The arrogance of this Jack-in-office!

The following is a public exchange of views between Dr Andrew Emerson and an anonymous poster with the user name "Together", which took place on the BNP sub-section of the discussion board, the British Democracy Forum, earlier today. There is some reason to believe that "Together" may be a senior officer of the British National Party.

"Together": When you joined the party you accepted its constitution and agreed to abide by it. Nick has done nothing more than to apply the constitution in the best interests of the party and its members and against interests inimical to the party and its membership. That is his duty.

If Nick had gone beyond his duty and had failed to observe the constitution then I'm sure somebody would have taken advantage of the slip to seek a legal judgement. That has not happened, because Nick has never stepped beyond the constitution.

Dr Emerson: At the time I joined the British National Party, in 2005, it had a democratic constitution.

Since that time, Griffin has progressively subverted, and perverted, the constitution, in order to usurp powers and authority to which he is not entitled. He has done this wicked thing, not in the interests of the BNP, or its members, as you disingenuously pretend, but in order to further what he, doubtless erroneously, perceives to be his own personal, and family, interests.

Furthermore, having hoodwinked the members into approving a vast extension of his powers, at the EGM in February 2010, under the imagined threat of dire consequences in the alternative, he has subsequently failed even to abide by the provisions of the 'dictator's charter' he foisted on the party at that meeting. The constitution made no mention of any of the unfair rules of procedure Griffin used in order to rig the nominations' process last year, and since the constitution was silent on the matter, established custom and practice should have been followed. Convention dictated that candidates should have been free, inter alia, to collect their own nominations, using their own nomination forms, as had been the practice in every previous nominations' process held by the party.

"...Nick [Griffin] has never stepped beyond the constitution", you say. I say that "Nick" has stepped so far beyond the constitution that he can barely see it in the distance. For your Nick, the constitution is a dot on the distant horizon.

The monstrously unjust, and corruptly oppressive, suspension, expulsion, and proscription, of Eddy Butler and most of his key supporters, including myself, without due process of natural justice, such as the prompt provision of particulars of the allegations against them, and a prompt tribunal hearing, is nothing less than disgraceful outrage. Even those few of Eddy's supporters who have had no formal action taken against them have had their rights trampled upon by having been turned away from party meetings, on the most fraudulent of pretexts, by this most depraved and degenerate of 'leaders', whose indefensible misbehaviour you purport to defend.

As for the absence of legal action to date over these issues: this proves nothing. Unlike Griffin, who shows an unhealthy fondness for litigation (at least when he is wasting members' money on it, rather than his own) some members of the party are reluctant to take their own party to court, from a sense of loyalty to the party.

Legal action may need to be taken over these matters eventually but sensible people, of goodwill, regard it as a last resort, rather than a first resort. This helps to explain why Griffin is such an inveterate litigant.