreign wheat instead of protecting our own agricultural production.

Cameron is a liberal through and through. Certainly he has a difficult immediate task with the massive budget deficit of £172 billion, the product almost entirely of international finance capitalism. I wouldn't lay long odds on his succeeding in reducing the deficit. The last thing he should be doing is crowing about having earmarked £6.2 billion in early cuts - no more than 3.7% of the total.

For our part, the British National Party readily recognizes that it still has a long way to go to break this cosy consensus and achieve our cherished ambition of contesting for power. Yet the May parliamentary elections should, I think, be seen as a consolidation and steady development for the BNP. We obtained 569,358 votes, according to my calculations, from slightly over half the constituencies, a clear advance on previous elections. My analysis shows that in those seats where we were in contest with UKIP we beat them (often very decisively) in 173 seats and they beat us in 129 (in four of which by less than 20 votes). We soundly defeated the Greens in the proportion of three seats to one.

Gven the barrage of misinformation and downright lies that characterized the media's reporting of our campaign, in my opinion we did remarkably well, salutary testimony to our dedicated candidates and activists. Yes, it may be that we had some disappointing local election results in terms of seats retained (although we still obtained some very impressive scores) but it must be remembered that party fortunes at local level are cyclical; just as we won large numbers of seats as challengers at an earlier period, so we can win them back under more favourable conditions if we continue to expand our levels of local implantation.

As I see it, the crucial tasks facing the British National Party are to maintain and re-invigorate the essence of our political philosophy and to eschew any suggestions that we should water down our policies in the belief, wholly erroneous, that we cannot carry the electorate with us. The contrary is in fact true, for we have nothing in common with the Con-Lib-Lab triumvirate's programme of managed decline and surrender, and sooner or later the people will turn to us.

The reality then is that the BNP has a set of policies built upon the most solid foundations and a thoroughly appealing ideology of nationalism, which is neither aggressive nor revanchist but rather designed to assure to our people the realization of all the ideals which we regard as central to our life: love of country; economic well-being for all; restoration of undiluted self-government; social cohesion and the prospect of a population at peace with itself, once we have ended immigration (and substantially reversed its effects) and dealt a fatal blow to the pernicious doctrines of multi-culturalism and political correctness.

The practical imperative is to continue to get through to as large a number of people as possible how different we are from the failed parties of the mainstream. To that end we need to emphasize that in two key areas, foreign policy and the economy, we have already been proved correct in our analysis, and wholly justified in our propaganda. If we take the former first, we argue forcibly that the primary principle of international relations is that of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign independent states. Iraq is a litmus test. Britain's intervention in that unhappy land has been the biggest foreign disaster since the second world war - worse even than Suez. It has been a wholly avoidable catastrophe. Blair was determined to risk the lives of our brave soldiers by obstinately refusing to give Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, the four extra weeks he had requested to put the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction beyond all reasonable doubt.

Moreover, Sir John Scarlett, director-general of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, had warned Blair and his associates that he (Blair) was inviting a Muslim backlash of potentially disastrous proportions, and so it has turned out to be, with the London bombings in July 2005, and the consequential constant high/severe terrorist threat warnings which MI5 has been compelled to issue ever since. Prophetically, Nick Griffin was the first and only politician to have had the foresight to make this prediction.

Blair may now be so-called Middle East peace envoy (a fat lot of use he has been so far) although most of his time seems to be spent on a worldwide lecture tour boosting his already hyper-inflated ego to the tune of millions of pounds in fees from those stupid enough to listen to him. A more appropriate destination for this warmonger would be facing an indictment at the International Court of Justice at the Hague for waging aggressive war against a sovereign state. Over two hundred of our soldiers have had their young lives taken away in an illegal war - which maifestly it was, because of the absence of an affirmative vote of the Security Council of the United Nations.

This veritable folly of invading Iraq, with whom we had no quarrel whatever, given that the first Gulf war conflict had been concluded twelve years earlier, has proved the British National Party to be wholly right. Our position is unimpeachable. So it is with Afghanistan. It may be a NATO operation but Britain is heavily involved and the death count of our soldiers sadly exceeds that in Iraq.

Cameron's first words at the dispatch box after the Queen's speech were a spurious incantation and nauseating salutation to the latest victims of this avoidable war, which is only attractive to the political class which no doubt sees a resource opportunity (oil pipeline construction contracts).

Cameron should have followed Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson's example in the mid-1960s when he refused to commit British troops to American President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam war effort. That too, as it proved to be, was an unwinnable war with a very heavy toll on lives. The British National Party surely proclaims that there must be an alternative to sending our young men on foot patrols only to be blown up by hidden bombs, or shot down by snipers who fall back into the hills.

A British nationalist approach is decisive. It is to recall our troops immediately because of the indisputable reality that Britain's terrorists are bred and trained, not among the Taleban masses of Afghanistan, in that backward, untameable land, but on the streets of our own towns and cities of England, as events have already demonstrated.

The second area of policy where our party has a massive contribution to make, and where I feel we should have given greater emphasis in our election campaign, is that of extolling the benefits of economic nationalism. As Alastair Harper, in the last issue of Identity (# 103) recently perceptively wrote: "the grand paradox of globalization is that whilst on the surface it promises the unity of the world its effect is already bringing about the world's destruction." A timely truism which accentuates the need to argue that our alternative deserves proper scrutiny. Our difficulty is that the political class will not even debate the merits of protection, selective import controls and the primacy of manufacturing as a resource, maximizing profitability and full employment. In the hands of our opponents "British jobs for British workers" is a meaningless mantra, and they know it. For us, it is the very life-blood of the nation's well-being.

Economic nationalism, indeed, is a wholly relevant and appropriate doctrine. We should embrace it with fervour. At varying times and under differing conditions, it has been endorsed by Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain, John Maynard Keynes, J K Galbraith and (Lord) Robert Skidelsky (Keynes's biographer), all of whom have made out strong cases for the politics of protecting the home market against free trade liberalism.

Just as we used to adopt Imperial Preference beneficially towards the countries of our empire and later Commonwealth Preference, so now we should engage in the idealism of National Preference, supported by 'most favoured nation' clauses in commercial contracts, where necessary, with foreign countries most favourable to our economic ideology.

Trading on world markets should be seen as complementary to, rather than as a replacement for, building an economy in which our objective is to strive for a high degree of self-sufficiency and autarky. Specifically, tariff barriers should not be seen as obstacles to efficiency but rather as the necessary means for bringing about full employment, and higher productivity achieved under maximum employer/worker co-operation.

Nothing better illustrates the negation of the above than the present European economic system of enforced dumping of surplus agricultural production, whereas the BNP would be (outside the constraints of the European Union, which we would leave) to direct surpluses as we thought fit, including, if necessary, alleviating genuine suffering and poverty. Such a policy is in antithesis to the disaster of free-trade globalism, which only profits the very wealthy, while impoverishing the rest of us. There has been no better illustration of this than the abrogation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement  in the late 1940s and early 1950s, because we could secure marginally better prices elsewhere, following which the collapse of the sugar market in Jamaica and Trinidad increased unemployment in the West Indies and led to the precipitate migration of West Indian labour to the United Kingdom.

Some parallel consequence is seen in the Cadbury-Krafft take-over. Here we had an iconic, household name; a profitable chocolate manufacturing company, founded in 1824 by Quaker brothers, employing 48,000 worldwide, with more than 9,000 at eight sites in Britain. Cadbury's shareholders were offered 840p for each share (probably a fair market price) plus a 10p share dividend, as against an original offer of 761p. A BNP policy would have ensured a totally different outcome, based upon a totally different set of economic principles, as I will set down later.

As usual in this sort of take-over, the British workforce and its welfare seems to be the last thing to be considered. More than 10,000 job cuts world-wide are considered likely by analysts, in order to slash costs and enable Krafft to repay the cash it required to borrow for the deal. Somerdale, the Cadbury factory near Bristol, is already scheduled for closure, and Krafft's record in this regard does not exactly inspire confidence. In 1993 it bought chocolate manufacturer, Terry, closing its York factory within two years despite a promise to keep it operational. The factory was sold to developers, with production shifted to low cost Eastern Europe.

Krafft's poor reputation in the food industry is long established. It is shocking that a quintessentially philanthropic brand such as Cadbury, with its long history and overall excellence, has sold out to a plastic cheese company.

The precedents for Cadbury employees are unfavourable. For instance, when York-based Rowntree was taken over by Nestle, of Switzerland, within two decades Rowntree's workforce had been reduced from 33,000 to 3,250; a 90% shake-out.

Further take-overs of British industry are likely because of the fall in sterling, which makes companies cheaper for foreign buyers. A major target is Smith and Nephew, a leading developer of medical devices such as artificial hips. P and O suffered the full treatment. It was acquired by DP World of Dubai for £3 billion in 2006. Its shares have fallen by two-thirds, valuing its 52 ports, including Tilbury and Southampton, at only £4.5 billion. Corus, formed from the merger of  British Steel with the Dutch group Hoogovens, was bought by the Indian conglomerate Tata, in 2007. Corus announced just over a year ago that it would end steel-making in Teesside, with the loss of  more than 2,000 jobs. Just about the only companies off-limits for take-over would seem to be Rolls Royce and BAe Systems, both major defence suppliers, in which government holds substantial shares.

A BNP government would act in the national interest to arrest the wholesale decimation of British manufacturing industry by foreign companies and conglomerates. One step would be to cancel all 'most favoured nation' status government contracts for reciprocal trading rights which we already have in place, unless economic regulation is introduced to prevent the take-over/merger of industries in the name of free trade liberalism.

Further than that, we should introduce compulsory purchase measures to make it unlawful for foreign companies to acquire anything more than a fractional stake in our businesses and industries. This can be achieved through pre-emption, a process authorizing government to vest assets in a holding company, a national economic corporation, which would then redistribute them  on sale among prospering economic interests in Britain. Such a programme could have prevented the electricity and gas industries from falling into foreign hands over a period of ten years.

Pre-emption is not a novel idea. It has operated for many years in a number of other countries, notably Switzerland, Austria, Greece, and Japan, where it was instrumental in assisting that country's economic recovery in the mid-1990s.

The Lib-Lab-Con consensus is incapable of transforming Britain's fortunes. British National Party policies can do so. We are in business to make it happen.

Where has all the money gone?

Mr Griffin has questions to answer regarding his stewardship of the British National Party's finances. He is the party's chief executive authority as well as its leader, and the buck stops with him.

Ken Booth, the former NE regional organizer, who was sacked for demanding answers to questions about the party's finances says "No one is accusing anyone of stealing money, it's just mismanagement" but how does he know "...it's just mismanagement"?

The answer is he doesn't know, any more than any one of the thousands of ordinary members of the BNP, where the monies they paid in subscriptions and donations have gone.

Millions of pounds have been raised by party head office over the last two years, and yet the party is currently in debt to the tune of half a million pounds. Was much of this spent on the general election campaign? No, the general election campaign was almost entirely financed by branch funds. The European election campaign, then? Again, no, only about a quarter of a million pounds was spent on that.

The sums simply do not add up.

The point to consider is this. If there has been fraudulent conversion on a grand scale, and Mr Griffin were involved, then he would need to have behaved in exactly the way in which he has actually behaved over the last five months in order to cover it up.

Mr Griffin's modus operandi (way of working) of secrecy and oppression is exactly that which would be used by a man with a terrible secret that he needed to keep hidden at all costs.

Why is the Electoral Commission still waiting for the party's 2009 accounts, which are now more than three months overdue?

Why have the 2008 accounts not yet been published on the party web site for members to inspect?

Why has the interim report of the Financial Scrutiny Committee, the members of which (well meaning amateurs, not professional auditors) were hand-picked by Mr Griffin, which has already been submitted to him, not been published in full on the party web site?

All of this circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing by Mr Griffin leads to one inescapable conclusion: Mr Griffin is either a knave or a fool.

I have never thought he was a fool. A charmless, self-seeking mountebank, certainly, but not a fool.

Griffin, the great pretender


At destroying the Party.

The following story appeared today:


Here it is in full:


The British National Party (BNP) is being taken to court by its creditors including a North- East printing firm which is owed thousands.

The far-right party’s central office owes the Newton Press, in County Durham, about £16,500 for printing its newspaper, Freedom.

It is understood the firm is one of several UK firms taking the BNP to court in an action headed by an as yet unnamed solicitor.

The £16,500 has been described as loose change compared to the overall figure being sought from the party, which is allegedly £500,000 in debt.

Party leader Nick Griffin is expected to meet North-East organisers in County Durham today, where he will face tough questions over the party’s finances.

As a political party the BNP is an unincorporated association which cannot technically be declared bankrupt.

However, creditors could hold Mr Griffin personally liable along with party members who entered into contracts.

Freedom’s former editor, Martin Wingfield, said he enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the Newton Press for about two years until he stepped down, in July last year.

But, when asked about the recent debt, he said: “I understand the case is going to court, so at present, I cannot comment further.”

The BNP’s money woes were highlighted recently when a letter purporting to be from the party’s head office offered creditors 20p for every pound of debt.

It was dismissed by some members as a fake, but the BNP’s former North-East organiser, Ken Booth, said it was genuine.

He said party members in the North-East were disgusted to learn of the 20p in a pound offer and he had fought for the Newton Press to be paid.

In contrast to the national position, Mr Booth said the North- East office has always operated on a pay-as-you-go basis and as such had no debts.

Mr Booth, who was removed from his post by Mr Griffin when he threatened to raise the debts issue, said: “It goes against the BNP’s core principle of local jobs for local people.

“As far as I can see this is a decent North-East firm that has done a good job and deserves to be paid and I don’t know why it hasn’t been.

“Central party is £500,000 in debt but it’s on a record turnover of £2.3m.

“No one is accusing anyone of stealing money, it’s just mismanagement.

“The general consensus of the members in the North-East is that Nick Griffin should shoulder the responsibility and step down.”

The Newton Press, which publishes the community newsletter, Newton News, declined to comment.

BNP central office spokesman John Walker said: “We could not comment on matters which are internal to the party and the businesses we deal with.”

Rather suitably Nick Griffin is in the North East ‘launching’ one of his typically ill thought out pet schemes. There are other big creditors waiting in the wings.

Nick Griffin needs to go now.

Eddy Butler

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Muslims, Jews, receive preferential treatment under English law!

Britain goes halal... but no-one tells the public: How famous institutions serve ritually slaughtered meat with no warning

By Simon Mcgee and Martin Delgado

Last updated at 6:51 PM on 19th September 2010

Comments (639) Add to My Stories

A Mail on Sunday investigation - which will alarm anyone concerned about animal cruelty - has revealed that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public.

All the beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley has secretly been prepared in accordance with sharia law, while Cheltenham College, which boasts of its ‘strong Christian ethos’, is one of several top public schools which also serves halal chicken to pupils without informing them.

Even Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, among many others, has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

A Manchester United fan tucks into a burger at Wembley Stadium, which serves only halal meat

Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat - which involves killing animals by drawing a knife across their throats, without stunning them first - saying it is cruel and causes unnecessary pain.

Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughter­houses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.

The extent of halal meat consumption, even in areas of Britain with a very small Muslim population, was revealed as the Pope, on his first visit to Britain, expressed fears that the country was not doing enough to preserve traditional Christian values and customs.

In a strongly worded speech to Parliament, he said: ‘There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.’

But it is animal rights groups which have been most vociferous in their opposition to halal slaughter. Campaign organisation Viva!, whose supporters include Heather Mills and Joanna Lumley, said in a statement: ‘Other practices which may be undertaken for religious reasons, such as polygamy or the stoning of adulterers, are not permitted in the UK.

‘Religious freedom does not override other moral considerations and the suffering caused by this form of slaughter is so severe that it cannot be allowed to prevent action to be taken. Consumers can do their bit by boycotting places that persist in selling meat from unstunned animals.’

Race-goers indulge in some fast food at Ascot where meat is slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law

An RSPCA spokesman added: ‘The public have a right to know how their meat is produced. Many people are extremely concerned about animal welfare. What The Mail on Sunday has discovered shows that people are not being kept informed. The key to a more humane death for these animals is that they are stunned before slaughter.’

A spokesman for Twickenham, which sells only halal chicken despite not advertising the fact, insisted that the lack of transparency ‘had never been an issue’ and said: ‘Our consideration is more for those who want halal, to ensure they get it.’

Other institutions secretly serving up meat that is halal – or ‘permissible’ – include Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and one of London’s ­biggest NHS Trusts, Guy’s and St ­Thomas’.

A spokesman for the London hospitals admitted: ‘The only way ­people using the canteen would know they were ­eating halal chicken would be if they asked a member of staff directly.'

The spokesman for the London hospitals added: 'The chicken we use is stunned before it is killed.'

Whitbread, which also owns Table Table restaurants, Costa Coffee shops and Premier Inn hotels, admitted last night that 80 per cent of the chicken it served comes from halal poultry ­suppliers, including some in Muslim-dominated Turkey.

A Whitbread spokesman said: ‘We don’t specify halal as a requirement in our procurement. We base our ­decision on quality and price.

‘It just turns out that we source that amount of chicken from suppliers that happen to be halal.

‘It is not mentioned on any of our menus because we don’t think there is customer demand for that information. But if people started asking, then we would definitely provide it.’

Marlborough College in Wiltshire has admitted that while halal chicken is usually only served to Muslims, it had 'occasionally' served it to all pupils

Rival operator Mitchells & Butlers, which owns the Harvester, Browns and Toby Carvery restaurant chains as well as pub chains All Bar One and O’Neill’s, was even more opaque about the source of its meats.

A spokesman said it had a ‘broad range of suppliers’ but declined to say how many were halal-certified.

Ascot racecourse said it was easier to store and cook only one type of meat. ‘All our chicken is halal. This is not advertised as the menus are kept as simple as possible,’ said a spokesman.

A Football Association spokesman confirmed: ‘All the beef, chicken and lamb sold at Wembley Stadium is halal which means a large proportion of the meat on offer to our customers falls into this category.’ Pork, which is ­forbidden to Muslims, is also served at the stadium.

Cheltenham College boarding school in Gloucestershire admitted: ‘We have not sent a letter, nor is there any note on menus that informs parents and pupils that the chicken served in the canteen is mostly halal.’

Marlborough College, in Wiltshire, admitted that while halal chicken is usually served only to Muslims, it had ‘occasionally’ served it to all pupils. The school refused to say whether parents and pupils had been informed.


Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, secretary of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, said: ‘I don’t object to people of different religious groups being catered for but it’s not something that should be imposed on everybody else.

'The vast majority of people in this country would not want meat of this origin. The outlets have a duty to let their customers know because some will object very strongly, not least because of the animal welfare implications of halal.’

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: ‘We suspected that meat killed by the halal and kosher methods was being used for general consumption but we never imagined it was so widespread. It is disgraceful that ­people aren’t being told if the food they are being served is from meat that has not been stunned prior to slaughter.’

In 2003, Government advisory body the Farm Animal Welfare Council published a report declaring that the halal method of killing ‘would inevit­ably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal’.

Experts who contributed to the report concluded that ‘such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes’.

Muslim leaders insist that animal welfare measures are observed during slaughter. Guidelines issued by the Islamic Cultural Centre in London state that ‘no stress or discomfort’ should be inflicted on the animal and that the knife must be sharp and clean.

Brutal reality of the ritual that allows animals to be slaughtered without being stunned first

More than 40 million cattle, calves and sheep and more than 850 million poultry are slaughtered every year in Britain.

The vast majority are stunned before slaughter but UK law allows the Jewish and Muslim communities to kill animals by religious methods without any form of stunning.

A number of requirements have been put in place, however, in an attempt to reduce animal suffering.

The rules state that the throat must be cut with one rapid, uninterrupted movement of the knife. Both carotid arteries and both jugular veins must be severed.

In addition, the knife must be inspected before each animal is slaughtered to ensure that it is of sufficient size and sharpness.

But welfare campaigners say the rules are not enough.

The Government’s independent advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, says sheep may lose consciousness within five to seven seconds of the cut.

But research has shown that some calves remain brain-responsive for up to two minutes. This is because the carotid arteries can contract after the cut has been made, effectively sealing the severed ends and maintaining blood pressure in the brain.

The RSPCA says all meat produced from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter should be clearly labelled so that it can be easily identified by consumers.

Sharia law states that the abattoir involved in the process must be under the ‘close and constant supervision’ of an Islamic religious organisation.

Under these rules, the cut must be made to the right side of the neck by cutting the two carotids, the two jugulars, the windpipe and the gullet, but without breaking the spinal cord.

The carcass must empty of blood and a specific time should be allowed until the animal ceases to move before the next stage of the production process – de-skinning and removing the internal organs – may begin.

Explore more:People: Heather Mills, Andrew Rosindell, Joanna Lumley Places: London, United Kingdom Organisations: Football Association.

 Print this article Read later Email to a friend Share this article: Twitter Digg it Newsvine Delicious MySpace Nowpublic Reddit Fark.

Comments (639)Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

Oh for heaven's sake. You've all been eating halal meat for years quite happily. Better boycott all New Zealand lamb as the entire industry there is slaughtered in accordance with Halal principles and has been for decades - hope that's not put you off your "traditional Sunday roast".

What do you think that you eat in your curries? What do you think that kebabs are made from? Even the ready meals that you buy are most likely manufactured from halal meat.

I doulbt that this will be published as whenever I post the truth on this subject the moderators block me!!

- Sarah, Warwickshire, 19/9/2010 13:05

Click to rate Rating 1517 Report abuse

Halal meat is one of many things the meat industry is hiding from us. It may be cruel but so are the current practices of the meat industry. Because of such a high demand for cheap meat by the British public, Animals are now battery farmed, kept in the dark 24/7, pumped full of chemicals to make them grow fast which causes them great agony, staff at slaughter houses are unvetted and get away with cruelty on a daily basis. The public need to stop acting like naive children; just eating whatever theyre given with no questions asked, and start researching and acting on news like this.

- jo, london, 19/9/2010 13:04

Click to rate Rating 2035 Report abuse


When travelling ask the plane to serve a special meal that is "Non Halal Beef or Chicken"

Enough people doing this will make the airlines realise it costs more to serve the majority than the minority.

- Warrior, London, 19/9/2010 12:46

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313303/Britain-goes-halal---tells-public.html#ixzz13fUmNGtd

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

My proposals for constitutional reform

Party leadership

There should be a separation of powers as between the party leader (currently known as the national chairman) and a new post of party chairman.

The party leader would, as at present, remain responsible for policy, as well as the organization of the voluntary party. The party chairman would be responsible for the administration of the party's salaried staff, contractors, and agency staff, if any, including their training, promotion, and the hiring and firing of same.

Both the party chairman and the national treasurer should be elected annually, for the term of one year, at the party conference in the autumn. Incumbents may seek re-election for a further term each year at the annual conference.

In exceptional circumstances the party leader would have the right to dismiss either the party chairman or the national treasurer. However, in order to do so he would need to obtain a two-thirds' majority vote in favour of doing so at a meeting of the advisory council, which would itself need to be ratified by a two-thirds' majority vote at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), convened specifically to decide on the validity of the party leader's actions. If the leader failed to obtain a two-thirds' majority vote at the EGM a leadership election would automatically be triggered, to be held within ninety days.

Advisory council

The party leader, party chairman, national treasurer, and each of the party's twelve regional organizers are ex officio members of the advisory council. Other members may be co-opted, ie, elected by the votes of the existing members of the council, as the need arises. The advisory council, convened by the leader, must meet at least three times a year. Its quorum should be six. The leader will normally chair meetings of the council, and in the absence of the leader, the party chairman. In the event of a tied vote whoever is chairing the meeting is entitled to a casting vote.

An EGM may be convened either by the leader or by a two-thirds' majority vote in favour, even without the support of the leader.

Annual conference

Every member of the party has the right to attend and to vote. Any member attending has the right to run for the office of either party chairman or national treasurer. In case of demand for places outstripping the number of places available, these are to be allocated on a first come, first served basis.

Leadership elections

Any member with at least five years' continuous membership of the party may run for the office of party leader.

Ten nominations are required from fully paid up members as at 1 June in any year, regardless of length of party membership. Downloadable nomination form to be provided on party web site, failing which, by 1 July, candidates may create and use their own forms. A deposit of five hundred pounds to be required from each candidate, returnable on their securing at least five per cent of the total votes cast.

Categories of membership

The categories of voting member, founding member, probationary member, and member with at least two years' continuous membership of the party, are to be abolished. No further life memberships are to be created. No-one is to be permitted to become, or remain, a member of the BNP who is at the same time also a member of another political party. We want no divided loyalties or conflicts of interest in the BNP, ever again.

Employment by the party

Anyone employed as an employee by the party must be given a written contract of employment, and written terms and conditions of employment. No-one who is not a member of the party may be employed as an employee by the party. No external contractor, as opposed to employee, is to have any control over the party's financial management or administration.

The party constitution

The constitution has been changed far too much, and too often, over the last ten years. It has been, and is, too easy for the party leader to change the constitution. In future, for the constitution to be altered, a two-thirds' majority in favour of a specific proposed amendment should be required, at either the party's annual conference or an EGM. This should apply to all parts of the constitution. The distinction between "write-protected" and "non-write-protected" parts of the constitution should be abolished.

The constitution should be much shorter than it is at present, and should also be much more accessible to members in other ways. It should be easily downloadable from the party web site, without a password, for example, and printed copies should be available for purchase at a nominal price at local unit meetings.

Monday, 11 October 2010

Love of money: the root of all evil


Hello Everybody!

A longstanding nationalist friend in the British National Party — whose father I met through the National Front during the 1970s and who is still a friend today — has sent me, without comment, a bulletin issued by BNP chairman Nick Gri££in. This is the header of the document:

From: Chairman Nick Griffin MEP

Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 19:00

To: [deleted]

Subject: Financial Scrutiny Committee Interim Report

BNP’s Financial Scrutiny Committee Issues Interim Report


If anybody would like me to send them the full text of this — or any other document I mention — they have only to ask. Since I was sent the bulletin without comment, I presume I was being invited to comment. This I now do:

An amplification of the Gri££in statement (obviously also written by him) has been posted on the BNP web site which you may care to read.


BNP News – Monday 4th October 2010

BNP’s Financial Scrutiny Committee Issues Interim Report

The British National Party’s Financial Scrutiny Committee (FSC) has issued its first interim report in which it declares that it has found no evidence to support any rumours or allegations of financial impropriety, as claimed by critics of the party’s leadership.


When you’ve done that and finished belly-laughing, you might care to ponder the possibility of anybody giving credibility to the report of a panel appointed by Gri££in, set up to investigate allegations against him of financial skulduggery, which, within a few weeks determined that Gri££in and his pal Jim Dow$on are innocent of all wrongdoing!

There are number of points to be raised about all this:



How would the public and the media have reacted if, when the Parliamentary Expenses row erupted last year, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, announced that he had set up a panel of MPs, appointed exclusively by himself, to investigate the matter?

There would have been uproar. Such a procedure would never even have been tolerated (even if contemplated by Speaker Martin) and, as we know, that luxury-loving expenses addict was forced to resign his office as a result of his efforts to hide from the public information about how he and his fellow MPs pigged-out at the public money trough.

But Gri££in not only contemplated setting up just such a squalid and cynical whitewash of his financial shenanigans, he brazenly went ahead and perpetrated just such a scheme because he knows that his remaining rank-and-file membership is composed for the most part of ignoramus newcomers to the nationalist cause — plus a few sad old hands for whom the party is their sole social outlet.



How many of the members of this panel are qualified as Auditors with specialist skills in the area of ‘forensic’ analysis of accounts?

Why were the party’s independent professional Auditors not appointed to perform this task? Auditors are trained to know what to look for and are required by law not to publish any financial report which is to the slightest degree “economical with the truth”. But 80 per cent of his lumpen membership would be quite unaware of all this, as he knows all too well.

If Gri££in really wanted to clear his name and restore the credibility of his party’s Treasury, this would have been his obvious and only route. A man who knew that he and his close associates were entirely innocent of any financial wrongdoing and who valued his integrity as his No. 1 political asset would have taken that course.



Year after year, even with the services of professional independent auditors, the BNP has always been late with the presentation of its annual accounts to the Electoral Commission, which is a statutory obligation. Parties are allowed several months from the end of the year concerned to present their accounts to the EC.

Getting the accounts prepared, submitted to independent Auditors and then presented to the EC should not be a problem for a small party which employs a full-time salaried National Treasurer who can call on the assistance of other full-time salaried party employees — to say nothing of Gri££in’s Chartered Accountant father, Edgar.

Yet year after year, the BNP gets its accounts to its Auditors late and/or the Auditors have been unable to sign-off the books “as a true and fair account of the party’s financial affairs” and have had to call for further and better particulars — all of which means that the accounts have not arrived at the EC until one or two levels of fines have been imposed. These fines are met from the funds subscribed by members, not from Gri££in’s pocket.

In the light of this sustained record of chaos and incompetence:

How is it that a Gri££in-appointed panel of amateurs, not working on the project full-time and new to the party’s head office financial and administrative systems, were able to obtain, read and analyse three or more years' worth of accounts and associated paperwork and produce such an emphatic report about Gri££in’s and the BNP Treasury’s honesty within a few short weeks?


Why is Gri££in so keen on panels to sort out his financial messes? These have never vindicated his financial integrity, but with a party which has had such a ‘churn’ of membership, past fiascos are soon forgotten as there is always a new set of fresh trusting faces to con. Onwards and upwards to the next swindle!

• The “Collett Murder Plot” (in April this year)

Who has forgotten the excitement which enlivened the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in April this year? Gri££in announced that he had purged a key party official for involvement in a “murder conspiracy” against him. (So much has happened since then that this incident seems like years ago, doesn’t it?)

Gri££in identified the leader of this “conspiracy” as his former protégé and Head Office employee Mark Collett. Gri££in claimed to have a tape recording of a telephone conversation between Collett and BNP Treasurer Dave Hannam in which “Collett issued death threats” against himself and the Belfast ‘businessman’ Jim Dow$on. That tape, he said, had been given to the Police, who had arrested Collett.

Ever the ‘drama-queen’, Gri££in summoned a meeting of party officials to hear details of the affair. Fans of Orwell’s Animal Farm will recognise this meeting: the barnyard rally summoned by the chief pig Napoleon to notify the horrified lesser animals of the pig Snowball’s “treason” and resultant banishment.

Gri££in brought a copy of the “incriminating” tape to the meeting, and discussed it. But instead of playing the tape to the entire assembly, he selected a panel of three or four reliably gullible sycophants (thrilled to have half an hour’s worth of ‘fame’) to hear it in a separate private room. They later returned to the meeting to announce that what they had heard did indeed support “....everything that Nick has said”.

Everybody waited with bated breath for the Humberside Police to bring charges against Collett. Meanwhile, under cover of the distraction provided by the crisis, Gri££in sacked several other senior paid party officials (including Eddy Butler, the party’s National Organiser) whose loyalty was in doubt.

In a matter of a couple of days, Collett was released from custody on Police bail and within a few more weeks it became obvious that no charges were to be preferred against him. The Police had abandoned the case and made no public statement. Nor did Gri££in.

Later, the reason for Collett’s release without charge became obvious. Police audio specialists had examined the tape and found that it was not the original tape, but an edited version. Tampered evidence is no evidence. Gri££in and Hannam were asked to provide the original complete version, but they did not do so. Without the original tape there was no case for Collett to answer.

You will guess that it was a copy of the edited version of the tape which Gri££in allowed the panel of officials to hear at last April’s meeting. This was (another) instance of Gri££in appointing a panel of dunderheads with a brief to produce a verdict on issues which reflected on his integrity, and providing the dunces with tampered, deceptive, useless ‘evidence’.

Why did Gri££in need to produce an edited version of the tape of Collett’s conversation with Hannam?

Perhaps because during the Collett/Hannam telephone conversation Collett made reference to the various shady deals Gri££in had made (especially in the area of printing work). Collett may have threatened to ‘go Queen's evidence’ on Gri££in if he persisted in the plan to take away the printing contracts from him (trading as Vanguard Productions) and to award them to Dowson. If the Police had heard all of Collett’s remarks they might have regarded them as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Gri££in.



Against this background of Gri££in’s willingness to give “evidence” which had been ‘edited’ (i.e. tampered-with) by him to investigatory panels appointed by him, we are entitled to greet with a hearty belly-laugh the statement issued by his ‘Financial Scrutiny Committee’ that it was given “....full access to all current financial records, both Central and Regional, and have conducted extensive checks.....”.

Further, we are entitled to regard with extreme scepticism the claim that the committee has been able to survey — let alone digest and form an opinion about — such a vast amount of material in the brief time that has elapsed since it was formed.

Hence, the Financial Scrutiny Committee’s “interim findings” are simply the outcome of yet another Gri££in swindle.


1) What is this “British National Party 2010”?

In recent bulletins I have drawn attention to:

• Gri££in’s attempt to drum-up ready cash from the BNP’s naïve membership by flogging off “Life Membership” of the party for £350 instead of at the previous rate of £500.

• His latest splurge of begging letters and e-mail bulletins are now sent out in the name of “British National Party 2010” — which would seem to indicate that either he.....

(a) has changed the name of the party without resort to any procedure set out in what the “British National Party” is pleased to call its “Constitution”; or,

(b) has set up a separate and parallel new party and is using “BNP” data and other resources to solicit funds for “BNP2010” from members of the “BNP” without notifying them of the change and the different entities involved; and,

(c) is lodging funds raised on this basis in bank accounts in the name of “BNP2010”, or in other bank accounts not known to the numerous creditors of that party; to the Electoral Commission; or to the “BNP” membership, who have ‘joint and several liability’ for its estimated £600,000+ debts.

If anybody has any information about “BNP 2010” I should be glad to have it.

2) Fund-raising by exploiting the suffering of our soldiers

Gri££in is now so desperate for ready cash that he has deployed the revolting device (in a bulletin dated 8 October 2010 19:00) of soliciting for donations under cover of a “Bring Our Boys Back Home From Afghanistan” campaign.

He wants £22,000 immediately. In the text equivalent of a huckster’s fairground shouting he yells:

“I am ready for the fight...ARE YOU WITH ME? I am depending on you to dig deep and make the biggest sacrifice you can.....”

I doubt if the income from that appeal will be distinguished in the BNP accounts from income generated by any of the other sickening and cynical twice-a-week begging letters Gri££in issues via Dow$on.

The bulletin makes no mention of a separate bank account having been set up for the campaign, so the money, for all of Gri££in’s ‘patriotic’ verbal flag-wagging, will be spent on the party’s general purposes. This is more-or-less admitted within the bulletin itself. I quote:

“.... software and online packages for our Communications Departmen [that’s Dow$on] to launch an ambitious campaign of online targeting of special interest groups.... a large series of direct mail shots [that’s Dow$on] in the post to MPs, councillors, journalists, and other ‘opinion formers’.... to staff and finance a whirlwind tour of the United Kingdom using our own bought and paid for advertising lorry, the ‘Truth Truck’ [that’s Dow$on’s].... to write to everyone [that’s Dow$on again] who has already signed our petition in our target seats.... We’ll be thanking them for doing so and inviting them to local social evenings. This voter targeting will give us a head start in future elections. ....”

But of course, all that is bullshit. The funds which come in to the party will first and foremost have to be allocated to paying off the party’s huge debt burden which, as I have mentioned, is in the region of £600,000 — and rising.

If anybody would like to have the full text of that revolting bulletin, which seeks to trade on the suffering of our soldiers and their families, then e-mail me with your request — but have a sick-bag handy.

3) “I look up to him, but I look down on him....”

Now, on a slightly lighter note, I draw attention to Gri££in’s 6th October 2010 bulletin headed:

“BNP Conference 2010 – Moving Forward Together”.

The tone and political utility of the event can be judged by the second paragraph:

“This year’s conference, unlike previous events, is going to be a spectacular combination of political speeches, audio-visual displays, training, policy debates, stalls and entertainment, all within a four star venue complete with restaurant, bar and a whole range of suitable accommodation to fit your needs!”

Way down the bulletin there is a sentence which reads:

“This year's Conference is open to all members of the party - but only Voting Members (2 years continuous membership and other qualifications) may vote on the policy and constitutional debates and amendments.”

But there is no mention of the means whereby “qualified” members may submit resolutions. How can a party have “policy debates” if members are not informed of the means whereby they may submit resolutions? Clearly the resolutions at this conference, if there are any, will be anodyne or sycophantic and will have been drafted by Gri££in himself or members of his coterie.

Membership-proposed resolutions at AGMs are common in all democratic mainstream parties. They were certainly the main feature of National Front AGMs from 1969 to 1983. Tyndall hated the arrangement, especially since the NF membership in 1979 voted down his proposal for a tyrannical Füherprinzip constitution.

But Tyndall’s ‘constitution’ did not die in 1979. He used it to form the BNP in 1982 with the support of, among others, Eddy Butler. Its corruption-facilitating provisions have subsequently been tweaked by Gri££in without any demur from Butler — at least, until he was purged from the party’s paid employment last April. Since then he has become most keen on a fair constitution and natural justice!

The “whole range of suitable accommodation to fit your needs” was the bit in the conference bulletin attracted my attention since that is the aspect which dominates the document.

As every with Gri££in / Dow$on bulletins, the emphasis is on money-making and merchandising. I have no doubt that they have done a deal with a hotel and nearby B&Bs and that all the prices quoted contain a hefty Gri££in / Dow$on mark-up — just like the literature they produce, with members’ money, for sale to the members.

The membership are being required to categorise themselves upon a cash basis.

Two nights accommodation at the ‘conference’ is divided between “Platinum” (£189 single / £299 twin); “Gold” (£169/£279); “Silver” (£129/£229) and “Brons” — correction! — “Bronze” (£89/£149).

Wot? No “Tin”?

No — but there’s a “Day Rate” of £35 per person per day, which covers “entrance to Conference”, lunch and tea/coffee. So if you’ve paid your membership subscription for years past and have donated regularly, but have suddenly fallen on hard times and can’t afford the £70, then you can’t attend the conference. What a bargain, already! Entry to the conference should be the absolute right of all members whose subscriptions are up to date. It was thus in the NF.

Perhaps the ‘Day-Raters’ will be provided with use of a nearby field (£10 a night per person) in which to pitch their tents. (N.B.: Use of hotel lavatories extra: £1 per person per flush.)

The whole delightful affair will be rounded off with a “Christmas Ball” at £45 (which I presume is “per person”). Gri££in will appear as Santa at this and will be available to parents of young children interested in buying some some lovely presents at never-to-be-repeated discounts.

Will “Bronze” category people be entitled to ask “Platinum” category people for a dance — or will invitations be at the sole discretion of the higher-category person, rather like in the Monty Python sketch involving John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett, in which the middle class character (Barker) declares: “I look up to him, but I look down on him....”

What a way to build party unity!

But of course, building party unit is not the object of the exercise. Building Nick Gri££in’s and Jim Dow$on’s bank accounts is the name of the game.

Martin Webster.

Friday, 8 October 2010

Conference 2010

Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze.

These are the various attendance packages available to those lucky members of the British National Party who have not yet been either expelled or suspended by deranged tyrant Griffin. Of course, nothing in life is certain and even if you have neither been suspended nor expelled there is still no guarantee that you will be admitted to any party meeting or other event, even if you produce your current party membership card.

No, Mr Griffin can always think up some pretext to deprive ordinary members of their rights. This one should be refused entry because "...they would be a divisive influence", that one because "...they might be attacked", the pretexts are as inexhaustible as they are mendacious, and self-serving.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention: Mr Griffin will shortly be announcing two further "attendance packages". One is to be called the Uranium option. It is to include everything already included in the Platinum package, but with a life membership of the party thrown in for good measure. The second new package is to be called the Copper package. This one cannot be booked in advance. It comes into effect when a party member has paid up front for one of the other packages but when they turn up at the entrance to the conference Mr Griffin decides that he does not want their company after all, and orders security to prevent their entry.

It's good to see that Mr Griffin is taking a leaf out of the Reform book, and going up-market this year. No swimming pool though it seems. Well, that fifth star is there for a reason.

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

What the Dickens?

The British National Party's Financial Scrutiny Committee's interim report bears comparison with those other Dickens' works of fiction, Great Expectations, Hard Times, Bleak House, The Old Curiosity Shop, and Oliver Twist, especially the latter.

The Financial Scrutiny Committee (FSC) was set up immediately after the sacking from the advisory council of former regional organizer Ken Booth, and others, whose only 'offence' had been to ask questions about the party's finances which Mr Griffin was either unable or unwilling to answer satisfactorily.

This was an inauspicious beginning for any financial scrutiny committee, the members of which could have been under no illusions as to their own fate should they too, "ask the wrong questions".

Let me ask a few.

Why has the interim report not been published in full on the party web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/?

Why have the party's annual accounts for both the Central Accounting Unit (CAU) and the Regional Accounting Unit (RAU), in respect of 2008, and previous years, not been published on the party web site?

Why have the 2009 accounts (both CAU and RAU) not yet been submitted to the Electoral Commission? Surely Mr Dickens, as a (former?) businessman, must be aware of the importance of meeting statutory dead-lines. If both sets of accounts (ie, both CAU and RAU) are not submitted to the Electoral Commission by close of business tomorrow (7 October 2010) they will be more than three months overdue, and the party will incur an increased fine of £1,000 in respect of the CAU and £250 in respect of the RAU.

"Small potatoes" Mr Griffin may say. Is it not this kind of negligent attitude that has brought the party into its current parlous condition? There is not, and can never be, any excuse for submitting accounts late to the Electoral Commission. "Every party submits accounts late" Mr Griffin may claim, but this is simply not true. This year every party bar three submitted their accounts to the Electoral Commission on time. The three were Sinn Fein, the Christian Party, and the British National Party. What company for us to keep! A party led by reformed terrorists, and one led by sanctimonious hypocrites (did not our Lord say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?)

Mr Griffin's careless attitude towards our members' money is an insult to all those patriotic pensioners, and others, who have donated so generously and selflessly to the BNP. It is treating them with contempt needlessly to incur fines and penalties for the late submission of accounts.

Did the party have a full-time national treasurer, and did he receive a salary for his work? Yes? Then what possible excuse can there be for the late submission of accounts? Does the party currently employ a full-time national treasurer? No? Then why did Mr Dickens and his colleagues on the FSC not recommend that the party appoint and employ one? They might also have recommended that the person specification for the job should include a statement to the effect that the successful applicant will "...probably have prior experience of the preparation of final accounts from incomplete records". It should certainly not state that "Of prime importance is to know on which side one's bread is buttered, as well as the ability to operate a hidden tape-recorder unobtrusively with one hand".

Get those accounts in, pronto! What the Dickens do you think you're playing at!

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Statement by Leadership Reform, the management committee of BNP Reform

Seven loyal and hard-working members of the British National Party have been unjustly expelled from the party since Eddy Butler announced his candidature for national chairman of the BNP.

They are: Richard Barnbrook, Simon Bennett, Mark Collett, James Fitton, Peter Mullins, Colin Poulter, and Peter Stafford.

A further nineteen members have been, and remain, suspended. One member has had his suspension lifted.

In view of the fact that the disputes and disciplinary procedure of the BNP is now notoriously corrupt, and has been abused by the party leadership, it is resolved that:-

1) every member who has been either suspended or expelled since 1 June 2010 should demand their constitutional right to a disciplinary tribunal without further delay.

2) if any penalty is imposed on any of the aforementioned members by a disciplinary tribunal, whether this be expulsion, proscription, or any lesser penalty, such penalty is to be deemed null and void for corruption. Any member so disciplined will continue to be entitled to exercise every right of party membership, and supporters of BNP Reform shall continue to co-operate and associate with them as if no penalty had been imposed.

3) the next leader of the party shall be expected retrospectively to annul the penalties corruptly imposed since 1 June 2010 by the current leadership of the party, as their first official act on taking office.

LEX INJUSTA NON EST LEX: an unjust law is not a law.


Friday, 1 October 2010

Where's my Identity?

Where's my Identity?

No, this is not a plaintive cry of existential angst from the best and bravest of the British National Party as they are purged by the deranged tyrant, and party wrecker, Griffin.

No, this is a straightforward question many BNP members must be whispering to each other, since the third (or is it the second?) issue of this quarterly magazine of the party is long overdue.

Perhaps its editor, veteran nationalist John Bean can enlighten us.

Surely with all the millions raised by Mr Dowson from the party's trusting donors the BNP can afford to publish it. But then again perhaps it is the cost of the postage and packing that is the problem. Could not Clan Griffin and Clan Dowson both have a whip-round amongst THEIR members, and raise the wherewithal for the cost of the postage? It would seem only fair, since both families have done so very well financially out of the poor, debt-ridden, BNP.

"BNP Magazine: Identity

"Identity is the quarterly magazine of the British National Party. It is packed with articles, news and ideological discussion. Fill out the form below to subscribe:

"PLEASE NOTE: Identity is free to all BNP members as part of their membership package."

The foregoing is an extract from Identity's blurb on the BNP web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/.

Readers will note that it clearly states that "Identity is free to all BNP members as part of their membership package".

Now this raises an interesting question: if the party cannot afford both to publish and post four issues of the magazine to its members during 2010, having taken their annual subscriptions on the understanding that they would receive a "free" copy each quarter, what does it, or more accurately its 'leadership' propose to do about it?

Surely the only right, the only ethical, course of action is to return to each of the party's ten thousand or so members, that proportion of their membership subscription which is attributable to the receipt of two (or is it three?) copies of the quarterly magazine.

Since this is the only ethical course of action it stands to reason that Mr Griffin is most unlikely to follow it. From his misconduct one may easily infer that he believes Ethics to be one of the Home Counties.

Anyway, what a brilliant idea it was of Mr Dowson's: to change Identity from a subscription journal to a free give-away to BNP members, "as part of their membership package". I wonder how many new members the party recruited on the promise of four "free", fun-filled issues of Identity "packed with...ideological discussion"?

Hats off to the wee man! Oh, and hats off to the tin-god Griffin for accepting his truly inspired proposal. Your man's an "industry expert", and no mistake!