Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Who's kidding whom, Mr Griffin?

The following statement was published yesterday on Andrew Brons' MEP web site.

Monday, 30 May 2011
A gentleman's agreement

The Facts About the Annual Conference, the Constitutional Proposals and the Forthcoming EGM 

The Annual Conference that was held last December considered four constitutional motions, one of which would be considered at an Extraordinary General Meeting:

Option 1 - leave the present constitution as it is at the moment.

Option 2 - an elected committee that would be able to advise the Chairman but would have no executive powers.

Option 3 - an elected committee that would have executive power, shared with the Chairman.

Option 4 (Arthur Kemp’s proposal) – an indirectly elected National Executive comprising regional organisers and which would have executive power over the administration of the Party and which would elect its own Chairman, separate from the directly elected Leader of the Party. The Leader would have a vote on the National Executive.

The Conference voted overwhelmingly for Option 4 (Arthur Kemp’s proposal). This would involve an indirectly elected executive, with executive power, shared with the Leader.

Eventually, after six long months, an EGM has been announced for July. It will consider a constitutional proposal for the Advisory Council to be reformed so that it would contain indirectly elected regional organisers. We are told that this proposal was overwhelmingly supported at the Annual Conference. It was not; there was no mention of an Advisory Council in Arthur Kemp’s proposal. The term Advisory Council is used in the present Constitution to refer to a body that has virtually no powers but has the function of proffering advice that can be accepted or ignored by the Chairman, at whim. We are not told whether or not this reformed Advisory Council would have any power but we are entitled to presume that an advisory council would only advise!

To suggest that a proposal for an indirectly elected body without any executive power is essentially the same as a proposal for an indirectly elected body with executive power would be simply untrue and dishonest. To suggest that they are the same would be to treat the membership with contempt. Is it thought that the members will not notice or will not understand the difference?

The EGM has a right to consider the proposal recommended by the Annual Conference. Any attempt to prevent it from considering that proposal would be an attempt to contradict a democratically-taken decision of the Party.

Andrew Brons MEP

Monday, 30 May 2011

The fighter pilots' song - from The Dawn Patrol (1930)

Saturday, 28 May 2011

Rienzi: Overture

"Nothing is to be feared but fear itself"

Acknowledgements to Lee Barnes' blog, 21st Century British Nationalism, for drawing my attention to this article, http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ME28Dj03.html.

Japan shows how to defuse debt time-bomb

By Ellen Brown

"Threatening to default should not be a partisan issue. In view of all the hazards it entails, one wonders why any responsible person would even flirt with the idea." Alan S Blinder, Princeton professor of economics, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

A game of Russian roulette is being played with the national debt ceiling. Fire the wrong chamber of the gun, and the result could be the second Great Depression.

The first Great Depression led to totalitarian dictatorships, war to consolidate power, and concentrations of capital in the hands of a financial elite. The trigger was a default on the global reserve currency, in that case the pound sterling. The US dollar is now the global reserve currency. The concern is that default could create the same sort of global panic today. Dark visions are evoked of the president declaring a national emergency, Federal Emergency Management Agency plans locking into place, camps being readied for protesters, and the secret government taking over.

This may all just be political theater, but do we really want to get close enough to the economic precipice to find out? The conservative ideologues toying with the debt ceiling are doing it to force cuts in the budget, a budget that was already approved by congress. Congress is being held hostage by a radical minority pushing a risky agenda, one that is based on an economic model that is obsolete.

High-stakes Gambling

On May 16, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece titled ''The Armageddon Lobby,'' which claimed that a ''technical default'' on the federal debt was just ''political melodrama'' and not really a big deal:

Bond markets can figure out the difference between a genuine default when a country can't pay its bills and a technical default of a few days if it serves the purpose of fixing America's fiscal mess.

Not so, said Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in a May 20 interview on CNBC. ''That's gambling. This is the United States. You're leading the whole world. You cannot play games with that.''

It is not just that the government could be brought to a standstill, with a third of its bills now being paid by borrowing; or that interest rates would shoot up, forcing thousands of homeowners into foreclosure. Failure to pay on the national debt could trigger a default on the global reserve currency. As one commentator described what could go wrong:

The consequences of a US default could spark yet another global financial crisis. The US could lose its triple-A rating, which could cause a sell-off in Treasury notes by institutional and foreign investors. This sell-off could lead to higher interest rates, and banks' balance sheets might be decimated by the decline in their bond portfolios. Thus, global banking and financial market liquidity could dry up. Lending between institutions and people or businesses could possibly cease altogether or become cost prohibitive.

A rerun of 1931?

The sort of chaos that could ensue was seen when Great Britain reneged on its deal to redeem pound sterling banknotes in gold in 1931. The result was the worst global depression in history. When the pound went off the gold standard, markets panicked. People rushed to exchange their paper money for gold, in any currencies in which that was still possible. The gold wound up hidden under mattresses and in safety deposit boxes, unspent; and the banks from which it was pulled, having no reserves to back their loans, quit lending or closed their doors. Credit froze; business ground to a halt.

As other countries ran short of gold, they too were forced to take their currencies off the gold standard. The last holdouts suffered the most, including the United States, which kept its gold window open until 1933.

The 19th century had been plagued by bank runs, caused by banks having too little gold to back their outstanding loans. The Federal Reserve was instituted in 1913 ostensibly to prevent those runs, but its levee did not hold back the run of the 1930s. In 1933, the country suffered a massive banking collapse, forcing President Franklin D Roosevelt to declare a banking holiday and take the US dollar, too, off the gold standard.

Freed from the 'Cross of Gold' The transition off the gold standard was a painful one; but according to Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the country was the better for it. In a paper read before the American Bar Association in 1946, he said that going off the gold standard had finally allowed the country to be economically sovereign:

Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

Freed from the strictures of gold, Roosevelt was able to jump-start the economy with deficit spending. As Marshall Auerback details, the next four years constituted the biggest cyclical boom in US economic history. Real GDP grew at a 12% rate and nominal GDP grew at a 14% rate.

Then in 1937, Roosevelt listened to the deficit hawks of his day and slashed the deficit. The result was a surge in unemployment, and the economy slipped back into depression.

What lifted the country out of the doldrums was again deficit spending, liberally engaged in to fund World War II. In wartime, few people worry about the national debt. The debt grew to 120% of GDP - twice what it is today - and wound up sustaining another very productive period in US history, one that set the country up to lead the world in manufacturing for the next half century.

On inflation and taxes

Ruml said federal taxes were no longer needed to fund the budget, which could be financed by issuing bonds. The principal purpose of taxes, he said, was ''the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as 'the avoidance of inflation'.''

The government could spend as needed to meet its budget, drawing on credit issued by its own central bank. It could do this until price inflation indicated a weakened purchasing power of the currency. Then, and only then, would the money supply need to be contracted with taxes.

''The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them,'' Ruml said. ''The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people,'' so the money supply can be contracted with taxes as needed.

When the economy is in a recession, however - as it is now - the government needs to spend in order to get purchasing power into the hands of the people. Businesses cannot hire more workers until they have more customers demanding their products, and the customers won't come until they have money to spend. The money (''demand'') must come first. Adding money will not drive up prices until the economy is at full employment. Before that, increasing ''demand'' will drive up ''supply'' by setting the engines of production in motion. When supply and demand rise together, prices remain stable.

We now know that a government can go quite far into debt without a dangerous level of price inflation occurring - much farther than the US has gone today. Besides World War II, when US debt was 120% of GDP, there is the remarkable example of Japan. Japan has retained its status as the world's third largest economy, although it has a debt to GDP ratio of 226% - and it is still fighting deflation.

Critics of the deflationary theory point to commodity prices, which are soaring today. But if those prices were due to the economy being awash with ''too much money chasing too few goods,'' real estate prices would be soaring too. Instead, the real estate market has collapsed. What has actually happened is that the housing bubble has transmuted into the commodity bubble, as ''hot money'' has fled from one to the other. The overall money supply is still in decline.

The deficit hawks have been predicting for years that the federal debt would sink the dollar and the economy, and it hasn't happened yet. In fact the federal debt has not been paid off since 1835, and no disaster has resulted. The debt has not only been carried on the government's books but has continued to grow, and the economy has grown and flourished along with it.

This is not an economic anomaly. The economy has flourished because of the national debt. Nothing backs the currency today but ''the full faith and credit of the United States.'' Money is no longer a metal; it is an inflow and outflow, credits and debits. The liabilities of the government are the assets of the private economy. The national debt is what backs the money supply.

Dealing with rising debt servicing costs

There is a potential time bomb in a growing federal debt, but it is one that can be defused. The debt has risen from $10 trillion to $14 trillion just since the banking crisis of 2008, not from ''entitlements'' but due to the Wall Street collapse and bailout. Just the interest on this growing debt could cripple the tax base if interest rates were at normal levels, so they have had to be pushed almost to zero. The result has been to create a dollar carry trade. This has facilitated speculation in commodities, a major cause of today's commodity bubbles.

There is, however, a solution to this problem, and it was discovered by Japan. The government can spend, not by issuing bonds at interest to the public, but simply by creating an overdraft at the central bank, as Ruml recommended. The Bank of Japan now holds an amount of public debt equal to the country's GDP! As noted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

Interest on [Japanese] debt held by the central bank is refunded back to the treasury, leaving no net cost to the government on this debt...Japan continues to experience deflation, in spite of the fact that its central bank holds an amount of debt that is roughly equal to its GDP. This would be equivalent to the Fed holding $15 trillion in debt.

Like the Bank of Japan, the Federal Reserve now returns the interest it receives to the government. With a rising interest tab on the federal debt no longer a problem, private interest rates could be allowed to rise to normal levels.

Today the Fed is not permitted to buy bonds directly from the Treasury but must go through middleman bond dealers. But that problem too could be fixed. In a supporting statement in 1947, Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles discussed a bill to eliminate the unnecessary cost of these middlemen. He said the Federal Reserve had been allowed to purchase securities directly from the government from its inception in 1914 until the Banking Act of 1935. Then:

A provision was inserted in that act requiring all purchases of government securities by Federal Reserve banks to be made in the open market, which means purchased chiefly from dealers in Government bonds. Those who inserted this proviso were motivated by the mistaken theory that it would help to prevent deficit financing.

Nothing constructive would be accomplished by the proviso that the Reserve System must purchase Government securities exclusively in the open market. About all such a ban means is that in making such purchases a commission has to be paid to Government bond dealers.

The interest cost and the bond dealers' cut could both be eliminated by allowing the Treasury to borrow directly from its own central bank, interest free.

Nothing to fear but fear itself

We have been frightened into believing that government debt is a bad thing, but nearly all money today originates as debt. As Marriner Eccles observed in the 1930s, ''That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.'

The public debt is the people's money, and today the people are coming up short. Shrinking the public debt means shrinking more than just the services the government is expected to provide. It means shrinking the money supply itself, along with the ability to provide the jobs, wages and purchasing power necessary for a thriving economy.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how the power to create money has been usurped from the people, and how we can get it back. Her websites are http://webofdebt.com and http://ellenbrown.com/.

(Copyright Ellen Brown 2011)

Andrew Brons MEP: the debt crisis

Andrew Brons, the British National Party's first and senior MEP, denounces economic maladministration. It is notable that even the undemocratic European Union permits elected representatives one minute each to make a speech, even if that speech is critical of its own institutional structure.

Leadership Challenge 2011: Mick Barnbrook on MPs' expenses fraud

Boycott Griffin's phoney EGM!

The following article was published yesterday on the British National Party web site.

The first point to note is that Mr Griffin's comments, as reported in the article, fairly reek of desperation.

Mr Griffin must be seriously rattled, seriously worried, to refer to an alleged attempt to '...destroy the party from "within"...' in the middle of a leadership challenge by Richard Edmonds. Is Griffin insinuating that Richard Edmonds, a founder member of the BNP, and its deputy chairman for longer than Griffin has been a member of the party, is part of a plot to destroy the BNP? I suggest that, as the dismayed grass roots saw for themselves on Monday afternoon when Mr Griffin made an exhibition of himself with his churlishness in the European 'parliament', the only plot is the one that he has lost.

As regards Griffin's announcement of an EGM: it is now six months since the party's annual conference called for such a meeting; six months during which such a meeting could have been held relatively uncontentiously. However, that time has now passed. We are now in the middle of a leadership election campaign, which begins, as Mr Griffin must surely be aware, as soon as a candidate publicly declares their candidature, as Richard Edmonds did several weeks ago. For Mr Griffin to seek to alter the constitution at this juncture is akin to seeking to move the goal posts after the match has begun.

This is, of course, similar to Griffin's modus operandi during Eddy Butler's leadership campaign last summer. Griffin waited until Eddy and his supporters had started campaigning, in complete accordance with both the constitution and established custom and practice and then sought to impose new rules which were grossly unfair, abusing the party's disciplinary procedure in order unjustly to victimize anyone who allegedly fell foul of them.

None of the problems to which Eddy drew attention during his leadership campaign last year were exaggerated, or fictitious, contrary to Griffin's false assertion, as reported in the article below. Once the campaign was safely over Griffin finally acknowledged the truth of Eddy's claims about the scale of the BNP's debt, but that did not prevent Griffin from continuing to victimize, through unlawful suspensions and expulsions, those best and bravest of the party's activists who had dared to enlighten the members about the failure of Griffin's stewardship of the party's financial affairs.

Griffin's gerrymandering is, of course, tantamount to cheating, as well as being a corrupt practice and contrary to natural justice. Griffin may retort that the constitution specifically disclaims natural justice. While shamefully this is true it is of no effect, since any court asked to rule on the matter would interpret the constitution in the light of natural justice and might well even strike out the clause which states that it does not apply. In effect, one cannot sign away one's protection under the law by joining the BNP - which is just as well with a creature like Griffin in charge.

No. There shall be a leadership election this summer but it shall be held under the existing constitution; the difference from last year being that should Griffin again attempt to cheat by imposing his own unfair rules of procedure on his challenger(s) there would in all probability be a legal challenge to him at the time.

Griffin's sole motive in wishing to change the constitution is to secure for himself a four or five year term of office. This is an utter abomination and is obviously completely unacceptable. The provision within the constitution for an annual leadership election is the sole democratic safeguard the constitution possesses. Or, to be more precise, it was the sole democratic safeguard until Griffin subverted it last year.

 Even now, it remains the best way for the members to hold the party leader to account for his performance and management of the party, which is precisely why Griffin cannot rest content with having subverted the process but seeks to remove it in toto. Griffin seeks a four or five year period during which he is guaranteed not to have to seek re-election by the members. He does not seem to like elections much any more, does he? Perhaps he is beginning to appreciate just how deservedly unpopular he has made himself.

There can be no justification for holding an EGM on constitutional reform during a leadership challenge, particularly when it could have been held at any time during the previous six months. The fact that it was not held during the previous six months suggests that, were it not for Richard Edmonds' leadership challenge, the EGM would probably have been quietly shelved. It has only been resurrected as a means of providing a bolt-hole, or panic-room, of four or five years, for a chairman who is at war with the party's grass roots and is too frightened to face them, if not this year, then certainly next year, in view of what may happen to him and the party in the meantime.

The unlawful EGM (Egotistic Griffin Meeting) should be boycotted by every BNP member who has the best interests of the party at heart. Let Griffin show his professed commitment to democracy by postponing the proposed EGM till after the outcome of Richard Edmonds' leadership challenge is known, one way or the other. Until then let him and every other member of the BNP abide by the existing constitution of the party, both letter and spirit, insofar as it is lawful.

The BNP web site article now follows.

Let’s have a leadership election this summer, and may the best man (or woman) win!”

Thu, 26/05/2011 - 16:27

News Team

Nick Griffin uses meeting “banned” by police to unveil plans for rapid constitutional reform through Extraordinary General Meeting.

“Millions of British people are coming to view the British National Party as a sort of insurance policy, or like the fire brigade: they don't think they need us right now, but they're really pleased to have us around, just in case.

“And the way things are going, with the steady toppling of financial dominoes, the Chinese growth bubble about to burst, energy scarcity, and the political elite's meddling in the Middle East guaranteeing future Islamic terrorist bombs in Bluewater and other British shopping centres, they'll be calling for the political fire brigade and claiming on the insurance policy quicker than anyone thinks.”

This was Nick Griffin's message of hope to the determined and enthusiastic audience of more than forty who came despite the inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the police attack on freedom of assembly in Dagenham and the consequent hasty move to a new venue several miles away.

Both the meeting chairman, defiant and dynamic Barking & Dagenham Organiser Paul Sterdy, and Mr. Griffin explained in different ways how this kind of pressure shows increasing desperation by the Powers That Be as they realise that their earlier attempt to use personal grievances, manipulated ambitions and black propaganda to destroy the party from “within” has failed.

Great importance

At the end of his informative and well-received political speech, Mr. Griffin turned to a matter of great importance to the staunch activists present and to our wider audience of British National Party members and supporters.

The whole meeting applauded when he told them that, now that the election is over and the dust has settled, the date will shortly be announced for the EGM which will vote on constitutional changes fleshed out from the principles agreed by an overwhelming majority of the Voting Members at the last Annual Conference.

The aim is to bring the way the party leadership is chosen firmly within the British tradition of participation and responsible democracy.

A key motion will be proposals to have a significant part of the Advisory Council elected by Regional Councils which are in turn comprised of delegates from all groups and branches that meet simple requirements of activity and efficiency.

The other central plank of the proposed reforms and amendments is "to deal with the unfortunate unintended consequences of our desperate scramble to protect ourselves against the threat by Equality Commissioner and Operation Black Vote boss Simon Woolley to have his people swamp us and destroy our party".

"The signature hurdle that we agreed was necessary to protect us against that was a vital precaution then, but it's time move on. We've found to our cost that some people tried to get their challenger over the hurdle by exaggerating real problems and inventing fictional ones; they then had to be disciplined, which led to bad blood and suspicion among those who thought this was too harsh, and anger among those who thought the leadership was being too lenient with dishonest troublemakers. It's a flawed system, and we need to change it.

"We've beaten the CEHR's attempts to remove other key defences against their proposed takeover bid," Mr. Griffin said.

Better system

"So I believe we can now safely move to a system modelled on the familiar British parliamentary by-election. That means just ten nomination signatures, a £500 deposit (returnable to all candidates who secure five per cent or more of the vote), equal coverage as candidates from the party publicity machine and a secret postal ballot of all paid-up members.

"We intend to do away with the problem of a long campaign of divisive one-sided meetings by having a back-to-back programme of one formal hustings meeting in each region, to which all paid-up members from the region in question are invited and at which all candidates have equal time to set out their stalls.

"No other meetings will be necessary – in fact it's likely that most potential candidates wouldn't have the energy for more than the eleven formal meetings in about a fortnight. The whole thing will be demonstrably fair and quick, and then we can all get back to work."

Finally comes the bit that produced the loudest cheers: "We should replace the permanent instability and uncertainty of annual challenges by amending the present section and introducing a fixed four- or five-year term. The first election would take place early this summer. And I'll be standing with a view, if elected, to serving the full term because, regardless of my personal preferences, if that is what the members vote for, that is what they are entitled to get.

"The fantastic response I received all over the country during the recent election campaign made me realise that for me to step down before a successor has developed a degree of recognition and respect from voters would do immense damage to the public's view of our party.

"I said last year that I thought that we should make the change late in 2013, but the ever-growing sympathy I encounter every day out on the streets of our nation has made me believe – somewhat reluctantly – that it would be too soon.

"If the members disagree and think we should have a new leader earlier, this change will give them the perfect opportunity to choose a new one right away, rather than probably waiting for another two years under the present system.

"I'm looking forward to the campaign and hope that a number of candidates will come forward who will engage in constructive criticism and open debate about our perhaps differing views on the way ahead. We need to develop a culture of vigorous discussion within the bounds of civility and responsibility, where in the end the interests of the party overall come before the ambitions of any individual, and all involved agree to respect the democratically expressed wishes of the membership,” Mr. Griffin told our News Team this morning.

Contest this summer

I am of course aware that a few individuals have recently been canvassing for signatures to support a leadership challenge under the existing system. It is also clear that they are struggling to secure enough support to be able to stand. I believe that this is an unhealthy situation, which is why I am pushing for the fixed-term amendment which would automatically allow their candidate – and as many others who wish to throw their hats in the ring – to stand for election this summer.

“If the members do choose someone else, that's fine. I'll serve under them for as long as they'll have me. But I'll be fighting to win this contest, because I'm the best man for the job."

Mr. Griffin has asked for anyone with constructive proposals on details as to how to maximise fair and equal contact between all candidates and party members during the campaign to submit them in writing by June 1st to PO Box 14, Welshpool, SY21 0WE.

In order to be fair to all potential candidates in the event of the constitutional reform proposals or the present system leading to a leadership election this year, the comments section for this article has been disabled.

Thursday, 26 May 2011

More victimization from Griffin and his Pooh-Bah, Jefferson

The following post was recently published on Cllr Kevin Edwards' blog.

I should like to reassure Kevin that, despite what Mr Jefferson says in his letter, he remains a member of the British National Party.

 Kevin has never resigned from the BNP and the proof of that fact is that no letter was ever sent to him by the party's membership department acknowledging his alleged resignation. If any such letter had been sent then it would stand to reason that Mr Jefferson would have referred to it in his e-mailed reply to Kevin, which Kevin reproduces below. However, as readers may see for themselves, Mr Jefferson makes no mention of any such acknowledgement ever having been sent.

Clearly, Griffin, Matthys, Jefferson and Co, were hoping that Kevin would in due course simply fail to renew his membership. Well, their cunning plan has come unstuck and Kevin will, I am sure, like myself, be doing all in his power to assist Richard Edmonds' campaign to restore the BNP to its rightful owners, the members, and to end for ever the continuing scandal of Griffin's abuse of his office in order to persecute the grass roots who put him where he is.

Well, Mr Griffin: we, the grass roots of the BNP, the "grunts", as you contemptuously refer to us, made you national chairman, whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not and we can remove you, as you shall, in due course, discover.

Richard Edmonds welcomes Kevin's support

Victimizing BNP councillors is tiring work

Thursday, 26 May 2011

A warning to members of the British National Party. Criticise the party or its leaders in any way and you're out and you won't even be told about it !

After having listened recently to Andrew Brons MEP whose website link was removed for no apparent reason from the main BNP website on the Green Arrow Palktalk Room.

It started me thinking.

Being more than aware of the "Trickery and Skulduggery" being used by the "Rotten Political Elite" (Griffin's words) who unfortunately now run what was once a respectable and forward moving political force called the British National Party, I decided to do some checking.

The penny had dropped. Was I still a member or had my membership been cancelled without my consent or knowledge ?

Since resigning the BNP Whip and as an activist and Organiser for the Neath Port Talbot Group in February this year no communications had been sent to me by the party. No VoFs and no constant stream of "begging letters."

For those of you unaware of my reasons for taking such drastic action you can read the full story here.


I would like to point out that since the above article was written the same individual has once again been arrested for assault. Section 38 of the Children's Act prevents me from disclosing further information.

I was also verbally threatened by this individual "who was coming for me" and reported it to the local police. When questioned the culprit admitted making the threatening 'phone call and any further attempt by him to contact me in the future will result in him being arrested.

What a fine representative of the British National Party he is.

It is worth me once again pointing out that at the time I made the following statement that his actions had "set the party back years in Wales."

Looking at the results for the recent Welsh Assembly elections, how right I was !

After several 'phone calls to the membership department I got nowhere. I was eventually passed onto Clive Jefferson where I got nowhere a hell of a lot faster.

I therefore decided to send him the following email:-

Dear Mr Jefferson

Further to our conversation earlier this afternoon I would like to make the following perfectly clear.

At no time have I ever resigned my membership of the British National Party!

I have resigned the BNP whip as a Councillor. I have resigned as Organiser of Neath Port Talbot BNP and I have resigned as an activist for the reasons that I gave you earlier as I do not wish to be aligned to a party that promotes and identifies itself with thugs.

I have had no change of heart over this and on this issue I firmly stand my ground.

At no time did I ever consider resigning my membership. If I had I would have cancelled it myself.

I look forward to better days with the British National Party after the current Chairman is removed either through a leadership challenge or for criminal or insolvency reasons, and there has to be a more than fair chance of that happening.

Therefore I respectfully ask that my membership is reinstated without prejudice to its original standing without delay.

I trust that this will be in order and I look forward to your reply within the next 24 hours to prevent me taking this matter any further.

Yours Sincerely,

Councillor Kevin Edwards

And this is the reply.

Dear Mr Edwards,

I have, as I said I would, looked into this matter further and have taken statements from senior officials in the British National Party who have confirmed to me the position.

The membership department correctly recorded your resignation under instruction from a senior member of the party who has confirmed to me that you did in fact resign your membership of the British National Party and that resignation was accepted and processed.

I took time yesterday to listen to your issue and it was clear that you resigned from a position on a council, resigned the party whip, resigned from an official position within the British National Party and also resigned as an activist - all verbal resignations accepted by the same Party official.

As you did none of the above in writing I see no validity to your argument that if you had resigned from the British National Party you would have done it in writing as you where [sic] clearly happy to resign four other positions of responsibility verbally, I, and indeed a court of law, would not believe it credible that you would not resign your membership in a similar fashion.

I therefore uphold the decision of the membership department and inform you that you are not a member of the British National Party.

Your outbursts in the media and on various internet platforms has shown you to be in breech [sic] of the British National Party constitution in that it is clear you have brought the party into disrepute and also gave damaging statements to the media which were unauthorised and if you were a member of the British National Party at that time (which you were not) you would be facing serious disciplinary hearings anyhow for your conduct.

Thank you for your enquiry,

Clive Jefferson.

So there we have it.

There isn't really much more to say although I must admit to being disappointed that I cannot be classed as a "fallen comrade" along with the other thousands of good people who have either been suspended or expelled or just simply walked away in disgust at the rotten and corrupt regime that now controls our wonderful party.

(At least I didn't have to go out and buy myself a picture frame to put my expulsion letter in.)

But this is not the end. This is the beginning.

Unless our party is restored to financial transparency, honestly run by genuine nationalists with the correct agenda then holding a membership card of the British National Party will be like holding onto a Woolworths or C&A loyalty card.

That is why I have thrown my weight 100% behind the Leadership Challenge of Richard Edmonds and I urge all genuine party members to do the same before it is too late.


BNP the only game in town for a serious nationalist

John Tyndall: the voice of experience

La Belle Alliance

Where did it all go wrong?
New Party A Non-Starter

By John Tyndall

Spearhead, April 2005

Forget the dreams and fantasies - it is the BNP or nothing

ALL THIS has been said before, but it is clear that it needs saying again and again and again. The formation of a new party is no solution to the problems besetting nationalism in Britain, and in particular the British National Party.

The new-party issue has raised its head again in recent months, whereas all past experience and common sense should have buried it once and for all. And what is disconcerting is that so many of those raising it are people who more or less see eye to eye with me on what is wrong with things as they are in the BNP. I believe that this new party talk is utterly destructive and suicidal, and must be opposed vigorously whenever and wherever it raises its head. By stating this here, I expect I shall upset a number of people whom I regard as my friends and who, at least on the strength of their declarations, are my supporters. It nevertheless has to be said. As long as we waste our energies talking and dreaming about new parties, we are distracting ourselves from the essential job at hand, which is to put right what is wrong in the only party on the British scene through which anything of political value can be achieved: the BNP.

Let us briefly look at the arguments in favour of a new nationalist party so that they can be appropriately demolished and consigned to the dustbin. I think I am in perhaps a uniquely good position to answer those arguments because in 48 years of involvement in nationalist politics I have been a participant in the formation of new parties on no fewer than three occasions, while on several other occasions being a witness to others forming them. I speak here, of course, of new parties formed as a result of breakaways from existing parties, not of those formed by merging together parties that were previously separate. The latter is a constructive process, the former only ever a destructive one.

Arguments in favour

But what of the arguments? In the current situation they amount basically to these: the BNP has been taken over by people who are leading it in a wholly wrong direction, away from genuine nationalism and towards a kind of ‘right-wing’ conservatism; these people are not in nationalist politics for genuine reasons but only for self-serving ones; and most pertinent of all, they are so firmly entrenched in the BNP that there is no possibility of removing them and taking the party back.

I do not accept the latter supposition but I will leave it aside for the moment and return to it later in this article. Let us right now focus solely on the practicalities of forming a new party by way of a breakaway from the BNP, and of making it successful.

Such success, it must be presumed, could come from drawing away from the BNP, bit by bit, most if not all of its member support, so that the BNP is left eventually with almost nothing and the new party takes the bulk of its former members and in due course becomes the dominant organisation within the nationalist spectrum, in effect superseding the BNP in that role.

Well, straightaway I must state that this simply would not happen. I know because I have been there many times, on occasion as one of the new party pioneers but more often as an opponent of the process and forced to watch the folly of others - and in the end their predictable and inevitable failure.

The one exception to this rule of failure that might be cited is the example of the BNP itself. It was formed in 1982 as a breakaway; from the National Front. What happened the following years was instructive as an example of what almost invariably result when parties split. A significant number members followed us out of the NF and supported our new venture. However, an also significant number stayed with the Front. These included many who actually agreed with us over what was wrong in the NF and would have preferred our faction to lead and determine policy. However, their institutional loyalty got the better of them and decided them to stay put. Just as many patriot supports his country even when knows that it is wrong, so these people stood by the NF notwithstanding that they disagreed with its leaders over the issues that divided us.

But there were more than just two factions that emerged out of this conflict there was a third. This consisted of the numbers of people, again significant, who took no side. They did not stay with the Front, but neither did they come with us. They simply dropped out in demoralisation, disillusionment, disgust and despair. They hated the quarrelling and just wished it would end and everybody kiss and make up. Unrealistic perhaps. Naive? Undoubtedly. But the unrealistic and the naive nevertheless are human factors that have to be taken into account in every calculation of which way people will move politically. Too often leaders of enterprises have failed to do so formulating their plans.

Among these people there was also, course, the element of opportunism. Many decided that they would just wait to see who won, and then come down on the winning side - a phenomenon which we have seen exist right up to the present in the convulsions in today's BNP. The political attitudes and motivations of these people are hardly admirable, but they have to be recognised a reality.

A split: what would happen?

If the BNP were now split by the formation of a new party by dissident elements within it, exactly the same thing would happen. The dissidents might protest a thousand times over that they were physically and morally in the right. It would not alter the dispositions of the battlefield, which are determined by human nature - and, to no small degree by considerations of power.

We who formed the BNP in 1982 soon learned these truths, if we had not had a fairly strong intimation of them when we started. It was not long before we recognised that there would be a hard and long slog, extending over several years, before one action or the other - and we naturally hoped it would be our faction - would emerge clearly the stronger and more successful and thus draw most of the stragglers with it by virtue of this strength and success.

In the outcome, it was not until the early 1990s - almost a decade later - that the BNP could be seen very clearly to have eclipsed the National Front and asserted itself as the leader of British Nationalism. But even then that did not result in the Front folding up and the remaining members coming over to us. The National Front is still in existence today, albeit as a mere shadow of the party it had once been in its heyday of the 1970s. All good sense would dictate that it disband and at its followers join the BNP, but good sense does not always carry the day in the complex and enigmatic world of politics. In effect, the division that occurred in the NF in the early 198Os never healed. This very month we are 23 years on from that destructive moment. Do we have another 23 years or even another ten years - in which we can afford to fight out a new factional conflict in which these events repeat themselves?

Still smaller than the old Front

And there is another thing of which we should take careful account. Notwithstanding that the BNP emerged the ‘victor’ in its split with the National Front, and notwithstanding its recent very welcome election successes (achieved in a political climate immeasurably more favourable to nationalism that that of 25-30 years ago), it is still a fact that our party has not yet grown to a size of membership comparable to that of the Front in the late 1970s.

I have focused on this particular episode because it was the foremost, and by far the most important, among the many splits and breakaways that have occurred in British Nationalism over the past half-century. The lessons derived from it should be drilled into our minds so firmly and ineradicably that we never set out on that course again.

It even invites the question: would an alternative course have been possible in 1982? Could the differences within the National Front at that time have been better resolved by our continuing in the party and thrashing them out by internal means? All this long time afterwards, I cannot pretend to have an absolutely firm answer to that question. In the case of that conflict, what happened happened, and it is too late to go back. But we can resolve that it will never happen again. Time anyway simply does no permit a re-enactment of the struggle for primacy between the two factions that parted company back in 1982.

And exactly the same process would undoubtedly occur if the BNP were split today and a new party formed by its presently dissident elements, in other words ourselves. Many who might sympathise with our arguments would stay with the status quo out of institutional loyalty, even if they were not enamoured of the present leadership and its somersaults in policy. Likewise, many would take a neutral position, drop out altogether or just sit tight until they had seen who came out on top. Nationalism as a whole would be devastated, and this would be a huge boon to the phoney ‘patriots’ of UKIP, now supplemented by Robert Kilroy Silk's Veritas party. It would also be very welcome news to the Tories.

Other new party ventures

Of course, the NF-BNP split has not been the only one to have occurred over the period we have studied. The first split that I ever experienced was one in which I was a major participant. This occurred in 1958, when a group of dissidents in what was then the League of Empire Loyalists broke away to form the National Labour Party. I shared with other NLP founders the strong criticisms of the running of the League that led to that split, and I have continued to do so until this day. But I have long believed, with the coming of more mature judgement, that the decision to split was wrong. Actually, within a year or two of this occurrence the new organisation could probably have claimed more active members than the old one, and could thus be said to have ‘won’. But that would have proved little in the way of real practical politics. Both groups were but tiny specks on the political horizon in Britain, no more than a nuisance to the powers that were.

Ironically, nine years later the two main adversaries and most of their followers in this conflict came together with the formation of the National Front in 1967, with former LEL chairman A.K. Chesterton made leader. So what had the intervening nine years accomplished? To me they had proved colossal waste of time and effort - with only a legacy of bitter lessons learned in how things should not be done.

And there were many similar adventures. The same man who split the LEL in 1958 to form the NLP then split its successor organisation, the earlier British National Party, four years later in 1962. I was an unwilling participant in this split. For some five years the remnants of the split carried on in mutual hostility and rivalry until most of them came back together in the newly formed NF. Again, more wasted effort and more mutual bitterness, with enemies looking on in amusement and delight.

Yet more splitting

When the Front was formed in 1967 this happened by a process completely opposite to the general trend. It came about through a merger of previously separate organisations - a wholly positive step. Some of us naively thought that this signalled an end to the splintering tendency. Nationalism in Britain we thought, had grown up. But it was not to be. In 1972 there was an attempt to split the NF through the formation of a breakaway group calling itself the ‘National Independence Party’. The ‘Nippers’, as some of us called them, lasted about a year, after which they were gone and mostly forgotten. Then in 1976 the splitters were at it again. This time the new organisation was called the ‘National Party’. That experienced a similar fate. But some people hadn't learned. At the end of 1979 there was yet another attempt to split the NF after an unsuccessful takeover bid aimed at displacing me as leader. Here there were actually two breakaway groups, one calling itself the National Front Constitutional Movement and the other the National Democratic Party. But within a comparatively short time both these new ventures had gone the same way as all the others. They were not seen nor heard of again.

There was one thing that all these splits had in common, and it is important that we learn this. At the end of the day, the political, ideological and theoretical arguments dividing the warring parties were irrelevant. What decided the issue was a simple matter of power - power and leadership. Where the latter was concerned, the men who eventually ended up on top were not those who were politically or ideologically ‘right’; they were the ones with the greater capabilities, the greater will, determination and commitment, and the superior awareness of the power factors that would decide the issue. In all these cases the final outcome was that the splits failed. The parent organisation survived and the breakaways sooner or later fizzled out. The new parties flopped and the original parties carried on, albeit invariably greatly weakened by the bloodletting that had occurred. No one gained except the enemies of nationalism.

And with regard to the latter truth, the same could be said of the one case where a breakaway movement - a new party emerged stronger and more successful than the one from which it had split. I mean of course the outcome of the NF-BNP split in 1982. Again, only the enemies of nationalism profited.

It will therefore perhaps be understandable to many that when I hear current talk recommending new parties I am tempted to groan in despair. Has the history of the past 40-50 years of the nationalist movement in Britain taught us nothing? It would seem that some are just unwilling ever to be taught. They persist throughout their lives going on making the same old mistakes. Are we now doomed to see a re-run of this? Not if l have any say in it!

Behind the new-party drive

What drives people to form new parties. There are three factors present. In previous articles I have focused on the role of state security services, which infiltrate agents into radical organisations in order to promote internal quarrelling and division. Undoubtedly such people have played a major role in encouraging the formation of splinter groups.

Secondly, there is the factor of personal egotism. Individuals with modest positions in larger organisations are attracted to smaller ones because they give greater scope for ambition and allow such people to be "big fishes in little ponds."

Thirdly, it is still true to say that a considerable majority of those who take part in the formation of splinter parties do so for perfectly honourable reasons. The trouble is that they simply have not thought through thoroughly enough the consequences of their actions. In addition to this, they tend to be people who react emotionally to situations. They feel like doing something, so they do it and to hell with the consequences! Personal emotion is the worst possible criterion for the making of political decisions which could have very serious consequences, yet there are many who persist in letting their judgement be shaped in that way.


I have found that a major factor in inducing people to flirt with the idea of leaving the party they are in and joining another one is a simple lack of self discipline. They do not seem capable of understanding, much less accepting, that in the world of politics one must at times put up with situations one doesn't like and dealing with people to whom one would not give the time of day if one had the luxury of private choice. I am perhaps in as good a position as any to testify to the wrongness of this attitude and to urge people to take what could be called a more transcendent view. In quite recent times I have submitted myself, not once but twice in the course of sixteen months, to the distasteful experience of being ‘carpeted’ on ridiculous disciplinary charges by Mr. Tony Lecomber, a man for whom I have the utmost personal contempt. I did so because I knew that I was in a war in which it was vital to keep a cool head and act in the most practical way rather than the way dictated by one's feelings. The particular objective in the war in this case was to drum me out of the BNP. My only practical course of action against this was redress in the courts of law. I would stand no chance of getting a court to listen to my case had I not first gone through the required disciplinary process as laid down in the party constitution, which meant attending a quite ridiculous ‘trial’ in which Mr. Lecomber would have the enormous satisfaction of subjecting me to every indignity he could. In these situations, when one is dealing with people like him, one has to allow them their hour or two of inflated self-importance in order to accomplish the necessary object in the exercise.

Unfortunately this self-discipline does not always rule people's actions, and rash moves are made which in the final outcome prove counter-productive. I have to say that a very significant part of the drive by people towards forming splinter parties comes from thinking emotionally when they should remain ice-cool.

Leadership a first requirement

Another symptom of the tendency not to think things through in a logical and methodical way is the inclination to rush into starting up new parties without giving any really serious thought to the question of who is to lead them, and whether there is in fact anyone available and willing with the capabilities to do so at a level that would enable the new party in question to become nationally credible. Such parties seem to be perceived as little private gangs rather than serious political movements with the personnel, organisation and resources to operate effectively on the national political scene.

I recall being inveigled, in the days of my political youth, into supporting just such a venture which clearly was undertaken in this atmosphere. The chief motivator always acknowledged to people close to him that he did not see himself as a ‘national leader’, but he went ahead in the hope that such a person would emerge and take over as things went on. In fact he did have someone in mind for this role, who looked and talked the part. However, that someone turned out in the outcome to have feet of clay. He was never interested in playing anything more than dilettante role in the party that was formed while leaving his admirers to do virtually all the practical work. I say this as someone who actually had quite a liking for him, while being painfully aware of his personal limitations. The point to be made here is that no one is of the slightest use in leading a political party unless, apart from any external qualities such as charisma, intellect or the gift of the gab, he has the real motivation and drive to push the party through to success. You do not find leadership by forming something and then inviting the hoped-for leader to come in and take it over. If that person any kind of leader he would be the one to take the first step. His would be the drive an initiative to activate things.

If there is not currently any person in Britain with these qualifications who is prepared to initiate a new party and take on the main burden of running it, there simply isn't going to be any new party capable of getting anywhere - whatever its theoretical merit may be and whatever the good intentions those who favour the idea. That is the de facto situation that exists at the present time and so there just is no point in continuing argue about the matter.

Need for patience

In the self-discipline of which I have spoken one essential ingredient is patience. It is very seldom in politics (and particularly in British politics) that things happen at the speed at which we would like them to happen. When they do not happen at the desired speed, self-discipline dictates to us that we submit ourselves to whatever wait is necessary until they do - whilst using the intervening time to do everything we can do that is practical to hasten things up.

I have to say this because one of the things that have been noticeable in recent times has been the tendency of some people to put a time limit on the kind of changes in the BNP that so many of us favour. If the changes have not come about in such and such a time, the reasoning goes, a new party will be the only option. What are we seeing here? Are we seeing a rationally calculated assessment of the situation? No, what we are seeing is human emotion and impatience taking over - hearts ruling heads and practical politics going out of the window.

Main rationale for split

Before ending, I must come to the rationale that is perhaps most often offered in support of the new-party strategy: that the BNP cannot be changed; that its present leadership and course of policy are set in stone and are unchallengeable.

I have said earlier that I do not accept this argument. In the way of knowledge and information, I am in fact much better placed to judge the situation in the BNP than most of the ‘new-party’ advocates, who tend to make their judgements from outside. I believe that the party can be retaken and turned round by the nationalist fundamentalists whom I represent.

But even if there were no prospect of doing this in the foreseeable future, would this alter the picture substantially? Would it justify the new-party course? In my very firm opinion it would not. Here we have to take a step or two back and look at matters from the standpoint of the overall good of nationalism in Britain. I strongly believe that, though it is most undesirable for the BNP to continue on its present course and under its present controllers, for the party to be split by the formation of a new one would be a disaster of infinitely greater magnitude. It would be a matter of stepping from the frying pan into the fire. It would be a course of political suicide and despair. To repeat, I know because I have been there!

And of one thing we can be sure: our enemies know it too! The neutralising of nationalism by means of splintering it has been the name of their game ever since I first became involved with the movement, and probably for a long time before that. In this regard, because of our own foolishness (which at times in the past I have shared) they have scored some notable successes. It is time to stop obliging them.

There was never any doubt in my mind that these enemies had a hand in the takeover of the BNP in 1999. I believe they calculated that when this happened I would be unprepared to go on serving the party in any position other than leader and would lead a breakaway from it. They proved to be mistaken: we did not oblige them.

I believe that every move away from genuine nationalism that has been made in the party since has been calculated to push its fundamentalists to such anger and frustration that they would stage the breakaway hoped for in 1999 but not then carried out, that they would launch a new party and achieve the split in nationalism that is our enemies' goal. As in the past, we must not oblige them.

Non-party group suggested

Some friends who share my opinions on current BNP leadership and policy have discussed with me the setting up of an active political group which would be somewhere short of an actual party. It would not fight elections and thus would not be in competition with the BNP in that, politically the most important, field. But it would serve as a rallying point for the many who want to be politically active but cannot stomach the BNP as it presently is - or are anyway barred from BNP membership by the decision of its controllers.

I have said to these people that I am not particularly keen on the idea, but that if others want to go ahead with it I will not try to stop them, but will endeavour to maintain good relations with them. To me, any effort put into alternative organisations, even if they are not conceived as actual parties, is a distraction from the task of working to reform the BNP. In fact, the latter task has been made immeasurably more difficult by the action of people, probably numbered in the several hundreds, of removing themselves from BNP membership and thus disenfranchising themselves in the way of voting for change. They want that change, but it is their action that has rendered it all the harder. Now they look to others to bring it about!

Nevertheless, difficult though is the task of recapturing the BNP and turning it around, it still is the only practical course. It is the one on which my energies will remain concentrated; and I urge upon everybody that theirs should be thus concentrated too while I am mindful, of course, that some will not heed me because they are the kind of people who always know best!

Spearhead Online

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Advice from 'antifascists'

The following article was published on the Lancaster Unity blog.

One of the article's statements deserves correction. Eddy Butler is not Griffin's enemy-in-chief. That is a role that Griffin plays and has always played, to perfection.

May 25, 2011

Spineless Brons lets Griffin off hook

Posted by Denise

BNP MEP Andrew Brons has refused to make public a video showing embattled party leader Nick Griffin gatecrashing and abusing BNP members at a meeting addressed by Brons in Brussels on Sunday.

Griffin, variously described by witnesses as "aggressive", "in a real temper" and "abusive", stormed into the meeting to confront Brons, Eddy Butler, leadership challenger Richard Edmonds and others, apparently as Brons addressed the gathering, which had been on a weekend jolly to the European parliament organised by Griffin's enemy-in-chief Butler.

According to Michael Barnbrook, Griffin was "deliberately confrontational", calling Andrew Brons a liar and ordering Richard Edmonds to shut up before attacking Eddy Butler as the meeting broke up prematurely and attendees booed and shouted at Griffin - of whom Butler remarked: "It seems likely that he is having some sort of breakdown."

The meeting was videoed and Griffin's angry outbursts were recorded for posterity. Supporters of Butler and Edmonds had expected it to be released as damning evidence against the BNP leader, but according to Barnbrook Brons is refusing to make the video public because of the "embarrassment that it would cause the British National Party".

The majority opinion of those who witnessed Griffin's extraordinary behaviour is that the video's release would have been a decisive blow in the campaign to oust Griffin and should have been used.

Brons's decision to sit on the video could prove an expensive one for Richard Edmonds' leadership hopes, since it is a golden opportunity lost - and not for the first time by the ineffectual Brons, whose record of dither and vacillation is legion in far right circles.

However, let's not jump to hasty conclusions. The BNP is something of a hall of mirrors at the moment, with both sides in the politically deadly dispute generating large amounts of spin and bluff. While Brons may be spineless, neither he nor his allies are stupid.

Brons still has to work with Griffin, though we must assume their relationship is ice cold, and has attempted (or at least attempted to appear) to remain above the worst of the vicious faction fighting, despite coming out in favour of Richard Edmonds' challenge. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that his allies have every intention of making the video public while allowing Brons the time to publicly distance himself from the decision.

As we and our friends have been repeating for years, Griffin will never be beaten by those who think that playing fair will win the day. Griffin does not operate like that. He will only be beaten by opponents as cunning as he is and as ready as he is to land low blows.

Have the anti-Griffin forces within the BNP finally learned that truth?

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Griffin throws a tantrum on camera

BNP Sleazebuster Michael Barnbrook has, earlier this evening, published the following account of an untoward incident which occurred during last weekend's visit to the European 'parliament' by a party of approximately sixty BNP members, at the invitation of Andrew Brons MEP.

If Mr Barnbrook's testimony (and let us remember that Michael is a retired police inspector) is to be believed, Mr Griffin behaved in an aggressive and abusive manner towards Mr Brons' guests, all of whom were, presumably, members of the British National Party.

Does this not serve amply to confirm, as if further demonstration were not already superfluous for most BNP members, the utter contempt in which Mr Griffin holds the grass roots of our party?

Mr Griffin must apologize in writing to each and every one of the party members present, without delay.

Furthermore, if he is incapable of controlling himself in public he should seriously consider standing down from his nominal position at the head of the party, without waiting to receive his marching orders from the members in a ballot for the leadership.

That is what any serious politician would do, who had the best interests of his party at heart. But then, one has to ask oneself whether Mr Griffin is, in reality, a serious politician, after all. Certainly, his immature and petulant behaviour, making a scene and trying, unconvincingly, to play the 'big man', would suggest that, for him, politics is all about vanity and selfishness, rather than the good of the party and the cause that party represents.

BNP members should carefully note Mr Griffin's erratic behaviour and his propensity for bringing the party into disrepute, when deciding whether or not to facilitate a leadership challenge by signing and returning Richard Edmonds' nomination form.

Unlike the spiteful bully Griffin and his thuggish henchmen, Richard is a true-born English gentleman, who values and knows how to nurture the party's grass roots, treating us all with courtesy and goodwill.

The Battle of Brussels

Little has been said about what happened in Brussels on Sunday, when Andrew Brons MEP, was giving a talk in the European Parliament Building and Mr Griffin gatecrashed the meeting in a most aggressive manner. This is because the whole episode was filmed and it was anticipated that the video would be released for everyone to see what had happened without anyone having to post threads on the incident. Unfortunately, it appears that Mr Brons has refused to allow the video to be released due to the embarrassment that it would cause the British National Party. It should also be remembered that not only do Mr Brons and Mr Griffin sit next to one another in the Parliament building, but they also share a house when they are both in Brussels. It would have made a difficult situation, even worse for the British National Party, had the world been able to see our Chairman verbally attacking a fellow MEP in front of a large group of members. What I can report however is that the conduct of our Chairman was deliberately confrontational and a disgrace to the party. Mr Griffin was fully aware that most, if not all of the individuals in the meeting room, were supporters of the leadership challenge. That is not to say that he didn't have the right, as Chairman, to address the meeting. What he did however, as soon as he entered the room, apparently uninvited, was to call Mr Brons a liar. That set the tone for what happened afterwards. He the[n] went on to call Richard Edmonds a liar and even told Richard to shut up and listen whilst he was talking. I asked him why he had given specific instructions to Steve Squire, London Regional Organiser, not to allow myself and John[n]y Leech, former Greenwich Organiser. into a recent Greenwich meeting. His answer was that we were both disruptive trouble-makers. When I then asked him why he had blocked me from being the London Mayoral Candidate, I having been the only person to originally apply for the position, he said that it was because I was a liar and a self-publicist and therefore totally unsuitable to stand as a candidate. He finally attacked Eddy Butler by accusing Eddy of putting on his blog a comment that he, Mr Griffin, had stolen £300,000 from the accounts and that Eddy had told nothing but lies about him on his blog. When Eddy asked him what the lies were, Mr Griffin was unable to answer. By this time most of the audience had left the room in disgust, to much shouting and booing. I finally asked Mr Griffin when the EGM was going to be held, as there was a rumour going around and about that it was being brought forward to 17th July 2011, in the hope that the constitution would be changed to allow the Chairman to remain in situ for four years, thereby putting an end to Richard Edmonds' leadership challenge. He replied that no decision had been made when to hold the EGM and that any leadership challenge would be conducted fairly. I then asked Mr Griffin what would happen if the constitution was changed in order to allow the Chairman to stay in situ for four years, bearing in mind he had promised everybody he would be standing down in two years time. He stated that he would definitely be running for the leadership. So there you have it folks. Mr Griffin has no intention of standing down as leader. He obviously realises that he has little chance of being re-elected as an MEP in the next elections, so has decided to bring the party to its knees by trying to hang on as leader. In conclusion I would say that the debacle that took place in Brussels was shameful and that Mr Griffin's behaviour led me to believe that the pressure is finally getting to him and he is heading for a breakdown. I hope not, but it was a truly sad day for everyone who witnessed the episode, which makes me applaud Mr Brons for the decision he made not to release the video when he could, had he been of a vicious nature, destroy a broken man.


Michael Barnbrook

BBC Question Time: not the one with Nick Griffin

How can one tell that this is not the genuine Question Time? That's easy: there are nowhere near enough non-whites in the audience and not a single one on the panel.

Griffin's Way

Griffin's way is not the highway to success but a dirt-track leading nowhere. Do you really believe he cares about the party he has ruined?

Surely a good leader would unite the party and lead it on to victory, rather than bankrupt, divide and demoralize it, and lead it to defeat and humiliation, as Griffin has.

The ineluctable conclusion is that Griffin is not a good leader at all but a bad one.

What do we do with bad leaders? That's right, we replace them.

Griffin: no heart despite his rosette

Richard Edmonds: a man who cares

Monday, 23 May 2011

Apocalypse soon?

Britain faces mass migration, warns Admiral


Last updated at 10:33 12 June 2006

Britain and Europe face being overrun by mass migration from the Third World within 30 years, a senior Royal Navy strategist claimed yesterday.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry forecast 'reverse colonisation', where migrants become more dominant than their hosts.

He said the seeds of the problem were spiralling population growth and environmental destruction.

In the competition for resources, many would flee their homelands and head en masse for better places such as Britain.

The Internet, cheap foreign travel and free international phone calls would hasten the demise, he said, because new migrants would stay connected with their homelands rather than assimilate into the host country's culture.

His prognosis is that Western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the collapse of the Roman Empire after the 5th century invasion of Rome by the Goths, the East Germanic tribe.

And he said the process could start within ten years with African pirates attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean.

Admiral Parry is head of the Ministry of Defence unit tasked with identifying future threats to Britain's security.

He said: 'Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned.

'The process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the Internet.'

Admiral Parry, 52, an Oxford graduate who was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands War, warned in a presentation last week that the world was heading for a cataclysmic security breakdown.

Although it would start in the Third World, the instability would seep into the West via the Mediterranean.

'At some time in the next ten years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta,' he warned.

He predicted that as flood, water shortages, agricultural decline or starvation strike, the most dangerous zones would be Africa, especially the northern half, and the Middle East and central Asia.

The flashpoints would also be regions affected by radical Islam.

With rural areas of Third World countries falling into ruin, millions would be forced into towns and cities, with the result that large metropolises such as Mexico City face becoming ungovernable.

In an effort to control population growth, some countries might be tempted to copy China's 'one child' policy, but with the widespread preference for male children this would produce a ratio of boys to girls as much as 150 to 100.

'When you combine the lower prospects for communal life with macho youth and economic deprivation you tend to get trouble, typified by gangs and organised criminal activity,' he said.

He pinpointed 2012 to 2018 as the period when the current global power structure was likely to crumble, with the United States's superpower status challenged by the rise of nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran.

Admiral Parry, whose slogan was 'old dog, new tricks' when he commanded the attack ship HMS Fearless, delivered his vision in the presentation to senior officers at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

He did not claim all the threats would come true, but warned what was likely to happen if problems were not addressed by politicians.

Lord Boyce, a former Chief of Defence Staff, said of the analysis: 'Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead.

'The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the Government.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-390230/Britain-faces-mass-migration-warns-Admiral.html#ixzz1NDXESCgV

Cllr Cliff Roper endorses Richard Edmonds' campaign

Cllr Cliff Roper, the British National Party representative for Heanor East on Amber Valley Borough Council, has publicly endorsed Richard Edmonds' campaign for the leadership of the BNP. Cliff is one of the BNP's twelve remaining district/borough and/or county councillors.

The following statement was recently published on Cllr Roper's blog.

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Drift Or Leadership?

The British National Party Chairman, Nick Griffin MEP, has led the party since 1999. Back in 1999, electoral success was rare and the party had not yet captured the imagination of the British public. Under Nick's leadership, the party has undergone a reform of policies and public image, to the point that it is now accepted as a legitimate political party, and to prove that point, it has had extensive success at the ballot box, pinnacling with the election of two Members of the European Parliament in 2009.

However, it can be no secret now that since 2009, the party has failed to monopolise on this success. There has been talk of financial irregularities, leading to two failed leadership challenges. Despite the party's call for freedom of speech for the nationalist point of view within Britain, those associated with the challenges have not been given that luxury, but have been expelled from the party.

However, instead of reassuring the membership over these issues, there has been a consistent silence from the party's Chairman. Furthermore, over the last few months, he has practically gone into hiding, taking virtually no part in this year's election campaigns. Indeed, local groups have had to fight the elections with little support at all from the central party.

Irrespective of the initial arguments and disputes over the management of the party, it is clear that Nick Griffin has, to all intents and purposes, given up the day-to-day tasks of leading the party, whilst resolutely clinging to his position.

Members who were happy to remain in the party, going about their regular party activities, whilst they waited for the leadership to resolve matters, are now becoming increasingly disillusioned as there is no longer any real leadership, but just a gradual aimless drift.

It is for this reason that I feel that it is time for change in the British National Party, and I believe it is right for the future of the party, it's membership, and our supporters, to support the campaign to achieve the election of a new leader, Richard Edmonds.

Richard was born in Hounslow in 1943 and is a veteran nationalist, having been Deputy Chairman and National Organiser of the British National Party from 1982 until 1999, including a spell as Acting Chairman in 1986. More recently, Richard was a member of the party's Advisory Council from 2008 until 2010. He has also fought three General Elections in London constituencies.

Without change, I see no future for the British National Party, and all the hard work of the last several years will be for nothing, with the brightest light in the world of British nationalism fragmenting as it's members drift off to smaller parties without the critical mass to achieve electoral success. I am therefore signing Richard Edmond's nomination papers and urge all other qualifying party members to do the same.

Nominations should be sent to:

Leadership Challenge 2011
PO Box 279

Sunday, 22 May 2011

Gravedigger Griffin out of touch and out of time

This Guardian journalist is right in much of his historical interpretation but, as is only to be expected, indulges in a certain amount of wishful thinking when he dismisses the prospects of a revival or resurrection of the British National Party, under more capable and competent new leadership.

As Mark Twain said "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

The BNP is far from defunct. However, it must be de-Griffinized as a matter both of extreme urgency and of the utmost importance. Griffin's legacy is the negative one of having shown the BNP how indispensable is an upright and competent leader to both party morale and sustainable electoral progress, these two, of course, being intimately related.

Paradoxically, the party's policies remain more popular than those of any other political party in Britain today. It is the BNP's maladministration of both its financial and human resources; its corrupt, oppressive and profoundly uncharismatic leader; the constitution which enabled that leader to breach the trust of the members by exceeding and abusing the power of the office of national chairman; and the maladroit style of presentation of the party's inherently popular policies that all need radically to improve, rather than those policies themselves.

These vitally necessary changes can only even begin to be delivered by a trustworthy new leadership. In contradistinction to the failed and unsound methods of the intellectually and morally bankrupt incumbent, the collective approach to leadership of Richard Edmonds and his team offers a radical and exciting new opportunity for political progress by the BNP.

To every member of the BNP I say: the party can, must and shall be saved. The way to do it is to renew your membership as it falls due and if you will have at least two years' continuous membership as at 1 July this year, to sign Richard Edmonds' nomination form, a copy of which is downloadable by clicking here.

This is the first step on the road to victory.

The second step is actually to return your signed nomination form in good time to the address shown on the form.

The third step is to vote for Richard in the postal ballot for a leadership election which will be held if, as seems likely, Richard receives at least the number of nominations required in order to trigger an election.

Please understand that whether or not the BNP survives depends in part on the actions that you, who are reading this, take or don't take. Please do not leave it to others to save the party. Some of them will, unfortunately, be leaving it to you and others like you.

Nick Griffin and the fall of the BNP

There is still considerable potential for an anti-immigrant populist party in Britain, but it's not going to be the BNP

Matthew Goodwin guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 May 2011 

'Somewhere along the way, Nick Griffin took leave of political reality.'

On 5 May, the electoral challenge from the BNP died after another string of dismal results. While it could at one time mobilise over 700 local election candidates and a quarter of a million votes, this month the party awoke to find its vote had collapsed and the number of its councillors had plummeted. The following message came from its leader: "There is no shame in electoral defeat."

Born into the spring of 1982, during its early years the party steered clear of elections. It was not until the arrival of Nick Griffin as chairman in 1999 that a serious quest for votes commenced. Influenced by his time in the 1970s National Front, and inspired by its more successful French counterpart, Griffin went about revamping the BNP under a strategy of "modernisation". The goal was to attract a broad and stable electorate by detoxifying the brand, adopting community-based activism and throwing resources at local and European elections.

Griffin soon claimed success. Supported by a growing membership, support in local elections rocketed from 3,000 votes to almost 300,000. The pinnacle of the local strategy arrived in 2006, when the party gained over 30 councillors, averaged 18% and became the official opposition in Barking and Dagenham. In general elections, meanwhile, BNP candidates were polling over 10% of the vote. For a while, the party had good reason to claim it was the fastest-growing force in British politics.

Yet while Griffin saw the advance as a ringing endorsement of modernisation, the reality was different. Rather than a stamp of approval for the BNP brand, this support was more accurately a byproduct of wider trends. From 2001, immigration surged to the forefront of voters' minds, at one point becoming just as important to them as public services. While profoundly anxious, large numbers of voters were also extremely dissatisfied with Labour's record on the issue. Despite legislative action, these voters simply did not believe Labour was taking action or was even being open and honest. The continued erosion of bonds between voters and the main parties, growing anxiety over Muslim communities and the expenses scandal added to this perfect storm.

The far right had never had it so good, but still the BNP failed to take full advantage. True, Griffin could point to a seat on the Greater London Assembly in 2008 and two seats in the European parliament in 2009, but in private he would have known that results were falling short and potential voters remained unconvinced. Even after entering the European parliament, upwards of 80% of Britons remained deeply hostile toward the BNP.

There was also a more fundamental weakness at work. Despite occasional success, the party was failing to make inroads into social groups that were flocking to more successful far right parties elsewhere in Europe. Women, young people and more insecure members of the lower middle classes remained unwilling to endorse Griffin. Instead, it fell heavily dependent on a dwindling and ephemeral base of old, poorly educated working class men who were more likely than other voters to endorse socially unacceptable forms of racism. Rather than sinking roots, the BNP challenge was based on flimsy foundations.

Its limited appeal was not helped by the way in which, somewhere along the way, Griffin took leave of political reality. At various points he concluded Britons could be won over by focusing on the "peak oil" crisis, allowing ex-servicemen to retain their guns and ammunition and then (in front of over 8 million viewers) defending the Ku Klux Klan on Question Time. In contrast to the likes of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, Griffin never grasped the simple point that large numbers of Britons wanted their anxiety over immigration and political dissatisfaction met by a seemingly modem [sic], legitimate and credible radical right party. Or perhaps he just couldn't deliver.

By 2010, this persistent failure to connect with Britons was fuelling a growing internal rebellion. This was initially sparked by a combination of changes to its "non-white" membership, unnecessary and costly legal cases and the hiring of a deeply unpopular business consultant. And then arrived the moment that will garner most attention from historians when they sit down to recount the party's demise. While Griffin's "Battle for Barking" mobilised more votes than any far right campaign in British history, his failure to break through marked a watershed. It provided rebels with more fuel, galvanised an increasingly sophisticated anti-fascist opposition and created a mainstream narrative that was dismissive of the BNP's prospects. As countless minor parties will testify, when voters conclude that a party is finished it is incredibly difficult to convince them otherwise.

Griffin refused to respond to the changing winds by stepping aside, and so the party continued to implode. Before it had even commenced, the 2011 campaign was undermined by a lack of activism and money. Countless expulsions failed to quell the rebellion which led capable organisers to jump ship to rivals such as the English Democrats. And as each result was declared, it became clear that the BNP's attempt to mobilise an electoral breakthrough had failed.

The BNP will linger on, most likely by investing in activities outside elections, but its attempt to mobilise Britons through the ballot box is dead. The party is survived by a growing array of splinter groups. Most, however, similarly lack the resources and sophistication required to take full advantage of the favourable conditions that remain in Britain for a radical right alternative. There exists considerable potential for an anti-immigrant populist party, but these voters are unlikely to resuscitate the BNP. And so in this respect, it appears that this particular episode in British history confirms Richard Hofstadter's epigram of third parties in America: "Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die."

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Richard Edmonds on BNP finances: Part II

Richard Edmonds on BNP finances: Part I

Who was befriended by Webster and Tyndall and betrayed them both?

The following article, by the great polemist and nationalist leader, John Tyndall, was first published in the October 2003 issue of Spearhead. It is as relevant today as it was on the day it was written.

The Problem is Mr Griffin

It is not policies which divide the BNP, says John Tyndall

The Problem is Griffin

As readers will know, the press hounds were sniffing around the British National Party in August hoping to help themselves to some tit bits following the news of my expulsion from the party. Unfortunately, they were given some by representatives of the BNP leadership, who were only too ready to blab their mouths off on matters that are internal to the party and should not be disclosed to the media. There were reports in The Times and The Observer which, only too predictably, supplied fuel to the theory that the divisions in the party are over policy and ideology. The Times report spoke of internal discontent over the 'watered-down' policies of Nick Griffin and went on to quote one 'senior source' as saying:-

'We are not a Nazi Party, but people in Burnley were being seduced by John Tyndall's rhetoric. He was leading people astray, trying to split the party, attacking the leadership.'

I would like to know who this 'senior source' is but if he/she cared to contact any Burnley BNP member who was at the meeting at which I spoke last May they could confirm that during my speech I uttered not a word about party internal divisions nor even mentioned the party leadership. As for saying that the BNP is not a Nazi Party, that is to raise a total red herring. I said nothing at the meeting to suggest the BNP should be a Nazi party, and I challenge anyone to produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The Observer spoke of a 'power struggle' in the BNP and went on to say that I was expelled "as its chairman, Nick Griffin, seeks to portray the organisation as a more mainstream body in a bid to attract new voters." Red herrings again! There is not the slightest disagreement between Mr. Griffin and myself over the fact that the BNP should aspire to be a mainstream party and attract new voters. It was set firmly on this course from about 1990 onwards long before Mr. Griffin came anywhere near it.

The report went on to state that "BNP modernisers said Tyndall was expelled due to his extreme views." This is nonsense, and if someone in the party made such an allegation he/she is guilty of total distortion. Nothing in the charges against me said anything about my views, only about my alleged actions. Of course, whether my views were an underlying reason for my expulsion is another question.


We have taken issue with Mr. Griffin over certain public relations stunts and 'gimmicks', which we believe have not gained us a single extra voter and only serve to demoralise the party internally: Sikh columnists being given space in the party newspaper; candidates endorsing black sons-in-law; talk of a few ethnic minorities in Britain being better than none at all; declarations that an all-white Britain is neither desirable nor feasible.

But, these errors apart, we are at one with everybody in the BNP over the principle that the party should present itself with an image of reasonableness, decency and civilised behaviour and should, whatever it may say on racial issues, avoid expressions of hate.


This is what makes so downright dishonest Nick Griffin's article in the July issue of Identity magazine, which consists of a four-page tirade against me, no doubt intended to prime members to accept my kicking out of the party. I could go through this article point-by-point and refute in detail every political allegation made, but that would take excessive space and I decline to do so. I will just deal with two particularly misleading references.

At one point Mr. Griffin says:-

'The fact that our spokesmen can be guaranteed not to launch into tirades of racist abuse or turn up wearing boots and braces provides them [the media] with the reassurance they need to be able to justify... giving us a platform.'

The clear implication here is that I favour BNP interviewees facing the media with boots and braces and yelling racist abuse at them. Mr. Griffin knows that this is a million miles from the truth but he chooses to let his readers think it actually reflects my ideas on political tactics. In fact, in the interview with Mark Collett on the Dispatches programme in November last year the BNP went far closer to projecting this image than I would have ever allowed.

In another passage Mr. Griffin refers to John Tyndall's "self-serving thesis that people are getting so desperate that they'd vote for a pig in a nazi armband if it stood for the BNP..." This is so pathetic, and reeking of desperation, that it is hardly worth dignifying with a reply. I have given ample chapter and verse in numerous articles in these columns to show that not so very far back Mr. Griffin himself was striking political postures far more extreme than anything I have endorsed for a long time - the most noteworthy example being an article in 1995 in a journal of which he was editor praising the Waffen SS, and more recently than that his talk of meeting left-wing opposition with "a well-aimed nationalist fist or boot."

The truth is that Nick Griffin's pose as a political leader of 'moderation' is so transparently phoney that it can quite easily be demolished by any media hack at any time who cares to do a little research into his verbal and written utterances of the not-so-distant past; and if he wants to play the game of digging up old photographs, as he did with his July article, people might ask him about the one taken of him visiting Libya just 14 years ago and posing in front of a gigantic portrait of Colonel Gaddafi. Gaddafi, it might be worth reminding readers, helped to finance the IRA, was behind the gang responsible for the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in a London street in 1984 and is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have instigated the Lockerbie air disaster.

Avoiding the arguments

I allowed myself to become involved in some foolish political associations back in my late twenties (I am now 69). There is thus a four-decade gap separating me from those escapades. Like Mr. Griffin, I have made some past political mistakes; but unlike Mr. Griffin, I do not dishonestly exploit the past mistakes of others to deflect attention from current arguments. A number of us in nationalism have been guilty of indiscretions in our earlier political careers, some a long time ago, some not such a long time ago. On these matters we should present a united front, affirming that the important thing is what we propose for Britain today, not what we may have said about foreign politicians in bygone days. Least of all should any nationalist worthy of the name attempt to score cheap points over another nationalist by raking up past errors as a substitute for intelligent debate over matters of the here and now. This is to play the game of Searchlight and the equally obnoxious Express newspaper group.

Long ago, I came to realise that as far as Nick Griffin is concerned policy stances are simply things to be adopted or discarded in accordance with how they further his ends in the factional wars in which, for his whole political life, he seems to have been engaged. His tactics are nothing if not consistent. He ascertains the policy stance of the person he perceives to be his current rival, and he then adopts a different one - so that he can then present his position as arising out of political necessity rather than egotism and ambition. He gets away with this with many people because he has a silver tongue that at times can be extremely persuasive. It takes getting to know the man to see through his tricks.

I have covered these matters in order to get to what is really the core of the issue; and the core of the issue is the personality and character of Nick Griffin; not policy arguments, not ideology, not questions of party 'imagery'.

Portent of disaster

It was after some three years of close acquaintance with Mr. Griffin that I foresaw that his assumption of the leadership of the BNP would portend disaster for the party. I have not changed that view despite some very favourable election results that the party has enjoyed since the Summer of 2001 - results that I attribute to factors far removed from Mr. Griffin's leadership and his U-turns in policy. I would incidentally say also that our earlier election victory in East London in 1993 was in no way due to anything I did myself when then leader but was entirely the result of a happy marriage between local anger against immigration and an excellent campaign by our local activists - factors which have so immensely helped us in various parts of the country over the past couple of years.

I have said this before but I will say it again: As far back as the mid-1990s I was already thinking about the desirability of finding a replacement BNP leader younger than I, and I had started to see considerable attractions in a life which, though still busy, would be free from the intense pressures that weigh on the head of the party.

But I have to say that I never saw Mr. Griffin as the right person. From the very start there was something about him that inspired doubt. On this, my wife was far more emphatic. She has met nearly all my main political associates over the years, and I have never known her to be wrong in her personal assessment of a single one of them. From the very first moment she met Griffin she warned me that I should never trust him. I conceded that she could well be right but, nevertheless, I needed some new blood in the party leadership team, particularly in the writing field, where up till then far too much fell on me. I needed someone to take over the editorship and production of Spearhead so that I could give my almost exclusive time and attention to party matters. I took a gamble in taking Griffin on, while resolving to keep a careful eye on him.

It became clear to me after working with him for some time that he had joined the BNP simply and solely for his own ends. I had been warned of this from the beginning by one or two people who knew him, and it was not long before I realised that their warnings had been correct. He had a history of playing disruptive roles in virtually every organisation with which he had been involved, but at the time I was willing to put this down to the immaturity of youth. I later realised too late that he had not changed a jot.

Biting the hand that fed

Griffin did not perform the duties on Spearhead for nothing; I paid him, as is necessary with the work involved in a publication of our size, quality and frequency. In addition to this, he was also paid for doing certain jobs for the BNP, mainly the writing of bulletins. As proprietor of Spearhead and leader of the BNP, I provided Nick Griffin with his living for some three years. Right from the start, he showed his appreciation and gratitude by plotting and scheming against me. Treachery of this kind I have not known in some forty-plus years of involvement in nationalist politics, during which I have encountered some pretty despicable people.

When Griffin launched his takeover bid in 1999, I was in no way surprised. What did surprise me were the forces in the party that he had working for him. I had had some inkling of these from the effusions of Patriot magazine but I have to say that I totally underestimated the poison they had spread and the gullibility of so many of those on whom they had worked. Many of the latter have subsequently expressed to me their bitter regret that they were taken in by the Griffin faction, but the fact is that taken in they were at that crucial moment in the party's progress.

Our achievement pre-Griffin

And there was progress. The Griffin propaganda machine has skilfully manufactured a myth about the "bad old days" preceding the leadership change, but the fact is that in the two years before Mr. Griffin's takeover the BNP had increased its membership by almost 90 per cent. It put up a full slate of candidates in England and Scotland in the Euro Elections in 1999 and won TV time. Its vote over the country was steadily increasing, though it had not yet experienced the dramatic increase that later led to several councillors being elected. This big upsurge began in certain northern towns in the general election of June 2001, and the catalyst that caused it was undoubtedly the race riot in Oldham just three weeks previously. This gave the party a new credibility rating that led to council seats being won the following year and again in 2003. The fact is, however, that between the leadership change in September 1999 and June 2001 (nearly two years) there was no significant rise in BNP votes that marked anything new from what had already been occurring for some time. When Nick Griffin himself stood as the party's candidate in West Bromwich West in November 2000 he obtained a very mediocre 794 votes (4.2 per cent) in an area which had always been very fertile nationalist territory. This was a mere 13 votes more than a previous BNP candidate, Steve Edwards, had achieved in just one ward in the same constituency a few months earlier!

Fiasco in West Midlands

Mention of Steve Edwards brings us to the story of how Nick Griffin virtually wrecked the BNP in the West Midlands as a result of his paranoid witch hunt against Steve and his wife Sharron in the late Summer of 2000. Steve and Sharron, among others, had raised some awkward questions about Nick's management of party finances. The next thing was that, like many before and after them, they found themselves expelled by Griffin from the party. Sharron Edwards had in fact been the region's chosen candidate for West Bromwich West, but Griffin deselected her at the same time as expelling her. He was later forced to reinstate the Edwards as members following an angry protest meeting in the area in support of them, but Sharron was not reinstated as the West Bromwich candidate. The result? Disgusted local activists who had been prepared to campaign for her, and had in fact already started to do so, refused to campaign for Griffin. The latter was forced to import campaign helpers from other areas to make any kind of showing at all, but it was not enough. The opportunity for an excellent vote was thrown away.

The Edwards and a large portion of the then BNP West Midlands membership then left the party and took part in the formation of the breakaway Freedom Party, on behalf of which Sharron Edwards is now a councillor. I believed this to be a big mistake and advised Steve and Sharron against it. However, their anger against their treatment by Griffin was such that I failed to persuade them to stay in the BNP. Prior to their departure, the BNP in the West Midlands was experiencing a tremendous boom similar to that which it later enjoyed in the North West of England, and had Griffin not wrecked everything it could today be as strong as the North West. It has made a partial recovery but is still very far from what it was prior to the Summer of 2000.

Steve and Sharron Edwards had previously supported Griffin's candidature in the BNP leadership ballot in 1999, and their names and photos were prominently featured in this capacity in some of the Griffin campaign literature. They were to become badly disillusioned. In a letter to me in December 2000 they said:-

'The current leader Nick Griffin is a... and a... (words deleted to avoid possible libel action)... Decent people have been badly let down...Griffin has wrecked and factionalised every movement he has been associated with... If Griffin is replaced, we may be able to join forces again.'

The reference to wrecking and factionalising is significant. Griffin is in fact well on the way to doing this to the BNP as a whole, whereas prior to his entry it enjoyed 14 years of almost total harmony. Before that, he accomplished much the same thing with the National Front, and this is why we have given considerable space to the story of the NF break-up in 1986 earlier in this issue. But Nick does not seem content with this record. He seems to want to extend it. The latest area of his wrecking operations is the very one where the BNP has been doing best of all in the last couple of years: Lancashire and the North West.

Vendetta against Burnley BNP

The full story of the damage Griffin has been doing in this region is much too long and detailed to fit into this article; others are working on that and before long we may have the chance to study it. Here I will just give a few of the barest of bare bones.

Somehow Nick has managed to alienate a large portion of leading activists in the most successful branch of all, the Burnley branch. Local people are better qualified than I am to give chapter and verse as to how this has happened. My own vantage point is a limited one and connected with my own personal experience. I was invited to speak at a Burnley branch meeting on the 1st August 2002. This infuriated Griffin when he heard about it and he employed all the persuasion he could to get the then organiser, Steve Smith, to cancel the invitation. Steve, to his great credit, stood firm. From then on, it became clear that his card was marked.

Spearhead gave a full account of that event in its September 2002 issue and I will not repeat all the details here save to say that, mysteriously, Anti-Nazi League demonstrators turned up on the evening, whereas they had not been present at any previous Burnley BNP meeting nor have been since. Who tipped them off about the meeting and my appearance at it as speaker? You can make up your own mind!

The meeting, notwithstanding all this, was very successful - but not nearly as successful as the one which took place on May 29th of this year, when 140 people turned up to hear speeches by Richard Edmonds and myself. This further angered Griffin. An inside report I received from friends in the party told me that at a private meeting at Blackburn just previous to the Burnley one Griffin had hatched a scheme to disrupt the latter. The plan was that one of his (Griffin's) acolytes would be present at the Burnley meeting accompanied by a group of 'heavies'. At a certain point in my speech the acolyte would stage a protest, whereupon if anyone tried to restrain him the heavies would move in and a violent scene would ensue. Then Griffin would be able to claim that wherever Tyndall speaks at BNP meetings there is disorder.

The plan went badly wrong. As the meeting proceeded, the Griffin acolyte could see that his brawny companions were reacting so enthusiastically to Richard Edmonds' and my speeches that he would be unlikely to get their support if he tried to make trouble. He remained silent and nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and was a terrific success.

Apparently, Searchlight got hold of the story and printed it, but in this case the fact does not make the story untrue. My own source for it is much more reliable.

I have spoken at other meetings in the North West over recent months, in all of them getting a very good reception, and was down to speak at more when Griffin contrived my expulsion. It is very clear that he was getting frightened that I might influence local members.


The upshot of all this - combined with other factors with which I am not connected is that there is now widespread dissatisfaction with the party leadership in this the BNP's strongest and most successful region. Nick Griffin seems to have alienated, one by one, a large portion of the local leaders and leading activists in the region, and the latest is that Steve Smith, the initial architect of the party's tremendous success in Burnley (others have played important parts more lately), has been driven out of his position in the branch. Actually he chose to leave of his own accord, but it was his treatment by Griffin that led to this.

I have had to spend a great deal of time on the telephone in the past few months endeavouring to bolster the morale of people in the North West of England and persuade them that on no account should they quit the party.

I believe that if Nick Griffin is allowed to continue his jealous and vindictive rampage he will wreck the Lancashire and North West BNP just as he did the West Midlands three years ago and the National Front many years before that.

It gives me no satisfaction to say that the warnings I gave about Nick Griffin back in 1999, ignored as they then were by many, have been overwhelmingly vindicated.

As readers will know from the opening words of this article and from last monthly report, I am currently a non-member of the BNP, having joined the long list of people who have been expelled from nationalist parties by the machinations of Nick Griffin. I am planning to take legal action over this but for the moment am barred from BNP meetings, along with several others.

One of the counts on which Griffin's disciplinary tribunal expelled me was that I had 'slandered' him personally (libel is the correct term but we will not split hairs). Nick alleges that I have made defamatory remarks about him.

The 'gay' story

Well, it is interesting to learn that Nick Griffin these days considers defamation of himself a cause for action against the defamer, for this did not seem to be his attitude back in 1999, when a former high ranking National Front official, Martin Webster, put out a circular alleging a homosexual relationship between himself and Griffin back in the late 1970s. Webster, in doing this, challenged Griffin to take him to court for libel if the allegation was untrue. Griffin declined to do so, arguing that as Webster was a 'man of straw' he would not get any damages off him. This completely side-tracked the main issue, which was not one of money but of the personal honour and reputation of the leader of the BNP, and thus of the BNP itself.

But it was not only Webster whom Griffin could have sued. The story was covered in both The Sunday Times and Searchlight magazine, in the latter case being written in tones which gave credence to Webster's claims. Neither of these publications are exactly without assets, and Griffin could have got tidy sums off them had he taken them to court and won.

But he chose not to - which makes it strange that he is now so sensitive to imagined 'defamation' by me and has had me hounded out of the BNP for my troubles. As to whether Webster's story of a homosexual affair with Griffin was true or not, I simply don't know.

But what I do know is that if it was not true Griffin should have sought satisfaction in a court of law. He did not, and it is now well past the time limit for him to do so. If the story is again raised either by Webster or anyone else, it will be his duty to take immediate legal action to squash it - because the good name of the BNP is at stake, not just his own.

It will be gleaned from what I have said in this article that I believe that the removal of Nick Griffin from control of the BNP is essential to the party's long-term health and national credibility - and, in the shorter term, to its internal harmony and unity. The man is a wrecker, wherever he goes and whatever he gets into. Throughout his political career he has left a long trail of disillusioned one-time supporters and betrayed and disgusted one-time friends.

The takeover tendency

Griffin's takeover of the BNP might be likened to the familiar practices of certain people in the world of business. First, an enterprise is founded and built up by the vision, dedication, hard work and sacrifice of a number of pioneers, who have faith in the idea behind it and slave away with perseverance to make it a going concern. Then, once it becomes just that, a going concern, the big business sharks move in and through unscrupulous boardroom politics take it away from its founders to exploit it for themselves. We know who are the people most adept at this kind of operation.

When the BNP was founded in 1982, Nick Griffin was one of those on the sidelines, sneering at and deprecating our efforts in the columns of the publications with which he was then involved - all publications, incidentally, which folded up a long time ago and have not been seen since (these people can never sustain anything for long).

But when in the early 1990s the BNP started to move ahead and show some excellent results in elections it was then that our Nick changed his attitude towards us. He began to become friendly, and he built some fraternal contacts with our Croydon branch. It was not very long after we won our first council seat in Millwall in September 1993 that he started to write to me. One thing led to another and, bit by bit, Nick got his feet under the table of the BNP - something for which I must bear the main share of the responsibility, notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances I have explained earlier in this article.

Talent wasted

Now in a position of control, Griffin is directing the party on a basis of favouritism towards his friends and vicious hatred towards those of talent and ability who are prepared to stand up to him. The result is that the BNP is only employing a part of its real human resources: promotions are made of those prepared to be subservient - or, if people of genuine merit do get promoted inadvertently, they will be doomed to have their rise in the party curbed the moment they give the slightest hint that they are unprepared to accept lackey status. I have numerous witnesses to this.

There are still some fine and very able people in the senior circles of the BNP, not-withstanding all this. But they are aware of the need for them not to show dissent if they are to continue occupying responsible positions and giving the party the full benefit of their abilities. For the most well-meaning of reasons, their dissatisfaction is muted. Were it not, Griffin would have a whole lot more problems of personnel than he already has, and he has problems enough.

And indeed we would be witnessing yet more expulsions!

But alongside these excellent servants of the BNP there are also, inevitably, a number of pure toadies of the kind that get close to the top of any political party, not by performance but by flattery and yes-manship. I have come to see a number of them through close acquaintance over the years - people who, when I was seen to be 'on top', were eager to declare their loyalty to me but underwent an indecently rapid change of allegiance once this situation no longer applied. They are of the type who, if Griffin were defeated and down tomorrow, would be pushing to the front of the queue to kick him.

Last, but not least in importance, there are a few who have their own particular agendas. I suspect that these people mostly harbour the same personal contempt for Mr.Griffin as I have, but find him a useful tool in their designs.

Riding on a roll

At the moment the one thing going for Nick is the fact that the BNP is, election-wise, on a roll - with the Thurrock win just the latest case in point. As long as there is the widespread perception in the party, however mistaken it is, that he and his policy somersaults have some connection with this, he will survive for a while, and any premature bid to unseat him in an election would be a charge of the Light Brigade. Not only do I and my allies know this, but he also knows it. Hence his insufferable arrogance and hubris and his belief that he can carry on conducting purges against anyone who crosses him - and get away with it.

For four years, while being critical of some of Nick Griffin's policy decisions, I have held back from giving him the full treatment in terms of personal assessment. In view of recent events, I no longer feel constrained to do so. Hence this article and the one preceding it.

At my stage of life, I do not care over-much whether I ever again become BNP leader or not. I never was obsessed with this position as Nick Griffin very clearly is. If future events should take a turn that led to a demand for me to come back, I would be available as a matter of duty. However, from my point of view the much preferred solution is that a younger man emerge from out of the many talented people we are now recruiting and show the ability and willing to take over the reins and lead the party forth into the future. If such a person does appear he will have no firmer supporter than me.

But first things first. Before anything permanent can be done, we have to get rid of the wrecker-in-chief.

Action for reinstatement of John Tyndall - Legal Fund

Last month, at the end of a report on the expulsion of Spearhead editor John Tyndall from the British National Party, it was stated that Mr. Tyndall would be taking legal action to secure reinstatement, and that we would be launching a fund to help meet the costs involved.

Mr. Tyndall has in fact placed the case in the hands of a London solicitor, and just before our going to press with this issue he received a letter from the solicitor giving a favourable opinion on his prospects of success in the action.

It has, however, been necessary to supply our solicitors with an 'up-front' payment in order to get the case on the move, and further costs of this kind will be incurred in due course.

Mr. Tyndall does have access to a special fund arising from a legacy from a deceased supporter, which has been placed at his disposal for political use to be decided at his own discretion. However, we wish to dip into this fund to the very minimum extent necessary. We are therefore launching what will be known as the 'Spearhead Legal Fund' with a view to raising the money to cover most, if not all, of the costs incurred in this action. Should Mr. Tyndall win the case and be awarded his full costs, the money will of course be recovered. In that event we will confer with the main contributors concerning its disposal.

A supporter in Lancashire has kick-started the fund with a donation of £50.00, for which we are most grateful. Further donations should be made out to our publishers, Albion Press, and sent to our usual address at: P.O. Box 2471, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 4DT.

Spearhead Online