Let us take the word discrimination as a quick and easy example of how a word may come to have, through its regular use in one particular context, a specific connotation which tends to evoke a socially conditioned response from individuals seeing the word, or hearing it used.
'Discrimination' tends to produce negative imagery in the minds of our people because they have been socially conditioned by the prevailing cultural orthodoxy to associate the word with unpleasant connotations. Yet a synonym for the word discrimination is 'discernment', which by contrast tends to evoke a favourable response.
It would appear that words may mean pretty well whatever we may wish them to mean.
I'm sure that we could all come up with other examples of words which have, over time, acquired bogy status. On hearing the word, some individuals' critical faculties are impaired and they react to the word in a socially conditioned way, without pausing to consider, or to question, to what such a word actually refers and whether it is, in fact, reasonable to apply such a word in any particular set of circumstances.
Some such words seem to serve the social function of obscuring, rather than clarifying, social relations and interaction: of closing down debate and reasoned argument, rather than eliciting and elucidating meaning.
One is given to wondering why that should be. Who benefits from such a taboo and who suffers because of such word magic?
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Saturday, 30 July 2011
What do you do with a 'problem child' like Eddy?
In view of the fact that Eddy Butler's expulsion from the British National Party was unconstitutional and hence legally flawed, I should like to propose that it be rescinded and that he be welcomed back into the BNP with no discontinuity in his membership.
As Emma Colgate is reported to have said, "Eddy will be much better if you show him that he is valued", or words to that effect.
A conciliatory gesture, such as restoring Eddy's membership, would also encourage those former BNP members who joined the English Democrats, including a county councillor and three borough/district councillors, to return to the fold, thereby strengthening our party both in terms of activists and financially, while correspondingly weakening the civic nationalist EDP.
Were Eddy's membership of the BNP to be restored to him, as an unbroken membership, it might suggest a degree, at least, of sincerity on the part of Mr Griffin, who spoke, during the leadership election campaign, of wishing to heal the party.
It would also be interesting, were this to be done, to see from which party Eddy then chose to dissociate himself: the British National Party, or the English Democrats.
As Emma Colgate is reported to have said, "Eddy will be much better if you show him that he is valued", or words to that effect.
A conciliatory gesture, such as restoring Eddy's membership, would also encourage those former BNP members who joined the English Democrats, including a county councillor and three borough/district councillors, to return to the fold, thereby strengthening our party both in terms of activists and financially, while correspondingly weakening the civic nationalist EDP.
Were Eddy's membership of the BNP to be restored to him, as an unbroken membership, it might suggest a degree, at least, of sincerity on the part of Mr Griffin, who spoke, during the leadership election campaign, of wishing to heal the party.
It would also be interesting, were this to be done, to see from which party Eddy then chose to dissociate himself: the British National Party, or the English Democrats.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Morally and intellectually bankrupt
Question Mark Looms over National Elections Strategy
Posted by admin, on 29 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
A string of poor election results has cast a shadow over the British National Party’s election strategy and the street demonstration tactics currently employed by the party.
Prior to the latest election, in Bush Hill Ward, North London, candidate and London regional organiser Steve Squires was quoted on the party’s website as saying that “the central party machine is doing a brilliant job.
“We’re getting great-looking leaflets spot on time, together with personalised mail-merge letters for postal voters. The service we get from Head Office is outstanding – the machine runs like clockwork.”
Mr Squires added that the contest, in a confirmed safe Tory ward, would give the BNP an “opportunity to test our new methods prior to the GLA elections in 2012.”
The result – 61 votes or 2.5% — put the BNP behind UKIP once again. The party now has 12 Local Councillors in all of Britain, having suffered another resignation yesterday (Martyn Findley on the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council).
Obviously, whatever election strategy is being followed, is not working. Is the election department looking critically at its own strategy?
What then, is causing the dramatic decline in votes?
There is one primary reason, and two secondary causes. The first is that politics is primarily about image. Voters tend to make up their minds on how to vote based foremost on a party’s image.
We need to ask questions about our public image and the party’s current street demonstration strategy.
In addition, it is clear that the return to National Front-style street demonstrations, as announced and propagated by the Chairman at the December 2010 conference, have achieved nothing.
In fact, the return to street demonstrations appears to have had a negative impact upon voters, as the vote share obtained by the party has continued its steep decline.
Another factor to be considered in this strategy is that sooner or later, the violent UAF thugs are likely to become tired of chasing around police-protected EDL demonstrations, and will doubtless resort to attacking the small and unprotected “halal meat” BNP gatherings.
The end result of such a configuration will doubtless be “violence breaks out at BNP rally” media headlines, which will negatively impact the party’s image once again.
Finally, the third most likely cause of the party’s poor electoral performance is that whatever “system” has been put in place, is clearly not working.
The much-vaunted “Alfred” system was promised to be the answer to campaigning issues. It is still unclear if Alfred has even been completed (more than a year after it was launched) and if it has, the results have been less than satisfactory, to put it mildly.
Covering a ward with leaflets, customised appeals and “Alfred” have not provided an answer.
The party’s winning election strategy of starting from the ground up with old fashioned community work, non-confrontational political activity and a reformation of the party’s national image provide the only true solution to the declining votes issue.
It is time for the party leadership to look at its strategy critically and the contribution made by particular individuals before it is completely too late.
Posted by admin, on 29 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
A string of poor election results has cast a shadow over the British National Party’s election strategy and the street demonstration tactics currently employed by the party.
Prior to the latest election, in Bush Hill Ward, North London, candidate and London regional organiser Steve Squires was quoted on the party’s website as saying that “the central party machine is doing a brilliant job.
“We’re getting great-looking leaflets spot on time, together with personalised mail-merge letters for postal voters. The service we get from Head Office is outstanding – the machine runs like clockwork.”
Mr Squires added that the contest, in a confirmed safe Tory ward, would give the BNP an “opportunity to test our new methods prior to the GLA elections in 2012.”
The result – 61 votes or 2.5% — put the BNP behind UKIP once again. The party now has 12 Local Councillors in all of Britain, having suffered another resignation yesterday (Martyn Findley on the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council).
Obviously, whatever election strategy is being followed, is not working. Is the election department looking critically at its own strategy?
What then, is causing the dramatic decline in votes?
There is one primary reason, and two secondary causes. The first is that politics is primarily about image. Voters tend to make up their minds on how to vote based foremost on a party’s image.
We need to ask questions about our public image and the party’s current street demonstration strategy.
In addition, it is clear that the return to National Front-style street demonstrations, as announced and propagated by the Chairman at the December 2010 conference, have achieved nothing.
In fact, the return to street demonstrations appears to have had a negative impact upon voters, as the vote share obtained by the party has continued its steep decline.
Another factor to be considered in this strategy is that sooner or later, the violent UAF thugs are likely to become tired of chasing around police-protected EDL demonstrations, and will doubtless resort to attacking the small and unprotected “halal meat” BNP gatherings.
The end result of such a configuration will doubtless be “violence breaks out at BNP rally” media headlines, which will negatively impact the party’s image once again.
Finally, the third most likely cause of the party’s poor electoral performance is that whatever “system” has been put in place, is clearly not working.
The much-vaunted “Alfred” system was promised to be the answer to campaigning issues. It is still unclear if Alfred has even been completed (more than a year after it was launched) and if it has, the results have been less than satisfactory, to put it mildly.
Covering a ward with leaflets, customised appeals and “Alfred” have not provided an answer.
The party’s winning election strategy of starting from the ground up with old fashioned community work, non-confrontational political activity and a reformation of the party’s national image provide the only true solution to the declining votes issue.
It is time for the party leadership to look at its strategy critically and the contribution made by particular individuals before it is completely too late.
A continuation of politics by other means
BNP - the disastrous war of the roses
27 July 2011
Nick Griffin squeezed home narrowly ahead of his rival in the BNP's ballot. A ferocious "war of the roses" over the leadership of the far-right British National Party has left it badly split and potentially mortally wounded.
Nick Griffin squeaked home by just nine votes in this week's national ballot of party members to retain the chairmanship he has held since 1999.
Griffin, who sits as Member of the European Parliament for the North West region, faced a strong challenge from the other side of the Pennines.
His only rival in the contest was the party's other MEP - Yorkshire and the Humber's Andrew Brons.
"Probably, this was the worst mandate the Chairman could win," Brons wrote to his supporters on his BNP Ideas website shortly after the result was announced.
"In effect, the party is split from head to toe and there remain grave questions of doubt over the fitness of many existing officers of the party to exercise control over its operations."
It is a far cry from the high point of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections when Griffin and Brons shocked the political establishment by mustering enough popular support to take the party's first seats in a UK national election.
Their European seats were both won by the narrowest of margins, but it raised expectations that the self-proclaimed defenders of the "British indigenous population" could be on the verge of further breakthroughs.
Instead, Griffin's disastrous appearance on the BBC's Question Time a few months later and an embarrassing result in the 2010 general election has led to vicious infighting which could yet see the BNP implode.
In his own statement issued shortly after the election Nick Griffin said: "The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work.
"We have a party to build and a nation to save. Let us go forward together!"
Griffin's rallying call might be too late.
In an online video election webcast recorded at the start of the campaign, Andrew Brons said members and activists had been voting with their feet for at least and year [sic] and leaving the party.
'Civil war'
At one stage he claimed a third of the membership and two thirds of its activists had left because of what he called Griffin's "unnecessary civil war" to stifle opposition.
The BNP has always been cagey about its total membership but this election for its national leader reveals just how small it has become. The number of ballot papers returned was just 2,316.
In fact, across every council in Yorkshire, the party could muster just 50 candidates at the 2011 elections earlier this year. Not a single one mustered enough votes to become a councillor.
The nightmare is not over for Nick Griffin or the BNP.
In his latest blog "Reply to Dissatisfied Supporters" Andrew Brons issues a clear warning: "If the leadership wants peace, he can have peace and we can get on with work that will contribute towards our substantive aims.
"If on the other hand if he were to choose war, he would meet an equal and opposite force."
BBC News
27 July 2011
Nick Griffin squeezed home narrowly ahead of his rival in the BNP's ballot. A ferocious "war of the roses" over the leadership of the far-right British National Party has left it badly split and potentially mortally wounded.
Nick Griffin squeaked home by just nine votes in this week's national ballot of party members to retain the chairmanship he has held since 1999.
Griffin, who sits as Member of the European Parliament for the North West region, faced a strong challenge from the other side of the Pennines.
His only rival in the contest was the party's other MEP - Yorkshire and the Humber's Andrew Brons.
"Probably, this was the worst mandate the Chairman could win," Brons wrote to his supporters on his BNP Ideas website shortly after the result was announced.
"In effect, the party is split from head to toe and there remain grave questions of doubt over the fitness of many existing officers of the party to exercise control over its operations."
It is a far cry from the high point of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections when Griffin and Brons shocked the political establishment by mustering enough popular support to take the party's first seats in a UK national election.
Their European seats were both won by the narrowest of margins, but it raised expectations that the self-proclaimed defenders of the "British indigenous population" could be on the verge of further breakthroughs.
Instead, Griffin's disastrous appearance on the BBC's Question Time a few months later and an embarrassing result in the 2010 general election has led to vicious infighting which could yet see the BNP implode.
In his own statement issued shortly after the election Nick Griffin said: "The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work.
"We have a party to build and a nation to save. Let us go forward together!"
Griffin's rallying call might be too late.
In an online video election webcast recorded at the start of the campaign, Andrew Brons said members and activists had been voting with their feet for at least and year [sic] and leaving the party.
'Civil war'
At one stage he claimed a third of the membership and two thirds of its activists had left because of what he called Griffin's "unnecessary civil war" to stifle opposition.
The BNP has always been cagey about its total membership but this election for its national leader reveals just how small it has become. The number of ballot papers returned was just 2,316.
In fact, across every council in Yorkshire, the party could muster just 50 candidates at the 2011 elections earlier this year. Not a single one mustered enough votes to become a councillor.
The nightmare is not over for Nick Griffin or the BNP.
In his latest blog "Reply to Dissatisfied Supporters" Andrew Brons issues a clear warning: "If the leadership wants peace, he can have peace and we can get on with work that will contribute towards our substantive aims.
"If on the other hand if he were to choose war, he would meet an equal and opposite force."
BBC News
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Playing Russian roulette in the Last Chance Saloon
The following was published on the web site of the Electoral Commission earlier today. As I correctly predicted during the recent leadership election campaign, the British National Party has, as usual, failed to submit its annual accounts on time. It was obvious that this was going to be the case, otherwise the good news would have been plastered all over the party main web site, with you-know-who doing his usual credit-grabbing act. Instead of which there was no mention of the 2010 accounts at all.
This also accounts for our Chairman's bringing the election timetable forward, so that the election would be over just before the bad news of the non-submission of the 2010 accounts by the statutory dead-line was published on the web site of the Electoral Commission.
Just how dumb do Messrs Griffin, Harrington and Jefferson think BNP members are?
This failed leadership is now running the risk of the Electoral Commission de-registering the party, preventing us from contesting elections, because of the leadership's persistent flouting of the party's statutory obligations.
It is not difficult to control and to account for an income and expenditure of barely more than a million pounds per annum. If such control and such accounting is chronically inadequate, as it has been, it suggests that it may be by design, rather than by accident. Why? Well, such apparent chaos makes any possible fraud very much more difficult to detect and investigate than would otherwise be the case.
It may be that the contents of the 2010 statement of accounts are so shocking, are such a damning indictment of Griffin's dereliction, that for them to be published so near to the leadership election would cause a revulsion of sentiment against Griffin and in favour of Andrew Brons.
As reported in an earlier article on this blog:
"Mr Dickens also found out that the reason the 2009 Central accounts were submitted late was that the Auditors Silver & Co were not paid for the work they did auditing the 2008 accounts, which amounted to £5,000, they were eventually paid. He told the packed hall today that the 2010 BNP Central accounts will also be late this year."
Have the party's auditors not yet been paid for their work on the 2009 accounts? Is this the reason the 2010 accounts (both central and regional) are overdue? Or is this merely a convenient "cover-story", which will be glibly trotted out when the 2010 accounts are eventually submitted to the Electoral Commission and published, some months from now?
Regulatory action
The following two parties failed to submit their accounts to the Commission
British National Party
Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”
The British National Party’s Regional Accounting Unit also failed to submit its accounts to the Commission.
The Commission is now reviewing the circumstances of these cases. Late submission of accounts without reasonable excuse is a breach of party funding rules.
The Commission has a range of sanctions enabling it to deal with those who do not comply with the rules. These include issuing substantial fines and serving compliance notices requiring parties to take specific steps by a required date to ensure compliance with their obligations in future; where a party does not comply within the timescale set, they may face additional fines.
When deciding what sanction is appropriate the Commission considers a range of factors including whether parties have failed to comply with their obligations in the past. Repeated non-compliance is an aggravating factor which can significantly increase the penalties issued.
Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said:
“The rules on party funding are intended to ensure that voters can see where political parties get their funding from, and how they spend it. The 2010 statements of accounts which we have published today help to provide transparency about the finances of the larger parties and their organisations, covering the period during which the campaigns for the 2010 UK general and local elections took place.”
“The majority of parties and accounting units have complied with the law by submitting their accounts on time. However, despite the guidance and advice we offer to help parties comply with the law, two parties have yet again failed to provide accounts on time. This is not acceptable. We have commenced formal case reviews into the circumstances; if we are satisfied that the rules have been broken and the parties concerned do not have a reasonable excuse, we will use our new powers to impose sanctions in accordance with our published enforcement policy, to ensure future compliance with the law.”
The Commission published the financial accounts of 343 political parties and 616 accounting units whose gross income and total expenditure were £250,000 or less on 26 May 2010. They can be found on the Electoral Commission’s website.
The Commission also publishes trends in parties' income, expenditure and net assets. The figures from 2003 to 2010 are available on our website.
This also accounts for our Chairman's bringing the election timetable forward, so that the election would be over just before the bad news of the non-submission of the 2010 accounts by the statutory dead-line was published on the web site of the Electoral Commission.
Just how dumb do Messrs Griffin, Harrington and Jefferson think BNP members are?
This failed leadership is now running the risk of the Electoral Commission de-registering the party, preventing us from contesting elections, because of the leadership's persistent flouting of the party's statutory obligations.
It is not difficult to control and to account for an income and expenditure of barely more than a million pounds per annum. If such control and such accounting is chronically inadequate, as it has been, it suggests that it may be by design, rather than by accident. Why? Well, such apparent chaos makes any possible fraud very much more difficult to detect and investigate than would otherwise be the case.
It may be that the contents of the 2010 statement of accounts are so shocking, are such a damning indictment of Griffin's dereliction, that for them to be published so near to the leadership election would cause a revulsion of sentiment against Griffin and in favour of Andrew Brons.
As reported in an earlier article on this blog:
"Mr Dickens also found out that the reason the 2009 Central accounts were submitted late was that the Auditors Silver & Co were not paid for the work they did auditing the 2008 accounts, which amounted to £5,000, they were eventually paid. He told the packed hall today that the 2010 BNP Central accounts will also be late this year."
Have the party's auditors not yet been paid for their work on the 2009 accounts? Is this the reason the 2010 accounts (both central and regional) are overdue? Or is this merely a convenient "cover-story", which will be glibly trotted out when the 2010 accounts are eventually submitted to the Electoral Commission and published, some months from now?
Regulatory action
The following two parties failed to submit their accounts to the Commission
British National Party
Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”
The British National Party’s Regional Accounting Unit also failed to submit its accounts to the Commission.
The Commission is now reviewing the circumstances of these cases. Late submission of accounts without reasonable excuse is a breach of party funding rules.
The Commission has a range of sanctions enabling it to deal with those who do not comply with the rules. These include issuing substantial fines and serving compliance notices requiring parties to take specific steps by a required date to ensure compliance with their obligations in future; where a party does not comply within the timescale set, they may face additional fines.
When deciding what sanction is appropriate the Commission considers a range of factors including whether parties have failed to comply with their obligations in the past. Repeated non-compliance is an aggravating factor which can significantly increase the penalties issued.
Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said:
“The rules on party funding are intended to ensure that voters can see where political parties get their funding from, and how they spend it. The 2010 statements of accounts which we have published today help to provide transparency about the finances of the larger parties and their organisations, covering the period during which the campaigns for the 2010 UK general and local elections took place.”
“The majority of parties and accounting units have complied with the law by submitting their accounts on time. However, despite the guidance and advice we offer to help parties comply with the law, two parties have yet again failed to provide accounts on time. This is not acceptable. We have commenced formal case reviews into the circumstances; if we are satisfied that the rules have been broken and the parties concerned do not have a reasonable excuse, we will use our new powers to impose sanctions in accordance with our published enforcement policy, to ensure future compliance with the law.”
The Commission published the financial accounts of 343 political parties and 616 accounting units whose gross income and total expenditure were £250,000 or less on 26 May 2010. They can be found on the Electoral Commission’s website.
The Commission also publishes trends in parties' income, expenditure and net assets. The figures from 2003 to 2010 are available on our website.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose...
The following statement was posted by Dr Andrew Emerson to the BNP sub-section of the British Democracy Forum, some three hours prior to the announcement of the results of the party's leadership election.
Should we really expect an objective political analysis from either Pete Walker or the former Young Communist Leaguer, "Derrick Day"? I think not.
Given what we know of Pete Walker's perspective it makes sense that he should be trying to sow doubt, despondency and defeatism in the ranks of the BNP. By the same token, if "Derrick Day" is in fact Harrington, he too has an agenda, at the top of which is the demoralizing of any "true believers" within the BNP, which he hopes to accomplish with his threats of a purge.
The reality is that the objective conditions have rarely been more favourable for an ethnonationalist party to make electoral gains. We see the evidence for this right across the mainland of Europe. The precise way in which nationalism needs to be presented to the electorate, in order to optimize its electoral appeal, obviously varies from country to country, but the positive trend is there for all, with an internet connection, to see.
People tend to crave certainty, in politics as in most other things, but the only certain things in life, as someone once said, are death and taxes. If Griffin and his principal coadjutor can be prized away from the leadership of the British National Party within a reasonable time-scale, all well and good. The BNP may now have a tarnished image and be burdened with massive indebtedness but it is, notwithstanding this, in principle redeemable, in view of the enormous reservoir of goodwill which would flow towards the party, in the event of it taking out its trash (no names, no pack-drill).
Conversely, should it prove to be impossible to prize Griffin away from the leadership, do we simply give up, not just on the BNP but on ethnonationalism as an ideology and on our nation? God forbid. No, what we do is to take from the BNP all the best that it still holds, in terms of human material, and form something new and better, fortified by the experience we have gained while a member of the BNP.
Looked at in the right way, nothing is ever wasted, Colleagues. The most important thing of all is to keep a positive mental attitude. Pete Walker and "Derrick Day" are both aware of this, which is why they both, for their own reasons, expend so much time and energy trying to undermine any such healthy outlook.
Our German cousins have a good saying and one which is very true: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger".
Words to live by, indeed.
Last edited by Simon de Montfort; 25-07-2011 at 05:24 PM.
"Our Constitution is in actual operation. Everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
Benjamin Franklin
Should we really expect an objective political analysis from either Pete Walker or the former Young Communist Leaguer, "Derrick Day"? I think not.
Given what we know of Pete Walker's perspective it makes sense that he should be trying to sow doubt, despondency and defeatism in the ranks of the BNP. By the same token, if "Derrick Day" is in fact Harrington, he too has an agenda, at the top of which is the demoralizing of any "true believers" within the BNP, which he hopes to accomplish with his threats of a purge.
The reality is that the objective conditions have rarely been more favourable for an ethnonationalist party to make electoral gains. We see the evidence for this right across the mainland of Europe. The precise way in which nationalism needs to be presented to the electorate, in order to optimize its electoral appeal, obviously varies from country to country, but the positive trend is there for all, with an internet connection, to see.
People tend to crave certainty, in politics as in most other things, but the only certain things in life, as someone once said, are death and taxes. If Griffin and his principal coadjutor can be prized away from the leadership of the British National Party within a reasonable time-scale, all well and good. The BNP may now have a tarnished image and be burdened with massive indebtedness but it is, notwithstanding this, in principle redeemable, in view of the enormous reservoir of goodwill which would flow towards the party, in the event of it taking out its trash (no names, no pack-drill).
Conversely, should it prove to be impossible to prize Griffin away from the leadership, do we simply give up, not just on the BNP but on ethnonationalism as an ideology and on our nation? God forbid. No, what we do is to take from the BNP all the best that it still holds, in terms of human material, and form something new and better, fortified by the experience we have gained while a member of the BNP.
Looked at in the right way, nothing is ever wasted, Colleagues. The most important thing of all is to keep a positive mental attitude. Pete Walker and "Derrick Day" are both aware of this, which is why they both, for their own reasons, expend so much time and energy trying to undermine any such healthy outlook.
Our German cousins have a good saying and one which is very true: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger".
Words to live by, indeed.
Last edited by Simon de Montfort; 25-07-2011 at 05:24 PM.
"Our Constitution is in actual operation. Everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
Benjamin Franklin
Harrington and "the Patsy"
Constructive Requirements — Re-establishing Credibility
Posted by admin, on 28 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Hogarth.
The enactment of the new Constitutional measures, overwhelmingly approved at the Annual Meeting last December, was akin to extracting teeth. Had the Chairman acted promptly and transparently, the party would have united and the recent leadership contest would not have been necessary.
Unfortunately, the tardy approach of the Chairman and the leadership’s underhand manoeuvrings generated much needless ill-will.
As we have previously observed, the party belongs to its members – not the Chairman and his appointees. The purpose of the party is to save the nation, which is the product of a unique line of descendants.
We applaud the Chairman’s stated desire to heal the party and to move onwards, confronting the tasks ahead of us. A united party is an essential pre-requisite.
We welcome the Chairman’s statement: “I would offer the hand of friendship and cooperation to any and every member who is willing to accept the democratic verdict, put the past behind us and work constructively to build the Party and advance the common cause.”
This means we must encourage constructive debate. We must never return to the days when worthwhile ideas and opinions are interpreted as dissent. Indeed, our website, BNP Ideas, is designed to generate debate and ideas, in respect of policy, strategy and the internal running of the party.
More important, it is designed to keep within the party those who might depart either from politics or to join another party. Since its formation, over 70,000 members have joined and departed the BNP. There are more ex-members of the party than serving members – an indictment of the abilities of those who have led the party.
We have received numerous messages from disillusioned members that they will allow their memberships to expire because they have no faith in the newly elected Chairman or in his appointees. Many of these are activists.
We want these key players to remain within the party. A party cannot function without activists.
Our website and organisation, which is akin to those that exist in the main parties, is more than a safety valve: it is designed to obviate the haemorrhaging of yet more nationalists into the wilderness.
Simply put, we want to keep on board those who would otherwise resign. We want to channel their energies into constructive activities in the cause of nationalism.
Essential Requirements
The recent leadership election produced a split of approximately 50/50 between the current Chairman and his adversary. His adversary won a wide majority of the activist vote.
The Chairman must seek common ground between us and see k to heal the differences of opinion.
Our requirements are modest and constructive:
1. In the interests of unity, we require the immediate removal of Pat Harrington from all posts, activities and affairs associated with the party.
Whether or not Mr Harrington is an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist, as is claimed, is not material. In our view, Mr Harrington is divisive and his record is not conducive to the well-being of our party.
Mr Harrington stood candidates against our party in a previous role. Mr Harrington’s party is an opponent of our party.
Mr Harrington is not an ethnic nationalist. Mr Harrington is not a member of our party, is disliked and his record in the ‘eighties speaks for itself. He is unelected and he must go.
2. We require an immediate enquiry into how Martin Reynolds obtained the membership lists to despatch a 50 point criticism, replete with lies and distortions, of Mr Andrew Brons. The employment of that list was illegal under the Chairman’s rules governing the election. It was also illegal under the Data Protection Act.
The construction of that missive was also a flagrant breach of the rules. Mr Reynolds must be suspended and removed from his posts, for gross misconduct until an enquiry has been conducted and a disciplinary tribunal commenced.
This will be a simple task for the Chairman, who levelled these accusations at Mr Reynolds during a hustings meeting in London. Mr Reynolds did not deny them.
In fact, we believe Mr Reynolds to be innocent of any impropriety. On the other hand, Mr Griffin, who accused his own head of security of concocting and despatching that circular, should reiterate the facts.
The question remains:
- Was Mr Reynolds the innocent fall guy for the Chairman? Mr Reynolds should blow the whistle.
3. Similar requirements apply to the SE and London leaderships. They or their officials despatched prejudicial messages against Andrew Brons, which will have affected the ballot. Simply put, we cannot tolerate misconduct at leadership levels in our party. In the interest of confidence, action must be taken and be seen to be taken.
4. We require, in the interests of the membership, full transparency and a summary of the legal cases pending against both the Chairman and the Party.
For confidence to be restored, this is elementary.
We wish to know the total sums outstanding and the total sums claimed. We expect these figures to approximate the decision of any Court when judgement is determined.
The condition of the Party’s finances cannot be determined by the governing body unless there is an honest statement of the facts. The Party’s own auditors have alluded to such omissions in the past and this cannot be permitted in the future.
5. The removal from leading positions of the party of anyone with criminal convictions unrelated to ‘thought’ or ‘speech’ crime.
The discharge of these simple tasks will create goodwill, expunge ill-will, create transparency, demonstrate sound strategy and unite both wings of the party in the interest of the task that lies ahead of us.
Posted by admin, on 28 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Hogarth.
The enactment of the new Constitutional measures, overwhelmingly approved at the Annual Meeting last December, was akin to extracting teeth. Had the Chairman acted promptly and transparently, the party would have united and the recent leadership contest would not have been necessary.
Unfortunately, the tardy approach of the Chairman and the leadership’s underhand manoeuvrings generated much needless ill-will.
As we have previously observed, the party belongs to its members – not the Chairman and his appointees. The purpose of the party is to save the nation, which is the product of a unique line of descendants.
We applaud the Chairman’s stated desire to heal the party and to move onwards, confronting the tasks ahead of us. A united party is an essential pre-requisite.
We welcome the Chairman’s statement: “I would offer the hand of friendship and cooperation to any and every member who is willing to accept the democratic verdict, put the past behind us and work constructively to build the Party and advance the common cause.”
This means we must encourage constructive debate. We must never return to the days when worthwhile ideas and opinions are interpreted as dissent. Indeed, our website, BNP Ideas, is designed to generate debate and ideas, in respect of policy, strategy and the internal running of the party.
More important, it is designed to keep within the party those who might depart either from politics or to join another party. Since its formation, over 70,000 members have joined and departed the BNP. There are more ex-members of the party than serving members – an indictment of the abilities of those who have led the party.
We have received numerous messages from disillusioned members that they will allow their memberships to expire because they have no faith in the newly elected Chairman or in his appointees. Many of these are activists.
We want these key players to remain within the party. A party cannot function without activists.
Our website and organisation, which is akin to those that exist in the main parties, is more than a safety valve: it is designed to obviate the haemorrhaging of yet more nationalists into the wilderness.
Simply put, we want to keep on board those who would otherwise resign. We want to channel their energies into constructive activities in the cause of nationalism.
Essential Requirements
The recent leadership election produced a split of approximately 50/50 between the current Chairman and his adversary. His adversary won a wide majority of the activist vote.
The Chairman must seek common ground between us and see k to heal the differences of opinion.
Our requirements are modest and constructive:
1. In the interests of unity, we require the immediate removal of Pat Harrington from all posts, activities and affairs associated with the party.
Whether or not Mr Harrington is an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist, as is claimed, is not material. In our view, Mr Harrington is divisive and his record is not conducive to the well-being of our party.
Mr Harrington stood candidates against our party in a previous role. Mr Harrington’s party is an opponent of our party.
Mr Harrington is not an ethnic nationalist. Mr Harrington is not a member of our party, is disliked and his record in the ‘eighties speaks for itself. He is unelected and he must go.
2. We require an immediate enquiry into how Martin Reynolds obtained the membership lists to despatch a 50 point criticism, replete with lies and distortions, of Mr Andrew Brons. The employment of that list was illegal under the Chairman’s rules governing the election. It was also illegal under the Data Protection Act.
The construction of that missive was also a flagrant breach of the rules. Mr Reynolds must be suspended and removed from his posts, for gross misconduct until an enquiry has been conducted and a disciplinary tribunal commenced.
This will be a simple task for the Chairman, who levelled these accusations at Mr Reynolds during a hustings meeting in London. Mr Reynolds did not deny them.
In fact, we believe Mr Reynolds to be innocent of any impropriety. On the other hand, Mr Griffin, who accused his own head of security of concocting and despatching that circular, should reiterate the facts.
The question remains:
- Was Mr Reynolds the innocent fall guy for the Chairman? Mr Reynolds should blow the whistle.
3. Similar requirements apply to the SE and London leaderships. They or their officials despatched prejudicial messages against Andrew Brons, which will have affected the ballot. Simply put, we cannot tolerate misconduct at leadership levels in our party. In the interest of confidence, action must be taken and be seen to be taken.
4. We require, in the interests of the membership, full transparency and a summary of the legal cases pending against both the Chairman and the Party.
For confidence to be restored, this is elementary.
We wish to know the total sums outstanding and the total sums claimed. We expect these figures to approximate the decision of any Court when judgement is determined.
The condition of the Party’s finances cannot be determined by the governing body unless there is an honest statement of the facts. The Party’s own auditors have alluded to such omissions in the past and this cannot be permitted in the future.
5. The removal from leading positions of the party of anyone with criminal convictions unrelated to ‘thought’ or ‘speech’ crime.
The discharge of these simple tasks will create goodwill, expunge ill-will, create transparency, demonstrate sound strategy and unite both wings of the party in the interest of the task that lies ahead of us.
Attention, Think Tank!
Andrew Brons Announces Conference on Way Forward as BNPIDEAS Think Tank Launched
Posted by admin, on 27 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 32 Comments
Andrew Brons MEP has announced that a new party think tank BNPIDEAS will be launched at a conference to discuss the way forward for the British National Party early in September.
The conference, which will be open to all members, will be an opportunity for all to have an open and frank discussion on the position of the party and future strategies.
In addition, the new think tank, BNPIDEAS, is to be launched at that conference. This body will consist of the study groups on policy, strategy, marketing and other speciality disciplines.
It is to the latter end that the new think tank will be dedicated.
“There will be a number of points to the conference,” Mr Brons told BNPIdeas. “Firstly, we need to respond to the calls by large numbers of members who seek to resign from the party.
“Secondly, we need the input of as many sensible people as possible to help map out the future direction of the party.
"All those interested in registering their interest for the conference, and for the think tank, are urged to contact BNPIDEAS as soon as possible.
"Please include your name, contact number, address and email.
“It is vital that those who are thinking of walking away from the BNP or becoming inactive should rather register with BNPIDEAS and see what the options are before taking irrevocable decisions,” Mr Brons said.
COMMENT OF THE MONTH
John Bean says:
July 2011
I have been doing my best to promote the Nationalist cause, on and off, since 1951. At age 84 I think people would understand if I joined those lesser mortals who want to walk away.
I will not, because of the calibre of the team that now backs Andrew Brons. This, any new party – including the irrelevance that calls itself Britain First – cannot possibly match within the next two years, which will be the deciding period of whether this nation and its people survive.
I back Andrew in pleading with existing members to retain their membership for at least the next three months. Otherwise you will regret it.
Responses to "Andrew Brons Announces Conference on Way Forward as BNPIDEAS Think Tank Launched"
FedUp says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
I doubt that following recent events and the fact that the Party has now been solidly established as the Nick Griffin Fan Club (also known as the My Way Or The Highway Party) that many people will want to hang around for even just another 4-6 weeks, myself included.
Reply
CorshamCrusader says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I completely agree with you, FedUp.
The fact is Griffin has won and that is that, we need to accept this and move forward. The BNP is now a busted flush in my opinion, we should leave the crooks, perverts and thugs in that wreck of a party and set up a brand new “Ethno Nationalist” party immediately, in fact, I would have already prepared for this outcome and had everything ready to roll.
I really don’t see what a conference is going to achieve, people have already left and many more will over the coming days and weeks. I think you are just giving griffin the reasons he needs to expel everyone. We have wasted so much time already trying to oust griffn, it’s not going to happen so forget him and the BNP, time for something fresh that will appeal to the electorate.
We have plenty of time to establish a new movement before the next general election which I believe would take off in a big way. A new party would also be debt free and the idiots that surround griffin could be vetted should they try and join.
Lets not waste any more time, the time for a new party is now, lets seize the moment before it’s to late.
CC
Reply
FedUp says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm
My feelings exactly. There are now a serious amount of people who are looking for a place to go, to leave them any length of time will simply see them vanish or take a a back seat to the cause.
We need to strike while the iron is hot and give these people a place to go. I genuinely believe that no-one would blame or criticise Mr Brons if he choose to walk away at this point and I also firmly believe that within a matter of months, any Party that he set up would be seen as serious competition.
Reply
Richard1 says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm
CC, you are mistaken. As I see it, the point of this conference is to keep good people together, not to fracture them further. The cause is greater than any one person, and if we do not act in a unified manner, we will lose the struggle.
Reply
Chris says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Totally agree CC. A conference to discuss the founding of a new party, that is what we need. The BNP name itself is just too loathed by most – members and public alike – to try to cling to. Let Griffin wallow in the filth of his own making: we should stay well clear.
Reply
Caractacus says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Come on friend, we are all fed up. But for those of us who backed, and still do, Andrew; lets give him a chance to put his and our ideas forward. Already a refreshing change TO BE ASKED FOR OUR IDEAS AND INPUT, in stark contrast with the dictatorial attitude of NG!! This could and should be the new way forward and NG will not last long as a major player in Nationalist politics. Beware Searchluight and the UAF will be hoping (maybe behind the scenes even help him) to cling on as he is such a good target and hate figure, deserved of not; he is now bad news for us.
Reply
baconsarnie says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Given the interesting statements here and Andrews wise words in some previous articles I’ll stick it out for a while. My membership is up for renewal in 2 months, and I plan on renewing. Have planned on giving things until Christmas to see what direction this all goes in and then take stock. In the meantime, will do what I can for the branches local to me, and nationalism as a whole.
The sad fact is that, if we all leave, those running this party – and nationalism – into the ground win. Whatever we do we cannot allow that to happen, a few months may make many things far clearer.
Reply
dragon says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Are tinpot dictators and no neck henchmen allowed.
Reply
David M says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:00 pm
A Think Tank is an excellent idea. However, I think it would be better if it were entirely independent of ‘the BNP’ and be open to non-members. It should be about the way forward for Nationalist ideas in Britain, not focussed or dependent upon ‘the BNP’ as being the vehicle for those ideas, because ‘the BNP’ itself is doomed.
Reply
Forlorn hope says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Forget it.
Nationalist concept, new name,(BNP is toxic & dead in the water), new,untainted leader & team,(guess who!)
& then I will pound the streets delivering leaflets..
again.
The lefties must be laughing their a**es off.
Your call Mr.Brons, I cannot countenance the status quo,& will resign my membership after eight years……not a penny more to this lot!
Reply
Yaabbly says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Thats it guys and dolls, let put off until tomorrow what we can do today. After all things could look different by Christmas as one commentor has said, then at Christmas lets give it until Summer it might look even more different by then. Infact why don’t we just for get the whole thing as the UK will look very different under an Islamic Flag. Think tanks indeed, I thought we knew what we wanted, all we need is a platform to launch from. Come on Andrew, a new party is the answer and NOW IS THE TIME!!
Reply
Tom says:
July 27, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Without some form of new input BNP many members will fade away.
I was on the verge of moving on but Andrew is a wise and honest man so look to him for guidance.
Reply
Caractacus says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:27 pm
A new name needed, but one that immediately resonates with patriotic British people.
Let me start of with
British Indiginous Party
Loyal British Party
Homeland Britian Party
United British Party
British Islands Peoples Party
Note, no mention of the word ‘Nationalism’. Please do not get huung up on a word, its putting out ideas and beliefs into action that really counts.
Reply
Sigbrit says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:14 pm
The ‘Britain First’ Party have beaten all to it. That was definatley the best name. The ‘Britain Rising’, Churchill Party, the ‘Our heritage for Our children’ party, the ‘Frodo beats socialism and their Orcs’ and the ’300 Spartans’ party may be more to the point but are not vote winners.
Reply
TruePatriot says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I agree with CorshamCrusader and Fedup.
It’s all well and good setting up a ThinkTank and spending days/weeks discussing positive strategies and marketing campaigns, but we know that without money, it won’t happen.
I wish that money was the only obstacle. You then have to get the current leadership team to approve of the ideas. Most of them are not open to suggestions from the rank and file.
With the party blacklisted by so many printers and suppliers, we will struggle to find anyone that will be willing to work with us.
A new paty is the only option.
Reply
Sigbrit says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:15 pm
And with the party defaulting on it’s debts to printers and suppliers even those not blacklisting will not touch the BNP. Well done the present ‘leadership’.
Reply
baconsarnie says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I too do agree on the “why put off” sentiments – but, I’m assuming there’s stuff behind scenes I do not know about. As I said, has until xmas in my eyes, then I’ll take stock and pretty much know what I’ll then decide now, but for the time being I am willing to assume that things that might revitalize our party/lead to a new party/anything that can get us out of this sh*thole we are in may well be ongoing behind the scenes.
Andrews statements on here were very strong stuff – one doubts things will stay the way they have been, crunch point has arrived.
Reply
Roy Davies says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm
September is too late, I wish Mr Brons would say today that he will start a new party. Every day that passes activists will move on and join other parties, a large number will have no doubt waited for the leadership election only to have their hopes dashed.
Reply
Jack Jones says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm
As much as it pains me to say it, I think the best way forward is a new party. I doubt i could bring myself to vote for a party that is run by a cheating dictator (which Nick has proved himself to be) nevermind support it/him.
I have also noticed that the word ‘BNP’ sends shivers down the spine of most ordinary Britains, even when they agree with what we say.
Anyway, my card is still in the drawer gathering dust and i’m still watching and waiting eagerly.
Reply
rerevisionist says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:30 pm
What’s needed is a ‘FactTank’ as well as a ThinkTank – the latter I presume is to consider plans and new ideas forward. BUT without a sound factual basis the ideas will flounder. I’d hope such people as Green of Migration Watch, Rear Admiral Parry, Arthur Kemp, people competent in British economic statistics (including borrowings and the paper money swindle), educational sceptics including Mona McNee (and David Irving?), and numerous other people could be co-opted, probably informally. By now I’d imagine Brons must have contacts in the European nationalist scene who’d be happy to provide information. Unfortunately, there’s a potential huge problem of people with vested interests in e.g. things like ‘climate change’ or fluoridation or nuclear issues or what have you. But we have to cut free from Beeboid quasi-facts and comfortable lies.
Reply
John says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Blimey how many years is this going on, all the lost time when we could have been building a new party, which will have to be done in the end. Even if Griffin was to give up the leadership of the party tomorrow I doubt many people would return, he’s tainted the name forever!
Reply
Harry says:
July 27, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Andrew, I agree with the other posts we need a new party thanks to Nick the BNP seems to be in its death throws although I am prepared to wait a few months to see what if any thing materializes from your conference before I finally decide whether to resign or not.
Reply
FURIONSTORMRAGE says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I too am very dissapointed with the way the nationalist cause has been destroying it’s self from the inside. We must be united or we may as well give up. There are so many small nationalist factions now that are not big enough to make any impact on current politics. One sensible option would be to create a coalition of british nationalists where all the factions can stay seperate with their own leaders but come together under one banner to campaign on issues that they all agree on for the greater good regardless of their petty differences. The other alternative is to stick with the BNP on the basis that if everyone who has recently left or been expelled takes up Nick Griffins offer to re-join and bury the hatchet then Nick Griffin would no longer have a majority of 9 in favour of him and therefore his position would become untenable.
To stay in small factions with a BNP in decline will result in the nationalist cause dissapearing almost completely. The biggest threat to our country is mass immigration and islamification so it should not matter if you are BNP, Britain First, British Resistance,or even EDL. WE MUST BE UNIFIED AND WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS.
Reply
George Edwards says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I am a British Nationalist without a political party. The BNP is dead to me. I see you as a leader so lead me Andrew. Not backwards into a party that is basically dying a slow withering death ….. Lead us forward with a new party…. What about National British Party ……..
Reply
Stev says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:13 pm
It’s not what the party say that repels the electorate it’s the way it’s said… listen to people voicing their opinions and putting the world to rights – most agree with our common sense nationalist policies – but find us unelectable for whatever reason (and there many)… lets change that with a BNP Ideas forum
Reply
Advocatus Diaboli says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm
It might be a better idea to launch a think tank open to members of all parties and none, rather than a BNP think tank. The sad reality is that there are now more good patriots outside that party than in it, and they’re not coming back for so long as Griffin and his cronies are in the party, let alone leading it.
Reply
anom says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Folks if you are a Nationalist and dont support Griffin then a new party is the only way forward its no good joining the other small tidler parties!!!
Reply
margaret stones says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm
my memership will be up for renewal in dec 2011 i will not be renewing it,
Reply
SerpentSlayer says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Caratacus, I have a few suggestions of my own;
British Workers Party
National Labour Party
Anti-Marxist Action
The Robin Hood Party
Greater Britain Party
British Peoples Union
Just my tuppence, reckon at least some of them are useable. I suggest we hang on with the British national Party for now though. Andrew has more years in the movement than most of us. What are John Bean and Richard Edmonds doing?
Reply
Philip Scott says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Forgetting party issues for a moment.
Royalists or not, Andrew Brons has been accepted as a guest recently to a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
This invite means that Andrew has been acknowledged by the ruling society. The ruling society, like it or not, is a door we must prise open. The fact of his attendance goes a long way to show the credibility of a man who has now been allowed to walk along the corridors of power. NG alas has never, and most probably will never have this opportunity.
Perhaps this is not an issue we should exploit.
My bet is that we need a leader who can walk shoulder to shoulder with the others. This invite, this acceptance of AB goes to show that one of us a least is not cast out as a leper. Tentatively this surely must be a good direction to head for. We cannot afford to walk the wilderness for ever. Time is running out.
Reply
The Insider says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I think this is the correct strategy to follow. Act in haste, and repent at leisure. We have all summer and autumn to let the legal cases take their course, and things out of Griffin’s control will determine his future.
Reply
Charles Mather says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm
My membership runs out in December and I don’t know yet whether I will renew.
I know on the street the BNP name is toxic and feel that we need a new party.
Andrew’s team could be the nucleus of that. Massive amounts of money are not needed with volunteers, BUT could Andrew remain as an MEP if he were to become the leader of a new party?
If he did lead a new party freed from those who now surround the leader I am sure many would join and in a few months we could build an effective nationalist force.
I believe the “Think Tank” is a good idea and possibly the last chance to save our movement.
Posted by admin, on 27 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 32 Comments
Andrew Brons MEP has announced that a new party think tank BNPIDEAS will be launched at a conference to discuss the way forward for the British National Party early in September.
The conference, which will be open to all members, will be an opportunity for all to have an open and frank discussion on the position of the party and future strategies.
In addition, the new think tank, BNPIDEAS, is to be launched at that conference. This body will consist of the study groups on policy, strategy, marketing and other speciality disciplines.
It is to the latter end that the new think tank will be dedicated.
“There will be a number of points to the conference,” Mr Brons told BNPIdeas. “Firstly, we need to respond to the calls by large numbers of members who seek to resign from the party.
“Secondly, we need the input of as many sensible people as possible to help map out the future direction of the party.
"All those interested in registering their interest for the conference, and for the think tank, are urged to contact BNPIDEAS as soon as possible.
"Please include your name, contact number, address and email.
“It is vital that those who are thinking of walking away from the BNP or becoming inactive should rather register with BNPIDEAS and see what the options are before taking irrevocable decisions,” Mr Brons said.
COMMENT OF THE MONTH
John Bean says:
July 2011
I have been doing my best to promote the Nationalist cause, on and off, since 1951. At age 84 I think people would understand if I joined those lesser mortals who want to walk away.
I will not, because of the calibre of the team that now backs Andrew Brons. This, any new party – including the irrelevance that calls itself Britain First – cannot possibly match within the next two years, which will be the deciding period of whether this nation and its people survive.
I back Andrew in pleading with existing members to retain their membership for at least the next three months. Otherwise you will regret it.
Responses to "Andrew Brons Announces Conference on Way Forward as BNPIDEAS Think Tank Launched"
FedUp says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
I doubt that following recent events and the fact that the Party has now been solidly established as the Nick Griffin Fan Club (also known as the My Way Or The Highway Party) that many people will want to hang around for even just another 4-6 weeks, myself included.
Reply
CorshamCrusader says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I completely agree with you, FedUp.
The fact is Griffin has won and that is that, we need to accept this and move forward. The BNP is now a busted flush in my opinion, we should leave the crooks, perverts and thugs in that wreck of a party and set up a brand new “Ethno Nationalist” party immediately, in fact, I would have already prepared for this outcome and had everything ready to roll.
I really don’t see what a conference is going to achieve, people have already left and many more will over the coming days and weeks. I think you are just giving griffin the reasons he needs to expel everyone. We have wasted so much time already trying to oust griffn, it’s not going to happen so forget him and the BNP, time for something fresh that will appeal to the electorate.
We have plenty of time to establish a new movement before the next general election which I believe would take off in a big way. A new party would also be debt free and the idiots that surround griffin could be vetted should they try and join.
Lets not waste any more time, the time for a new party is now, lets seize the moment before it’s to late.
CC
Reply
FedUp says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm
My feelings exactly. There are now a serious amount of people who are looking for a place to go, to leave them any length of time will simply see them vanish or take a a back seat to the cause.
We need to strike while the iron is hot and give these people a place to go. I genuinely believe that no-one would blame or criticise Mr Brons if he choose to walk away at this point and I also firmly believe that within a matter of months, any Party that he set up would be seen as serious competition.
Reply
Richard1 says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm
CC, you are mistaken. As I see it, the point of this conference is to keep good people together, not to fracture them further. The cause is greater than any one person, and if we do not act in a unified manner, we will lose the struggle.
Reply
Chris says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Totally agree CC. A conference to discuss the founding of a new party, that is what we need. The BNP name itself is just too loathed by most – members and public alike – to try to cling to. Let Griffin wallow in the filth of his own making: we should stay well clear.
Reply
Caractacus says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Come on friend, we are all fed up. But for those of us who backed, and still do, Andrew; lets give him a chance to put his and our ideas forward. Already a refreshing change TO BE ASKED FOR OUR IDEAS AND INPUT, in stark contrast with the dictatorial attitude of NG!! This could and should be the new way forward and NG will not last long as a major player in Nationalist politics. Beware Searchluight and the UAF will be hoping (maybe behind the scenes even help him) to cling on as he is such a good target and hate figure, deserved of not; he is now bad news for us.
Reply
baconsarnie says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Given the interesting statements here and Andrews wise words in some previous articles I’ll stick it out for a while. My membership is up for renewal in 2 months, and I plan on renewing. Have planned on giving things until Christmas to see what direction this all goes in and then take stock. In the meantime, will do what I can for the branches local to me, and nationalism as a whole.
The sad fact is that, if we all leave, those running this party – and nationalism – into the ground win. Whatever we do we cannot allow that to happen, a few months may make many things far clearer.
Reply
dragon says:
July 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Are tinpot dictators and no neck henchmen allowed.
Reply
David M says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:00 pm
A Think Tank is an excellent idea. However, I think it would be better if it were entirely independent of ‘the BNP’ and be open to non-members. It should be about the way forward for Nationalist ideas in Britain, not focussed or dependent upon ‘the BNP’ as being the vehicle for those ideas, because ‘the BNP’ itself is doomed.
Reply
Forlorn hope says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Forget it.
Nationalist concept, new name,(BNP is toxic & dead in the water), new,untainted leader & team,(guess who!)
& then I will pound the streets delivering leaflets..
again.
The lefties must be laughing their a**es off.
Your call Mr.Brons, I cannot countenance the status quo,& will resign my membership after eight years……not a penny more to this lot!
Reply
Yaabbly says:
July 27, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Thats it guys and dolls, let put off until tomorrow what we can do today. After all things could look different by Christmas as one commentor has said, then at Christmas lets give it until Summer it might look even more different by then. Infact why don’t we just for get the whole thing as the UK will look very different under an Islamic Flag. Think tanks indeed, I thought we knew what we wanted, all we need is a platform to launch from. Come on Andrew, a new party is the answer and NOW IS THE TIME!!
Reply
Tom says:
July 27, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Without some form of new input BNP many members will fade away.
I was on the verge of moving on but Andrew is a wise and honest man so look to him for guidance.
Reply
Caractacus says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:27 pm
A new name needed, but one that immediately resonates with patriotic British people.
Let me start of with
British Indiginous Party
Loyal British Party
Homeland Britian Party
United British Party
British Islands Peoples Party
Note, no mention of the word ‘Nationalism’. Please do not get huung up on a word, its putting out ideas and beliefs into action that really counts.
Reply
Sigbrit says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:14 pm
The ‘Britain First’ Party have beaten all to it. That was definatley the best name. The ‘Britain Rising’, Churchill Party, the ‘Our heritage for Our children’ party, the ‘Frodo beats socialism and their Orcs’ and the ’300 Spartans’ party may be more to the point but are not vote winners.
Reply
TruePatriot says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I agree with CorshamCrusader and Fedup.
It’s all well and good setting up a ThinkTank and spending days/weeks discussing positive strategies and marketing campaigns, but we know that without money, it won’t happen.
I wish that money was the only obstacle. You then have to get the current leadership team to approve of the ideas. Most of them are not open to suggestions from the rank and file.
With the party blacklisted by so many printers and suppliers, we will struggle to find anyone that will be willing to work with us.
A new paty is the only option.
Reply
Sigbrit says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:15 pm
And with the party defaulting on it’s debts to printers and suppliers even those not blacklisting will not touch the BNP. Well done the present ‘leadership’.
Reply
baconsarnie says:
July 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I too do agree on the “why put off” sentiments – but, I’m assuming there’s stuff behind scenes I do not know about. As I said, has until xmas in my eyes, then I’ll take stock and pretty much know what I’ll then decide now, but for the time being I am willing to assume that things that might revitalize our party/lead to a new party/anything that can get us out of this sh*thole we are in may well be ongoing behind the scenes.
Andrews statements on here were very strong stuff – one doubts things will stay the way they have been, crunch point has arrived.
Reply
Roy Davies says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm
September is too late, I wish Mr Brons would say today that he will start a new party. Every day that passes activists will move on and join other parties, a large number will have no doubt waited for the leadership election only to have their hopes dashed.
Reply
Jack Jones says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm
As much as it pains me to say it, I think the best way forward is a new party. I doubt i could bring myself to vote for a party that is run by a cheating dictator (which Nick has proved himself to be) nevermind support it/him.
I have also noticed that the word ‘BNP’ sends shivers down the spine of most ordinary Britains, even when they agree with what we say.
Anyway, my card is still in the drawer gathering dust and i’m still watching and waiting eagerly.
Reply
rerevisionist says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:30 pm
What’s needed is a ‘FactTank’ as well as a ThinkTank – the latter I presume is to consider plans and new ideas forward. BUT without a sound factual basis the ideas will flounder. I’d hope such people as Green of Migration Watch, Rear Admiral Parry, Arthur Kemp, people competent in British economic statistics (including borrowings and the paper money swindle), educational sceptics including Mona McNee (and David Irving?), and numerous other people could be co-opted, probably informally. By now I’d imagine Brons must have contacts in the European nationalist scene who’d be happy to provide information. Unfortunately, there’s a potential huge problem of people with vested interests in e.g. things like ‘climate change’ or fluoridation or nuclear issues or what have you. But we have to cut free from Beeboid quasi-facts and comfortable lies.
Reply
John says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Blimey how many years is this going on, all the lost time when we could have been building a new party, which will have to be done in the end. Even if Griffin was to give up the leadership of the party tomorrow I doubt many people would return, he’s tainted the name forever!
Reply
Harry says:
July 27, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Andrew, I agree with the other posts we need a new party thanks to Nick the BNP seems to be in its death throws although I am prepared to wait a few months to see what if any thing materializes from your conference before I finally decide whether to resign or not.
Reply
FURIONSTORMRAGE says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I too am very dissapointed with the way the nationalist cause has been destroying it’s self from the inside. We must be united or we may as well give up. There are so many small nationalist factions now that are not big enough to make any impact on current politics. One sensible option would be to create a coalition of british nationalists where all the factions can stay seperate with their own leaders but come together under one banner to campaign on issues that they all agree on for the greater good regardless of their petty differences. The other alternative is to stick with the BNP on the basis that if everyone who has recently left or been expelled takes up Nick Griffins offer to re-join and bury the hatchet then Nick Griffin would no longer have a majority of 9 in favour of him and therefore his position would become untenable.
To stay in small factions with a BNP in decline will result in the nationalist cause dissapearing almost completely. The biggest threat to our country is mass immigration and islamification so it should not matter if you are BNP, Britain First, British Resistance,or even EDL. WE MUST BE UNIFIED AND WORK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS.
Reply
George Edwards says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I am a British Nationalist without a political party. The BNP is dead to me. I see you as a leader so lead me Andrew. Not backwards into a party that is basically dying a slow withering death ….. Lead us forward with a new party…. What about National British Party ……..
Reply
Stev says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:13 pm
It’s not what the party say that repels the electorate it’s the way it’s said… listen to people voicing their opinions and putting the world to rights – most agree with our common sense nationalist policies – but find us unelectable for whatever reason (and there many)… lets change that with a BNP Ideas forum
Reply
Advocatus Diaboli says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm
It might be a better idea to launch a think tank open to members of all parties and none, rather than a BNP think tank. The sad reality is that there are now more good patriots outside that party than in it, and they’re not coming back for so long as Griffin and his cronies are in the party, let alone leading it.
Reply
anom says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Folks if you are a Nationalist and dont support Griffin then a new party is the only way forward its no good joining the other small tidler parties!!!
Reply
margaret stones says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm
my memership will be up for renewal in dec 2011 i will not be renewing it,
Reply
SerpentSlayer says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Caratacus, I have a few suggestions of my own;
British Workers Party
National Labour Party
Anti-Marxist Action
The Robin Hood Party
Greater Britain Party
British Peoples Union
Just my tuppence, reckon at least some of them are useable. I suggest we hang on with the British national Party for now though. Andrew has more years in the movement than most of us. What are John Bean and Richard Edmonds doing?
Reply
Philip Scott says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Forgetting party issues for a moment.
Royalists or not, Andrew Brons has been accepted as a guest recently to a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
This invite means that Andrew has been acknowledged by the ruling society. The ruling society, like it or not, is a door we must prise open. The fact of his attendance goes a long way to show the credibility of a man who has now been allowed to walk along the corridors of power. NG alas has never, and most probably will never have this opportunity.
Perhaps this is not an issue we should exploit.
My bet is that we need a leader who can walk shoulder to shoulder with the others. This invite, this acceptance of AB goes to show that one of us a least is not cast out as a leper. Tentatively this surely must be a good direction to head for. We cannot afford to walk the wilderness for ever. Time is running out.
Reply
The Insider says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I think this is the correct strategy to follow. Act in haste, and repent at leisure. We have all summer and autumn to let the legal cases take their course, and things out of Griffin’s control will determine his future.
Reply
Charles Mather says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm
My membership runs out in December and I don’t know yet whether I will renew.
I know on the street the BNP name is toxic and feel that we need a new party.
Andrew’s team could be the nucleus of that. Massive amounts of money are not needed with volunteers, BUT could Andrew remain as an MEP if he were to become the leader of a new party?
If he did lead a new party freed from those who now surround the leader I am sure many would join and in a few months we could build an effective nationalist force.
I believe the “Think Tank” is a good idea and possibly the last chance to save our movement.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Renew your BNP membership
Reply to Dissatisfied Supporters
Posted by admin, on 26 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Andrew Brons.
I have heard of many members who were disappointed by the incumbent Chairman’s (very narrow) victory in the leadership election. Some of these have expressed a desire to leave the Party and some to establish a new replacement party.
I must implore them to remain members of the British National Party.
Firstly, I pledged, during the campaign, to remain with the Party and so could not leave voluntarily, even if I wished to do so.
Secondly, there is no party to which one could credibly defect. The only parties out there are either tiny or civic or both. The future of our Nation depends for the foreseeable future to be in the hands of our Party.
Establishing a new party would be an immense task that could be contemplated only if the leadership were to carry out a mass cull of the membership or if the Party disappeared to nothing. If members allow their memberships to lapse and drop out in ones and twos they will be lost forever.
Even those who see the current leader as being beyond redemption should remain within the Party.
If you do not want to distribute EU referendum literature with our Chairman’s name and face on, you can always distribute equivalent literature bearing my name.
If you do not want to distribute mine either, you can always stay at home and enjoy a good book!
Our dissatisfied members must also remember that the current Chairman faces the same financial and legal challenges that he did before this campaign started.
Many of these were denied during the campaign but those denials did not (alas) make them disappear.
I take no pleasure in reminding you that these challenges could make his position untenable. Only your continued membership could prevent somebody from succeeding him whom you would regard as even less suitable for the job.
When we take big political decisions, it is not sufficient to ask oneself: “Which decision would make me feel most satisfied? Break up my membership card!”
We must ask ourselves what that would achieve and whether or not we wanted to achieve the expected outcome.
Please stay with the Party. If the leadership wants peace, he can have peace and we can get on with work that will contribute towards our substantive aims.
If on the other hand he were to choose war, he would meet an equal and opposite force.
I am confident that he will choose the former, despite being urged to choose the latter by his most favoured adviser. However, even choosing peace will not allow him to escape the legal and financial challenges that face him.
Please trust me and stay with the Party.
Posted by admin, on 26 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
 |
| Andrew Brons at Westminster |
I have heard of many members who were disappointed by the incumbent Chairman’s (very narrow) victory in the leadership election. Some of these have expressed a desire to leave the Party and some to establish a new replacement party.
I must implore them to remain members of the British National Party.
Firstly, I pledged, during the campaign, to remain with the Party and so could not leave voluntarily, even if I wished to do so.
Secondly, there is no party to which one could credibly defect. The only parties out there are either tiny or civic or both. The future of our Nation depends for the foreseeable future to be in the hands of our Party.
Establishing a new party would be an immense task that could be contemplated only if the leadership were to carry out a mass cull of the membership or if the Party disappeared to nothing. If members allow their memberships to lapse and drop out in ones and twos they will be lost forever.
Even those who see the current leader as being beyond redemption should remain within the Party.
If you do not want to distribute EU referendum literature with our Chairman’s name and face on, you can always distribute equivalent literature bearing my name.
If you do not want to distribute mine either, you can always stay at home and enjoy a good book!
Our dissatisfied members must also remember that the current Chairman faces the same financial and legal challenges that he did before this campaign started.
Many of these were denied during the campaign but those denials did not (alas) make them disappear.
I take no pleasure in reminding you that these challenges could make his position untenable. Only your continued membership could prevent somebody from succeeding him whom you would regard as even less suitable for the job.
When we take big political decisions, it is not sufficient to ask oneself: “Which decision would make me feel most satisfied? Break up my membership card!”
We must ask ourselves what that would achieve and whether or not we wanted to achieve the expected outcome.
Please stay with the Party. If the leadership wants peace, he can have peace and we can get on with work that will contribute towards our substantive aims.
If on the other hand he were to choose war, he would meet an equal and opposite force.
I am confident that he will choose the former, despite being urged to choose the latter by his most favoured adviser. However, even choosing peace will not allow him to escape the legal and financial challenges that face him.
Please trust me and stay with the Party.
Harrington must go!
The Leadership Contest
Posted by admin, on 26 July, 2011 // 9 Comments
Where do we go from here? That is the question many supporters of Andrew Brons are asking, in the light of yesterday’s leadership poll. Supporters of Nick Griffin are asking similar questions.
In the ballot, existing Chairman Nick Griffin won a new term as Chairman by the narrowest margin of nine votes, or 50.19%, against 49.80% for Andrew Brons. There were 11 spoiled papers.
The Returning Officer will now carry out some elementary checks to ensure there was no misconduct in the issuance of ballots and that voters were properly qualified two year members.
Probably, this was the worst mandate the Chairman could win. In effect, the party is split from head to toe and there remain grave questions of doubt over the fitness of many existing officers of the party to exercise control over its operations. Many of these officers are unpopular.
There were also serious offences carried out by the Chairman’s staff during the campaign itself.
A disgraceful 50 point, three page email was circulated to members, savagely attacking Mr Brons with outrageous lies and distortions.
The Chairman attributed its existence to his head of security, Martin Reynolds. Whether Mr Reynolds was capable of writing such a document is open to doubt. The Chairman, moreover, did not explain how Mr Reynolds was able to source the membership data.
The Chairman’s agents also flagrantly breached the electoral rules. In the South East, for example, a prejudicial email was issued under the name of Dave Price, imploring members to support Nick Griffin.
How many voting members these emails influenced will never be known.
The current Chairman enjoys no margin of support. The only practical means by which he can unite the party and lead it, therefore, is to consult and act on the views of the opposing team – not merely initially but on a continual basis.
He should also consider making appointments from Mr Brons’ team. Not least, it will be essential to dispense with the services of the non-member and political opponent, Pat Harrington, who is widely disliked and who stood ethnic candidates against our party in a previous role.
His continued influence in the party, however remote, will be viewed as divisive and confrontational. The Chairman should heed this message very carefully.
The Chairman is in an invidious position. Whereas there are no feelings particularly strongly held about Mr Brons, it is known that the Chairman is, alas, loathed by a significant portion of the activist base and widely resented.
That is why he will need to show resolve and replace a number of unpopular members of his team, whose abilities are open to question.
By contrast, it is widely admitted that the activist base for the most part supported Mr Brons. The activist base must be invigorated and its confidence won over if the party is to make meaningful progress.
An Unfortunate Backdrop
The fact remains that a significant proportion of activists have departed the party over the past year – an occurrence, ironically, that is not unrelated to the activities of Eddy Butler. But for Mr Butler, Mr Brons might have won the election by a significant margin.
In most regions, political activity has collapsed. In Scotland and the Eastern Region, for example, there are no longer any active branches. In the latter, there were dozens of active units earlier last year.
In all regions, the number of units has collapsed.
In all regions, the councillor base has collapsed – from approximately 87 two years ago to about a dozen, presently. It is doubtful whether most of the incumbents will retain their seats when new elections are held.
In other areas, units are controlled by tattooed half-wits, who will never appeal to the public.
The party website has become an illiterate shadow of itself.
In sum, this is an appalling record for the previous administration and, in particular, the Chairman, the National Elections Officer and the National Activities Organiser.
More serious, is the dire financial condition of the party. Large bills, amassed and unpaid, are now due for settlement and comfortably embrace six figures.
During the leadership campaign, it was claimed that the party was capable of settling its debts and there were no invoices outstanding of significance where arrangement had not been agreed. This website has demonstrated otherwise and we shall now see who was correct.
Enormous legal bills have also been amassed and the Chairman is exposed to a large claim from the ‘Decembrists’.
Serious questions also remain, relating to the Chairman’s conduct over an outstanding invoice from Romac Press and his related conduct towards Richard Barnbrook.
In any other party, any one of these developments would have been sufficient reason for the Chairman to resign. Unfortunately, the same principles of conduct do not pertain in our party but they should.
We shall soon discover whether the existence of these and other events cause such a crisis of confidence that the Chairman’s position becomes untenable.
We would remind him, in such circumstances, that the party is not his personal fiefdom: the party belongs to its members, not to the Chairman so that he might employ his family members and cronies. The party and the country are infinitely more important than the Chairman.
Given the closeness of the vote, there is no question, in our view, that the Chairman should have stood down and provided his support to Mr Brons, which would enable the party to unite.
This would have demonstrated statesmanship and selflessness, qualities that we doubt the Chairman possesses.
When Mrs Thatcher lost the leadership election within the Conservative Party in 1990, she secured a simple majority of 50% of the support of voting MPs. Under the rules, she also required an additional 15% of MPs’ support and narrowly failed that criterion. The purpose of this additional parameter was to ensure a wide margin of support, over and above the simple majority.
By many benchmarks, the party now stands where it was shortly after the Chairman was elected to the post in 1999. If the decline continues, we shall find the party has gone nowhere in a little over ten years.
The idea that the Chairman should remain in office for a further four years is not one which is tenable.
At the next AGM, this rule must be overturned and opportunities created for a further contest, which will doubtless be necessary given the parlous financial condition and the crisis of confidence amongst the activist base.
Across Europe, nationalist parties are booming. In the UK, conditions have never been more favourable for us. Instead, we find that there are now more activists out of the party than in it and that the party is run, for the main part, by half-wits, whose presence is toxic to the cause.
Questionable Mandate
Finally, the party website has written as follows:
“Upon the announcement of his re-election, Nick Griffin said: “The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work. We have a Party to build and a Nation to save. Let us go forward together!””
“This election was a great example of internal democracy. Nick Griffin has won and has a mandate to lead the Party for four more years. The members have spoken. We must all get behind Nick and take the fight to the enemies of our Nation.”
Far from ‘healing’, we are reminded that many people were suspended or expelled from the party because they spoke out in a way that was critical of the leadership. Many resigned because of this absence of tolerance.
This election was a poor example of internal democracy. Dirty tricks abounded and an enquiry must be held into the circulation of illicit material by party officers.
Mr Griffin certainly has no mandate. He has split the party and has won by the narrowest of margins. If he and the party stall as a result of any of the numerous cases pending in the law courts, his position will become entirely untenable.
We shall watch Mr Griffin carefully.
9 Responses to " The Leadership Contest "
Yaabbly says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Now lets see, 9 votes
1, Nick
2, his wife
3, his daughter
4, his son in law
5. jefferson
6, Adam walker
7, mark walker
8, Martin Reynolds
9, Linsey Reynolds
no vested interest there then?
It was interesting to see what they thought of Martin Reynolds when they wrote his so called 50 point trash; they purposely spelled things incorrectly to show that it was indeed a knuckle dragger who wrote it. And Reynolds smiled in agreement, is that because he couldn’t read what they had written lol
Reply
FedUp says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I think that certain members should be made well aware that just because Mr Griffin ultimately “won” yesterday, that it is far from business as usual and that both he and they will be being watched.
I would also like to know what is to become of the members who were eligible to vote but didn’t receive ballot papers. I trust that this will be looked into thoroughly.
Reply
Enter your name... says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:22 pm
You will be lucky, looked into indeed, and who will do the looking do you think? Jefferson, “oh yes we gerrymandered the members list” I can hear him say it now.
Reply
Roy Davies says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm
What a sad day, this result has sealed it for me. I shall not rejoin the party as I would have done if Mr Brons had won. I will look for another party to work for as I could never again pound the streets for a party with Mr. Griffin as its leader.
Reply
mercia says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I know of members who in a knee-jerk reaction voted for Griffin as soon as they received the ballot form whom – subsequently – having seen Mr Brons’ broadcast and received a certain booklet – asked if their ballot could be recovered and destroyed and a fresh ballot issued. The point being that there are scores, if not hundreds, of members who voted for Griffin early but by the end of the campaign wished they had voted for Mr. Brons. Griffin has no mandate – that now is clear. The man should do the decent thing and resign before he drags the party even further into the gutter – but to do the decent thing assumes a gentleman; Griffin has been accused of many things but not that!
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm
This article shows a glimps of the kind of statesmanship this party, and the country, needs. Go team Brons!
Reply
Forlorn hope says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:53 pm
To think it has come to this.
I could weep.
Reply
Albion1983 says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm
If Nick is serious about healing and stopping division and disruption then Andrew should be offered the post of deputy leader.
Reply
John says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm
As I understand it, Searchlight and the UAF are delighted with the Griffin victory.
NG has caused the collapse of the activist base and he will now do more of the same, surrounded as he is by a bunch of unpopular, self-important, party appointees.
Think of NG and often Martin Reynolds comes to mind. How many senior politicians surround themselves with skinheads in braces as bodyguards?
NG is toxic and he appoints neaderthals to all levels. No wonder the hard left wanted him in charge instead of the brains of the party, who backed AB.
Posted by admin, on 26 July, 2011 // 9 Comments
Where do we go from here? That is the question many supporters of Andrew Brons are asking, in the light of yesterday’s leadership poll. Supporters of Nick Griffin are asking similar questions.
In the ballot, existing Chairman Nick Griffin won a new term as Chairman by the narrowest margin of nine votes, or 50.19%, against 49.80% for Andrew Brons. There were 11 spoiled papers.
The Returning Officer will now carry out some elementary checks to ensure there was no misconduct in the issuance of ballots and that voters were properly qualified two year members.
Probably, this was the worst mandate the Chairman could win. In effect, the party is split from head to toe and there remain grave questions of doubt over the fitness of many existing officers of the party to exercise control over its operations. Many of these officers are unpopular.
There were also serious offences carried out by the Chairman’s staff during the campaign itself.
A disgraceful 50 point, three page email was circulated to members, savagely attacking Mr Brons with outrageous lies and distortions.
The Chairman attributed its existence to his head of security, Martin Reynolds. Whether Mr Reynolds was capable of writing such a document is open to doubt. The Chairman, moreover, did not explain how Mr Reynolds was able to source the membership data.
The Chairman’s agents also flagrantly breached the electoral rules. In the South East, for example, a prejudicial email was issued under the name of Dave Price, imploring members to support Nick Griffin.
How many voting members these emails influenced will never be known.
The current Chairman enjoys no margin of support. The only practical means by which he can unite the party and lead it, therefore, is to consult and act on the views of the opposing team – not merely initially but on a continual basis.
He should also consider making appointments from Mr Brons’ team. Not least, it will be essential to dispense with the services of the non-member and political opponent, Pat Harrington, who is widely disliked and who stood ethnic candidates against our party in a previous role.
His continued influence in the party, however remote, will be viewed as divisive and confrontational. The Chairman should heed this message very carefully.
The Chairman is in an invidious position. Whereas there are no feelings particularly strongly held about Mr Brons, it is known that the Chairman is, alas, loathed by a significant portion of the activist base and widely resented.
That is why he will need to show resolve and replace a number of unpopular members of his team, whose abilities are open to question.
By contrast, it is widely admitted that the activist base for the most part supported Mr Brons. The activist base must be invigorated and its confidence won over if the party is to make meaningful progress.
An Unfortunate Backdrop
The fact remains that a significant proportion of activists have departed the party over the past year – an occurrence, ironically, that is not unrelated to the activities of Eddy Butler. But for Mr Butler, Mr Brons might have won the election by a significant margin.
In most regions, political activity has collapsed. In Scotland and the Eastern Region, for example, there are no longer any active branches. In the latter, there were dozens of active units earlier last year.
In all regions, the number of units has collapsed.
In all regions, the councillor base has collapsed – from approximately 87 two years ago to about a dozen, presently. It is doubtful whether most of the incumbents will retain their seats when new elections are held.
In other areas, units are controlled by tattooed half-wits, who will never appeal to the public.
The party website has become an illiterate shadow of itself.
In sum, this is an appalling record for the previous administration and, in particular, the Chairman, the National Elections Officer and the National Activities Organiser.
More serious, is the dire financial condition of the party. Large bills, amassed and unpaid, are now due for settlement and comfortably embrace six figures.
During the leadership campaign, it was claimed that the party was capable of settling its debts and there were no invoices outstanding of significance where arrangement had not been agreed. This website has demonstrated otherwise and we shall now see who was correct.
Enormous legal bills have also been amassed and the Chairman is exposed to a large claim from the ‘Decembrists’.
Serious questions also remain, relating to the Chairman’s conduct over an outstanding invoice from Romac Press and his related conduct towards Richard Barnbrook.
In any other party, any one of these developments would have been sufficient reason for the Chairman to resign. Unfortunately, the same principles of conduct do not pertain in our party but they should.
We shall soon discover whether the existence of these and other events cause such a crisis of confidence that the Chairman’s position becomes untenable.
We would remind him, in such circumstances, that the party is not his personal fiefdom: the party belongs to its members, not to the Chairman so that he might employ his family members and cronies. The party and the country are infinitely more important than the Chairman.
Given the closeness of the vote, there is no question, in our view, that the Chairman should have stood down and provided his support to Mr Brons, which would enable the party to unite.
This would have demonstrated statesmanship and selflessness, qualities that we doubt the Chairman possesses.
When Mrs Thatcher lost the leadership election within the Conservative Party in 1990, she secured a simple majority of 50% of the support of voting MPs. Under the rules, she also required an additional 15% of MPs’ support and narrowly failed that criterion. The purpose of this additional parameter was to ensure a wide margin of support, over and above the simple majority.
By many benchmarks, the party now stands where it was shortly after the Chairman was elected to the post in 1999. If the decline continues, we shall find the party has gone nowhere in a little over ten years.
The idea that the Chairman should remain in office for a further four years is not one which is tenable.
At the next AGM, this rule must be overturned and opportunities created for a further contest, which will doubtless be necessary given the parlous financial condition and the crisis of confidence amongst the activist base.
Across Europe, nationalist parties are booming. In the UK, conditions have never been more favourable for us. Instead, we find that there are now more activists out of the party than in it and that the party is run, for the main part, by half-wits, whose presence is toxic to the cause.
Questionable Mandate
Finally, the party website has written as follows:
“Upon the announcement of his re-election, Nick Griffin said: “The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work. We have a Party to build and a Nation to save. Let us go forward together!””
“This election was a great example of internal democracy. Nick Griffin has won and has a mandate to lead the Party for four more years. The members have spoken. We must all get behind Nick and take the fight to the enemies of our Nation.”
Far from ‘healing’, we are reminded that many people were suspended or expelled from the party because they spoke out in a way that was critical of the leadership. Many resigned because of this absence of tolerance.
This election was a poor example of internal democracy. Dirty tricks abounded and an enquiry must be held into the circulation of illicit material by party officers.
Mr Griffin certainly has no mandate. He has split the party and has won by the narrowest of margins. If he and the party stall as a result of any of the numerous cases pending in the law courts, his position will become entirely untenable.
We shall watch Mr Griffin carefully.
9 Responses to " The Leadership Contest "
Yaabbly says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Now lets see, 9 votes
1, Nick
2, his wife
3, his daughter
4, his son in law
5. jefferson
6, Adam walker
7, mark walker
8, Martin Reynolds
9, Linsey Reynolds
no vested interest there then?
It was interesting to see what they thought of Martin Reynolds when they wrote his so called 50 point trash; they purposely spelled things incorrectly to show that it was indeed a knuckle dragger who wrote it. And Reynolds smiled in agreement, is that because he couldn’t read what they had written lol
Reply
FedUp says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I think that certain members should be made well aware that just because Mr Griffin ultimately “won” yesterday, that it is far from business as usual and that both he and they will be being watched.
I would also like to know what is to become of the members who were eligible to vote but didn’t receive ballot papers. I trust that this will be looked into thoroughly.
Reply
Enter your name... says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:22 pm
You will be lucky, looked into indeed, and who will do the looking do you think? Jefferson, “oh yes we gerrymandered the members list” I can hear him say it now.
Reply
Roy Davies says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm
What a sad day, this result has sealed it for me. I shall not rejoin the party as I would have done if Mr Brons had won. I will look for another party to work for as I could never again pound the streets for a party with Mr. Griffin as its leader.
Reply
mercia says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I know of members who in a knee-jerk reaction voted for Griffin as soon as they received the ballot form whom – subsequently – having seen Mr Brons’ broadcast and received a certain booklet – asked if their ballot could be recovered and destroyed and a fresh ballot issued. The point being that there are scores, if not hundreds, of members who voted for Griffin early but by the end of the campaign wished they had voted for Mr. Brons. Griffin has no mandate – that now is clear. The man should do the decent thing and resign before he drags the party even further into the gutter – but to do the decent thing assumes a gentleman; Griffin has been accused of many things but not that!
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm
This article shows a glimps of the kind of statesmanship this party, and the country, needs. Go team Brons!
Reply
Forlorn hope says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:53 pm
To think it has come to this.
I could weep.
Reply
Albion1983 says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm
If Nick is serious about healing and stopping division and disruption then Andrew should be offered the post of deputy leader.
Reply
John says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm
As I understand it, Searchlight and the UAF are delighted with the Griffin victory.
NG has caused the collapse of the activist base and he will now do more of the same, surrounded as he is by a bunch of unpopular, self-important, party appointees.
Think of NG and often Martin Reynolds comes to mind. How many senior politicians surround themselves with skinheads in braces as bodyguards?
NG is toxic and he appoints neaderthals to all levels. No wonder the hard left wanted him in charge instead of the brains of the party, who backed AB.
What does "Pyrrhic victory" mean, Nick?
Nick Griffin Wins BNP Leadership Contest by 9 Votes
Posted by admin, on 25 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
ANDREW BRONS MEP has sent his congratulations to Nick Griffin upon the latter’s victory by 9 votes in the British National Party’s leadership election contest.
“I accept the result, subject only to the checks that the Returning Officer will carry out in the next few days. I hope that we can work together for the benefit of our Party and our Nation,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
The vote percentage split was 49.8% to Mr Brons and 50.19% to Mr Griffin. There were 11 spoilt papers and 37 ballots were declared invalid as they contained no signature.
“People will not take it as mean spirited if I say that it is a very narrow margin of victory, and that it means the majority will have to work with the minority for the good of the party,” Mr Brons said.
“It is vital for unity that all members remain in the Party and in their posts. The future of Britain depends upon the continued existence of the only serious nationalist party,” Mr Brons continued.
“There are a number of unresolved legal and financial issues that might yet affect the Party and its leadership in ways that are unpredictable. We must be prepared for these eventualities.
“I should like to thank all members who voted for me. I hope that I am able to live up to the confidence they have expressed.
“I should also like to thank my campaign staff, who fought the leadership election under the most trying of circumstances,” Mr Brons said.
COMMENTS
A BNP supporter no more says:
July 25, 2011 at 10:46 pm
So near and yet so far. If there had been anything like a normal election campaign and if so may people had not been driven out of the party in one way or another, Andrew would have won and sanity, and future electoral progress, would have returned to the party. But alas that is not to be.
I shall remain a member until my membership runs out in the hope that something happens by then, as Andrew has hinted, that sees the removal of Griffin, but I shall continue my strike. It would be a complete waste of time … and money money money of course to do otherwise because the party’s going to go nowhere with this petty little dictator in charge!
However I believe Andrew needs to lead a new party, which should be set up soon, as he would be able to take with him an almost ready made party structure of regions and branches from the BNP’s many decent, intelligent, members, before we all drift away, and that will doubtless attract back the many people who have been expelled or drifted away over the last few years. It won’t be easy, starting a new party never is, but if we want to see our country saved before it’s too late be must do it, and we must do it NOW.
Posted by admin, on 25 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
 |
| "I must follow them, I am their leader" |
“I accept the result, subject only to the checks that the Returning Officer will carry out in the next few days. I hope that we can work together for the benefit of our Party and our Nation,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
The vote percentage split was 49.8% to Mr Brons and 50.19% to Mr Griffin. There were 11 spoilt papers and 37 ballots were declared invalid as they contained no signature.
“People will not take it as mean spirited if I say that it is a very narrow margin of victory, and that it means the majority will have to work with the minority for the good of the party,” Mr Brons said.
“It is vital for unity that all members remain in the Party and in their posts. The future of Britain depends upon the continued existence of the only serious nationalist party,” Mr Brons continued.
“There are a number of unresolved legal and financial issues that might yet affect the Party and its leadership in ways that are unpredictable. We must be prepared for these eventualities.
“I should like to thank all members who voted for me. I hope that I am able to live up to the confidence they have expressed.
“I should also like to thank my campaign staff, who fought the leadership election under the most trying of circumstances,” Mr Brons said.
COMMENTS
A BNP supporter no more says:
July 25, 2011 at 10:46 pm
So near and yet so far. If there had been anything like a normal election campaign and if so may people had not been driven out of the party in one way or another, Andrew would have won and sanity, and future electoral progress, would have returned to the party. But alas that is not to be.
I shall remain a member until my membership runs out in the hope that something happens by then, as Andrew has hinted, that sees the removal of Griffin, but I shall continue my strike. It would be a complete waste of time … and money money money of course to do otherwise because the party’s going to go nowhere with this petty little dictator in charge!
However I believe Andrew needs to lead a new party, which should be set up soon, as he would be able to take with him an almost ready made party structure of regions and branches from the BNP’s many decent, intelligent, members, before we all drift away, and that will doubtless attract back the many people who have been expelled or drifted away over the last few years. It won’t be easy, starting a new party never is, but if we want to see our country saved before it’s too late be must do it, and we must do it NOW.
Monday, 25 July 2011
"All BNP members are equal, but some are more equal than others"
Animal Farm Revisited
Posted by admin, on 25 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Clive Wakely
GEORGE ORWELL wrote “Animal Farm” as a satire on Stalin and communism—however it has recently been suggested that it could equally be regarded as a satire on more contemporary events closer to home.
Orwell’s allegorical novel was published in the UK in August 1945 and is generally accredited with reflecting on events leading up to and during the Stalin period prior to World War II.
The novel addresses a number of themes – not least the corruption of a revolution by a greedy self-serving leader, unscrupulously exploiting the goodwill of the led.
Picking up the story line following the successful revolution we find an animal community with two boars, Napoleon and Snowball, providing leadership of sorts.
That the animal community at that stage embraces some elements of democracy is exemplified by decision making through “public” consent at meetings.
However it quickly becomes evident that Napoleon has his own agenda, one that does not include power sharing; one, which effectively has him established as dictator for life.
To consolidate his position Napoleon surrounds himself with a compliant posse of handpicked “management” pigs and a security squad of vicious dogs; and all debate over how the farm is run is brought to an abrupt end.
“Napoleon, with the dogs following him, now mounted on to the raised portion of the floor where Major had previously stood to deliver his speech. He announced that from now on the Sunday-morning Meetings would come to an end. They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time. In future all questions relating to the working of the farm would be settled by a special committee of pigs, presided over by himself. These would meet in private and afterwards communicate their decisions to the others.”
Napoleon’s first victim is his archrival Snowball, upon whom he sets his attack dogs.
Having expelled Snowball from the farm, Napoleon embarks upon a campaign of vilification, branding him a “traitor” and accusing him of working with the enemy.
A similar fate awaits four young dissident pigs that make the mistake of uttering mild criticism of their leader’s conduct in public.
Thereafter it becomes porcine policy to hold Snowball and his numerous alleged collaborators responsible for all ills that subsequently befall the farm and its animal community.
Having achieved absolute control over all aspects of the farm’s affairs Napoleon then embarks on an ambitious programme.
He claims it will reinvigorate the dilapidated farm, thereby putting it on an equal footing with nearby rival farms run by hostile human farmers.
Animal Farm’s animal community rises to the challenge and contribute all they can; in every way they can; give “until it hurts” appears to be the order of the day.
They enjoy some success – their first harvest is gathered in, much to the surprise of detractors, in record time.
Buoyed by this success Napoleon announces an even more ambitious plan – to build a windmill, one fully equipped with all the latest equipment; a modernization program that will both provide the farm with all the electricity it needs and place it firmly in the farming mainstream.
However the cost of the project is substantial, a cost that will require every single member of the farm community to contribute; as the specialist state-of-the-art equipment needed for both the farm and its windmill were not cheap.
Once again the hard working and loyal animal community buys into the project donating even more of their precious time and energy into bringing it to fruition.
However whilst the animals toil to fulfil their leader’s ambitious plan an undercurrent of unease and concern gradually takes hold amongst them, principally over the activities of the management pigs.
The hens, for instance, revolt on discovering that their precious eggs are being stolen and sold off for money, a revolt that is quickly and savagely put down by the leader’s attack dogs on his instructions.
The cows are outraged over the theft of their milk, outrage barely assuaged by the explanation proffered in response:
“Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty?”
Matters then go from bad to worse.
The almost complete windmill is subsequently destroyed and, true to form, the “traitor” Snowball is held responsible.
Then each of the tenets of Animal Farm’s “constitution”, painted large at one end of the barn, are subject to inexplicable amendment; but no one dares criticize for fear of being denounced as one of Snowball’s creatures.
Unknown to the rest of the animal community, Napoleon and his “henchpigs” sell off most of the crops grown on the farm for overwinter feeding; along with eggs, timber and other assets.
According to the leader the proceeds from these transactions are ostensibly needed to pay for the equipment, being part and parcel of the farm’s modernization and abandoned windmill projects.
To deceive both the animal community and outside detractors, as to the real extent of the farm’s resulting and growing deficit in terms of animal foodstuffs, Napoleon orders:
“the almost empty bins in the store-shed to be filled nearly to the brim with sand, which was then covered up with what remained of the grain and meal.”
Although not expressly stated, a clue as to how Napoleon may have utilized the proceeds from the sale of farm assets can be ascertained from the final chapter of Orwell’s work.
The downtrodden and by now deeply disillusioned animal community is one day alerted by sounds of partying and merriment coming from the old farmhouse in which Napoleon and his porcine entourage have taken up residence.
Pressing up against the windows they discover Napoleon and his piggy pals engaged in some serious junketing with the avowed enemy – the owners of adjacent and rival farms.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
In other words the leadership of their farm, far from offering a real alternative to the “old gang”, had sold out and were now part of the very same “old gang” they claimed to despise, to the extent they were indistinguishable from it.
The sense of betrayal felt by Animal Farm’s animal community can only be guessed at.
To what extent Orwell’s great work can accurately be said to be an allegory for contemporary events is, in the final analysis, very much a matter of personal opinion.
So what do you think?
Posted by admin, on 25 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Clive Wakely
 |
| Stalinism in one party |
Orwell’s allegorical novel was published in the UK in August 1945 and is generally accredited with reflecting on events leading up to and during the Stalin period prior to World War II.
The novel addresses a number of themes – not least the corruption of a revolution by a greedy self-serving leader, unscrupulously exploiting the goodwill of the led.
Picking up the story line following the successful revolution we find an animal community with two boars, Napoleon and Snowball, providing leadership of sorts.
That the animal community at that stage embraces some elements of democracy is exemplified by decision making through “public” consent at meetings.
However it quickly becomes evident that Napoleon has his own agenda, one that does not include power sharing; one, which effectively has him established as dictator for life.
To consolidate his position Napoleon surrounds himself with a compliant posse of handpicked “management” pigs and a security squad of vicious dogs; and all debate over how the farm is run is brought to an abrupt end.
“Napoleon, with the dogs following him, now mounted on to the raised portion of the floor where Major had previously stood to deliver his speech. He announced that from now on the Sunday-morning Meetings would come to an end. They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time. In future all questions relating to the working of the farm would be settled by a special committee of pigs, presided over by himself. These would meet in private and afterwards communicate their decisions to the others.”
Napoleon’s first victim is his archrival Snowball, upon whom he sets his attack dogs.
Having expelled Snowball from the farm, Napoleon embarks upon a campaign of vilification, branding him a “traitor” and accusing him of working with the enemy.
A similar fate awaits four young dissident pigs that make the mistake of uttering mild criticism of their leader’s conduct in public.
Thereafter it becomes porcine policy to hold Snowball and his numerous alleged collaborators responsible for all ills that subsequently befall the farm and its animal community.
Having achieved absolute control over all aspects of the farm’s affairs Napoleon then embarks on an ambitious programme.
He claims it will reinvigorate the dilapidated farm, thereby putting it on an equal footing with nearby rival farms run by hostile human farmers.
Animal Farm’s animal community rises to the challenge and contribute all they can; in every way they can; give “until it hurts” appears to be the order of the day.
They enjoy some success – their first harvest is gathered in, much to the surprise of detractors, in record time.
Buoyed by this success Napoleon announces an even more ambitious plan – to build a windmill, one fully equipped with all the latest equipment; a modernization program that will both provide the farm with all the electricity it needs and place it firmly in the farming mainstream.
However the cost of the project is substantial, a cost that will require every single member of the farm community to contribute; as the specialist state-of-the-art equipment needed for both the farm and its windmill were not cheap.
Once again the hard working and loyal animal community buys into the project donating even more of their precious time and energy into bringing it to fruition.
However whilst the animals toil to fulfil their leader’s ambitious plan an undercurrent of unease and concern gradually takes hold amongst them, principally over the activities of the management pigs.
The hens, for instance, revolt on discovering that their precious eggs are being stolen and sold off for money, a revolt that is quickly and savagely put down by the leader’s attack dogs on his instructions.
The cows are outraged over the theft of their milk, outrage barely assuaged by the explanation proffered in response:
“Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty?”
Matters then go from bad to worse.
The almost complete windmill is subsequently destroyed and, true to form, the “traitor” Snowball is held responsible.
Then each of the tenets of Animal Farm’s “constitution”, painted large at one end of the barn, are subject to inexplicable amendment; but no one dares criticize for fear of being denounced as one of Snowball’s creatures.
Unknown to the rest of the animal community, Napoleon and his “henchpigs” sell off most of the crops grown on the farm for overwinter feeding; along with eggs, timber and other assets.
According to the leader the proceeds from these transactions are ostensibly needed to pay for the equipment, being part and parcel of the farm’s modernization and abandoned windmill projects.
To deceive both the animal community and outside detractors, as to the real extent of the farm’s resulting and growing deficit in terms of animal foodstuffs, Napoleon orders:
“the almost empty bins in the store-shed to be filled nearly to the brim with sand, which was then covered up with what remained of the grain and meal.”
Although not expressly stated, a clue as to how Napoleon may have utilized the proceeds from the sale of farm assets can be ascertained from the final chapter of Orwell’s work.
The downtrodden and by now deeply disillusioned animal community is one day alerted by sounds of partying and merriment coming from the old farmhouse in which Napoleon and his porcine entourage have taken up residence.
Pressing up against the windows they discover Napoleon and his piggy pals engaged in some serious junketing with the avowed enemy – the owners of adjacent and rival farms.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
In other words the leadership of their farm, far from offering a real alternative to the “old gang”, had sold out and were now part of the very same “old gang” they claimed to despise, to the extent they were indistinguishable from it.
The sense of betrayal felt by Animal Farm’s animal community can only be guessed at.
To what extent Orwell’s great work can accurately be said to be an allegory for contemporary events is, in the final analysis, very much a matter of personal opinion.
So what do you think?
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Double-plus unthink
Dear Friends
At present there is a leadership struggle going on within the British National Party. The contestants are Nick Griffin (current Chairman and MEP for the North-West) and Andrew Brons (MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber). At the time of their election to the European Parliament, Adrian Davies, the prominent Nationalist Barrister, quipped ''The BNP have got two candidates elected to the European Parliament. One is a man of integrity and decency, the other is Nick Griffin." Some would say his words have been proved to have been rather prophetic.
Now regardless of whether you support the BNP or not, the outcome of this contest is important for British Nationalism and for the future of Britain. And therefore the issue is important to a broad church of Nationalist thought.
The problem is that while everyone has seen, heard and read Nick Griffin, many Nationalists have never heard a speech by Andrew Brons or read an article by him, despite the fact that he has such a prominent place in the party (see Andrew Brons's website: bnpideas). Cynics might say that this is because Nick Griffin wants all the limelight for himself. Be that as it may, the following review might go some way towards rectifying the situation.
Brons is 62 years old and is a retired College Lecturer. He has long been a stalwart of the Nationalist cause. He has 'an Ezra Pound like reputation' for encouraging new talent and indeed his record seems to confirm this, as young talent has always flourished under his tenure/chairmanship of other/previous Nationalist organisations.
UNOFFICIAL REVIEW AND MUSINGS on a SPEECH BY ANDREW BRONS - Thursday 30th June, Ashfield, near Mansfield
(All errors, additions, omissions etc, are purely my own, as this was done from memory. Hopefully the speech will soon appear on the BNP Ideas website.)
The subject of the speech was 'Why Public Policy in Britain today is a Disaster'.
Andrew began by saying that he always told the Truth. Why did he do this? Well, firstly because it was the right thing to do and secondly because it was a lot easier! In the words of Jerome K Jerome "It is always the best policy to speak the truth - unless of course, you are an exceptionally good liar." This is because when you start to tell lies you have to remember what lies you have told and make them all consistent with each other and with reality. In a sense you are creating a fictional parallel universe of lies. You have to remember in effect two worlds - the real one and the false one you have built up. This is very difficult to do as the mind prefers only to cope with one world. So it is very easy for the mind to take the easy option and just concentrate on one of the worlds. The danger is that you end up believing your own false world rather than the real world.
Which brings us on to Government Public Policy. Now the basic assumption of everyone, EVERYONE, in the media, the newspapers, on TV, in Government, in the Think Tanks, the chattering classes etc, etc, is that human nature is malleable. That who we are, how we turn out, how successful we are, how law abiding etc, is down to Nurture, ie, it is all down to our upbringing and our environment, whether our parents gave us enough love, and believe it or not, whether we were potty trained properly! In other words, we are all the same. We are all blank sheets. There is no innate difference, none at all, between different races, different ethnic groups and between individuals. What this means is that Government Policy, all Government Policy, operates on this assumption. Whether your village, town, city is inhabited by Somalis or Somersetshire folk is all the same to 'the Powers that be'. In their view the UK is merely a geographical area and it doesn't matter who lives within it. Culture, tradition, custom, race, religion - none of these matter. All that matters is that UK Ltd keeps on making money for the few who effectively run the company.
In a humorous aside here, Mr Brons said that he had to be very careful about what he said at this point. Let us say, he said, that fishermen from the Orkneys have a predisposition to carry out muggings in our urban areas, or that East Anglian farmers were heavily represented in the urban knife crime statistics. This being so, the basic assumption of all levels of Government and the media is not that such Orcadians or East Anglians have a greater predisposition to carry out crime than any other group, but that they have had a lack of good opportunities, a bad environment, or wore the wrong type of nappies when babies and so on ad infinitum. All those who appear on our TV screens and in our newspapers implicitly agree with this assumption. No one ever replies when given a loaded question by an interviewer on some such issue, ''I disagree with your basic assumption." This is just not done. Mr Brons recalled the time he was watching TV and an interviewer asked an MP ''There is a lot of concern among the public about immigration....err....coloured immigration," he quickly added while blushing. Mr Brons said this was an indication of the self-censoring that most people carry out on their own actions, thoughts and words. In Orwell's 1984 everyone has a miniature electronic device fitted in the back of their neck [sic]. Its object is to stop what Orwell calls ''ungoodthinkfulthoughts". This device is called "Crimestop". And this is really what we have today. Occasionally, a fact will surface such as that a teenager who carried out a murder, is revealed as having a great grandfather who was also hanged for murder. When this happens "crimestop" comes into play and the story is hushed up.
Now there is a term used in computer programming known as 'GIGO'. If you feed garbage (ie, incorrect formulas and data) into a computer programme you'll get nothing but garbage out. Garbage in, garbage out. Because Public Policy in this country and in the West generally is based on false assumptions about human nature, about race, about gender and a whole host of politically incorrect issues, what comes out the other end is complete chaos and disaster. Public Policy does not do what it's meant to do. It is ineffective and inefficient. Resources are wasted and squandered and the only answer Westminster and the liberal pundits have is to spend more and more money. More and more of YOUR money. Public Policy makers do not learn from their mistakes, they can't, because if they did they would have to admit that they had got the whole foundation of their outlook on life wrong and the implications of admitting that would be immense. So when more and more sex education for younger and younger children produces more and more unwanted pregnancies, their answer is yet more sex education for even younger children. It's illogical, it's madness, it's Public Policy.
So, do we live in a state of self-delusion? Well, in actual fact we don't. This is where it gets REALLY interesting. This is really the crunch. Those SAME politicans and journalists, while PUBLICLY agreeing with all the liberal-marxist, politically correct claptrap and treating it as gospel-truth, in their PRIVATE lives acknowledge that it is a load of old codswallop! They acknowledge that cousin Gerald is the spitting image of great-uncle Stanley and also behaves in the same way. They acknowledge that all the money that Central and Local Government has thrown at the local constituency sink comprehensive, has done nothing to improve standards and they quietly send their children to prestigious independent schools. They forbid their children from going into rough areas of town and forbid them to mix with children from ethnic minorities. If they have to have a constituency home in an inner city multi-racial mess of a neighbourhood, they make damned sure that they have a second home in a nice, white, rural area. Journalists who praise multicultural Hackney, for its vibrancy and cheap Turkish household cleaners, soon move out to Cornwall. Pop singers who grew up in London soon move out to Devon when they make it big. So our society is not merely self-delusional it is actually self-delusionally schizophrenic! To illustrate just how crazy our society has become, let's look at recent changes in the Law of the Land.
Now, there was a hullabaloo recently when certain comedians such as Rowan Atkinson were concerned that Parliament was going to pass strict new laws that outlawed criticism or lampooning of religion. In the Parliamentary Committee Hearing into the matter these comedians were assured that these new laws would not (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) apply to them, so there was no need to worry. Who then were the laws going to apply to? I think we all know the answer to that - it will apply to people like us. All used to be treated alike before the law. No longer.
Two other major principles of law that have fallen by the wayside, in the effort to keep the lid on all the chaos that these public policies have created, is the doing away with the need to prove 'intent' and the concept of 'truth'. If someone BELIEVES that you are breaking a law by what you say, then you are breaking the law. And that's that. No appeal. There is no need to prove intent any more. To argue what you were saying is the truth is not good enough. As "the truth is no defence".
If we add to this the doing away of the double jeopardy rule and the refusal of the automatic right to a trial by jury, we have a frightening prospect. This now means that you can say something which is true, but if the governement wants to imprison you then you can be tried an indefinite number of times, until the Courts get the judgement they want. If the juries obstinately keep giving the wrong verdict, ie, "not guilty", then the government can merely do away with the jury altogether and try you without one.
So to sum up, it could be said that once Public Policy begins basing its policies on lies, its policies produce disaster and we slide down a slippery slope into more and more lies. We end up living in a schizophrenic, self-delusional world where people are imprisoned for telling the truth. We now have two worlds - the real world of our private lives and the Orwellian world of public policy. Nothing good can come out of lying and the worst lie is the lie we tell ourselves.
If I had to sum up this speech by Andrew Brons I would say that it was a well crafted, well thought-out speech, delivered in a modest way. He did not waffle, nor did he talk down to, or patronize, his audience. The intellectual rigour was impressive and reminded me of Enoch Powell. He struck me as honest and as 'a safe pair of hands'. In short, Andrew Brons did not come across as a politician. This may be seen as a shortcoming, but I think not. The public is tired, dog-tired, of politicians and spivs and wants something new, something cleaner, something fresher and something honest. What is politics anyway? A wag once defined it thus: " 'Poly' means many and 'ticks' means blood-sucking parasites." The parasites have had their day and the BNP has to offer that something different which the public craves so much. To paraphrase Noel Coward, '' In politics today it is discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.'' We need something different. Andrew Brons may not be a politician but he could well be a statesman. And it is a statesman that the BNP and indeed the country, need at this present dangerous time.
CONCLUSION
We've seen here that whoever tells lies, (even if they be small ones, exaggerations, or half-truths) and whether 'the whoever' be an individual, a group of people, or the ruling elite of a country, can easily end up believing their own lies - even if no one else does - and end up creating a fantasy world of their own creation, (in the case of governments through public policy). Members of the general public who are too poor to insulate themselves from the effects of this madness suffer terribly and anyone who tries to expose this fantasy world for what it is - a fantasy world - is ignored and if he can't be ignored, ends up being persecuted and becoming a persona non grata. However, the liars, in their own and their own families' private lives, live very much in the real world and prosper financially and socially.
Andrew did not make the comparison, but the analogy between the ruling elite in Britain and the state of Britain and the current leadership of the BNP and the state of the BNP couldn't be more apt.
Jez Turner
At present there is a leadership struggle going on within the British National Party. The contestants are Nick Griffin (current Chairman and MEP for the North-West) and Andrew Brons (MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber). At the time of their election to the European Parliament, Adrian Davies, the prominent Nationalist Barrister, quipped ''The BNP have got two candidates elected to the European Parliament. One is a man of integrity and decency, the other is Nick Griffin." Some would say his words have been proved to have been rather prophetic.
Now regardless of whether you support the BNP or not, the outcome of this contest is important for British Nationalism and for the future of Britain. And therefore the issue is important to a broad church of Nationalist thought.
The problem is that while everyone has seen, heard and read Nick Griffin, many Nationalists have never heard a speech by Andrew Brons or read an article by him, despite the fact that he has such a prominent place in the party (see Andrew Brons's website: bnpideas). Cynics might say that this is because Nick Griffin wants all the limelight for himself. Be that as it may, the following review might go some way towards rectifying the situation.
Brons is 62 years old and is a retired College Lecturer. He has long been a stalwart of the Nationalist cause. He has 'an Ezra Pound like reputation' for encouraging new talent and indeed his record seems to confirm this, as young talent has always flourished under his tenure/chairmanship of other/previous Nationalist organisations.
UNOFFICIAL REVIEW AND MUSINGS on a SPEECH BY ANDREW BRONS - Thursday 30th June, Ashfield, near Mansfield
(All errors, additions, omissions etc, are purely my own, as this was done from memory. Hopefully the speech will soon appear on the BNP Ideas website.)
The subject of the speech was 'Why Public Policy in Britain today is a Disaster'.
Andrew began by saying that he always told the Truth. Why did he do this? Well, firstly because it was the right thing to do and secondly because it was a lot easier! In the words of Jerome K Jerome "It is always the best policy to speak the truth - unless of course, you are an exceptionally good liar." This is because when you start to tell lies you have to remember what lies you have told and make them all consistent with each other and with reality. In a sense you are creating a fictional parallel universe of lies. You have to remember in effect two worlds - the real one and the false one you have built up. This is very difficult to do as the mind prefers only to cope with one world. So it is very easy for the mind to take the easy option and just concentrate on one of the worlds. The danger is that you end up believing your own false world rather than the real world.
Which brings us on to Government Public Policy. Now the basic assumption of everyone, EVERYONE, in the media, the newspapers, on TV, in Government, in the Think Tanks, the chattering classes etc, etc, is that human nature is malleable. That who we are, how we turn out, how successful we are, how law abiding etc, is down to Nurture, ie, it is all down to our upbringing and our environment, whether our parents gave us enough love, and believe it or not, whether we were potty trained properly! In other words, we are all the same. We are all blank sheets. There is no innate difference, none at all, between different races, different ethnic groups and between individuals. What this means is that Government Policy, all Government Policy, operates on this assumption. Whether your village, town, city is inhabited by Somalis or Somersetshire folk is all the same to 'the Powers that be'. In their view the UK is merely a geographical area and it doesn't matter who lives within it. Culture, tradition, custom, race, religion - none of these matter. All that matters is that UK Ltd keeps on making money for the few who effectively run the company.
In a humorous aside here, Mr Brons said that he had to be very careful about what he said at this point. Let us say, he said, that fishermen from the Orkneys have a predisposition to carry out muggings in our urban areas, or that East Anglian farmers were heavily represented in the urban knife crime statistics. This being so, the basic assumption of all levels of Government and the media is not that such Orcadians or East Anglians have a greater predisposition to carry out crime than any other group, but that they have had a lack of good opportunities, a bad environment, or wore the wrong type of nappies when babies and so on ad infinitum. All those who appear on our TV screens and in our newspapers implicitly agree with this assumption. No one ever replies when given a loaded question by an interviewer on some such issue, ''I disagree with your basic assumption." This is just not done. Mr Brons recalled the time he was watching TV and an interviewer asked an MP ''There is a lot of concern among the public about immigration....err....coloured immigration," he quickly added while blushing. Mr Brons said this was an indication of the self-censoring that most people carry out on their own actions, thoughts and words. In Orwell's 1984 everyone has a miniature electronic device fitted in the back of their neck [sic]. Its object is to stop what Orwell calls ''ungoodthinkfulthoughts". This device is called "Crimestop". And this is really what we have today. Occasionally, a fact will surface such as that a teenager who carried out a murder, is revealed as having a great grandfather who was also hanged for murder. When this happens "crimestop" comes into play and the story is hushed up.
Now there is a term used in computer programming known as 'GIGO'. If you feed garbage (ie, incorrect formulas and data) into a computer programme you'll get nothing but garbage out. Garbage in, garbage out. Because Public Policy in this country and in the West generally is based on false assumptions about human nature, about race, about gender and a whole host of politically incorrect issues, what comes out the other end is complete chaos and disaster. Public Policy does not do what it's meant to do. It is ineffective and inefficient. Resources are wasted and squandered and the only answer Westminster and the liberal pundits have is to spend more and more money. More and more of YOUR money. Public Policy makers do not learn from their mistakes, they can't, because if they did they would have to admit that they had got the whole foundation of their outlook on life wrong and the implications of admitting that would be immense. So when more and more sex education for younger and younger children produces more and more unwanted pregnancies, their answer is yet more sex education for even younger children. It's illogical, it's madness, it's Public Policy.
So, do we live in a state of self-delusion? Well, in actual fact we don't. This is where it gets REALLY interesting. This is really the crunch. Those SAME politicans and journalists, while PUBLICLY agreeing with all the liberal-marxist, politically correct claptrap and treating it as gospel-truth, in their PRIVATE lives acknowledge that it is a load of old codswallop! They acknowledge that cousin Gerald is the spitting image of great-uncle Stanley and also behaves in the same way. They acknowledge that all the money that Central and Local Government has thrown at the local constituency sink comprehensive, has done nothing to improve standards and they quietly send their children to prestigious independent schools. They forbid their children from going into rough areas of town and forbid them to mix with children from ethnic minorities. If they have to have a constituency home in an inner city multi-racial mess of a neighbourhood, they make damned sure that they have a second home in a nice, white, rural area. Journalists who praise multicultural Hackney, for its vibrancy and cheap Turkish household cleaners, soon move out to Cornwall. Pop singers who grew up in London soon move out to Devon when they make it big. So our society is not merely self-delusional it is actually self-delusionally schizophrenic! To illustrate just how crazy our society has become, let's look at recent changes in the Law of the Land.
Now, there was a hullabaloo recently when certain comedians such as Rowan Atkinson were concerned that Parliament was going to pass strict new laws that outlawed criticism or lampooning of religion. In the Parliamentary Committee Hearing into the matter these comedians were assured that these new laws would not (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) apply to them, so there was no need to worry. Who then were the laws going to apply to? I think we all know the answer to that - it will apply to people like us. All used to be treated alike before the law. No longer.
Two other major principles of law that have fallen by the wayside, in the effort to keep the lid on all the chaos that these public policies have created, is the doing away with the need to prove 'intent' and the concept of 'truth'. If someone BELIEVES that you are breaking a law by what you say, then you are breaking the law. And that's that. No appeal. There is no need to prove intent any more. To argue what you were saying is the truth is not good enough. As "the truth is no defence".
If we add to this the doing away of the double jeopardy rule and the refusal of the automatic right to a trial by jury, we have a frightening prospect. This now means that you can say something which is true, but if the governement wants to imprison you then you can be tried an indefinite number of times, until the Courts get the judgement they want. If the juries obstinately keep giving the wrong verdict, ie, "not guilty", then the government can merely do away with the jury altogether and try you without one.
So to sum up, it could be said that once Public Policy begins basing its policies on lies, its policies produce disaster and we slide down a slippery slope into more and more lies. We end up living in a schizophrenic, self-delusional world where people are imprisoned for telling the truth. We now have two worlds - the real world of our private lives and the Orwellian world of public policy. Nothing good can come out of lying and the worst lie is the lie we tell ourselves.
If I had to sum up this speech by Andrew Brons I would say that it was a well crafted, well thought-out speech, delivered in a modest way. He did not waffle, nor did he talk down to, or patronize, his audience. The intellectual rigour was impressive and reminded me of Enoch Powell. He struck me as honest and as 'a safe pair of hands'. In short, Andrew Brons did not come across as a politician. This may be seen as a shortcoming, but I think not. The public is tired, dog-tired, of politicians and spivs and wants something new, something cleaner, something fresher and something honest. What is politics anyway? A wag once defined it thus: " 'Poly' means many and 'ticks' means blood-sucking parasites." The parasites have had their day and the BNP has to offer that something different which the public craves so much. To paraphrase Noel Coward, '' In politics today it is discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.'' We need something different. Andrew Brons may not be a politician but he could well be a statesman. And it is a statesman that the BNP and indeed the country, need at this present dangerous time.
CONCLUSION
We've seen here that whoever tells lies, (even if they be small ones, exaggerations, or half-truths) and whether 'the whoever' be an individual, a group of people, or the ruling elite of a country, can easily end up believing their own lies - even if no one else does - and end up creating a fantasy world of their own creation, (in the case of governments through public policy). Members of the general public who are too poor to insulate themselves from the effects of this madness suffer terribly and anyone who tries to expose this fantasy world for what it is - a fantasy world - is ignored and if he can't be ignored, ends up being persecuted and becoming a persona non grata. However, the liars, in their own and their own families' private lives, live very much in the real world and prosper financially and socially.
Andrew did not make the comparison, but the analogy between the ruling elite in Britain and the state of Britain and the current leadership of the BNP and the state of the BNP couldn't be more apt.
Jez Turner
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Hail and farewell
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
Luke 12:15
Friday, 22 July 2011
Catastrophic man-made global warming theory refuted
The following is a letter published in the West Sussex Gazette on 25 June 2008. I think you’ll agree that it makes a very impressive case.
Christopher Woodward’s letter concerning global warming (June 4) hits the nail on the head.
As a chemical engineer with some knowledge of thermodynamics – which is what global warming by the greenhouse effect is all about – I have spent several months calculating just how effective carbon dioxide is in comparison with cloud and water vapour, the two dominant greenhouse agents.
With an intrinsic (ie, molecule-for-molecule) potency around three and two and a half times greater than carbon dioxide respectively, and a combined average concentration in the troposphere (which forms the bulk of the greenhouse blanket) more than ten times greater, atmospheric moisture accounts for more than 95% of the Earth’s total greenhouse effect.
The most profligate use conceivable of the world’s fossil fuels could hardly push up carbon dioxide levels to more than about 600 parts per million by volume (ppmv) compared with the present 380 ppmv.
I calculate that, with no change in the Sun’s radiative power, this would increase the Earth’s global mean surface temperature by no more than about 1/4 degree C, far less than the 2-3C (by the end of this century, no less) proclaimed by the global warming scare mongers who seem to have grabbed the world’s news media – and even some technical journalists who should know better – by the throat.
This is trifling compared with the natural cyclic variation of about 13C every 100,000 years or so between Ice Ages and interglacial warm periods.
To explain the major part of this phenomenon, I maintain that the Sun is a variable star with an energy range of about 20 per cent between maximum and minimum.
The Earth’s orbital characteristics (axial tilt and eccentricity changes) do have some effects, but these are small compared with the Sun’s internal thermonuclear variations.
No-one else seems to have grasped the importance of the published evidence (from ice core samples in Greenland and the Antarctic) which shows this to be so.
I have developed a simple theory to explain this but that is more suited to discussion in a scientific journal!
As a corollary of my study, I calculate that even if we were able to ‘bust a gut’ internationally and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to somewhere near the 250ppmv level of the 18th century (some hope!), we still couldn’t reduce the Earth’s global mean temperature by more than 1/4C.
What an achievement! And at what a cost! Fatuous, as Mr Woodward says!
I should add that no-one with whom I have so far corresponded has been able to refute my arguments.
Roderick Taylor, CEng, MIChemE
Abbotsbrook
Bourne End,
Bucks
Christopher Woodward’s letter concerning global warming (June 4) hits the nail on the head.
As a chemical engineer with some knowledge of thermodynamics – which is what global warming by the greenhouse effect is all about – I have spent several months calculating just how effective carbon dioxide is in comparison with cloud and water vapour, the two dominant greenhouse agents.
With an intrinsic (ie, molecule-for-molecule) potency around three and two and a half times greater than carbon dioxide respectively, and a combined average concentration in the troposphere (which forms the bulk of the greenhouse blanket) more than ten times greater, atmospheric moisture accounts for more than 95% of the Earth’s total greenhouse effect.
The most profligate use conceivable of the world’s fossil fuels could hardly push up carbon dioxide levels to more than about 600 parts per million by volume (ppmv) compared with the present 380 ppmv.
I calculate that, with no change in the Sun’s radiative power, this would increase the Earth’s global mean surface temperature by no more than about 1/4 degree C, far less than the 2-3C (by the end of this century, no less) proclaimed by the global warming scare mongers who seem to have grabbed the world’s news media – and even some technical journalists who should know better – by the throat.
This is trifling compared with the natural cyclic variation of about 13C every 100,000 years or so between Ice Ages and interglacial warm periods.
To explain the major part of this phenomenon, I maintain that the Sun is a variable star with an energy range of about 20 per cent between maximum and minimum.
The Earth’s orbital characteristics (axial tilt and eccentricity changes) do have some effects, but these are small compared with the Sun’s internal thermonuclear variations.
No-one else seems to have grasped the importance of the published evidence (from ice core samples in Greenland and the Antarctic) which shows this to be so.
I have developed a simple theory to explain this but that is more suited to discussion in a scientific journal!
As a corollary of my study, I calculate that even if we were able to ‘bust a gut’ internationally and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to somewhere near the 250ppmv level of the 18th century (some hope!), we still couldn’t reduce the Earth’s global mean temperature by more than 1/4C.
What an achievement! And at what a cost! Fatuous, as Mr Woodward says!
I should add that no-one with whom I have so far corresponded has been able to refute my arguments.
Roderick Taylor, CEng, MIChemE
Abbotsbrook
Bourne End,
Bucks
Thursday, 21 July 2011
The big lie
BNP Head Office’s Misleading Claim over Royal Mail Bill Exposed
Posted by admin, on 20 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 3 Comments
The outstanding Royal Mail bill for £57,000 is directly owed by the British National Party and not by a company called “Solasni” as falsely claimed in the “mythbusters” circular recently sent out to all party members by BNP head office.
Copies of the original mailing dockets obtained by BNP Ideas.com show very clearly that the Royal Mail Printed Postage Impressions (PPI) dockets, which form the basis of the creditor’s lawsuit against the BNP, are made out in the name of the party and not “Solasni.”
The “Solasni” connection is merely a post office box which was temporarily used as a correspondence address, and that company has no contract with Royal Mail, nor is it liable for the BNP’s debt with Royal Mail.
In the “mythbusters” circular, printed and mailed out to all members with the latest party bulletin, it was claimed that the £57,000 (which is already the subject of court proceedings) was “billed to a company called Solasni.”
This is blatantly untrue, as the Royal Mail Dockets – signed by Angus Matthys, Nick Griffin’s son-in-law, clearly show.
The dockets which were used to mail out the party's circulars have been in the party’s name for so long that they actually contain the office address of the party’s then treasurer, John Walker, from 2007 – years before the Belfast office was even opened.
It is a scandal that party members’ money has been misused to print and mail out this factional misinformation to the members.
This news, coming so soon after the revelation that a judgement had already been given in the Romac court case against the party, despite the “mythbusters” claim that no such action was even under way, will serve as a further blow to the credibility of any reports emanating from the party’s head office.
It is little short of astounding that the party head office could claim in the “mythbusters” circular that the BNP is not liable for the Royal Mail debts, or that the court action is against a third party.
Below, the Royal Mail PPI dockets, which show the account holder’s name, the address, and even the signature of Angus Matthys from BNP head office.
Tags: BNP Debts, Royal Mail debts
3 Responses to " BNP Head Office’s Misleading Claim over Royal Mail Bill Exposed "
S says:
July 20, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Where can we get a copy of the “mythbusters” document?
http://www.bnp.org.uk/PDF/MythBusters.pdf
Reply
Martin J says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm
GOOD luck in the election Andrew, when are the results announced?
Reply
John says:
July 20, 2011 at 11:55 pm
The revelations get worse and worse.
It is outrageous that the leadership should deceive those who pay their wages, ie their own members, as this website has revealed. Who do they think they are? Do they believe that we exist to serve them?
The head of the Met has just resigned, not because of wrong doing but because of the wrong doing of another, he appointed.
In our party, we have wrong doing after wrong doing, lies after lies, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, deceit and wheeling and dealing.
In addition we have huge debts, the collapse of the activist base and the rapid decline in membership, the collapse of our vote and the loss of our councillors.
We also have a history of unpopular appointments in recent years, who have caused division.
How many resignations have we had from the leadership? How many offers of resignation from the Chairman? NONE.
Clearly, these people do not understand that upright Brits resign when they fail.
Worse, they want to cling on because most of them have a vested interest: money, which we pay in our donations and membership subs.
How many family members, incidentally, has NG employed working for the party?
Another thing: who manages the accounts for the Trafalgar Club? It is time there was a light into its finances and where they are spent and how and by whom and on what.
Once Andrew Brons is elected, so long as there is no fixing of the votes, we need a full enquiry into these many issues.
Given the lies, those who have been involved in such dishonesty must be placed on disciplinary charges and, if necessary, expelled whoever they might be.
Posted by admin, on 20 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 3 Comments
The outstanding Royal Mail bill for £57,000 is directly owed by the British National Party and not by a company called “Solasni” as falsely claimed in the “mythbusters” circular recently sent out to all party members by BNP head office.
Copies of the original mailing dockets obtained by BNP Ideas.com show very clearly that the Royal Mail Printed Postage Impressions (PPI) dockets, which form the basis of the creditor’s lawsuit against the BNP, are made out in the name of the party and not “Solasni.”
The “Solasni” connection is merely a post office box which was temporarily used as a correspondence address, and that company has no contract with Royal Mail, nor is it liable for the BNP’s debt with Royal Mail.
In the “mythbusters” circular, printed and mailed out to all members with the latest party bulletin, it was claimed that the £57,000 (which is already the subject of court proceedings) was “billed to a company called Solasni.”
This is blatantly untrue, as the Royal Mail Dockets – signed by Angus Matthys, Nick Griffin’s son-in-law, clearly show.
The dockets which were used to mail out the party's circulars have been in the party’s name for so long that they actually contain the office address of the party’s then treasurer, John Walker, from 2007 – years before the Belfast office was even opened.
It is a scandal that party members’ money has been misused to print and mail out this factional misinformation to the members.
This news, coming so soon after the revelation that a judgement had already been given in the Romac court case against the party, despite the “mythbusters” claim that no such action was even under way, will serve as a further blow to the credibility of any reports emanating from the party’s head office.
It is little short of astounding that the party head office could claim in the “mythbusters” circular that the BNP is not liable for the Royal Mail debts, or that the court action is against a third party.
Below, the Royal Mail PPI dockets, which show the account holder’s name, the address, and even the signature of Angus Matthys from BNP head office.
Tags: BNP Debts, Royal Mail debts
3 Responses to " BNP Head Office’s Misleading Claim over Royal Mail Bill Exposed "
S says:
July 20, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Where can we get a copy of the “mythbusters” document?
http://www.bnp.org.uk/PDF/MythBusters.pdf
Reply
Martin J says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm
GOOD luck in the election Andrew, when are the results announced?
Reply
John says:
July 20, 2011 at 11:55 pm
The revelations get worse and worse.
It is outrageous that the leadership should deceive those who pay their wages, ie their own members, as this website has revealed. Who do they think they are? Do they believe that we exist to serve them?
The head of the Met has just resigned, not because of wrong doing but because of the wrong doing of another, he appointed.
In our party, we have wrong doing after wrong doing, lies after lies, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, deceit and wheeling and dealing.
In addition we have huge debts, the collapse of the activist base and the rapid decline in membership, the collapse of our vote and the loss of our councillors.
We also have a history of unpopular appointments in recent years, who have caused division.
How many resignations have we had from the leadership? How many offers of resignation from the Chairman? NONE.
Clearly, these people do not understand that upright Brits resign when they fail.
Worse, they want to cling on because most of them have a vested interest: money, which we pay in our donations and membership subs.
How many family members, incidentally, has NG employed working for the party?
Another thing: who manages the accounts for the Trafalgar Club? It is time there was a light into its finances and where they are spent and how and by whom and on what.
Once Andrew Brons is elected, so long as there is no fixing of the votes, we need a full enquiry into these many issues.
Given the lies, those who have been involved in such dishonesty must be placed on disciplinary charges and, if necessary, expelled whoever they might be.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
Griffin lies and lies and lies
THE following is Griffin's pathetic attempt to rebut one of the claims in the "Truth Booklet", recently posted to thousands of members of the British National Party who have been deceitfully misled by him about the scale of the BNP's indebtedness.
"Romac Press – £44,000
"In reality: Close associate of Jim Dowson. The Party has large counter-claim against Romac Press for late arriving leaflets and non-delivery of items. Romac Press have repeatedly refused to submit shipping and invoice lists. Manager of Romac Press is in court next month for attempted ‘blackmail’ and ‘demanding money with menaces.’"
And below is the conclusive evidence of Griffin's dishonesty:
£45,505.82: First Major Debt Judgement Taken Against BNP
Posted by admin, on 18 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
The first major debt judgement has been taken against Nick Griffin and the British National Party for £45,505.82 despite promises from the party head office that no such action was even underway.
It has been confirmed that judgement was given, uncontested, against defendant “Nicholas Griffin” in the Northampton County Court on 15 July in favour of Romac Press Ltd.
In the “mythbusters” document recently circulated to party members, the BNP head office said that the printing debt was “false.”
However, Andrew Brons MEP, telephoned the Northampton County Court (telephone 0845 408 5302) this morning and asked about the case of Romac Press Ltd v. Nicholas Griffin (Claim Number 1XN25135).
“The lady asked me what my interest in the case was and I explained that Mr. Griffin represented an unincorporated association of which I was a member and I wished to check on the accuracy of information given to me,” Mr Brons said.
“She told me that she could give me details of any judgment because that information was in the public domain. She then told me that a judgment order had been given on 15th July in favour of Romac Press Ltd and against Nicholas Griffin.
“In the recent bulletin it was stated that Romac Press had not even sent any invoices and that the party would make a counter-claim against Romac Press, in the event of any claim.
“Yesterday at the Scottish hustings both Mr. Griffin and Mr. Jefferson said that no papers had been served on them. However, it is now clear that a judgment had been given against them a week before,” Mr Brons said.
“We were previously told by our Chairman that the Michaela Mackenzie case had been overturned on appeal. It has not.
“Our Chairman has attempted to make three appeals against the original judgment and all have failed. The case continues on the 9th August.
“If our Chairman is prepared to tell lies about these two cases, can we trust that he has told the truth when he says that other debts have been settled, paid or are no longer owed?” Mr Brons asked.
Mr Brons also advised national nominating officer Clive Jefferson in an email exchange earlier this morning that he (Mr Brons) has “a duty to the membership of this Party to protect them from misinformation that you and our Chairman are only too willing to distribute to them.”
"Romac Press – £44,000
"In reality: Close associate of Jim Dowson. The Party has large counter-claim against Romac Press for late arriving leaflets and non-delivery of items. Romac Press have repeatedly refused to submit shipping and invoice lists. Manager of Romac Press is in court next month for attempted ‘blackmail’ and ‘demanding money with menaces.’"
And below is the conclusive evidence of Griffin's dishonesty:
£45,505.82: First Major Debt Judgement Taken Against BNP
Posted by admin, on 18 July, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
 |
| The debt that never was - according to Mr Griffin |
The first major debt judgement has been taken against Nick Griffin and the British National Party for £45,505.82 despite promises from the party head office that no such action was even underway.
It has been confirmed that judgement was given, uncontested, against defendant “Nicholas Griffin” in the Northampton County Court on 15 July in favour of Romac Press Ltd.
In the “mythbusters” document recently circulated to party members, the BNP head office said that the printing debt was “false.”
However, Andrew Brons MEP, telephoned the Northampton County Court (telephone 0845 408 5302) this morning and asked about the case of Romac Press Ltd v. Nicholas Griffin (Claim Number 1XN25135).
“The lady asked me what my interest in the case was and I explained that Mr. Griffin represented an unincorporated association of which I was a member and I wished to check on the accuracy of information given to me,” Mr Brons said.
“She told me that she could give me details of any judgment because that information was in the public domain. She then told me that a judgment order had been given on 15th July in favour of Romac Press Ltd and against Nicholas Griffin.
“In the recent bulletin it was stated that Romac Press had not even sent any invoices and that the party would make a counter-claim against Romac Press, in the event of any claim.
“Yesterday at the Scottish hustings both Mr. Griffin and Mr. Jefferson said that no papers had been served on them. However, it is now clear that a judgment had been given against them a week before,” Mr Brons said.
“We were previously told by our Chairman that the Michaela Mackenzie case had been overturned on appeal. It has not.
“Our Chairman has attempted to make three appeals against the original judgment and all have failed. The case continues on the 9th August.
“If our Chairman is prepared to tell lies about these two cases, can we trust that he has told the truth when he says that other debts have been settled, paid or are no longer owed?” Mr Brons asked.
Mr Brons also advised national nominating officer Clive Jefferson in an email exchange earlier this morning that he (Mr Brons) has “a duty to the membership of this Party to protect them from misinformation that you and our Chairman are only too willing to distribute to them.”
We,ve been Harringtonized
Visitors to the main web site of the British National Party will have noticed its recent change for the worse in both appearance and functionality.
I have coined a new term for what has been done to the web site. It has been Harringtonized. The same effect may be seen writ large, or larger, across the rest of the BNP's operations, from fundraising to elections and from publicity to the accounting function.
Pat Harrington, an old crony of Griffin's, who helped him to destroy the National Front from within through vicious factiousness between 1986 and 1989, is not even a member of the BNP, yet he has usurped the role of party organ-grinder. The party's nominal leader, "Mr Monkey", now dances to his tune.
How Harrington and his American wife, Mish Bondage, together receiving almost £60,000 per annum of taxpayers' money, courtesy of Griffin's MEP payroll, must be laughing about how they have taken control of our BNP away from its members.
Harrington is the founder and one of the leaders of the civic nationalist, National Liberal Party, which fields black and Asian candidates against the BNP in local elections in Greater London. The NLP, otherwise known as the Third Way (neither heterosexual, nor homosexual?) is in favour of Britain's continuing membership of the European Union and welcomes the entry of so-called asylum seekers into our country.
Harrington admits that his thinking has been heavily influenced by a New York rabbi, named Schiller, who advocates "the embrace of the Other". In Harrington's case that would appear to mean "the Dark Side".
The BNP's 2010 Accounts were due to be submitted to the Electoral Commission by close of business on Thursday, 7 July, failing which the party would be in breach of the law. Financial penalties and public humiliation for the party would follow.
In view of the fact that no prominent statement has appeared on the party's main web site regarding the 2010 Accounts and in particular whether they have yet been submitted to the Electoral Commission; and in view of the probability, nay certainty, that Mr Griffin would wish to claim a large part of the credit for getting them in on time for a change, if they had been submitted on time: it seems likely that the bad news of the failure, yet again, of this failed leadership, to comply with the law, is being deliberately and deceitfully witheld from us, the members, until after the leadership election is over.
Just one more scandal in the life of "Scandal-a-Day" Griffin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
