Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Sunday, 6 February 2011

An unjust 'expulsion' is nugatory

The following correspondence between Dr Andrew Emerson, and Mr Andrew McBride, the south east regional organizer of the British National Party, is an illustration of the way in which natural justice is flouted by the depraved degenerate, Griffin, and his corrupt creatures, of whom the aforementioned McBride is one.

--- On Mon, 24/1/11, Andrew Emerson wrote:

From: Andrew Emerson
Subject: Reminder of your failure to observe due process of natural justice
To: Andrew McBride southeast@bnp.org.uk
Cc: "Nick Griffin"
Date: Monday, 24 January, 2011, 19:48

Dear Mr McBride

I write in order to place on record the fact that despite your promise in your letter dated 10 January 2010 (copy enclosed, see below) that data regarding the allegations against me to be considered by the tribunal, would be sent to me by Royal Mail, I have received no such data from you.

Nor have you seen fit to reply in any way to my recusation of Ms Mozar as being unsuitable to participate in the tribunal proceedings, in view of her probable prejudice against me resulting from an earlier matter, unrelated to the present matter.

To provide, as you proposed to do, details of the allegations to be considered by the tribunal to the respondent, in this case myself, only on their arrival at the hearing itself, in order to ensure that they have no time available in which to acquaint themselves with the particulars of the allegations, let alone to prepare a defence, is a transparent ploy which is really almost unworthy even of you.

By your flouting of the due process of natural justice you have rendered your projected proceedings utterly worthless and nugatory.

Were I to attend, under the unfair liabilities which you have imposed upon me, viz, remaining in ignorance of exactly what it is that is alleged against me, and the clauses of the party constitution to which these allegations supposedly relate, and the participation in the proceedings of Ms Mozar, I should merely, by my presence, be lending a specious credibility to what is clearly, au fond, a profoundly flawed process for all of the reasons already stated.

Consequently, I put both you and Mr Griffin on notice that I shall not be attending the proceedings which you have arranged for 25 January 2011.

I should like you to understand that, notwithstanding your corrupt action against me, I still regard myself as a member of the British National Party, and shall conduct myself accordingly.

Yours faithfully

Dr A Emerson

--- On Wed, 12/1/11, Andrew Emerson wrote:

From: Andrew Emerson
Subject: Re: Hearing date programmed. Expulsion missive.
To: southeast@bnp.org.uk
Date: Wednesday, 12 January, 2011, 22:00

Dear Mr McBride

As I have informed you before, when you address me in writing, or for that matter, in person, I expect you to use my proper title, which, as you are well aware, is that of Dr.

No doubt your failure to use my proper title, in your letter to me, dated 12 January 2011, was intentional, and intended as a slight. Such behaviour is only to be expected from an ignorant oaf such as yourself, who has, in the recent past, used foul and obscene language when communicating in writing with a British National Party parish councillor, on BNP business, and boasted in the same e-mail that the party leader, Mr Griffin, had been copied in on your shameful letter, with the clear implication that there was absolutely no point whatsoever in complaining to him about it.

Mrs Dobing, who opened and read the e-mail, however, did complain in writing to Mr Griffin, and received no timely reply.

The failure of Mr Griffin to reply in a timely manner to the complaint about the incident, lodged with him by Cllr Mrs Dobing, and the failure of either he, or other senior officers to whom the matter was reported, to take appropriate action, all of which is documented on my blog, is sufficient substantiation of my description of Mr Griffin as corrupt, and as being guilty of wrongdoing.

However, the Dobing affair, utterly disgraceful as it is, constitutes but a single instance in a long catalogue of misdemeanours committed by Mr Griffin. His failure to reply to his correspondence for long periods of time is something which I, as well as numerous others, have experienced, and again this is all substantiated, and Mr Griffin has made no attempt to deny it.

The failure of Mr Griffin to reply to my several e-mailed letters of appeal regarding my unjustified suspension from the party for five months without a tribunal, or details of the allegations made against me, in clear breach of the party constitution, and of natural justice, is an absolute scandal in itself.

Yet I know that I am far from being alone in having been treated in this oppressive and unfair manner. All of this has been both documented, and substantiated, and is quite enough, on its own, to warrant my unflattering, though strictly accurate and moderate description of Mr Griffin as being both corrupt and incompetent, and as being guilty of wrongdoing. I choose my words carefully, and may confidently state that I am able to stand by, and corroborate, with examples, everything that I have said about Mr Griffin.

I warn you not to repeat the libel contained in your letter of 12 January regarding my contacting other members of the party.

Naturally, I shall contact whomever I please, whether they be party members or not. However, as I have already stated, and now repeat, I shall continue to inform and educate the members of the British National Party about Mr Griffin's wrongdoing, his corruption, and his betrayal of the party, and everything for which it once so proudly stood, not the least of which being, of course, common decency.

If Mr Griffin believes that he has not yet thrown away a sufficient quantity of BNP members' money on misconcieved, and spectacularly unsuccessful, litigation, I stand ready to meet him in court on any hare-brained case he may seek to launch against me.

In view of Mr Griffin's form in this department, you may well readily appreciate that I should relish the opportunity of tearing him to shreds, figuratively speaking, in open court, with the media looking on.

Mr Griffin, and other senior officers of the party, need no help from me in bringing themselves into disrepute with the membership of the party. They have done that all by themselves. All I have done is to exercise my right of free speech, in order to comment upon it, something I should like you to understand that I shall continue to do.

Is that quite clear, now?

I warn you not to repeat the libel contained in the penultimate paragraph of your letter of 12 January.

What evidence do you have that I have continued to act, or have ever acted, for the "reform group"?

For the record, I hereby appeal against both my unjust expulsion from the British National Party, and also against my unfair labelling as a proscribed person.

I note that you continue to ignore my recusation of Ms Mozar, in respect of her presence on the tribunal panel, on the grounds that she is likely to be prejudiced against me, in respect of an earlier matter, unconnected with the current matter.

In view of the nature of one of the allegations against me, I also objected to Mr Morris' presence on the tribunal panel, and should like to extend that objection to anyone who is either Welsh, or has known Welsh antecedents.

If you objected to my blog, (singular, note, not plural: I have only ever had one blog) and regarded it as "illicit", why did you wait for seven months before informing me of the fact, or making any reference to it? In the absence of any complaint from you about it, or request that I should cease and desist from my blogging, I naturally assumed that this was a permissible activity to which you had no objection.

Was the seven month delay due to incompetence? Or was it because you wished to wait, hoping that I would continue long enough for you to accumulate sufficient evidence from it to expel me from the party? Was the waiting a form of entrapment, or tacit encouragement,
in other words?

I await your reply with mild interest.

Yours faithfully

Dr A Emerson

--- On Wed, 12/1/11, Southeast Regional Organiser wrote:

From: Southeast Regional Organiser
Subject: Hearing date programmed. Expulsion missive.
To: "Andrew Emerson"
Cc: "Nick Griffin" , "Clive Jefferson"
Date: Wednesday, 12 January, 2011, 18:29

Notice of expulsion and proscribement dated 12th January 2011.
Dr Andrew Emerson [home address and telephone number]draemerson@yahoo.co.uk end of Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 2005-31/12/2010 6 17562


Dear Andrew Emerson,
Due to your continued letters of false and unsubstantiated accusations against the Party Chairman ( Mr Nick Griffin)
and his staff, you have left this party with no option other than to expel you from the party membership with
immediate effect.

Your party membership is terminated immediately and your payment to the membership department for this years
membership will be reimbursed accordingly. However, we are under no legal obligation to do so.

You are now reminded that you shall be in breech of the data protection act should you contact party members in an
attempt to further damage this party by the continued spreading of malicious and unfounded lies.
This party will seek legal actions against any persons using party data without authorisation or make false accusations
against party officials.

It is clear to this party and it's management that it has been your intention to bring the party chairman and his management
team into disrepute with the membership. The British National Party has a responsibility to protect it's members from
malicious assaults and disruptive influences such as those you have applied within your bloggs and emails. You have also
continued your relationship with a proscribed organisation, this being the reform group, despite instructions from head office
that any member who continues to act for the reform group will have their membership removed.

You are hereby notified that you are now noted as a "proscribed" person. The membership will be duly notified of this.

Your former appeal date shall remain:
8.00pm. Tuesday 25th January 2011.
The venue address is.
The New Owlsmoor Centre.
Yeovil Road
Berkshire. GU47 0TF.

Andrew McBride;

Andrew McBride.
South East Regional Organiser
P.O Box 14, Welshpool, SY21 0WE
Telephone: M-07926-831-855
Monday to Friday 9.30 am till 6 pm.

This E mail is a confidential document intended only for the recipient. Those who are passed this e mail without the express permission of the sender and recipient are in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and will be prosecuted and held liable for breaches of the act. If you have been passed a copy of this e mail and you are not the authorised or named recipient then you are not permitted or authorised to hold, store, pass on or collect the e mail or any information contained within it. The theft of this e mail will result in a formal police complaint and criminal prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Emerson [mailto:draemerson@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 11 January 2011 20:09
To: southeast@bnp.org.uk
Cc: Nick Griffin
Subject: RE: Hearing date programmed.

Dear Mr McBride

What do you mean by stating "No further communications will be entered into other than to supply you with other relevant documents"?

Presumably this is your way of attempting to ensure that I do not attend the hearing, and am thus denied the opportunity of clearing my name of these absurd slanders of, inter alia, alleged "incitement": "incitement" of whom to do what, when, where, and how, to whom, remaining unspecified, naturally.

If you, and Mr Griffin, insist on continuing to flout the dictates of common decency, and natural justice, you need not expect to be permitted to do so without reproof by me.

Furthermore, as I stated in my open letter to Mr Griffin, and as I remind both of you now: my interest in and involvement with the British National Party will not end, in the event of my unjust expulsion from the party.

For the benefit of Mr McBride: this means that I shall continue to educate and inform the members of the BNP about the wrongdoing of the corrupt and incompetent Mr Griffin, and his equally unsavoury associates, such as yourself, until they rid themselves of the pair of you.

Kindly inform me whether you intend to abide by the rules of natural justice, and communicate in a civilized manner, or whether this is beyond your capability.

Yours faithfully

Dr A Emerson

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Southeast Regional Organiser wrote:

From: Southeast Regional Organiser
Subject: RE: Hearing date programmed.
To: "Andrew Emerson"
Cc: "Nick Griffin"
Date: Tuesday, 11 January, 2011, 18:12

Dear Dr Emerson.
The date for your hearing has been planned and will not be altered . Also the venue has been booked and this will not change.
You are not obliged to attend the hearing and the hearing will proceed with you in attendance or not, this will be your decision.
No further communications will be entered into other than to supply you with other relevant documents.

*Please note: Mr Paul Morris is not the operator of the "Green Arrow" website, this a mere coincidence.

Andrew McBride.
South East Regional Organiser
P.O Box 14, Welshpool, SY21 0WE
Telephone: M-07926-831-855
Monday to Friday 9.30 am till 6 pm.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Emerson [mailto:draemerson@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 11 January 2011 17:17
To: southeast@bnp.org.uk
Cc: Nick Griffin
Subject: Re: Hearing date programmed.

Dear Mr McBride

The date you propose for my, long overdue, tribunal hearing, is unacceptable, for the reason that I have still, despite prior requests, not received from you further and better particulars of each and every specific allegation against me that the tribunal intends to consider.

Furthermore, despite a prior request, I have yet to receive from you precise details of the clauses of the party constitution to which the aforementioned allegations supposedly relate.

Once I have received, by post, please, ALL of the foregoing particulars, including any of my blog articles, in paper format, I shall be in a position to confirm my attendance at a hearing, to be held not earlier than twenty-eight days from my receipt of said particulars.

This is in order that I may fully acquaint myself with exactly what it is that I am accused of having done wrong, and hence be in a position to prepare a defence to the allegations.
This is known as natural justice, and would be enforced by any competent judicial body, pretended exclusions notwithstanding.

You will find that this mode of procedure is the standard practice in such matters. Any departure from it, to the detriment of the respondent, is likely to cause the party problems further down the line, as I understand Mr Griffin is in the process of discovering for himself.

Now, regarding the composition of the disciplinary tribunal. Am I to understand that you propose that Paul Morris and Lynne Mozar be part of the proceedings?

If so, permit me to register my objection to each of them.

In the case of Lynne Mozar: there has been a dispute between us in the past, Ms Mozar having made a false allegation against me, which she never retracted. Her participation in the proceedings would consequently be prejudicial, and render any judgement nugatory.

In the case of Paul Morris: since one of the allegations against me relates to an article on my blog, New Leadership (at www.draemerson.blogspot.com) in which I suggest that Mr Griffin unfairly discriminates against the English, and in favour of his fellow Welshmen, I object most strongly to the participation of Mr Morris, if he is Welsh, or has Welsh antecedents, which I have reason to believe may be the case.

As regards venue: I see that, true to form, you consult your own convenience, before that of others. The venue you propose for the hearing is unacceptable, being too distant from my home. As a compromise: I suggest, if, as I believe, he may be willing to oblige, the home of Tim Rait, in Haslemere, Surrey.

Furthermore, I remind both you and Mr Griffin that I still await a response to my complaint about having been prevented, on your orders, from attending a meeting of my local unit of the British National Party in June of last year, some weeks prior to my having been notified of my suspension from the party, on spurious but unspecified allegations of wrongdoing.

I note, yet again, your failure to apologize for the entirely unacceptable delay in allowing me my constitutional right to a disciplinary tribunal, and to know the precise details of the offences alleged against me in good time. This delay, if nothing else, renders any finding by a disciplinary tribunal judicially inoperative.

I look forward to your written reply to each of the foregoing points.

Yours faithfully

Dr A Emerson

--- On Mon, 10/1/11, Southeast Regional Organiser wrote:

From: Southeast Regional Organiser
Subject: Hearing date programmed.
To: draemerson@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: "Paul Morris" , "Lynne Mozar"
Date: Monday, 10 January, 2011, 18:27

Dear Dr Emerson,
Your hearing date has been programmed for.

8.00pm. Tuesday 25th January 2011.
The venue address is.
The New Owlsmoor Centre.
Yeovil Road
Berkshire. GU47 0TF.

The chair for this meeting will be Mr Paul Morris R.O.

The charges against you are:
That you have brought the party into disrepute by the use of illicit bloggs.
Making false statements and statements
liable to bring the chairman and or other senior officials into conflict.
Association to a proscribed organisation.

All these statements of incitement are available on your own bloggs.
draemerson.blogspot.com/ . These statements
have been printed and kept as data files and shall be available for your
comment on the evening of your hearing.

You are also charged with using the party membership data to contact members
and organisers in an attempt
to bring the party chairman into disrepute with the membership. This follows
complaints from members concerning your
actions in breech of the data protection act.

Data will be supplied to you via royal mail. Details of which are set out

Important points:
Travel expenses are not paid to attend this hearing.
There is no obligation for you to attend this hearing.
The date for the hearing cannot be changed due to heavy scheduling.
The hearing chairman's decision will be final in all cases.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Griffin unfairly discriminates against the English

If you take a look at the Facebook page of the British National Party, and
look at the tab marked "BNP Groups", you will see a section for "National

These are listed as being, in the following order:-

Belfast/Northern Ireland

No England. England is not there. It seems that England, in Mr Griffin's
opinion, is not important enough to warrant a national group of its own.

Of course, Mr Griffin himself is Welsh, and once regarded (perhaps,
secretly, still regards) himself as a Welsh nationalist rather than a
British nationalist, as he stated in a letter to John Tyndall in the

Note how Wales, despite the initial letter of its name coming near the end
of the alphabet, is placed at the top of the list, above Scotland and
Northern Ireland.

This could explain the unfair bias shown in favour of anyone who is not
genuinely English when it comes to the allocation of jobs and contracts with
the party, or selecting candidates for parliament, or for places on the
party list for regions in the European 'parliament' elections.

The web editor/webmaster of the nauseatingly sycophantic "British
Resistance" web site, one Paul Morris, aka the "Green Arrow", is also a
Welshman, appointed by Griffin, another member of the "taffia".

Griffin lives in Wales, the land of his fathers. He should not be the
party's regional organizer for London, and as an MEP for the north-west of
England he should live in that region.

Watch how quickly Griffin rushes to change the appearance of the "BNP
Groups" tab on the party's Facebook page now I have drawn attention,
publicly, to his anti-English bias. He may change its appearance. He cannot
as easily change his own feelings of antagonism towards England and the

To English members of the BNP, I say: think on.
Posted by Dr Andrew Emerson at 13:53

Friday, 24 September 2010
BNP, or KGB?
The following is a letter by Dr Andrew Emerson to the editor of the monthly
journal of the British National Party, Martin Wingfield. Do not be too
surprised if it is not published in the Voice of Freedom. To publish it
would be more than the editor's job's worth, and could well result in his
being immediately despatched as a slave labourer to the nearest salt mine -
which I believe is in Cheshire.

Dear Sir

Mr Smeeton's e-mail letter (Freedom # 118) is, like the proverbial curate's
egg, good in parts.

Mr Smeeton is right when he says that the Establishment oppresses the
British National Party, and persecutes its members, doing its utmost to deny
us our freedom of speech.

However, he is wrong when he states that this is "...clearly illegal". The
treacherous Establishment, which includes the overwhelmingly foreign
European commission, and 'parliament', makes most of our law, and the supine
judiciary interprets it.

Mr Smeeton is confounding the two concepts of legality and justice. They are
far from synonymous, legality denoting what society demands from the
individual, while justice denotes what is right and fair, ethically or

He is also wrong when he implies that Britain has no constitution,
presumably because it has, unlike the United States, no WRITTEN

Actually, it was through the political sagacity of our English forefathers
that we have no written constitution, though the law of the European Union
is insidiously subverting this state of affairs, since an unwritten
constitution permits the citizen to do anything that the law does not
forbid, while a written constitution prohibits the citizen from doing
anything it does not expressly allow.

Mr Smeeton is right to be concerned about the denial of freedom of speech to
the British National Party but should he not also be concerned, should not
every BNP member be concerned, about the BNP's own denial of freedom of
speech to its own members?

During the party's recent nomination process for a leadership challenge the
most flagrant and unfair breaches of the BNP's written constitution were
perpetrated by the party leadership. Such breaches included: the barring of
members from party meetings; the suspension of members without good cause;
the issuing of biassed nomination forms; the invention of unfair rules of
procedure, not sanctioned by the constitution, designed to favour the
incumbent leader; the conniving condonation of vile 'attack blogs' that
publicly assassinated the character of Eddy Butler and his key supporters;
and the systematic removal of all references to any member who supported the
challenge from the party's web site and "Voice of Freedom" newspaper.

Stalin also introduced a written constitution, for the Soviet Union in the
1930s. It looked very impressive on paper. The trouble was that, just like
the BNP's written constitution today: in the hands of a despot it was not
worth the paper it was printed on.

How can we seriously expect the British people to be concerned about the
Establishment's victimization of the BNP, when the BNP hypocritically
victimizes its own members by unfairly denying them their rights?

In any event it seems that some of the apparent unfairness of the
'mainstream media' was brought on the head of the BNP by its own so-called
leadership, that leadership turning down several requests for a party
spokesman to go on air in the run-up to the general election earlier this
year. It seems that Messrs Griffin and Dowson had some cock-eyed theory of
'scarcity value' with which they wished to experiment. Or could there be a
more sinister explanation for the apparent madness in the method of the top
leadership of the BNP: such as deliberate sabotage of the BNP's electoral

Old hands will recollect Mr Griffin's announcement, at a press conference,
just prior to the 2005 general election, about the desirability of
discharged members of the armed forces (some of whom have, understandably,
mental health problems) keeping an automatic rifle and live ammunition in
their homes!

One wonders how many votes that intervention by Mr Griffin cost the BNP.

This year there was an announcement by Mr Griffin to the media, five weeks
before the general election, that the BNP's publicity director (Mark
Collett) was conspiring to murder the party's chief fundraiser (Jim Dowson);
an allegation which the police investigated but which the Crown Prosecution
Service declined to prosecute, presumably because the likelihood of securing
a conviction on any such charge was, in their expert assessment, less than
fifty per cent.

Since Mr Griffin's spurious allegations were plastered all over the daily
'red tops', to the great detriment of the reputation of the BNP, one wonders
how many votes, members, and council seats, this particular piece of
Griffinism cost the party.

"Nick likes to shoot from the hip", his admirers may say. The trouble is
that whenever he does so he shoots not himself but the party in the foot.

Surely I am not alone in detecting a disturbing pattern in Mr Griffin's
behaviour as party leader - or should that be party BETRAYER?

Will the Voice of Freedom live up to its name and publish this letter?

Yours faithfully

A Emerson

Dr A Emerson

Sat 6th November 2010
Give till it hurts!

The following is an article which was published yesterday on the British
National Party's web site, . In it Mr Griffin, the
national chairman, and party leader, calls upon the party's ordinary members
and supporters to help raise a "final" £1,500 which is supposedly required
to retain the services of a top flight legal team. If this sum is not raised
by Monday, so Mr Griffin claims, then he will be reduced to the necessity of
representing himself as a litigant in person, with the implication that he
would be worsted by the legal specialists of the other side.

Yet Mr Griffin makes no mention of any monetary contribution to be made by
himself, as an individual. Here is a man earning the bloated salary, and
receiving the opulent expenses, of an MEP, and yet he apparently cannot, or
will not, contribute out of his own pocket a paltry (to him) sum of £1,500,
expecting the party's pensioners, unemployed, and low-paid workers to bail
him out instead with donations they can ill afford to make.

Doesn't this tell you all you need to know about this fellow's order of
priorities (self first) and his contemptuous attitude towards those whom he
regards as mere "plebs" and "grunts", "useful idiots", good for relieving of
their hard-earned cash but otherwise entirely expendable.
Posted by Dr Andrew Emerson at 13:00

Email This
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Google Buzz

Links to this post

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.

Posted by Dr Andrew Emerson at 18:42


Email This
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Google Buzz

Links to this post

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

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,

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
Posted by Dr Andrew Emerson at 16:15

Andrew McBride.
South East Regional Organiser
P.O Box 14, Welshpool, SY21 0WE
Telephone: M-07926-831-855
Monday to Friday 9.30 am till 6 pm.

No comments:

Post a Comment