Create your badge
Saturday 31 July 2010
Thursday 29 July 2010
More false promises = more leadership betrayal
"Regulatory Action
"The following two parties failed to submit their accounts to the Commission.
"The British National Party
"Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”
"The British National Party’s Regional Accounting Unit also failed to submit their accounts to the Commission.
"The SDLP Assembly Group accounting unit submitted accounts before the deadline, but failed to include an auditor’s report for their accounts as required by law; accordingly their accounts are considered to be late and are still outstanding.
"For late submission of their statements of accounts the parties will be fined a minimum of £500 and the accounting units will be fined a minimum £100. This figure will increase if the accounts are more than three months late."
The foregoing was published on the Electoral Commission's web site today, Thursday, 29 July 2010.
It means that yet again the British National Party, under the "leadership" of Mr Nick Griffin, has been made an object of public scorn. It means that the party donors' hard-earned money is yet again to be fruitlessly squandered to pay fines levied by the Electoral Commission, an independent regulatory authority.
But it means more than this. It means that the following promises by Mr Dave Hannam to finally get his act together are demonstrably untrue.
This is what Mr Hannam wrote in an article published on the BNP web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, entitled "Treasury Report: High Turnover, Increased Financial Control and Regionalised Finances":-
"With these historical problems in mind, I took the decision to begin a fast implementation of new measures and controls. It has taken nearly a whole financial quarter to complete, but we are now in a position whereby we can ensure:
* Bookkeeping is maintained on a daily basis;
* All financial reports are available on a daily basis thus providing our fundraising consultant with fast and vital information;
* More in-depth quarterly reports are provided to the Advisory Council;
* All major expenditure is now strictly regulated; and
* All legally-required Statement of Accounts are submitted on time."
Evidently all legally-required statements of accounts are still not being submitted on time, are they Mr Hannam?
Furthermore, if the party employed a full-time national treasurer, who was being paid as such, I pose the question: why was book-keeping not already being maintained on a daily basis? Had no one thought that it might be a good idea for the full-time, salaried, national treasurer of the BNP do some work on the party's books on a daily basis, before Mr Hannam had his brainwave?
I note that the BNP's dubious 2008 accounts, the ones the independent auditors looked askance at, and that the Electoral Commission are currently investigating, are still not displayed prominently on the party web site. I challenge Messrs Griffin, Dowson, Kemp, and Hannam to publish them prominently there. Let our members see the figures, and the chairman's and auditors' reports; and when the 2009 accounts are eventually submitted to the Electoral Commission, publish them prominently on the party web site as well. Surely the members deserve at least this much openness from the leadership, do we not?
"The following two parties failed to submit their accounts to the Commission.
"The British National Party
"Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”
"The British National Party’s Regional Accounting Unit also failed to submit their accounts to the Commission.
"The SDLP Assembly Group accounting unit submitted accounts before the deadline, but failed to include an auditor’s report for their accounts as required by law; accordingly their accounts are considered to be late and are still outstanding.
"For late submission of their statements of accounts the parties will be fined a minimum of £500 and the accounting units will be fined a minimum £100. This figure will increase if the accounts are more than three months late."
The foregoing was published on the Electoral Commission's web site today, Thursday, 29 July 2010.
It means that yet again the British National Party, under the "leadership" of Mr Nick Griffin, has been made an object of public scorn. It means that the party donors' hard-earned money is yet again to be fruitlessly squandered to pay fines levied by the Electoral Commission, an independent regulatory authority.
But it means more than this. It means that the following promises by Mr Dave Hannam to finally get his act together are demonstrably untrue.
This is what Mr Hannam wrote in an article published on the BNP web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, entitled "Treasury Report: High Turnover, Increased Financial Control and Regionalised Finances":-
"With these historical problems in mind, I took the decision to begin a fast implementation of new measures and controls. It has taken nearly a whole financial quarter to complete, but we are now in a position whereby we can ensure:
* Bookkeeping is maintained on a daily basis;
* All financial reports are available on a daily basis thus providing our fundraising consultant with fast and vital information;
* More in-depth quarterly reports are provided to the Advisory Council;
* All major expenditure is now strictly regulated; and
* All legally-required Statement of Accounts are submitted on time."
Evidently all legally-required statements of accounts are still not being submitted on time, are they Mr Hannam?
Furthermore, if the party employed a full-time national treasurer, who was being paid as such, I pose the question: why was book-keeping not already being maintained on a daily basis? Had no one thought that it might be a good idea for the full-time, salaried, national treasurer of the BNP do some work on the party's books on a daily basis, before Mr Hannam had his brainwave?
I note that the BNP's dubious 2008 accounts, the ones the independent auditors looked askance at, and that the Electoral Commission are currently investigating, are still not displayed prominently on the party web site. I challenge Messrs Griffin, Dowson, Kemp, and Hannam to publish them prominently there. Let our members see the figures, and the chairman's and auditors' reports; and when the 2009 accounts are eventually submitted to the Electoral Commission, publish them prominently on the party web site as well. Surely the members deserve at least this much openness from the leadership, do we not?
Wednesday 28 July 2010
"We'll do better in future...honest"
"This also means we reject the attacks on the party's finances from outsiders, and deliberately placed insiders who have a job to try and cause as much disruption as possible.
"We are entering a period of unprecedented financial control and we will not allow anyone to steer us off-course."
The foregoing disgraceful attempt by Mr Hannam, the BNP's nominal treasurer, in an e-mail newsletter, to equate legitimate internal criticism and dissent, and a constitutional leadership challenge by BNP members, with 'sleepers', 'plants', and 'moles', whose 'job' it is "...to try and cause [sic] as much disruption as possible" is on a par with Mr Griffin's own recent reference to "time-wasting elections". Both show in just what contempt Griffin and his self-seeking hirelings hold the decent, honest, hard-working, and self-sacrificing ordinary members, and donors, of this party.
Not only is the intelligence of the latter insulted by this pernicious attempt to equate the exercise of the democratic right to call the leadership to an accounting for their stewardship of the party through an election, with imaginary subversion by unidentified internal enemies (the worn-out "Searchlight mole/MI5 agent" ploy), but also by the suggestion that the promises to do better in future would have been made at all had it not been for Eddy Butler's challenge, and the detailed exposure on his blog, http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/, of the corruption and incompetence that have been, and are, endemic in the party's leadership under Griffin.
Hannam's remarks are an admission that things have been very seriously wrong in the "treasury department", an admission which has only been extracted from him under the stress of a leadership election. Yet he has the gall to imply criticism of those courageous, and selfless, enough to mount, and support, such a challenge (in the full knowledge that they were likely to be unjustly victimized as a result) for causing "disruption". Given the corruption and incompetence of the Griffin "leadership" what need would the Establishment have for lowly-placed moles, plants or sleepers - when Griffin is doing their work of crippling, and destroying the BNP for them?
Griffin's subversion of the leadership nomination process through his invention of unconstitutional 'rules' designed to make impossible the already very difficult task of obtaining sufficient nominations by any of his would-be challengers, as well as the corrupt suspension of Eddy Butler's key supporters in the south east, including his campaign co-ordinator, Peter Phillips, and Dr Andrew Emerson, the author of this blog, are straight out of the North Korean Handbook on the Conduct of Democratic Elections - one of the world's shortest books. No doubt it has pride of place in Mr Griffin's private library.
Mr Griffin is a disgrace to all decent BNP members, and should hang his head in shame.
"We are entering a period of unprecedented financial control and we will not allow anyone to steer us off-course."
The foregoing disgraceful attempt by Mr Hannam, the BNP's nominal treasurer, in an e-mail newsletter, to equate legitimate internal criticism and dissent, and a constitutional leadership challenge by BNP members, with 'sleepers', 'plants', and 'moles', whose 'job' it is "...to try and cause [sic] as much disruption as possible" is on a par with Mr Griffin's own recent reference to "time-wasting elections". Both show in just what contempt Griffin and his self-seeking hirelings hold the decent, honest, hard-working, and self-sacrificing ordinary members, and donors, of this party.
Not only is the intelligence of the latter insulted by this pernicious attempt to equate the exercise of the democratic right to call the leadership to an accounting for their stewardship of the party through an election, with imaginary subversion by unidentified internal enemies (the worn-out "Searchlight mole/MI5 agent" ploy), but also by the suggestion that the promises to do better in future would have been made at all had it not been for Eddy Butler's challenge, and the detailed exposure on his blog, http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/, of the corruption and incompetence that have been, and are, endemic in the party's leadership under Griffin.
Hannam's remarks are an admission that things have been very seriously wrong in the "treasury department", an admission which has only been extracted from him under the stress of a leadership election. Yet he has the gall to imply criticism of those courageous, and selfless, enough to mount, and support, such a challenge (in the full knowledge that they were likely to be unjustly victimized as a result) for causing "disruption". Given the corruption and incompetence of the Griffin "leadership" what need would the Establishment have for lowly-placed moles, plants or sleepers - when Griffin is doing their work of crippling, and destroying the BNP for them?
Griffin's subversion of the leadership nomination process through his invention of unconstitutional 'rules' designed to make impossible the already very difficult task of obtaining sufficient nominations by any of his would-be challengers, as well as the corrupt suspension of Eddy Butler's key supporters in the south east, including his campaign co-ordinator, Peter Phillips, and Dr Andrew Emerson, the author of this blog, are straight out of the North Korean Handbook on the Conduct of Democratic Elections - one of the world's shortest books. No doubt it has pride of place in Mr Griffin's private library.
Mr Griffin is a disgrace to all decent BNP members, and should hang his head in shame.
Monday 26 July 2010
Act now to save the party!
The time for talking is over.
The time for action has arrived.
Under Griffin's appalling regime (one can hardly call it leadership) the BNP is sinking fast. The party is losing the light as Griffin's chickens come home to roost. The party cannot meet its debts, morale is at rock bottom, as are the few election results (few, because no BNP candidate = no BNP result). Meanwhile the debts keep mounting, as does the desperation of Griffin's underlings, at the tsunami of support for Eddy Butler's campaign for renewal and reform.
To do nothing is a 'cop out'. To save the BNP: sign and return Eddy's own white nomination form, to him, well before the 10 August deadline; and also sign, witness, and return the unconstitutional yellow nomination form, making clear your choice of Eddy as nominee, to Andrew Brons MEP, the scrutineer.
There are only two real choices: Eddy Butler, and a future for our party; OR any other candidate, including Griffin, and imminent financial collapse.
The time for action has arrived.
Under Griffin's appalling regime (one can hardly call it leadership) the BNP is sinking fast. The party is losing the light as Griffin's chickens come home to roost. The party cannot meet its debts, morale is at rock bottom, as are the few election results (few, because no BNP candidate = no BNP result). Meanwhile the debts keep mounting, as does the desperation of Griffin's underlings, at the tsunami of support for Eddy Butler's campaign for renewal and reform.
To do nothing is a 'cop out'. To save the BNP: sign and return Eddy's own white nomination form, to him, well before the 10 August deadline; and also sign, witness, and return the unconstitutional yellow nomination form, making clear your choice of Eddy as nominee, to Andrew Brons MEP, the scrutineer.
There are only two real choices: Eddy Butler, and a future for our party; OR any other candidate, including Griffin, and imminent financial collapse.
Saturday 24 July 2010
Four Candidates Declare for 2010 BNP Leadership Challenge
Four Candidates Declare for 2010 BNP Leadership Challenge
Why does the yellow nomination form only name one of the candidates, namely Mr Griffin, who does not need any nominations, rather than all three of the other candidates who do?
This unfairly favours Mr Griffin, the incumbent, and is clearly both unconstitutional and unlawful.
Why does the yellow nomination form only name one of the candidates, namely Mr Griffin, who does not need any nominations, rather than all three of the other candidates who do?
This unfairly favours Mr Griffin, the incumbent, and is clearly both unconstitutional and unlawful.
Friday 23 July 2010
All dressed up and nowhere to go
Mr Griffin's exclusion from the queen's garden party seemed to come as a great surprise to him.
It shouldn't have. You see, the Establishment watches our party very closely; and while I don't imagine that the queen reads Eddy's blog herself, (although she may - it's a good read), I do not doubt that her private secretary is kept informed of matters of domestic political interest of which the queen should be aware.
It will have been noticed that Mr Griffin was making great political capital out of his forthcoming garden party attendance. It will have been smiled at contemptuously, for the simple reason that IT HADN'T HAPPENED YET.
When is Mr Griffin ever going to learn not to count his chickens before they are hatched? When is he going to stop being so cocksure, and display some becoming humility, not to say common sense?
The Greeks have a good word for what ails Mr Griffin: HUBRIS. Perhaps Mr Griffin just doesn't get it but I believe most other people would. It's known as tempting fate.
It shouldn't have. You see, the Establishment watches our party very closely; and while I don't imagine that the queen reads Eddy's blog herself, (although she may - it's a good read), I do not doubt that her private secretary is kept informed of matters of domestic political interest of which the queen should be aware.
It will have been noticed that Mr Griffin was making great political capital out of his forthcoming garden party attendance. It will have been smiled at contemptuously, for the simple reason that IT HADN'T HAPPENED YET.
When is Mr Griffin ever going to learn not to count his chickens before they are hatched? When is he going to stop being so cocksure, and display some becoming humility, not to say common sense?
The Greeks have a good word for what ails Mr Griffin: HUBRIS. Perhaps Mr Griffin just doesn't get it but I believe most other people would. It's known as tempting fate.
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Wake up and smell the Java
Many BNP members may be surprised to learn that there is a leadership challenge. Although this is common knowledge amongst the party's activists, some Griffinite organizers are desperately trying to keep their local members in the dark about the latest party news.
I know of several units, many of whose members are not aware of the problems within the party, and whose organizer is still Griffinite. Unfortunately, many elderly members still have very limited access to the internet, through which they could find more democratic sources of information.
If you know of any fellow BNP members who are not yet aware of the party's leadership election, or its imminent financial insolvency, it is your duty to inform them. I also entreat you to download a hard copy of Eddy Butler's nomination form, and obtain as many signatures as possible of 24 month+ members, or alternatively, simply sign it yourself, and return it to the Waltham Cross PO box, as stated on the form, ensuring that it arrives well before 10 August deadline.
Signing this form does not mean that you will necessarily vote for Eddy, it merely states that you endorse the constitutional right of Eddy Butler to stand for election.
The yellow, "official", nomination form ( yellow was a very appropriate choice of colour) which Griffin has produced is grossly unfair to all of his challengers, but should nevertheless be completed, witnessed, and returned to Andrew Brons MEP, the scrutineer of the nominations.
Eddy calls on all BNP members who wish to nominate him to complete BOTH his own white nomination form, AS WELL AS the "official" yellow form which the party head office is sending out by post.
Under the corrupt and incompetent leadership of Griffin, the arch-factionalist and party-splitter, the result of the BNP leadership election's nomination process looks set to be the subject of yet another costly legal dispute, (it will have to join the queue), but then, strangely, in view of the desperate financial state of the party, which could result in its being wound up, this seems to be what Griffin wants. No doubt the man has his reasons - but he's keeping them to himself.
I know of several units, many of whose members are not aware of the problems within the party, and whose organizer is still Griffinite. Unfortunately, many elderly members still have very limited access to the internet, through which they could find more democratic sources of information.
If you know of any fellow BNP members who are not yet aware of the party's leadership election, or its imminent financial insolvency, it is your duty to inform them. I also entreat you to download a hard copy of Eddy Butler's nomination form, and obtain as many signatures as possible of 24 month+ members, or alternatively, simply sign it yourself, and return it to the Waltham Cross PO box, as stated on the form, ensuring that it arrives well before 10 August deadline.
Signing this form does not mean that you will necessarily vote for Eddy, it merely states that you endorse the constitutional right of Eddy Butler to stand for election.
The yellow, "official", nomination form ( yellow was a very appropriate choice of colour) which Griffin has produced is grossly unfair to all of his challengers, but should nevertheless be completed, witnessed, and returned to Andrew Brons MEP, the scrutineer of the nominations.
Eddy calls on all BNP members who wish to nominate him to complete BOTH his own white nomination form, AS WELL AS the "official" yellow form which the party head office is sending out by post.
Under the corrupt and incompetent leadership of Griffin, the arch-factionalist and party-splitter, the result of the BNP leadership election's nomination process looks set to be the subject of yet another costly legal dispute, (it will have to join the queue), but then, strangely, in view of the desperate financial state of the party, which could result in its being wound up, this seems to be what Griffin wants. No doubt the man has his reasons - but he's keeping them to himself.
Monday 19 July 2010
Eddy Butler's key supporters suspended today
Architect Peter Phillips, Eddy Butler's campaign co-ordinator, and Dr Andrew Emerson, writer and speaker in Eddy's campaign, were today suspended by the party's South East regional organizer. No explanation was provided, nor were any details of any alleged 'offences' given.
Dr Emerson has appealed against his arbitrary and unjust suspension, as has Peter Phillips against his.
This is a scandalous attempt by a corrupt and incompetent leadership to intimidate Eddy's key supporters into silence, in breach of the constitution of the party, (in particular its code of conduct), in the desperate hope that by attacking free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, British National Party members can be kept in the dark about the worsening financial state of the party, the looming crisis facing it, and the destruction of its morale through rule by 'court favourites', such as Messrs Dowson and Harrington, who are not even members of the BNP.
Well, this desperate strategy, intended to subvert the party's democratic process of a leadership election (whereby the members may call the leadership to account for its temporary stewardship of the party) will fail if every member sees it as their duty to acquaint themselves with the issues by visiting Eddy's blogspot http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/, and web site, and if possible, attending one of Eddy's campaign meetings, which are being held the length and breadth of the country over the next three weeks.
We fight on, and we dare all, so that a great land and a great nation may live again in splendour.
Dr Emerson has appealed against his arbitrary and unjust suspension, as has Peter Phillips against his.
This is a scandalous attempt by a corrupt and incompetent leadership to intimidate Eddy's key supporters into silence, in breach of the constitution of the party, (in particular its code of conduct), in the desperate hope that by attacking free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, British National Party members can be kept in the dark about the worsening financial state of the party, the looming crisis facing it, and the destruction of its morale through rule by 'court favourites', such as Messrs Dowson and Harrington, who are not even members of the BNP.
Well, this desperate strategy, intended to subvert the party's democratic process of a leadership election (whereby the members may call the leadership to account for its temporary stewardship of the party) will fail if every member sees it as their duty to acquaint themselves with the issues by visiting Eddy's blogspot http://www.eddybutler.blogspot.com/, and web site, and if possible, attending one of Eddy's campaign meetings, which are being held the length and breadth of the country over the next three weeks.
We fight on, and we dare all, so that a great land and a great nation may live again in splendour.
Friday 16 July 2010
Griffin is only economical with the truth
"Q: Are the fees justified?
"A:There has been a lot of hype and downright lies about the fees paid to the Midas Consultancy (Richard Edmond's farcical statement being a recent example) and there is a need to put these fees in perspective. Firstly, in reality the Midas involvement with the BNP doesn't cost us a penny because Midas only takes a fee from funds that we would never have seen anyway without the fundraising techniques and methods of the Midas Consultancy. Secondly, in exchange for fees of £165,000 over two years, Midas has generated a fundraising income for the BNP of 2.3 million - and saved us over £156,000 through their procurement techniques and expertise. Not a bad deal by any yardstick! Let us also remember that Midas came on board with a one off goodwill appeal for us that netted the party £136,000 in December 2007 and January 2008. How many people have ever done that for us before? The Midas fees, originally 7.5% of funds raised, were later capped at a flat fee which equated to less than the percentage, and this fee is significantly less than the industry average for such a service."
The foregoing extract from the latest "Chairman's Update" e-mail newsletter contains not only errors of fact, eg, Richard Edmonds' surname is not Edmond, but also fallacious logic. Moreover, that gentleman is not in the habit of telling lies, nor is he given to hyperbole, unlike Mr Griffin. Wherein is Richard Edmonds' statement factually incorrect? Mr Griffin does not say. Odd, you may well think, that he fails to substantiate his disgraceful allegation of "...hype and downright lies..." against his colleague on the party's Advisory Council - the highly respected veteran nationalist, and BNP activist, Mr Richard Edmonds.
According to Mr Griffin (I am assuming that he wrote it, rather than Mr Dowson, since it is above his facsimile signature) the services of Midas Consultancy cost the party nothing, because the income it is responsible for generating exceeds the size of the fee it takes. This is a piece of flawed logic that most five- year-olds would have no trouble nailing in ten seconds flat. It ignores the most basic economic concept of "opportunity cost", ie, the notional cost of doing one thing rather than another when it is not possible to do both at the same time. Thus, the BNP could have been self-sufficient (I seem to recall that we recommend this for the national economy) and "upped its game", to use Griffinspeak, by using the talents of its own members to revamp its fundraising operations (perhaps with some short-term consultancy input,) and then "rolled out" the new operation over the last two years, cutting out the middleman, and saving both the party, as a corporate entity, and its members, an absolute fortune. Instead of which the party, while unable to meet its staff wages' bill for last month (yes - we're that hard up) has no doubt made Mr Dowson a very wealthy man.
Mr Griffin claims that Midas' fees are "...£165,000 over two years..." Shouldn't that be £162,000 each year - in other words: £324,000 over two years? The latter figure is exactly what Richard Edmonds states that Mr Dowson told him he received in fees.
As for the initial "freebie" offered by Midas in December 2007: surely Mr Griffin has heard of the saying "a sprat to catch a mackerel". Yes, Mr Griffin, you swallowed the line but it was the BNP that got hooked.
"A:There has been a lot of hype and downright lies about the fees paid to the Midas Consultancy (Richard Edmond's farcical statement being a recent example) and there is a need to put these fees in perspective. Firstly, in reality the Midas involvement with the BNP doesn't cost us a penny because Midas only takes a fee from funds that we would never have seen anyway without the fundraising techniques and methods of the Midas Consultancy. Secondly, in exchange for fees of £165,000 over two years, Midas has generated a fundraising income for the BNP of 2.3 million - and saved us over £156,000 through their procurement techniques and expertise. Not a bad deal by any yardstick! Let us also remember that Midas came on board with a one off goodwill appeal for us that netted the party £136,000 in December 2007 and January 2008. How many people have ever done that for us before? The Midas fees, originally 7.5% of funds raised, were later capped at a flat fee which equated to less than the percentage, and this fee is significantly less than the industry average for such a service."
The foregoing extract from the latest "Chairman's Update" e-mail newsletter contains not only errors of fact, eg, Richard Edmonds' surname is not Edmond, but also fallacious logic. Moreover, that gentleman is not in the habit of telling lies, nor is he given to hyperbole, unlike Mr Griffin. Wherein is Richard Edmonds' statement factually incorrect? Mr Griffin does not say. Odd, you may well think, that he fails to substantiate his disgraceful allegation of "...hype and downright lies..." against his colleague on the party's Advisory Council - the highly respected veteran nationalist, and BNP activist, Mr Richard Edmonds.
According to Mr Griffin (I am assuming that he wrote it, rather than Mr Dowson, since it is above his facsimile signature) the services of Midas Consultancy cost the party nothing, because the income it is responsible for generating exceeds the size of the fee it takes. This is a piece of flawed logic that most five- year-olds would have no trouble nailing in ten seconds flat. It ignores the most basic economic concept of "opportunity cost", ie, the notional cost of doing one thing rather than another when it is not possible to do both at the same time. Thus, the BNP could have been self-sufficient (I seem to recall that we recommend this for the national economy) and "upped its game", to use Griffinspeak, by using the talents of its own members to revamp its fundraising operations (perhaps with some short-term consultancy input,) and then "rolled out" the new operation over the last two years, cutting out the middleman, and saving both the party, as a corporate entity, and its members, an absolute fortune. Instead of which the party, while unable to meet its staff wages' bill for last month (yes - we're that hard up) has no doubt made Mr Dowson a very wealthy man.
Mr Griffin claims that Midas' fees are "...£165,000 over two years..." Shouldn't that be £162,000 each year - in other words: £324,000 over two years? The latter figure is exactly what Richard Edmonds states that Mr Dowson told him he received in fees.
As for the initial "freebie" offered by Midas in December 2007: surely Mr Griffin has heard of the saying "a sprat to catch a mackerel". Yes, Mr Griffin, you swallowed the line but it was the BNP that got hooked.
Statement by Michaela Mackenzie
At long last, and after a gruelling year of delay, avoidance, non-cooperation and obfuscation from Nick Griffin, the day of my employment tribunal for unfair dismissal finally arrived, although not without a last desperate, oily attempt to extricate himself , however temporarily.
Six days before we were to appear in the Bristol Tribunal Court, Griffin requested an adjournment on the grounds that he had recently undergone a minor throat operation on 28th May and had been issued with a doctor’s certificate until 12th June. Unfortunately this wasn’t quite long enough to carry him past the scheduled tribunal dates of 15/16/17 June, so he pleaded that he ‘fully expected’ to be issued with a further sick note. He also claimed that he had been advised not to go out in public ‘for fear of infection’. Unhappily for him, he had held a party the previous weekend and had also been dumb enough to allow himself to be filmed by BNPtv at a meeting in Stroud on Wednesday 9th for all to see. The judge refused his request for adjournment.
Undaunted, Griffin made a second plea 2 days later, still citing that he mustn’t go out in public ‘for fear of infection’. Somehow, this didn’t seem to tally with his jolly tweet that preparations for the Trafalgar Club dinner were in full swing, an event to be held in a tent in his garden, drinks at 7, dinner at 8. This was followed by a BNPtv video of him surrounded by TC members who looked pretty hacked off that he’d been so lacking in foresight as to plan the event on the very night of England’s first World Cup match. Not surprisingly, the judge denied his second request, having been acquainted of his multiple public appearances whilst claiming that he was in ‘isolation’. Thus, when Griffin took the stand, Bible in hand and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the judges knew he had already lied to them.
It was obvious from the outset that Griffin really didn’t want this tribunal to go ahead. He wasted the entire first morning of the hearing in sending his very expensive barrister scuttling back and forth like an errand boy to make a series of derisory settlement offers, which were rejected out of hand.
The hearing then began on the judge’s insistence at 1.30pm with an immediate admission from Griffin’s barrister that I had, without question, been unfairly dismissed, procedurally. In layman’s terms, Griffin was admitting that he had not followed the correct procedures under employment law but that he still felt I’d ‘asked for it’. He then spent 3 hours on the stand venomously spouting the most ridiculous lies about me. Fortunately, my solicitor (I couldn’t afford a barrister since unlike Mr. Griffin I’m paying my own legal costs) had her wits about her and gave Griffin a very hard time indeed. This is the advantage of hiring an employment law specialist rather than the conveyancing specialist who had ‘prepared’ Griffin’s case.
On being questioned about the role of Adlorries, Griffin told the court that it had been set up specifically so that the party could transact business since mainstream banks and other suppliers would have nothing to do with the party. My solicitor then suggested that it must have been set up sometime after November 2007 since that was the date on Dowson’s contract. ‘Yes’ said Griffin. ‘Strange’ says my solicitor, ‘..because according to Companies House, Adlorries was registered in October 2004, a full 3 years before Dowson’s involvement with the party.’ Griffin’s face reddened, having been caught out fibbing.
He was also cross examined by the judge who really screwed him into the ground, consistently asking ‘Where is your evidence, Mr. Griffin?’ ‘When did this happen, Mr. Griffin?’, ‘Was this minuted, Mr. Griffin?’, ‘Who exactly told you this, Mr. Griffin?’ to which Griffin replied, ‘I don’t exactly recall’, ‘It must have been sometime in March or April, or even June’, ‘I heard it on the grapevine, the rumour mill, Jim Dowson must have told me’.
Nick Griffin couldn’t give a truthful or even credible answer to anything he was asked because he knew nothing other than the poison Dowson had poured into his ears and had not a single shred of evidence to support anything he said. Unfortunately for Griffin, the gospel according to the Rev. Jim Dowson doesn’t constitute evidence in a court of law. The more he was browbeaten the more vicious he became. At one point I actually thought he might leap across the courtroom to attack me, so frustrated was he. But then, given the sycophantic deference which Griffin has come to expect from his worshippers, I think it came as a devastating shock to him that the judge was totally indifferent to his ‘status’ and treated him as he would any other common or garden respondent being sued.
It should be a matter of interest to members that during the course of his cross examination about the anti abortion database sent to the Stroud office, Griffin said, in defence of Dowson, ‘Jim can hardly work a computer’ and only moments later, ‘Jim is a technical cretin’.
I almost laughed out loud at this description of the man Griffin has consistently touted as our ‘industry expert’ and whose ‘knowledge and skill’ has ‘transformed the party’.
One wonders whether he’d have been quite so uncomplimentary if Dowson had been present in court on that first day. This much is clear, however. Griffin has been lying to the members all along about Dowson’s ‘abilities’. I knew this. Donna and Lee Hancock knew this. Dowson knew we knew this, and it’s no doubt part of the reason he had to get rid of us.
One of the silliest allegations Griffin made was that, while I was very efficient when working from home, managing an office had proved beyond my capabilities. In front of the judges was my witness statement outlining that for 15 years I had managed 25 staff as a senior manager of a well known national publishing company. I think the judges had worked out for themselves that, had I been an incompetent manager, I would not have lasted 15 years in a highly professional and competitive organisation. In addition to this, I had submitted samples of over 60 e.mails from party members and staff attesting to my efficiency. One from Jim Dowson described me as a ‘true professional’ and another from Nick Griffin read, ‘I have the highest regard for your loyalty, work rate and administrative competence which is why you got the thankless task of bringing us firmly within the law on this issue (contracts) in the first place’.
It is incongruous, is it not, that Griffin then sacked me precisely for trying to keep the party within the law? Of course, keeping within the law is inconvenient for some people, as we’ve seen time and time again, at a crippling cost to members.
So ended the first day at 4.30pm. As we were about to leave I got the biggest surprise of the day. Griffin’s beleaguered barrister hastened along to say that Mr. Griffin would like to offer me full reinstatement to my job. At this point I knew that he was a very, very worried man. I thanked his barrister for the offer but asked him to tell Mr. Griffin that, following the lies and vitriol I had just heard directed at me in court, I was at a loss to understand why he would want to re-appoint such a compete incompetent onto his staff, and to forgive me if I was somewhat cynical of his motives.
Day two of the tribunal began with a ‘without prejudice’ doubling of the settlement offer made the previous day. This was politely declined. A further increased offer was made and again declined. It was, by then, obvious that Griffin was desperate to avoid Dowson having to take the stand that day, and even more desperate that neither I nor my witnesses should take the stand. He had read all our witness statements and didn’t want us to be heard, particularly as the press had now turned up. Another increased offer was made PLUS reinstatement to work part time from home. By now I was convinced that Griffin had a real problem in understanding why I wouldn’t want to come back and work for him. Despite assurances from Pat Harrington of Solidarity that Griffin genuinely wanted me back as my skills had been sorely missed, I’m afraid that I’m just not stupid enough or vain enough to fall for the blarney.
A further offer ensued with the admission that I had been unfairly dismissed both procedurally AND substantively. In other words they now admitted that I had not ‘asked for it’. I was also assured that the party would provide me with a ‘glowing reference’. My answer was that any reference from the party would be as valuable in finding a job as a reference from Osama bin Laden. Griffin’s brief was barely able to suppress his laughter.
Griffin’s barrister then approached my solicitor just 2 minutes before the tribunal was due to re-convene and told her that Mr. Griffin wanted to know what I would be prepared to settle for, to name my price. My solicitor was doubtful that they would accept what I asked for but I told her that it was a risk I was prepared to take and that if they refused then we would simply walk back into the court and have our say openly.
Griffin then made the only sensible decision of his life and completely caved in.
I was required to sign an undertaking that I would not ‘publish the terms of the settlement’ and I am prepared to abide by that, but I also insisted that the salacious lies written about me by the author of the misnamed BNP ‘Truth’ Chronicles , be removed immediately otherwise a libel suit would follow. By the time I reached home, all reference to me had been deleted. If members feel they have a right to know what Griffin’s folly and lack of judgement have cost them, I suggest, since he was the party’s representative in court and the person responsible for my dismissal, that they ask him directly.
What serious and responsible members now have to consider is whether a man who makes so many ill judged and rash decisions before considering all the possible consequences, is fit to be their leader or deserves their support. Donations have all but dried up due to the now endemic mistrust of Dowson and Griffin and their lack of financial transparency, and the party is on the brink of bankruptcy. It is very possible that the punitive damages awarded to Unilever for Griffin’s monumentally stupid use of their Marmite logo, will see the party fold.
If anything has become clear to me over the past year, it is that Griffin genuinely believes he is untouchable and above the law – in effect, a dictator.
No man can become a dictator of his own accord. Dictators are created by sychophants who have neither the will nor intelligence to exercise any independent discrimination or moral judgement upon the object of their idolatry, and by craven cowards who cave in to threats and intimidation. Dictators are very skilled at manipulating people, preying on their fears and emotions. One only has to listen to Griffin’s ‘passionate’ speeches or to read Dowson’s melodramatic appeal letters, to know that this is precisely what they are doing in order to prompt you to part with your hard earned cash. And it’s your hard earned cash that is being profligately wasted in defending the party against the expensive consequences of Griffin’s wanton spite and stupidity.
One wonders whether Mr. Griffin would exercise more reason and moderation were he obliged to fund his incessant court costs from his own wallet?
Griffinite members of the party must bear responsibility for what he has become. He is a monster of their own creation. For years they have fawned upon him, bloated his ego out of all proportion to reality, encouraged him to believe he can do no wrong and that he isn’t subject to the laws, restrictions and codes of morality that determine decent conduct for the rest of us mere mortals.
In this respect they do a great disservice to the nationalist cause by continuing to empower a tin pot dictator who will ultimately betray them, as he has betrayed so many good people. That is Griffin’s tragedy. As true nationalists, it is also ours.
I would wish to make it known that I did not proceed against Nick Griffin for monetary gain. I did so to strike back on behalf of all the good nationalists he has betrayed, sacked, suspended, expelled and ill used over many, many years. I did it to deter him from ever again wantonly depriving honest nationalists of their livelihoods and wrecking their lives in the process. I hope, for their sakes, that I’ve succeeded.
July 14th 2010
As a postscript to this statement, I am now able to inform you all that Mr. Nick Griffin MEP, who gave a signed undertaking in court in front of three tribunal judges, his own barrister, my solicitor, two of my witnesses and a journalist, to pay the agreed settlement by 14th July, has reneged on his word. Further legal proceedings against him, and other party officers, to recover the amount of the settlement have now begun.
Six days before we were to appear in the Bristol Tribunal Court, Griffin requested an adjournment on the grounds that he had recently undergone a minor throat operation on 28th May and had been issued with a doctor’s certificate until 12th June. Unfortunately this wasn’t quite long enough to carry him past the scheduled tribunal dates of 15/16/17 June, so he pleaded that he ‘fully expected’ to be issued with a further sick note. He also claimed that he had been advised not to go out in public ‘for fear of infection’. Unhappily for him, he had held a party the previous weekend and had also been dumb enough to allow himself to be filmed by BNPtv at a meeting in Stroud on Wednesday 9th for all to see. The judge refused his request for adjournment.
Undaunted, Griffin made a second plea 2 days later, still citing that he mustn’t go out in public ‘for fear of infection’. Somehow, this didn’t seem to tally with his jolly tweet that preparations for the Trafalgar Club dinner were in full swing, an event to be held in a tent in his garden, drinks at 7, dinner at 8. This was followed by a BNPtv video of him surrounded by TC members who looked pretty hacked off that he’d been so lacking in foresight as to plan the event on the very night of England’s first World Cup match. Not surprisingly, the judge denied his second request, having been acquainted of his multiple public appearances whilst claiming that he was in ‘isolation’. Thus, when Griffin took the stand, Bible in hand and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the judges knew he had already lied to them.
It was obvious from the outset that Griffin really didn’t want this tribunal to go ahead. He wasted the entire first morning of the hearing in sending his very expensive barrister scuttling back and forth like an errand boy to make a series of derisory settlement offers, which were rejected out of hand.
The hearing then began on the judge’s insistence at 1.30pm with an immediate admission from Griffin’s barrister that I had, without question, been unfairly dismissed, procedurally. In layman’s terms, Griffin was admitting that he had not followed the correct procedures under employment law but that he still felt I’d ‘asked for it’. He then spent 3 hours on the stand venomously spouting the most ridiculous lies about me. Fortunately, my solicitor (I couldn’t afford a barrister since unlike Mr. Griffin I’m paying my own legal costs) had her wits about her and gave Griffin a very hard time indeed. This is the advantage of hiring an employment law specialist rather than the conveyancing specialist who had ‘prepared’ Griffin’s case.
On being questioned about the role of Adlorries, Griffin told the court that it had been set up specifically so that the party could transact business since mainstream banks and other suppliers would have nothing to do with the party. My solicitor then suggested that it must have been set up sometime after November 2007 since that was the date on Dowson’s contract. ‘Yes’ said Griffin. ‘Strange’ says my solicitor, ‘..because according to Companies House, Adlorries was registered in October 2004, a full 3 years before Dowson’s involvement with the party.’ Griffin’s face reddened, having been caught out fibbing.
He was also cross examined by the judge who really screwed him into the ground, consistently asking ‘Where is your evidence, Mr. Griffin?’ ‘When did this happen, Mr. Griffin?’, ‘Was this minuted, Mr. Griffin?’, ‘Who exactly told you this, Mr. Griffin?’ to which Griffin replied, ‘I don’t exactly recall’, ‘It must have been sometime in March or April, or even June’, ‘I heard it on the grapevine, the rumour mill, Jim Dowson must have told me’.
Nick Griffin couldn’t give a truthful or even credible answer to anything he was asked because he knew nothing other than the poison Dowson had poured into his ears and had not a single shred of evidence to support anything he said. Unfortunately for Griffin, the gospel according to the Rev. Jim Dowson doesn’t constitute evidence in a court of law. The more he was browbeaten the more vicious he became. At one point I actually thought he might leap across the courtroom to attack me, so frustrated was he. But then, given the sycophantic deference which Griffin has come to expect from his worshippers, I think it came as a devastating shock to him that the judge was totally indifferent to his ‘status’ and treated him as he would any other common or garden respondent being sued.
It should be a matter of interest to members that during the course of his cross examination about the anti abortion database sent to the Stroud office, Griffin said, in defence of Dowson, ‘Jim can hardly work a computer’ and only moments later, ‘Jim is a technical cretin’.
I almost laughed out loud at this description of the man Griffin has consistently touted as our ‘industry expert’ and whose ‘knowledge and skill’ has ‘transformed the party’.
One wonders whether he’d have been quite so uncomplimentary if Dowson had been present in court on that first day. This much is clear, however. Griffin has been lying to the members all along about Dowson’s ‘abilities’. I knew this. Donna and Lee Hancock knew this. Dowson knew we knew this, and it’s no doubt part of the reason he had to get rid of us.
One of the silliest allegations Griffin made was that, while I was very efficient when working from home, managing an office had proved beyond my capabilities. In front of the judges was my witness statement outlining that for 15 years I had managed 25 staff as a senior manager of a well known national publishing company. I think the judges had worked out for themselves that, had I been an incompetent manager, I would not have lasted 15 years in a highly professional and competitive organisation. In addition to this, I had submitted samples of over 60 e.mails from party members and staff attesting to my efficiency. One from Jim Dowson described me as a ‘true professional’ and another from Nick Griffin read, ‘I have the highest regard for your loyalty, work rate and administrative competence which is why you got the thankless task of bringing us firmly within the law on this issue (contracts) in the first place’.
It is incongruous, is it not, that Griffin then sacked me precisely for trying to keep the party within the law? Of course, keeping within the law is inconvenient for some people, as we’ve seen time and time again, at a crippling cost to members.
So ended the first day at 4.30pm. As we were about to leave I got the biggest surprise of the day. Griffin’s beleaguered barrister hastened along to say that Mr. Griffin would like to offer me full reinstatement to my job. At this point I knew that he was a very, very worried man. I thanked his barrister for the offer but asked him to tell Mr. Griffin that, following the lies and vitriol I had just heard directed at me in court, I was at a loss to understand why he would want to re-appoint such a compete incompetent onto his staff, and to forgive me if I was somewhat cynical of his motives.
Day two of the tribunal began with a ‘without prejudice’ doubling of the settlement offer made the previous day. This was politely declined. A further increased offer was made and again declined. It was, by then, obvious that Griffin was desperate to avoid Dowson having to take the stand that day, and even more desperate that neither I nor my witnesses should take the stand. He had read all our witness statements and didn’t want us to be heard, particularly as the press had now turned up. Another increased offer was made PLUS reinstatement to work part time from home. By now I was convinced that Griffin had a real problem in understanding why I wouldn’t want to come back and work for him. Despite assurances from Pat Harrington of Solidarity that Griffin genuinely wanted me back as my skills had been sorely missed, I’m afraid that I’m just not stupid enough or vain enough to fall for the blarney.
A further offer ensued with the admission that I had been unfairly dismissed both procedurally AND substantively. In other words they now admitted that I had not ‘asked for it’. I was also assured that the party would provide me with a ‘glowing reference’. My answer was that any reference from the party would be as valuable in finding a job as a reference from Osama bin Laden. Griffin’s brief was barely able to suppress his laughter.
Griffin’s barrister then approached my solicitor just 2 minutes before the tribunal was due to re-convene and told her that Mr. Griffin wanted to know what I would be prepared to settle for, to name my price. My solicitor was doubtful that they would accept what I asked for but I told her that it was a risk I was prepared to take and that if they refused then we would simply walk back into the court and have our say openly.
Griffin then made the only sensible decision of his life and completely caved in.
I was required to sign an undertaking that I would not ‘publish the terms of the settlement’ and I am prepared to abide by that, but I also insisted that the salacious lies written about me by the author of the misnamed BNP ‘Truth’ Chronicles , be removed immediately otherwise a libel suit would follow. By the time I reached home, all reference to me had been deleted. If members feel they have a right to know what Griffin’s folly and lack of judgement have cost them, I suggest, since he was the party’s representative in court and the person responsible for my dismissal, that they ask him directly.
What serious and responsible members now have to consider is whether a man who makes so many ill judged and rash decisions before considering all the possible consequences, is fit to be their leader or deserves their support. Donations have all but dried up due to the now endemic mistrust of Dowson and Griffin and their lack of financial transparency, and the party is on the brink of bankruptcy. It is very possible that the punitive damages awarded to Unilever for Griffin’s monumentally stupid use of their Marmite logo, will see the party fold.
If anything has become clear to me over the past year, it is that Griffin genuinely believes he is untouchable and above the law – in effect, a dictator.
No man can become a dictator of his own accord. Dictators are created by sychophants who have neither the will nor intelligence to exercise any independent discrimination or moral judgement upon the object of their idolatry, and by craven cowards who cave in to threats and intimidation. Dictators are very skilled at manipulating people, preying on their fears and emotions. One only has to listen to Griffin’s ‘passionate’ speeches or to read Dowson’s melodramatic appeal letters, to know that this is precisely what they are doing in order to prompt you to part with your hard earned cash. And it’s your hard earned cash that is being profligately wasted in defending the party against the expensive consequences of Griffin’s wanton spite and stupidity.
One wonders whether Mr. Griffin would exercise more reason and moderation were he obliged to fund his incessant court costs from his own wallet?
Griffinite members of the party must bear responsibility for what he has become. He is a monster of their own creation. For years they have fawned upon him, bloated his ego out of all proportion to reality, encouraged him to believe he can do no wrong and that he isn’t subject to the laws, restrictions and codes of morality that determine decent conduct for the rest of us mere mortals.
In this respect they do a great disservice to the nationalist cause by continuing to empower a tin pot dictator who will ultimately betray them, as he has betrayed so many good people. That is Griffin’s tragedy. As true nationalists, it is also ours.
I would wish to make it known that I did not proceed against Nick Griffin for monetary gain. I did so to strike back on behalf of all the good nationalists he has betrayed, sacked, suspended, expelled and ill used over many, many years. I did it to deter him from ever again wantonly depriving honest nationalists of their livelihoods and wrecking their lives in the process. I hope, for their sakes, that I’ve succeeded.
July 14th 2010
As a postscript to this statement, I am now able to inform you all that Mr. Nick Griffin MEP, who gave a signed undertaking in court in front of three tribunal judges, his own barrister, my solicitor, two of my witnesses and a journalist, to pay the agreed settlement by 14th July, has reneged on his word. Further legal proceedings against him, and other party officers, to recover the amount of the settlement have now begun.
Friday 9 July 2010
Griffin's idea of leadership: no debate but plenty of vituperation.
"SOUTH EAST
"Andrew Emerson – the crank (a Doctor of Philosophy with a brilliant brain without an ounce of commonsense), whose contrary ways and oddball manner always make an entertaining spectacle at Annual Conference. Another long-term bachelor, but that may just be because he’s so strange."
This recent posting from the http://www.eddybutlerexposed.com/ web site, under the heading "Freak Show," deserves rebutment.
It really is a bit rich to be called a crank by a supporter of Nick Griffin's 'campaign' to remain leader. After all it is not I, Andrew Emerson, who used to deny the holocaust, but Nick Griffin - so who is the crank, eh? Nor was it I, but rather Mr Griffin, who led "the Political Soldiers" - the laughing-stock of 1980s' nationalism. Being called a crank by a Griffinite is rather like being called a war-monger by a supporter of Tony Blair. Where is the common sense in denying the holocaust, or in disbelieving that it actually happened, in spite of all the evidence?
As for allegedly being "strange": no doubt the decorum and courtesy of a gentlemanly demeanour may seem odd to an unmannerly oaf.
It's a great pity that neither Mr Griffin, nor his supporters, will debate in a civilized manner the vitally important issues that affect our party, and which Eddy Butler has articulated, and also that Mr Griffin chooses not to put a stop to the mud-slinging claptrap of the anonymous cyber-claque of his supporters, as he could so easily do, by publicly denouncing it.
The deactivation of the http://www.eddybutlerexposed.com/ web site, though welcome in itself, is not sufficient. Mr Griffin needs to dissociate himself from the filth by publicly condemning it; otherwise members, and the wider public, will draw the natural conclusion from his silence, namely that he connives at, and countenances it.
What more convincing proof that the party needs a new leader could anyone need than this craven silence on the part of Mr Griffin?
"Andrew Emerson – the crank (a Doctor of Philosophy with a brilliant brain without an ounce of commonsense), whose contrary ways and oddball manner always make an entertaining spectacle at Annual Conference. Another long-term bachelor, but that may just be because he’s so strange."
This recent posting from the http://www.eddybutlerexposed.com/ web site, under the heading "Freak Show," deserves rebutment.
It really is a bit rich to be called a crank by a supporter of Nick Griffin's 'campaign' to remain leader. After all it is not I, Andrew Emerson, who used to deny the holocaust, but Nick Griffin - so who is the crank, eh? Nor was it I, but rather Mr Griffin, who led "the Political Soldiers" - the laughing-stock of 1980s' nationalism. Being called a crank by a Griffinite is rather like being called a war-monger by a supporter of Tony Blair. Where is the common sense in denying the holocaust, or in disbelieving that it actually happened, in spite of all the evidence?
As for allegedly being "strange": no doubt the decorum and courtesy of a gentlemanly demeanour may seem odd to an unmannerly oaf.
It's a great pity that neither Mr Griffin, nor his supporters, will debate in a civilized manner the vitally important issues that affect our party, and which Eddy Butler has articulated, and also that Mr Griffin chooses not to put a stop to the mud-slinging claptrap of the anonymous cyber-claque of his supporters, as he could so easily do, by publicly denouncing it.
The deactivation of the http://www.eddybutlerexposed.com/ web site, though welcome in itself, is not sufficient. Mr Griffin needs to dissociate himself from the filth by publicly condemning it; otherwise members, and the wider public, will draw the natural conclusion from his silence, namely that he connives at, and countenances it.
What more convincing proof that the party needs a new leader could anyone need than this craven silence on the part of Mr Griffin?
Thursday 8 July 2010
The Need for a BNP Leadership election this year
Ours is a democratic party, and elections for the post of Party Chairman shall be held each year, as Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear.
This year, the long-standing member, Eddy Butler, our former very successful National Elections officer, is seeking to challenge for the leadership. And I, Richard Edmonds, a founder-member of the Party, and currently serving on the Party's Advisory Council, am supporting Eddy Butler's challenge, and for this reason: a leadership election, held under the rules of the Party Constitution, gives the members the opportunity to raise matters of major importance for our Party, and thereby in effect to hold the Leadership of the Party to account for their stewardship of the Party.
The matter that I want to see raised in this leadership election is the employment by our Party of an outside businessman, Mr Jim Dowson, who acts as a "consultant" to our Party at a salary of just under £2000 per week. Yes, just under TWO THOUSAND POUNDS each week.
At a recent Advisory Council meeting I spent a whole weekend in the company of Mr Jim Dowson, and I can say with all respect to him, that he is a forthright man, who answers all questions directly, without any fudge or smudge. At the Advisory Council meeting he confirmed to us that he was not a member of the Party, and he informed us that he receives £7,500 per month as a consultancy fee; that is £90,000 per year, just short of two thousand pounds per week, as his "consultancy" fee. Mr Dowson further informed us that he receives an additional £72,000 per year for managing a part of the internal administration of our Party. I will say here, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Mr Dowson does for our Party that we could not do for ourselves. And I say that it is a SCANDAL that an outside businessman be paid these colossal sums per week, and for doing what we could and should be properly doing ourselves. As I said to Mr Dowson at the Advisory Council meeting in front of the Party leadership, "Mr Dowson, we should not be employing you".
Eddy Butler's challenge is timely and most worthy. I hope that you will support it.
Richard Edmonds
This year, the long-standing member, Eddy Butler, our former very successful National Elections officer, is seeking to challenge for the leadership. And I, Richard Edmonds, a founder-member of the Party, and currently serving on the Party's Advisory Council, am supporting Eddy Butler's challenge, and for this reason: a leadership election, held under the rules of the Party Constitution, gives the members the opportunity to raise matters of major importance for our Party, and thereby in effect to hold the Leadership of the Party to account for their stewardship of the Party.
The matter that I want to see raised in this leadership election is the employment by our Party of an outside businessman, Mr Jim Dowson, who acts as a "consultant" to our Party at a salary of just under £2000 per week. Yes, just under TWO THOUSAND POUNDS each week.
At a recent Advisory Council meeting I spent a whole weekend in the company of Mr Jim Dowson, and I can say with all respect to him, that he is a forthright man, who answers all questions directly, without any fudge or smudge. At the Advisory Council meeting he confirmed to us that he was not a member of the Party, and he informed us that he receives £7,500 per month as a consultancy fee; that is £90,000 per year, just short of two thousand pounds per week, as his "consultancy" fee. Mr Dowson further informed us that he receives an additional £72,000 per year for managing a part of the internal administration of our Party. I will say here, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Mr Dowson does for our Party that we could not do for ourselves. And I say that it is a SCANDAL that an outside businessman be paid these colossal sums per week, and for doing what we could and should be properly doing ourselves. As I said to Mr Dowson at the Advisory Council meeting in front of the Party leadership, "Mr Dowson, we should not be employing you".
Eddy Butler's challenge is timely and most worthy. I hope that you will support it.
Richard Edmonds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
