The Conduct of the General Members’ Meeting
By Andrew Brons MEP
Posted by admin on Jun 19th, 2011 to Andrew Brons BNP Ideas web site
To say that our Chairman is not obsessively scrupulous about adhering to decisions and procedures that he finds inconvenient, would be an understatement. A person who is prepared blatantly to substitute a proposal that was not even discussed at the Annual Conference for the resolution that was passed, will stop at nothing.
Our Chairman and his cronies have chosen to hold the GMM in one of the least accessible parts of the country and they have chosen to keep the re-direction point open only until 10.00 a.m.
This will make it extremely difficult for members from the South, the East Midlands, the North East and Scotland to arrive at the re-direction point on time. The venue has been selected because Liverpool is one of the few active units of the Party in which he enjoys local support.
We do not yet know whether the quality of the instructions (of how to get to the meeting place) provided to members he suspects of being his opponents will be quite the same as the quality of the instructions provided to members he believes to be his supporters.
We do not know yet how many suspensions will be made during the next seven days to prevent opponents from attending the meeting and we do not yet know how many people will be arbitrarily prevented from entering the meeting.
We do not yet know how many members will be ejected from the meeting on the slightest pretext.
It is important of course for all members to behave impeccably so that they do not give any pretext for their ejection.
We do know that the Chairman’s personal security squad ‘expect trouble’ from the members, because one of their number has said so! Members of that squad will be looking for trouble.
We do not yet know who is to preside over the meeting but we can make a shrewd guess about how that person will conduct the meeting.
Will opponents of our Chairman’s fraudulent proposal be allowed the same time as supporters of his proposals?
Will they be allowed to speak at all? Will opponents be allowed to tell the truth about the proposals?
It is possible that he will try to hurry the meeting, without thorough debate, to an early conclusion and vote.
However, what would he do if he were to be defeated? Would he pretend that it had not happened and report that his proposals had been passed?
To do so would not be qualitatively different from pretending that one motion had been passed when a quite different one had been passed.
We must watch closely how the organisers of this meeting conduct themselves and we must be prepared to take legal advice if there should be any cause for concern.