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.