 |
| "All right now, which one of you lot is the whistle-blower and which one is the monkey?" |
Thursday 30 June 2011
Mr Monkey and the Truth Truck
A Purge Too Far
Is Andrew Brons Being Expelled from the BNP?
Posted by admin, on Jun 30th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
Andrew Brons MEP has received a formal written notice from the party’s election officer, Clive Jefferson, to remove the party logo from his website in an apparent first move to have him expelled from the party.
“I have not yet been expelled from the party, but this is obviously pending,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
In his letter sent to this website yesterday, Mr Jefferson said that the use of the party’s logo “may mislead or confuse the public that the views expressed on your site are authorised or approved by the Party.”
Mr Jefferson, who is supposed to be a neutral elections officer in the forthcoming leadership campaign, publicly attacked Mr Brons from the stage during the General Members’ Meeting last week. He only stopped after the audience booed him and several people told him to “stop being snide.”
Mr Brons said that he was an elected party official and therefore did represent the party’s views. The move to force him to take away the party logo from his website was not an indication that he was leaving the party. “This is only being done upon the initiative of Mr Jefferson, and, going by the literacy level of the email, I would say actually Pat Harrington,” Mr Brons continued.
“It is sad that a non-party member and someone with a long record of destruction in nationalism and personal political failure should have such a strong influence in our party today.
“Mr Griffin would do well to remember that the last time he followed Mr Harrington’s advice so closely, he ended up on the political rubbish heap and cast out of nationalist politics. It seems that some people never learn.”
6 Responses to " Is Andrew Brons Being Expelled from the BNP? "
Mercia says:
June 30, 2011 at 9:57 am
What utter hypocrisy – if you go to Nick Griffin’s EU blog it features a flattering image of the dictator before a BNP heart logo backdrop! Jefferson is an embarrassment the party (but not Griffin apparently) can do without.
Reply
Jen says:
June 30, 2011 at 9:59 am
Lost for words !!!! gobsmacked doesn’t even come near to describing how i feel after reading this !!!
Reply
FedUp says:
June 30, 2011 at 10:08 am
I would suggest doing anything they ask or tell you to do, play the game by their rules and they wont have anything to expel you for. If they then do any way, this has shown them up as the dictators they clearly are and even more people will have no choice but to wake up to it.
The worse case scenario is that you walk away with your head held high and leave to Griffin Fan Club to implode.
Reply
yaabbly says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 am
Isn’t it a shame that Jefferson & Harrison are not seen, by the partys shrinking active membership and public officials, as TEAM PLAYERs yet they are permitted such senior roles within the BNP that they are enabling the partys destruction. Wake up Mr Chairman whilst there is anything left to chair.
Reply
Falcon says:
June 30, 2011 at 2:04 pm
This is all so very sad. I wonder how much the government are paying these wreckers to destroy the BNP? There’s obviously something sinister going on!!! I wish Andrew the very best of luck, because if anyone deserves it, he does!!
Reply
Will Mossop says:
June 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I can see no reason why Mr Brons cannot plaster “Andrew Brons British National Party MEP” all over his website where appropriate.
Which party does Clive Jefferson think you represent?
 |
| No party member is safe from the tyrant's factiousness |
Andrew Brons MEP has received a formal written notice from the party’s election officer, Clive Jefferson, to remove the party logo from his website in an apparent first move to have him expelled from the party.
“I have not yet been expelled from the party, but this is obviously pending,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
In his letter sent to this website yesterday, Mr Jefferson said that the use of the party’s logo “may mislead or confuse the public that the views expressed on your site are authorised or approved by the Party.”
Mr Jefferson, who is supposed to be a neutral elections officer in the forthcoming leadership campaign, publicly attacked Mr Brons from the stage during the General Members’ Meeting last week. He only stopped after the audience booed him and several people told him to “stop being snide.”
Mr Brons said that he was an elected party official and therefore did represent the party’s views. The move to force him to take away the party logo from his website was not an indication that he was leaving the party. “This is only being done upon the initiative of Mr Jefferson, and, going by the literacy level of the email, I would say actually Pat Harrington,” Mr Brons continued.
“It is sad that a non-party member and someone with a long record of destruction in nationalism and personal political failure should have such a strong influence in our party today.
“Mr Griffin would do well to remember that the last time he followed Mr Harrington’s advice so closely, he ended up on the political rubbish heap and cast out of nationalist politics. It seems that some people never learn.”
6 Responses to " Is Andrew Brons Being Expelled from the BNP? "
Mercia says:
June 30, 2011 at 9:57 am
What utter hypocrisy – if you go to Nick Griffin’s EU blog it features a flattering image of the dictator before a BNP heart logo backdrop! Jefferson is an embarrassment the party (but not Griffin apparently) can do without.
Reply
Jen says:
June 30, 2011 at 9:59 am
Lost for words !!!! gobsmacked doesn’t even come near to describing how i feel after reading this !!!
Reply
FedUp says:
June 30, 2011 at 10:08 am
I would suggest doing anything they ask or tell you to do, play the game by their rules and they wont have anything to expel you for. If they then do any way, this has shown them up as the dictators they clearly are and even more people will have no choice but to wake up to it.
The worse case scenario is that you walk away with your head held high and leave to Griffin Fan Club to implode.
Reply
yaabbly says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:45 am
Isn’t it a shame that Jefferson & Harrison are not seen, by the partys shrinking active membership and public officials, as TEAM PLAYERs yet they are permitted such senior roles within the BNP that they are enabling the partys destruction. Wake up Mr Chairman whilst there is anything left to chair.
Reply
Falcon says:
June 30, 2011 at 2:04 pm
This is all so very sad. I wonder how much the government are paying these wreckers to destroy the BNP? There’s obviously something sinister going on!!! I wish Andrew the very best of luck, because if anyone deserves it, he does!!
Reply
Will Mossop says:
June 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I can see no reason why Mr Brons cannot plaster “Andrew Brons British National Party MEP” all over his website where appropriate.
Which party does Clive Jefferson think you represent?
The Party in the garden at Buck House
Andrew Brons at Buckingham Palace
Posted by admin, on Jun 30th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
![]()
Yesterday, Andrew Brons MEP, accompanied by his younger daughter, Emma, attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
“It was a great honour to receive the invitation and I accepted it gratefully,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
“The event is not political with a large ‘P’ i.e. party political. However, it might be seen as political with a small ‘p’, because it commits those attending to our system of constitutional monarchy and its complement, Parliamentary democracy. That must be seen to be beneficial.”
Most of those attending seemed to be from the uniformed services, clerics, charity workers and local civic dignitaries, rather than national politicians. “I saw only one other MEP there and one former government minister from many years ago,” Mr Brons said.
“The two military bands were splendid, the nibbles were delicious and the weather was perfect.”
Posted by admin, on Jun 30th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
Yesterday, Andrew Brons MEP, accompanied by his younger daughter, Emma, attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
“It was a great honour to receive the invitation and I accepted it gratefully,” Mr Brons said in a statement.
“The event is not political with a large ‘P’ i.e. party political. However, it might be seen as political with a small ‘p’, because it commits those attending to our system of constitutional monarchy and its complement, Parliamentary democracy. That must be seen to be beneficial.”
Most of those attending seemed to be from the uniformed services, clerics, charity workers and local civic dignitaries, rather than national politicians. “I saw only one other MEP there and one former government minister from many years ago,” Mr Brons said.
“The two military bands were splendid, the nibbles were delicious and the weather was perfect.”
Wednesday 29 June 2011
This is an ex-griffin!
 |
| Griffin's leadership of the British National Party is like this parrot: it's over but Griffin is in denial |
Punish the pigs?
Financial High-Jinks and Smear Campaigns against Andrew Brons
Posted by admin, on Jun 28th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
The British National Party head office attempted to manipulate Andrew Brons’s Euro General Expenditure Allowance into paying for the rent of an office used by micro-trade union Solidarity general secretary Pat Harrington in Edinburgh, Andrew Brons has revealed.
In a statement issued to counteract a series of financial smears which the party leadership has indicated it will launch against him, Mr Brons said he had “consistently resisted attempts by the party leadership to misuse European Parliamentary funding for party political purposes.
“In 2009, I was asked by our Chairman to share the expenses, from my European Parliamentary funding, of an office in Edinburgh for the use of Solidarity Chief and leading member of the National Liberal Party, Patrick Harrington,” Mr Brons said.
“I said that I thought that this could not be justified and I refused to make any payment for it. I later found out that the office was rented and paid for by our Chairman, from his European General Expenditure Allowance.
“I have recently heard that rumours are being circulated that I ‘owe’ my ‘share’ of eighteen months rent on these premises, although I have never received any direct demand for payment.
“Furthermore, in December 2010, at the Annual Conference, a table was provided for the display of my first annual report and my MEP newsletters.
“I was not asked whether or not I wanted to have this facility; I was simply provided with it. Three weeks later I received an invoice for the sum of £500 from the Chairman’s wife.
“I was told that I should pay this amount from my General Expenditure Allowance – my office account. I refused, although I did seek advice on the matter from the financial authorities of the European Parliament.
“I have recently been informed by Clive Jefferson that I might be taken to the County Court for refusing to misuse European Parliamentary funding!
“In December 2010, I was asked by our Chairman and Clive Jefferson to employ, with European Parliamentary funding, Christopher Barnet, who was in charge of the Party’s Alfred programme to put canvassing returns onto a data base for future elections.
“I was told that he would ‘look after’ my website. I said that I wanted to know, from him, what precisely he would be doing for his salary. He never contacted me.
“Very recently, I received an invoice from Clive Jefferson for £2000 that was supposed to represent five months of ‘services.’
“I told him that I had not entered into any contract with Mr. Barnet and to pay for unspecified services from European Parliamentary funds would be fraudulent.
“My concerns about the improper use of European Parliamentary funding are not unjustified.
“Our Chairman is currently under investigation by OLAF (the European Union Fraud Squad) because he is alleged to have used his constituency office in Cumbria as the party headquarters for the last six weeks of 2010.
“However, this whole saga has been subjected to ‘spin’ by our Chairman’s advisers and is being presented as my failure to pay huge debts allegedly owed to the Party. It is ironic that, in the leadership’s twisted vision of the world, resistance to the improper use of taxpayers’ money is misrepresented as a failure to pay one’s debts!
“This disgraceful affair is planned to be used as part of a huge smear campaign against me by the Party leadership. This is the reason I bring these facts out into the open.”
6 Responses to " Financial High-Jinks and Smear Campaigns against Andrew Brons "
Mill says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:13 am
I’m glad you’ve come out fighting Andrew, and are clealy aware of the gutter politics that NG and his team are more than willing to use.
Honesty and integrity should be a central element of your campaign, best of luck.
Reply
john voisey says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:41 am
A while ago bbc radio 4 ran a documentary called ‘the political club’in which Nigel Farage admitted to misusing his allowances and claimed EU officials said he could carry on as long as he kept it quiet. I still have a podcast of the programme. Of course, the bbc were itching to tar us with the same brush and it makes me vomit to see it appears they may achieve that goal.
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:48 am
Well said! It’s one thing for Nick to be a Robin Hood with Euro-money, but quite another for him to bring our party in trouble with the Fraud Squad and risk even more fines. We’re no longer a little party, it’s time to grow up and work in a responsible manner, rather than risk even more court cases & fines… Remember who pays for all these fines and court cases, and as a result of those, we haven’t got money to put fuel in our Truth Truck…
Reply
Syd says:
June 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm
The sooner Griffin and his criminally minded associates go the better it will be for this party and the nation.
Vote for Andrew Brons as party leader.
Reply
Lex says:
June 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
See -
http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/the-editor/1044-andrew-brons-the-man-in-the-glass
Reply
Bob says:
June 28, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Harrington is one of the worst despicable creature ever to have got involved in Nationalism, he acts as part of Nick Griffin’s dirty tricks department, along with other horrid individuals who act as Griffin’s attack dogs on various internet forums. I sure we will hear of more smears in the next few weeks all emanating from this cesspit of lies and filth.
Posted by admin, on Jun 28th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
The British National Party head office attempted to manipulate Andrew Brons’s Euro General Expenditure Allowance into paying for the rent of an office used by micro-trade union Solidarity general secretary Pat Harrington in Edinburgh, Andrew Brons has revealed.
In a statement issued to counteract a series of financial smears which the party leadership has indicated it will launch against him, Mr Brons said he had “consistently resisted attempts by the party leadership to misuse European Parliamentary funding for party political purposes.
“In 2009, I was asked by our Chairman to share the expenses, from my European Parliamentary funding, of an office in Edinburgh for the use of Solidarity Chief and leading member of the National Liberal Party, Patrick Harrington,” Mr Brons said.
“I said that I thought that this could not be justified and I refused to make any payment for it. I later found out that the office was rented and paid for by our Chairman, from his European General Expenditure Allowance.
“I have recently heard that rumours are being circulated that I ‘owe’ my ‘share’ of eighteen months rent on these premises, although I have never received any direct demand for payment.
“Furthermore, in December 2010, at the Annual Conference, a table was provided for the display of my first annual report and my MEP newsletters.
“I was not asked whether or not I wanted to have this facility; I was simply provided with it. Three weeks later I received an invoice for the sum of £500 from the Chairman’s wife.
“I was told that I should pay this amount from my General Expenditure Allowance – my office account. I refused, although I did seek advice on the matter from the financial authorities of the European Parliament.
“I have recently been informed by Clive Jefferson that I might be taken to the County Court for refusing to misuse European Parliamentary funding!
“In December 2010, I was asked by our Chairman and Clive Jefferson to employ, with European Parliamentary funding, Christopher Barnet, who was in charge of the Party’s Alfred programme to put canvassing returns onto a data base for future elections.
“I was told that he would ‘look after’ my website. I said that I wanted to know, from him, what precisely he would be doing for his salary. He never contacted me.
“Very recently, I received an invoice from Clive Jefferson for £2000 that was supposed to represent five months of ‘services.’
“I told him that I had not entered into any contract with Mr. Barnet and to pay for unspecified services from European Parliamentary funds would be fraudulent.
“My concerns about the improper use of European Parliamentary funding are not unjustified.
“Our Chairman is currently under investigation by OLAF (the European Union Fraud Squad) because he is alleged to have used his constituency office in Cumbria as the party headquarters for the last six weeks of 2010.
“However, this whole saga has been subjected to ‘spin’ by our Chairman’s advisers and is being presented as my failure to pay huge debts allegedly owed to the Party. It is ironic that, in the leadership’s twisted vision of the world, resistance to the improper use of taxpayers’ money is misrepresented as a failure to pay one’s debts!
“This disgraceful affair is planned to be used as part of a huge smear campaign against me by the Party leadership. This is the reason I bring these facts out into the open.”
6 Responses to " Financial High-Jinks and Smear Campaigns against Andrew Brons "
Mill says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:13 am
I’m glad you’ve come out fighting Andrew, and are clealy aware of the gutter politics that NG and his team are more than willing to use.
Honesty and integrity should be a central element of your campaign, best of luck.
Reply
john voisey says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:41 am
A while ago bbc radio 4 ran a documentary called ‘the political club’in which Nigel Farage admitted to misusing his allowances and claimed EU officials said he could carry on as long as he kept it quiet. I still have a podcast of the programme. Of course, the bbc were itching to tar us with the same brush and it makes me vomit to see it appears they may achieve that goal.
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
June 28, 2011 at 10:48 am
Well said! It’s one thing for Nick to be a Robin Hood with Euro-money, but quite another for him to bring our party in trouble with the Fraud Squad and risk even more fines. We’re no longer a little party, it’s time to grow up and work in a responsible manner, rather than risk even more court cases & fines… Remember who pays for all these fines and court cases, and as a result of those, we haven’t got money to put fuel in our Truth Truck…
Reply
Syd says:
June 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm
The sooner Griffin and his criminally minded associates go the better it will be for this party and the nation.
Vote for Andrew Brons as party leader.
Reply
Lex says:
June 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
See -
http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/the-editor/1044-andrew-brons-the-man-in-the-glass
Reply
Bob says:
June 28, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Harrington is one of the worst despicable creature ever to have got involved in Nationalism, he acts as part of Nick Griffin’s dirty tricks department, along with other horrid individuals who act as Griffin’s attack dogs on various internet forums. I sure we will hear of more smears in the next few weeks all emanating from this cesspit of lies and filth.
Sunday 26 June 2011
The tears of a clown
 |
| Mr Griffin's ineptitude on BBC Question Time was proof positive that he can take the British National Party no further |
Vote Griffin, get Harrington!
The Truth about BNP Ideas and My Leadership Campaign
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
By Andrew Brons
It has been claimed by our current Chairman’s allies that Chris Beverley and Eddy Butler are running this website. Neither has written a single word of any of the articles that have been posted on the site.
Neither has access to the website; neither has the necessary passwords to gain that access. I have no plans to provide them with access and they have not asked me for such access.
It has been implied that Simon Bennett has some connection with it. He has none. He has not written for the site and has no access to it.
I have never met him or spoken to him on the telephone and I have not exchanged letters or emails with him.
Our Chairman’s allies are circulating the slogan Vote Brons and Get Butler. This seems to imply that my campaign is being run by, or with Eddy Butler. He is not a member of my campaign team. I have not discussed my campaign with him and he has not shown any interest in it.
My election agent is Chris Roberts and he is the person with whom I discuss my strategy.
1 Response to " The Truth about BNP Ideas and My Leadership Campaign "
peter cheeseman says:
June 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Andrew, You will be our next chairman. If not, there will be no party. Can’t Nick see that .. You have more support than you think.
“Vote Brons Get the party back ” should be the slogan..
Wake up Britain..now there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
 |
| AGAINST Injustice and Corruption, FOR Integrity and Unity: SUPPORT Andrew Brons MEP |
It has been claimed by our current Chairman’s allies that Chris Beverley and Eddy Butler are running this website. Neither has written a single word of any of the articles that have been posted on the site.
Neither has access to the website; neither has the necessary passwords to gain that access. I have no plans to provide them with access and they have not asked me for such access.
It has been implied that Simon Bennett has some connection with it. He has none. He has not written for the site and has no access to it.
I have never met him or spoken to him on the telephone and I have not exchanged letters or emails with him.
Our Chairman’s allies are circulating the slogan Vote Brons and Get Butler. This seems to imply that my campaign is being run by, or with Eddy Butler. He is not a member of my campaign team. I have not discussed my campaign with him and he has not shown any interest in it.
My election agent is Chris Roberts and he is the person with whom I discuss my strategy.
1 Response to " The Truth about BNP Ideas and My Leadership Campaign "
peter cheeseman says:
June 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Andrew, You will be our next chairman. If not, there will be no party. Can’t Nick see that .. You have more support than you think.
“Vote Brons Get the party back ” should be the slogan..
Wake up Britain..now there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Dear Mr Mugabe...
Andrew Brons’ Election Agent Challenges Clive Jefferson on “Proxy Votes” Issue
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
Andrew Brons’s election agent Chris Roberts has issued a written challenge to British National Party elections officer Clive Jefferson on the validity of the General Members’ Meeting “proxy voting” system sprung on the party last week.
“Dear Clive,” the letter reads. “I understand that for the first time in the history of the party, proxy votes are to be permitted for a General Members meeting and specifically the meeting highlighted above.
“As you are aware the motions proposed for this meeting have a major bearing on a person seeking nomination to become leader of the British National Party. Andrew Brons has declared his intention to seek such nomination and I have agreed to be his election agent.
“In consequence of the foregoing I would draw your attention to the following:
"1) It is my contention that the proxy votes are invalid due to their dispatch and receipt being well outside the permitted time limit, namely 14 days before the convening of such General Members meeting.
"2) The letter accompanying the proxy voting form from Nick Griffin dated 17 June 2011 contained therein, the misleading statement “or move to a largely elected National Executive”. The motion before the GMM will be a minority elected National Executive. It could be argued that members voting by proxy have potentially voted for a motion not in accordance with their perceived intention of a majority elected National Executive. Therefore the proxy votes are technically invalidated.
"3) The proxy voting form allowed only people chosen by the leadership to act as a proxy. This is a clear breach of a member’s right to choose any 2-year British National Party member to be their proxy so long as the person so chosen was attending the GMM.
"4) The motions have not been drafted correctly and the inaccuracies therein invalidate the proxy votes.
"5) Proxy votes received and validated by officers of the British National Party for inclusion at the General Members Meeting of Sunday 26 June 2011 should be available for inspection and verification by persons seeking nomination to the leadership of the British National Party (and / or their election agents), inclusive of the envelopes they were received in.
“In light of the enormous ramifications for a person ultimately successful in any leadership challenge this year (i.e. the possibility of a four or five year term), it is of the utmost importance on behalf of the membership of the British National Party that this General Members meeting is seen to be fair, transparent and in accordance with the legal responsibilities of the party management.
"Therefore, whilst 1), 2), 3) and 4) above, may require adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, dependent upon your response hereto, it is surely imperative that 5) above is complied with as a matter of urgency in order that the veracity of the proxy votes are not compromised.
"I await your advices as soon as possible and would appreciate a response no later than the 26th June 2011.
“Yours sincerely
“Chris Roberts
“Leadership Election Agent to Andrew Brons MEP.”
2 Responses to " Andrew Brons’s Election Agent Challenges Clive Jefferson on “Proxy Votes” Issue"
Mercia says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I have no faith in these proxy votes – open to abuse as the system obviously is.
It seems bizarre to me that the powers within the party who have repeatedly condemned postal voting in external elections because of the ease with which electoral fraud may be perpetrated, are now so keen to utilise same for their own ends. It is also bizarre that they are using the same excuses as Labour when they were called upon to justify postal voting – particularly in “BNP areas”.
However, surely it is to everyones advantage, including the current leadership cabal, that immediately after the EGM/GMM that ALL the proxy vote forms received be handed over to an independent body (that is one not selected by the leadership but by show of hands at the EGM/GMM). This ad-hoc body being then charged with contacting a reasonable cross section of alleged proxy voters to verify that they did indeed fill in the form bearing their name and that the form reflects their voting wishes. Such an exercise would both give credibility to the process whilst killing off the general consensus amongst activists that the proxy voting exercise is nothing more than a Mugabe-style scam.
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
June 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The latest news is that the proxy/postal votes have been opened at today’s advisory council meeting. Yes, it’s news to me too..
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
 |
| Chris Roberts, GLA Researcher and successful London Regional Organizer, sacked by Griffin. Chris is Andrew Brons' Campaign Manager and Election Agent |
Andrew Brons’s election agent Chris Roberts has issued a written challenge to British National Party elections officer Clive Jefferson on the validity of the General Members’ Meeting “proxy voting” system sprung on the party last week.
“Dear Clive,” the letter reads. “I understand that for the first time in the history of the party, proxy votes are to be permitted for a General Members meeting and specifically the meeting highlighted above.
“As you are aware the motions proposed for this meeting have a major bearing on a person seeking nomination to become leader of the British National Party. Andrew Brons has declared his intention to seek such nomination and I have agreed to be his election agent.
“In consequence of the foregoing I would draw your attention to the following:
"1) It is my contention that the proxy votes are invalid due to their dispatch and receipt being well outside the permitted time limit, namely 14 days before the convening of such General Members meeting.
"2) The letter accompanying the proxy voting form from Nick Griffin dated 17 June 2011 contained therein, the misleading statement “or move to a largely elected National Executive”. The motion before the GMM will be a minority elected National Executive. It could be argued that members voting by proxy have potentially voted for a motion not in accordance with their perceived intention of a majority elected National Executive. Therefore the proxy votes are technically invalidated.
"3) The proxy voting form allowed only people chosen by the leadership to act as a proxy. This is a clear breach of a member’s right to choose any 2-year British National Party member to be their proxy so long as the person so chosen was attending the GMM.
"4) The motions have not been drafted correctly and the inaccuracies therein invalidate the proxy votes.
"5) Proxy votes received and validated by officers of the British National Party for inclusion at the General Members Meeting of Sunday 26 June 2011 should be available for inspection and verification by persons seeking nomination to the leadership of the British National Party (and / or their election agents), inclusive of the envelopes they were received in.
“In light of the enormous ramifications for a person ultimately successful in any leadership challenge this year (i.e. the possibility of a four or five year term), it is of the utmost importance on behalf of the membership of the British National Party that this General Members meeting is seen to be fair, transparent and in accordance with the legal responsibilities of the party management.
"Therefore, whilst 1), 2), 3) and 4) above, may require adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, dependent upon your response hereto, it is surely imperative that 5) above is complied with as a matter of urgency in order that the veracity of the proxy votes are not compromised.
"I await your advices as soon as possible and would appreciate a response no later than the 26th June 2011.
“Yours sincerely
“Chris Roberts
“Leadership Election Agent to Andrew Brons MEP.”
2 Responses to " Andrew Brons’s Election Agent Challenges Clive Jefferson on “Proxy Votes” Issue"
Mercia says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I have no faith in these proxy votes – open to abuse as the system obviously is.
It seems bizarre to me that the powers within the party who have repeatedly condemned postal voting in external elections because of the ease with which electoral fraud may be perpetrated, are now so keen to utilise same for their own ends. It is also bizarre that they are using the same excuses as Labour when they were called upon to justify postal voting – particularly in “BNP areas”.
However, surely it is to everyones advantage, including the current leadership cabal, that immediately after the EGM/GMM that ALL the proxy vote forms received be handed over to an independent body (that is one not selected by the leadership but by show of hands at the EGM/GMM). This ad-hoc body being then charged with contacting a reasonable cross section of alleged proxy voters to verify that they did indeed fill in the form bearing their name and that the form reflects their voting wishes. Such an exercise would both give credibility to the process whilst killing off the general consensus amongst activists that the proxy voting exercise is nothing more than a Mugabe-style scam.
Reply
Wim Wauters says:
June 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The latest news is that the proxy/postal votes have been opened at today’s advisory council meeting. Yes, it’s news to me too..
Saturday 25 June 2011
It's that the Leader is Unjust
Acknowledgements to the AlternativeRight.com web site
Thursday, 23 June 2011
It's Not Just the Leader
By Alex Kurtagic
Colin Liddell’s recent article about the British National Party needs some additional comments, as it concentrates on the party’s leadership while leaving out some important reasons why the party fails in the polls.
It bears asking: Given that successive British politicians since the 1950s set, then improved, then perpetuated conditions that have left the country open to colonisation by peoples of the Third World, without ever asking the citizens whom they represented whether they wanted to be thus colonised; given that they have a proven record of not acting in the national interest, favouring instead plutocratic, globalist, and even foreign lobbies; given that they have repeatedly lied to the citizenry on immigration, multiculturalism, and foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; given that they have wrecked the economy, mortgaging, if not hobbling, the future prosperity of the nation; given that so many have stolen from the public purse for personal benefit—given all this, would it not make sense to vote into power the one party that ostensibly stands against all of the above, and whose policy is to put the interests of the indigenous peoples of the various parts of the United Kingdom first?
All else being equal, it would make sense, wouldn’t it?
Especially after seeing, and in some cases living, what happens when Whites become disempowered minorities in former—and formerly prosperous—British colonies.
Why, then, are British people not voting for the British National Party?
Liddell has suggested some of the reasons: a neo-Nazi past, which in the minds of ordinary citizens means a neo-Nazi present; poor staffing decisions by the party leader, which has resulted in maladminstration; and, although not explicitly stated but clearly suggested by the choice of illustration in the article, an uncharismatic leader.
These are serious handicaps for a party that is constantly under attack by the political and media establishment—over the years we have seen a number of money-draining court cases, bank harassment, gerrymandering, media ambushes, and a consistently negative portrayal, with images of the party leader in the mainstream media chosen on the basis of their unflattering quality.
Yet, to my mind, the most serious handicaps are internally generated: 1) the very nature and character of the BNP’s message; 2) its failure to professionalise its operation; and 3) which is releated and dependent on the previous two, its lack of presentation skills.
The Message
I contend that even if the BNP were left entirely alone by the establishment, it would still fail to inspire the electorate.
The problem with the party’s message is that it is almost entirely negative. It is based purely on a negative proposition (Britain is going to the dogs, the establishment is corrupt); it is concretely and emphatically anti-everything (anti-immigration, anti-establishment, anti-globalisation, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam, anti-feminism); and it is pessimistic (everything will get worse, the economy will collapse, Britain will be Islamised). As a result, it seems acutely paranoid rather than simply realistic.
Where an effort has been made to make the party’s message positive (and the recent logo re-design seems part of this) the message remains for the most part reactionary and conservative, expressing a yearning for a return or restoration to a pre-liberal past, rather than a will to rebirth or regeneration in a post-liberal future.
To be fair, both the reactionary-conservative and archeofuturistic currents exist within the party, but the latter (which, from my very limited vantage point, seems more prevalent among some younger members) is not dominant—and yet that latter current is the one capable of producing a winning formula.
The citizenry already knows that Britain is going to the dogs—they know it deep down, even if they do not feel immediately threatened because they have good jobs, live in non-diverse areas of the country, or have insulated themselves from the effects of the ‘equality’ project; yet no one wants to hear endless complaining, pessimism, and paranoia from dowdy angry middle-aged men, who deliver their remarks with sarcasm and a scowl.
It never matters whether they are right: people do not want to hear it.
Most want to feel happy and optimistic. They want to look forward to, rather than dread, the future. And most importantly they do not want to be like ‘those awful BNP supporters’—at least how they imagine them to be.
In other words, the negative message implies a negative identity—an identity defined against an establishment that enjoys the benefit of possessing and regulating access to status, power, and money.
The BNP would perhaps increase its appeal were it to emphasise how Britain was going to be better off with the party in charge, as opposed to how Britain is going to be worse off with the mainstream parties; and if they emphasised the positive without relying on the negative: that is to say, if ‘better off’ was not a simply consequence of avoiding ‘worse off’, but rather also the result of a unique, forward-looking social programme of rebirth and regeneration.
One of the keys to success is in being able to formulate a unique proposition, implying a positive identity, and having everyone else define themselves either for it or against it.
The BNP so far has done the reverse.
Professionalism
Having said the above, even a fantastic message is useless if the citizenry lacks confidence in the party’s ability to deliver.
The terrorist Left has made great capital from exploiting manifest weaknesses in the party’s accounting systems and record-keeping. The latter have enabled the BNP’s enemies to scare the electorate by implicitly posing the question: if a small party with ten thousand members cannot keep on top of its own accounts, how on earth are they going to keep on top of the nation’s accounts?
Moreover, anti-racist legislation has contrived a number of employment bans and convictions, thus enabling the BNP’s enemies to brand the party as composed of unemployable criminals.
Nick Griffin has made efforts to professionalise his party, but these have yet to prove sufficient to inspire confidence in spite of establishment enmity.
While most citizens would like to see an end to the colonisation of Britain and Europe, even they would worry were the BNP to win a general election tomorrow.
Presentation
Similarly, even a fantastic message is useless without the skills to deliver it in a manner that maximises the party’s appeal.
Since gaining seats in the European Parliament the BNP has grown better at doing media and made visible efforts to develop their own in order to improve their image and their outreach. However, this is recent, and for most of its history the party has lacked media skills.
In a media age, this is a big minus.
Even now, results are inconsistent. Some good performances by Griffin have been recorded, such as this short interview. However, many still remember his embarrassing performance in 2009 on the BBC’s Question Time, where he spent much time explaining and defending himself rather than attacking the enemy and putting across the case for his party.
Besides the problem of media skills, there is the problem of the overall presentation strategy having been defined around a negative message.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to be angry. And yes, given the record of the mainstream parties and politicians, it would seem logical, reasonable, and justified for a party purporting to be one of fundamental change to define itself against them. Yet, that alone will not work and has rarely if ever worked. The most spectacular electoral wins have been led by politicians who inspired optimism, not politicians who prophesied doom.
A clear example is the United Kingdom’s 1997 general election. The Conservative Party’s most famous slogan was ‘Britain is Booming, Don’t Let Labour Blow It’; the Labour Party’s was simply ‘New Labour, New Britain’. Labour won by a landslide and a wave of cheer swept the country. Eleven years later, an obscure Black United States senator campaigned with the simple slogans ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He became president and a wave of cheer swept the country.
It seems the matter of presentation is very simple. A vague, wishy-washy appeal to optimism is far more effective than hard-boiled realism.
No one wants to be a realist.
Endgame
It may seem preposterous to discuss the viability of a British national party when prospects of real political power for any such entity are presently so remote.
Some may argue that party politics is futile, since we will not likely vote ourselves out of the present mess.
Yet party political work is far from futile or pointless, even at this juncture.
Firstly, there needs to be a continuous political presence representing fundamental change in the right direction, if only to exert political pressure and remind people that such a position exists. Secondly, there need to be professional campaigning organisations capable of assuming political power in the event of an opening.
Such an opening is, of course, unlikely to occur without there being a fundamental change in the culture that prepares the citizenry to accept values and propositions that today are seen as marginal. This is so much the case that, in fact, party political activity will only become immediately relevant at the end of a long process of cultural transformation. Political power is the last stage, not the first, in the project of transforming society.
Thus, at least in peacetime, party politics is the instrument of the endgame. No party proposing fundamental change will be voted into power unless that fundamental change has already occurred.
Given how far we are from the kind of culture that would make political victory possible for the kind of party the BNP ought to be, I do not think Nick Griffin holds the key to anything except the fate of his party.
I suspect the BNP’s electoral prospects will improve after a change of leadership—but only marginally, assuming no change in the culture. And any new leader would need to be young, charismatic, and not part of the existing leadership clique. Crucially, he would need credibly and successfully to represent in the public eye the political expression of a counter-cultural current, a real break with both the past and the present.
That seems a long way off for now, and there is no credible party on the horizon.
So the multicultural project continues . . .
Thursday, 23 June 2011
It's Not Just the Leader
By Alex Kurtagic
Colin Liddell’s recent article about the British National Party needs some additional comments, as it concentrates on the party’s leadership while leaving out some important reasons why the party fails in the polls.
It bears asking: Given that successive British politicians since the 1950s set, then improved, then perpetuated conditions that have left the country open to colonisation by peoples of the Third World, without ever asking the citizens whom they represented whether they wanted to be thus colonised; given that they have a proven record of not acting in the national interest, favouring instead plutocratic, globalist, and even foreign lobbies; given that they have repeatedly lied to the citizenry on immigration, multiculturalism, and foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; given that they have wrecked the economy, mortgaging, if not hobbling, the future prosperity of the nation; given that so many have stolen from the public purse for personal benefit—given all this, would it not make sense to vote into power the one party that ostensibly stands against all of the above, and whose policy is to put the interests of the indigenous peoples of the various parts of the United Kingdom first?
All else being equal, it would make sense, wouldn’t it?
Especially after seeing, and in some cases living, what happens when Whites become disempowered minorities in former—and formerly prosperous—British colonies.
Why, then, are British people not voting for the British National Party?
Liddell has suggested some of the reasons: a neo-Nazi past, which in the minds of ordinary citizens means a neo-Nazi present; poor staffing decisions by the party leader, which has resulted in maladminstration; and, although not explicitly stated but clearly suggested by the choice of illustration in the article, an uncharismatic leader.
These are serious handicaps for a party that is constantly under attack by the political and media establishment—over the years we have seen a number of money-draining court cases, bank harassment, gerrymandering, media ambushes, and a consistently negative portrayal, with images of the party leader in the mainstream media chosen on the basis of their unflattering quality.
Yet, to my mind, the most serious handicaps are internally generated: 1) the very nature and character of the BNP’s message; 2) its failure to professionalise its operation; and 3) which is releated and dependent on the previous two, its lack of presentation skills.
The Message
I contend that even if the BNP were left entirely alone by the establishment, it would still fail to inspire the electorate.
The problem with the party’s message is that it is almost entirely negative. It is based purely on a negative proposition (Britain is going to the dogs, the establishment is corrupt); it is concretely and emphatically anti-everything (anti-immigration, anti-establishment, anti-globalisation, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam, anti-feminism); and it is pessimistic (everything will get worse, the economy will collapse, Britain will be Islamised). As a result, it seems acutely paranoid rather than simply realistic.
Where an effort has been made to make the party’s message positive (and the recent logo re-design seems part of this) the message remains for the most part reactionary and conservative, expressing a yearning for a return or restoration to a pre-liberal past, rather than a will to rebirth or regeneration in a post-liberal future.
To be fair, both the reactionary-conservative and archeofuturistic currents exist within the party, but the latter (which, from my very limited vantage point, seems more prevalent among some younger members) is not dominant—and yet that latter current is the one capable of producing a winning formula.
The citizenry already knows that Britain is going to the dogs—they know it deep down, even if they do not feel immediately threatened because they have good jobs, live in non-diverse areas of the country, or have insulated themselves from the effects of the ‘equality’ project; yet no one wants to hear endless complaining, pessimism, and paranoia from dowdy angry middle-aged men, who deliver their remarks with sarcasm and a scowl.
It never matters whether they are right: people do not want to hear it.
Most want to feel happy and optimistic. They want to look forward to, rather than dread, the future. And most importantly they do not want to be like ‘those awful BNP supporters’—at least how they imagine them to be.
In other words, the negative message implies a negative identity—an identity defined against an establishment that enjoys the benefit of possessing and regulating access to status, power, and money.
The BNP would perhaps increase its appeal were it to emphasise how Britain was going to be better off with the party in charge, as opposed to how Britain is going to be worse off with the mainstream parties; and if they emphasised the positive without relying on the negative: that is to say, if ‘better off’ was not a simply consequence of avoiding ‘worse off’, but rather also the result of a unique, forward-looking social programme of rebirth and regeneration.
One of the keys to success is in being able to formulate a unique proposition, implying a positive identity, and having everyone else define themselves either for it or against it.
The BNP so far has done the reverse.
Professionalism
Having said the above, even a fantastic message is useless if the citizenry lacks confidence in the party’s ability to deliver.
The terrorist Left has made great capital from exploiting manifest weaknesses in the party’s accounting systems and record-keeping. The latter have enabled the BNP’s enemies to scare the electorate by implicitly posing the question: if a small party with ten thousand members cannot keep on top of its own accounts, how on earth are they going to keep on top of the nation’s accounts?
Moreover, anti-racist legislation has contrived a number of employment bans and convictions, thus enabling the BNP’s enemies to brand the party as composed of unemployable criminals.
Nick Griffin has made efforts to professionalise his party, but these have yet to prove sufficient to inspire confidence in spite of establishment enmity.
While most citizens would like to see an end to the colonisation of Britain and Europe, even they would worry were the BNP to win a general election tomorrow.
Presentation
Similarly, even a fantastic message is useless without the skills to deliver it in a manner that maximises the party’s appeal.
Since gaining seats in the European Parliament the BNP has grown better at doing media and made visible efforts to develop their own in order to improve their image and their outreach. However, this is recent, and for most of its history the party has lacked media skills.
In a media age, this is a big minus.
Even now, results are inconsistent. Some good performances by Griffin have been recorded, such as this short interview. However, many still remember his embarrassing performance in 2009 on the BBC’s Question Time, where he spent much time explaining and defending himself rather than attacking the enemy and putting across the case for his party.
Besides the problem of media skills, there is the problem of the overall presentation strategy having been defined around a negative message.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to be angry. And yes, given the record of the mainstream parties and politicians, it would seem logical, reasonable, and justified for a party purporting to be one of fundamental change to define itself against them. Yet, that alone will not work and has rarely if ever worked. The most spectacular electoral wins have been led by politicians who inspired optimism, not politicians who prophesied doom.
A clear example is the United Kingdom’s 1997 general election. The Conservative Party’s most famous slogan was ‘Britain is Booming, Don’t Let Labour Blow It’; the Labour Party’s was simply ‘New Labour, New Britain’. Labour won by a landslide and a wave of cheer swept the country. Eleven years later, an obscure Black United States senator campaigned with the simple slogans ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He became president and a wave of cheer swept the country.
It seems the matter of presentation is very simple. A vague, wishy-washy appeal to optimism is far more effective than hard-boiled realism.
No one wants to be a realist.
Endgame
It may seem preposterous to discuss the viability of a British national party when prospects of real political power for any such entity are presently so remote.
Some may argue that party politics is futile, since we will not likely vote ourselves out of the present mess.
Yet party political work is far from futile or pointless, even at this juncture.
Firstly, there needs to be a continuous political presence representing fundamental change in the right direction, if only to exert political pressure and remind people that such a position exists. Secondly, there need to be professional campaigning organisations capable of assuming political power in the event of an opening.
Such an opening is, of course, unlikely to occur without there being a fundamental change in the culture that prepares the citizenry to accept values and propositions that today are seen as marginal. This is so much the case that, in fact, party political activity will only become immediately relevant at the end of a long process of cultural transformation. Political power is the last stage, not the first, in the project of transforming society.
Thus, at least in peacetime, party politics is the instrument of the endgame. No party proposing fundamental change will be voted into power unless that fundamental change has already occurred.
Given how far we are from the kind of culture that would make political victory possible for the kind of party the BNP ought to be, I do not think Nick Griffin holds the key to anything except the fate of his party.
I suspect the BNP’s electoral prospects will improve after a change of leadership—but only marginally, assuming no change in the culture. And any new leader would need to be young, charismatic, and not part of the existing leadership clique. Crucially, he would need credibly and successfully to represent in the public eye the political expression of a counter-cultural current, a real break with both the past and the present.
That seems a long way off for now, and there is no credible party on the horizon.
So the multicultural project continues . . .
One free and fair election, one time
The following article, from May 2008, recently re-published on the Lancaster Unity blog, provides an historical overview of how we came to be where we are now. The article is obviously written from a supposedly 'antifascist' political perspective and contains certain factual inaccuracies, but, bearing this caveat in mind, it is always useful to know what the other side is saying about one.
One might even say that "There is no such thing as bad publicity", but then perhaps only a fool would believe that.
The "fundamentally decent" Nicholas Griffin
Posted by Denise to the Lancaster Unity blog
As the ever-shrinking BNP heads towards its rigged General Members' Meeting on Sunday, we thought it timely to republish a Lancaster Unity article from May 2008, unamended and still referring to the "Activist Declaration" form idea that was quickly, quietly and very wisely dropped when it theatened further dissension in what had been yet another period of violent turbulence as Nick Griffin's paranoiac leadership entered its ninth year.
Now led by the (for anti-fascists) dream team of Griffin and Patrick Harrington, the BNP has become little more than a fascinating case study in derangement, phsychopathy[sic], corruption, greed, deceit and delusion. It seems more suited to psychiatric than political analysis - but wasn't that always true?
Without apology then, from May 2008...
Nine years of vision and "vermin"
It's been nine long years since Nick Griffin unseated John Tyndall as BNP leader in what can fairly be described as the only relatively honest leadership election (in purely mechanical terms) the BNP ever held. And it's only ever held two.
Naturally, neither man was entirely honest in how they conducted their campaigns, and still less honest with their respective supporters as to their future intentions - but of the two only Nicholas Griffin was presented with the opportunity to demonstrate the fact, and upon winning lost very little time in giving the BNP a hefty dose of the control freakery and paranoia he had once administered to the National Front, the same which sent that organisation into terminal decline.
What is striking at this remove is John Tyndall's magnaminity [sic] in allowing the then recently arrived Griffin's 1999 challenge, to the point of permitting Griffin the full use of BNP structures and mechanisms even as the six-month campaign quickly descended into a long series of visceral dog-fights. It is, after all, John Tyndall who we see pictured in Nazi uniform, not the alleged "moderniser" Nick Griffin.
In 1999 Griffin claimed to be running an "open and honest" leadership challenge based on "positive ideas for the future", calling himself the candidate with "flair and vision". This certainly struck a chord with the BNP's newer members, and even appealed to some hardline BNP veterans all too aware of Tyndall's advancing years and of the tiredness of his leadership.
It did, however, obscure Griffin's woeful record in the National Front, where he spent much of his time engaged in factional activities, seemed to view political positions as expendable commodities, and was even then the subject of much disquiet in the matter of finance.
Griffin passed himself off as the BNP's "unity candidate", threatening that a Tyndall win would "lead inevitably to a most disastrous split" (presumably Griffin would be the leader of this putative split) - words that would earn anybody in today's Griffinite BNP instant expulsion. There were also dire warnings of purges ahead at the hands of Tyndall, while, "in happy contrast", Nick's "mature, level-headed and fundamentally decent approach" would restore unity and stability to the BNP. There would be "not one single expulsion" if Nick were to assume the leadership - "No cronysim, no favouritism, no grudges" he promised. [Emphasis mine, AE].
History tells a very different story.
One of Nick's first "positive ideas" as leader was to ensure that no challenger would ever again have the scope or freedom to campaign as he had done, and there began the first of a series of changes to the BNP constitution that should have rung loud alarm bells among those who had taken Griffin at his word.
People like convinced Griffin supporters Steve and Sharron Edwards, who, within a year of Griffin's assumption of the leadership found themselves asking some searching questions about the new man's financial probity and as a result became victims of paranoic accusations that were the pretext for expelling them from the party.
They were among the first, and many legally dubious expulsions have passed under the BNP bridge since then.
That first proof that Griffin the BNP leader preserved exactly the same frame of mind as Griffin the National Front chairman (and author of the insane and infamous "Attempted Murder" pamphlet), gave wider currency to Tyndallite grumbling and opened the eyes of many early Griffin loyalists, few of whom have remained in place, due either to being cast aside as their usefulness to Griffin came to an end, were purged, or grew disillusioned.
The problem was that the only person capable of mounting a credible challenge against Griffin was John Tyndall, at the time subject to a campaign of vilification for that very reason - but Tyndall, with his Nazi past and barely reconstructed views, was anathema even to those Griffinites who had come to loath [sic] their leader.
Tyndall's death removed the biggest thorn in Griffin's side, and there has since been no other personality within the BNP who stands out even remotely as likely leadership material [sic] - not that a personality likely to present a future threat to Griffin will ever have the chance to stand out, as Jonathon Bowden discovered last summer (2007).
Had the BNP not begun to experience its first real electoral successes as disaffection with Griffin began to rise then it [sic] quite likely that the party would have descended into vicious faction-fighting, which might have been the end of the extreme-Right for a decade or more. But election success - albeit localised - did come, and Griffin was quick to take the credit.
BNP members - more like the "sheeple" they despise than they care to believe - were happy to go along with him, and in so doing were prepared to overlook their leader's less savoury character traits and blind themselves to the stark evidence that the BNP was increasingly beginning to look like what Martin Webster christened "the Griffin Family Business".
Of course there are many reasons for the BNP's initial spurt of electoral success, none of them much at all to do with Nicholas Griffin.
It might be argued that the best election agent the BNP ever had was Blairism and its apparent (if not intentional) attempts to disconnect itself from its core electorate - an electorate unlikely, especially in the northern towns where the first BNP gains came, to find any merit in voting for the then divided and demoralised Tories, or the Liberal Democrats. We must add in to that the 2001 Oldham riots, and the fact (much as it grieves us to say it) that in certain areas of strength the BNP did have capable organisers who ran intelligent, competent local campaigns with which Nick Griffin had no connection at all.
Further gains followed, of course, and Nick identified himself with every success, to the point where many BNP members really did (and still do) believe that without the guiding hand of Griffin the BNP would have achieved nothing at all.
This is utter nonsense. If there were any truth to it at all then the BNP would have achieved comparable results to those it obtained in places like Oldham and Burnley over the remainder of the country. Save for some small pockets where the circumstances outlined above pertained, it did nothing of the kind - but Nick was never eager to take the credit for that.
The probable truth is that finding himself the leader of the most electorally successful British racist party [sic] to date came as of much as a [sic] surprise to Griffin as it did to everybody else. Even so, Griffin seemed fixed on undermining "his" achievement by continuing the ludicrous (and legally expensive) hunt for John Tyndall's scalp, the unending litany of expulsions and proscriptions, and was quite prepared to wreck the BNP in its strongest electoral areas (Burnley being the textbook case) if he smelled the least whiff of personal disloyalty.
To many, even the BNP's enemies, these seemed like the actions of a demagogue more interested in preserving his hide than those of a man possessed of "flair and vision" with "positive ideas for the future".
Tyndall died, and the BNP's then electoral high point came and went, Griffin and his leadership team reduced to promising breathroughs to come.
Last year, as we all remember, along with the BNP itself we expected the party to add to its tally of 49 sitting councillors at the 2007 local elections. Everything seemed set fair for them to do so. We gritted our teeth, the racists prepared to crow - but early into the election night results it was clear who would be doing the crowing, and it wasn't the BNP.
The next morning we wrote:
The BNP's march to power turned into a cul-de-sac of indifference yesterday, with the racist party failing to make any impression in the English local elections.
Predicting at least a doubling of their 49 councillors, a devastated BNP finds its tally (at the time of writing) remains 49. Though the BNP did pick up seats it lost the same number, making no net gains. Of the nine BNP councillors up for re-election only one successfully defended his seat.
Claiming "mixed results" in an attempt to hide an electoral calamity from its shell-shocked members, there was no real disguising of the BNP's utter failure over large swathes of the country. The party's fortunes stalled and went into reverse in areas where its hopes were high, notably Sandwell and Birmingham, where thousands of votes were lost. Votes in cities such as Coventry were barely improved over those obtained thirty years ago by the National Front. In an effort to distract attention from the Birmingham debacle, the BNP is focussing attention on the fact that it gained more votes than the renegade Sharon Ebanks and her tiny number of New Nationalist Party candidates.
Griffin did not rush to identify himself with this particular set of results, nor did he attempt to explain why, when - by its own assessment - conditions had never been better for the BNP, all that could be reported was abject failure.
Of course, Griffin had other concerns by then, the lacklustre leadership challenge of Chris Jackson assuming a new and threatening importance in the light of the appalling election results, which challenge had to be hamstrung (as it was) before any damage to Griffin's position was done.
The paranoid sequel to Jackson's challenge was well enough reported here and is fresh enough in our minds not to bear a full re-telling, save to recall Griffin's infamously insane "vermin", "thieves" and "liars" blog diatribe, backed up by an equally hysterical and inventive four page spread in the BNP's "Identity" magazine - and, naturally, the purging and proscribing quickly followed.
Post the 2007 locals, the BNP continued to fight in by-elections, where it could concentrate its resources in pursuit of the best possible showing. Their results were lamentable - though there were areas, the East Midlands and adjacent districts being salient cases, where the party could produce a good first-time vote. Unfortunately for them, where the party's performance could be measured against previous outings in the same ward, their vote invariably fell.
Seeking a crumb of comfort, the party was overjoyed to retain a seat in Loughton, making a great deal of fuss over this "achievement" - and going to great lengths to silence wiser voices which pointed out that the BNP vote had fallen by a notable 5% and that the seat had been retained by a margin of 20 votes against a candidate who did not belong to one of the major parties. To say, as some did, that this was no small cause for concern was to invite attack as a "troublemaker", a "splitter", an "anti-BNP Red" and all the usual epithets beloved of the Griffinite BNP.
All that mattered was that the seat had been retained, and to hell with any unwelcome analysis.
They were to pay for this self-deluding complacency.
Ignoring for now the damp squib of the BNP's Decembrist revolt, the BNP began mustering its electoral troops early for the 2008 locals. As was clear from their numerous blogs and their posts on their usual internet hang-outs, they had worked themselves up for a real breakthrough.
This was going to be their year - they could feel it in their bones.
We couldn't. Everything we'd seen and recorded of BNP performances over the past year told us that though some gains were likely, nothing much was going to change and the established picture of electoral stagnation and reverse would continue.
For once, the BNP leadership cultivated a healthy restraint in its predictions, even inventing the meaningless spin-phrase "quiet revolution" to explain the BNP's snail's pace growth (or lack thereof) to a potentially restive membership. And there was a distinct air of unreality in the lead up to election day.
What struck us was the idiotic claim made by BNP deputy chairman and Griffin cheerleader Simon Darby that he had made a "breakthrough" by sealing a deal with the Pensioners Party whereby that party would recommend its members and supporters to vote BNP. The only fly in the ointment was that the PP had a total of six members, was completely unknown and without influence, and its leadership seemed to be unaware of any deal with the BNP. Members of other parties might have resented this cynical attempt to con them, but, all too typically, the BNP sheeple seemed more outraged that the con had been exposed.
Unreality continued as virtually powerless parish councillors became equated in Griffinite BNP spin with district councillors, an exercise designed purely to push up the total number of BNP "councillors" gained and to prove to an all too gullible membership of how well things were progressing for the BNP - proof in itself that the BNP's leadership had no great expectations for the 2008 locals. Several non-political parish council seats fell unopposed into the hands of the BNP, each "gain" being proudly reported on the BNP website.
It was so much whistling in the dark.
The BNP gained a grand total of ten "real" councillors, and its vote in its own heartlands fell, frequently by considerable margins.
Nick Griffin did not rush to bask in the reflected glory of this particular success, and though many BNP members still regurgitate the Griffinite smoke-and-mirrors line that something remarkable happened on May 1st, it is apparent that hard reality is finally beginning to bite for some of their number.
The plain fact, which they cannot ignore, is that by its own lights electoral conditions were never better for the BNP than they were on May 1st. A long serious [sic] of immigration controversies preceded the elections, some in the same week, there was the 40th anniversary of Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, falling together with the BBC "White Season" series, and the party frequently received completely uncritical press coverage. They themselves were reporting on ecstatic doorstep receptions for their canvassers.
And still Nick Griffin could deliver only 10 extra councillors from the 612 seats fought by the BNP.
Following the locals we had to wait 24 hours for the results of the London Mayoral race and the GLA elections - 24 hours in which Griffin must have prayed for a miracle. At all events, the BNP's spinmeisters began to play down expectations (and with good reason), uncertain whether they would gain anything at all.
Disaster seemed to beckon for what party apparatchniks were calling the BNP's finest campaign, but finally the much-hyped Richard Barnbrook scraped a GLA seat with 5.4%.
In the wake of this apparent "landmark" victory, as they touted it, the BNP seemed oblivious to the fact that 30 years ago the more honestly racist National Front averaged pretty much the same vote and better over large swathes of London. The truth is that the BNP should have achieved election on 7-8% of the vote if there was to be any credibility to their claim of "progress". They did not.
Again Nick Griffin failed to deliver.
After nine years of Nick Griffin's "vision and flair", in the most favourable circumstances imaginable, the BNP still manages a miserable grand total of 55 (real) local councillors and one elected (just) member of the GLA.
This is not a record that would wash in any political party other than the BNP.
To sum up the nine years of Nick Griffin's leadership, then, there has been, from the beginning and ever since, a long series of legally challengable expulsions of those who either cast doubt on Griffin's financial management of the party or who were deemed a threat to his position. There has been a ruthless willingness to wreck the BNP in its own areas of strength for no better reason than that members in those areas felt their loyalties to the party over-rode any presumed loyalty to a man they did not trust or in who [sic] they lacked confidence. In short, there has been continual internal strife since 1999.
If the incessant amendments to the BNP's risible constitution were not enough to make Nick feel safe, then, as some of you will be aware, the party has issued "Activist Declaration" forms - the only case we know of in British politics where ordinary members of a political party are being forced to swear something not a million miles removed from the Nazi oath of allegiance, and at the same time to give themselves as hostage to fortune to whatever constitutional changes Griffin chooses to enact.
Clearly a trap is being loaded, since: "I agree to abide by the British National Party’s Constitution and any amendments made to it under the provisions of the Constitution".
Those signing this (Barnsian?) document, especially those closely allied with Griffin's internal opponents, may as well hand the man a loaded gun and wait to be shot the moment the inevitable constitutional amendments are made.
It can have no other purpose.
Perhaps the sudden appearance of this scurrilous document can be best explained by the fact that elections for the European parliament are now a year away, and if there is one thing we know Griffin longs to do it is to bag his ticket on the Euro gravy-train.
To that end he has already deposed Chris Jackson as North-west Regional Organiser in favour of himself, and parachuted himself in as the BNP's number one candidate in the region. We also saw, when a general election seemed but weeks away last autumn, that Griffin's overarching concern was to preserve BNP finances for the Euro elections - strange behaviour for a British "national" party.
You or I might think a good general election performance would be of more lasting benefit to the BNP than Griffin's flying off to Strasbourg and the riches of an MEP on the back of a tiny vote in north-west England, but the BNP have convinced themselves that this is the way forward - failing to notice that a similar exercise has done the UKIP no good at all, and never really asking themselves exactly what a lone BNP representative in Europe is going to achieve for the party.
However that may be, with the prize now in sight the Griffin Family Business must be protected from hostile takeover, and we can't help but to think [sic] that the "Activist Declaration" form is a large and sinister part of that protection.
In perspective, then: in nine years Nick Griffin has taken the BNP from nowhere to next to nowhere. In the most favourable conditions ever to exist in which a racialist and nationalist party could expect to grow, the BNP under Griffin has remained stunted, its membership numbering well under 10,000, despite the regular repetition of the lie that hundreds join every week.
It remains electorally moribund, and where it has met with success it has done so despite the turbulent Griffin, not because of him. His record is, by any measure, lamentable, nine years of effort and eye-watering expenditure on the part of the BNP producing a paltry crop of 55 local councillors who all too often are not up to the job and all too prone to find themselves confronted with past indiscretions.
That Griffin has managed for so long to pass off his leadership as a story of unparalleled success is an achievement of sorts, we suppose, but we on our side of the fence really do thank our stars that the BNP chose to land itself with the most divisive and incompetent leader ever to grace the stage of the far-Right in Britain.
"Flair and vision"? It seems more like stuff and nonsense to us.
One might even say that "There is no such thing as bad publicity", but then perhaps only a fool would believe that.
The "fundamentally decent" Nicholas Griffin
Posted by Denise to the Lancaster Unity blog
As the ever-shrinking BNP heads towards its rigged General Members' Meeting on Sunday, we thought it timely to republish a Lancaster Unity article from May 2008, unamended and still referring to the "Activist Declaration" form idea that was quickly, quietly and very wisely dropped when it theatened further dissension in what had been yet another period of violent turbulence as Nick Griffin's paranoiac leadership entered its ninth year.
Now led by the (for anti-fascists) dream team of Griffin and Patrick Harrington, the BNP has become little more than a fascinating case study in derangement, phsychopathy[sic], corruption, greed, deceit and delusion. It seems more suited to psychiatric than political analysis - but wasn't that always true?
Without apology then, from May 2008...
Nine years of vision and "vermin"
It's been nine long years since Nick Griffin unseated John Tyndall as BNP leader in what can fairly be described as the only relatively honest leadership election (in purely mechanical terms) the BNP ever held. And it's only ever held two.
Naturally, neither man was entirely honest in how they conducted their campaigns, and still less honest with their respective supporters as to their future intentions - but of the two only Nicholas Griffin was presented with the opportunity to demonstrate the fact, and upon winning lost very little time in giving the BNP a hefty dose of the control freakery and paranoia he had once administered to the National Front, the same which sent that organisation into terminal decline.
What is striking at this remove is John Tyndall's magnaminity [sic] in allowing the then recently arrived Griffin's 1999 challenge, to the point of permitting Griffin the full use of BNP structures and mechanisms even as the six-month campaign quickly descended into a long series of visceral dog-fights. It is, after all, John Tyndall who we see pictured in Nazi uniform, not the alleged "moderniser" Nick Griffin.
In 1999 Griffin claimed to be running an "open and honest" leadership challenge based on "positive ideas for the future", calling himself the candidate with "flair and vision". This certainly struck a chord with the BNP's newer members, and even appealed to some hardline BNP veterans all too aware of Tyndall's advancing years and of the tiredness of his leadership.
It did, however, obscure Griffin's woeful record in the National Front, where he spent much of his time engaged in factional activities, seemed to view political positions as expendable commodities, and was even then the subject of much disquiet in the matter of finance.
Griffin passed himself off as the BNP's "unity candidate", threatening that a Tyndall win would "lead inevitably to a most disastrous split" (presumably Griffin would be the leader of this putative split) - words that would earn anybody in today's Griffinite BNP instant expulsion. There were also dire warnings of purges ahead at the hands of Tyndall, while, "in happy contrast", Nick's "mature, level-headed and fundamentally decent approach" would restore unity and stability to the BNP. There would be "not one single expulsion" if Nick were to assume the leadership - "No cronysim, no favouritism, no grudges" he promised. [Emphasis mine, AE].
History tells a very different story.
One of Nick's first "positive ideas" as leader was to ensure that no challenger would ever again have the scope or freedom to campaign as he had done, and there began the first of a series of changes to the BNP constitution that should have rung loud alarm bells among those who had taken Griffin at his word.
People like convinced Griffin supporters Steve and Sharron Edwards, who, within a year of Griffin's assumption of the leadership found themselves asking some searching questions about the new man's financial probity and as a result became victims of paranoic accusations that were the pretext for expelling them from the party.
They were among the first, and many legally dubious expulsions have passed under the BNP bridge since then.
That first proof that Griffin the BNP leader preserved exactly the same frame of mind as Griffin the National Front chairman (and author of the insane and infamous "Attempted Murder" pamphlet), gave wider currency to Tyndallite grumbling and opened the eyes of many early Griffin loyalists, few of whom have remained in place, due either to being cast aside as their usefulness to Griffin came to an end, were purged, or grew disillusioned.
The problem was that the only person capable of mounting a credible challenge against Griffin was John Tyndall, at the time subject to a campaign of vilification for that very reason - but Tyndall, with his Nazi past and barely reconstructed views, was anathema even to those Griffinites who had come to loath [sic] their leader.
Tyndall's death removed the biggest thorn in Griffin's side, and there has since been no other personality within the BNP who stands out even remotely as likely leadership material [sic] - not that a personality likely to present a future threat to Griffin will ever have the chance to stand out, as Jonathon Bowden discovered last summer (2007).
Had the BNP not begun to experience its first real electoral successes as disaffection with Griffin began to rise then it [sic] quite likely that the party would have descended into vicious faction-fighting, which might have been the end of the extreme-Right for a decade or more. But election success - albeit localised - did come, and Griffin was quick to take the credit.
BNP members - more like the "sheeple" they despise than they care to believe - were happy to go along with him, and in so doing were prepared to overlook their leader's less savoury character traits and blind themselves to the stark evidence that the BNP was increasingly beginning to look like what Martin Webster christened "the Griffin Family Business".
Of course there are many reasons for the BNP's initial spurt of electoral success, none of them much at all to do with Nicholas Griffin.
It might be argued that the best election agent the BNP ever had was Blairism and its apparent (if not intentional) attempts to disconnect itself from its core electorate - an electorate unlikely, especially in the northern towns where the first BNP gains came, to find any merit in voting for the then divided and demoralised Tories, or the Liberal Democrats. We must add in to that the 2001 Oldham riots, and the fact (much as it grieves us to say it) that in certain areas of strength the BNP did have capable organisers who ran intelligent, competent local campaigns with which Nick Griffin had no connection at all.
Further gains followed, of course, and Nick identified himself with every success, to the point where many BNP members really did (and still do) believe that without the guiding hand of Griffin the BNP would have achieved nothing at all.
This is utter nonsense. If there were any truth to it at all then the BNP would have achieved comparable results to those it obtained in places like Oldham and Burnley over the remainder of the country. Save for some small pockets where the circumstances outlined above pertained, it did nothing of the kind - but Nick was never eager to take the credit for that.
The probable truth is that finding himself the leader of the most electorally successful British racist party [sic] to date came as of much as a [sic] surprise to Griffin as it did to everybody else. Even so, Griffin seemed fixed on undermining "his" achievement by continuing the ludicrous (and legally expensive) hunt for John Tyndall's scalp, the unending litany of expulsions and proscriptions, and was quite prepared to wreck the BNP in its strongest electoral areas (Burnley being the textbook case) if he smelled the least whiff of personal disloyalty.
To many, even the BNP's enemies, these seemed like the actions of a demagogue more interested in preserving his hide than those of a man possessed of "flair and vision" with "positive ideas for the future".
Tyndall died, and the BNP's then electoral high point came and went, Griffin and his leadership team reduced to promising breathroughs to come.
Last year, as we all remember, along with the BNP itself we expected the party to add to its tally of 49 sitting councillors at the 2007 local elections. Everything seemed set fair for them to do so. We gritted our teeth, the racists prepared to crow - but early into the election night results it was clear who would be doing the crowing, and it wasn't the BNP.
The next morning we wrote:
The BNP's march to power turned into a cul-de-sac of indifference yesterday, with the racist party failing to make any impression in the English local elections.
Predicting at least a doubling of their 49 councillors, a devastated BNP finds its tally (at the time of writing) remains 49. Though the BNP did pick up seats it lost the same number, making no net gains. Of the nine BNP councillors up for re-election only one successfully defended his seat.
Claiming "mixed results" in an attempt to hide an electoral calamity from its shell-shocked members, there was no real disguising of the BNP's utter failure over large swathes of the country. The party's fortunes stalled and went into reverse in areas where its hopes were high, notably Sandwell and Birmingham, where thousands of votes were lost. Votes in cities such as Coventry were barely improved over those obtained thirty years ago by the National Front. In an effort to distract attention from the Birmingham debacle, the BNP is focussing attention on the fact that it gained more votes than the renegade Sharon Ebanks and her tiny number of New Nationalist Party candidates.
Griffin did not rush to identify himself with this particular set of results, nor did he attempt to explain why, when - by its own assessment - conditions had never been better for the BNP, all that could be reported was abject failure.
Of course, Griffin had other concerns by then, the lacklustre leadership challenge of Chris Jackson assuming a new and threatening importance in the light of the appalling election results, which challenge had to be hamstrung (as it was) before any damage to Griffin's position was done.
The paranoid sequel to Jackson's challenge was well enough reported here and is fresh enough in our minds not to bear a full re-telling, save to recall Griffin's infamously insane "vermin", "thieves" and "liars" blog diatribe, backed up by an equally hysterical and inventive four page spread in the BNP's "Identity" magazine - and, naturally, the purging and proscribing quickly followed.
Post the 2007 locals, the BNP continued to fight in by-elections, where it could concentrate its resources in pursuit of the best possible showing. Their results were lamentable - though there were areas, the East Midlands and adjacent districts being salient cases, where the party could produce a good first-time vote. Unfortunately for them, where the party's performance could be measured against previous outings in the same ward, their vote invariably fell.
Seeking a crumb of comfort, the party was overjoyed to retain a seat in Loughton, making a great deal of fuss over this "achievement" - and going to great lengths to silence wiser voices which pointed out that the BNP vote had fallen by a notable 5% and that the seat had been retained by a margin of 20 votes against a candidate who did not belong to one of the major parties. To say, as some did, that this was no small cause for concern was to invite attack as a "troublemaker", a "splitter", an "anti-BNP Red" and all the usual epithets beloved of the Griffinite BNP.
All that mattered was that the seat had been retained, and to hell with any unwelcome analysis.
They were to pay for this self-deluding complacency.
Ignoring for now the damp squib of the BNP's Decembrist revolt, the BNP began mustering its electoral troops early for the 2008 locals. As was clear from their numerous blogs and their posts on their usual internet hang-outs, they had worked themselves up for a real breakthrough.
This was going to be their year - they could feel it in their bones.
We couldn't. Everything we'd seen and recorded of BNP performances over the past year told us that though some gains were likely, nothing much was going to change and the established picture of electoral stagnation and reverse would continue.
For once, the BNP leadership cultivated a healthy restraint in its predictions, even inventing the meaningless spin-phrase "quiet revolution" to explain the BNP's snail's pace growth (or lack thereof) to a potentially restive membership. And there was a distinct air of unreality in the lead up to election day.
What struck us was the idiotic claim made by BNP deputy chairman and Griffin cheerleader Simon Darby that he had made a "breakthrough" by sealing a deal with the Pensioners Party whereby that party would recommend its members and supporters to vote BNP. The only fly in the ointment was that the PP had a total of six members, was completely unknown and without influence, and its leadership seemed to be unaware of any deal with the BNP. Members of other parties might have resented this cynical attempt to con them, but, all too typically, the BNP sheeple seemed more outraged that the con had been exposed.
Unreality continued as virtually powerless parish councillors became equated in Griffinite BNP spin with district councillors, an exercise designed purely to push up the total number of BNP "councillors" gained and to prove to an all too gullible membership of how well things were progressing for the BNP - proof in itself that the BNP's leadership had no great expectations for the 2008 locals. Several non-political parish council seats fell unopposed into the hands of the BNP, each "gain" being proudly reported on the BNP website.
It was so much whistling in the dark.
The BNP gained a grand total of ten "real" councillors, and its vote in its own heartlands fell, frequently by considerable margins.
Nick Griffin did not rush to bask in the reflected glory of this particular success, and though many BNP members still regurgitate the Griffinite smoke-and-mirrors line that something remarkable happened on May 1st, it is apparent that hard reality is finally beginning to bite for some of their number.
The plain fact, which they cannot ignore, is that by its own lights electoral conditions were never better for the BNP than they were on May 1st. A long serious [sic] of immigration controversies preceded the elections, some in the same week, there was the 40th anniversary of Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, falling together with the BBC "White Season" series, and the party frequently received completely uncritical press coverage. They themselves were reporting on ecstatic doorstep receptions for their canvassers.
And still Nick Griffin could deliver only 10 extra councillors from the 612 seats fought by the BNP.
Following the locals we had to wait 24 hours for the results of the London Mayoral race and the GLA elections - 24 hours in which Griffin must have prayed for a miracle. At all events, the BNP's spinmeisters began to play down expectations (and with good reason), uncertain whether they would gain anything at all.
Disaster seemed to beckon for what party apparatchniks were calling the BNP's finest campaign, but finally the much-hyped Richard Barnbrook scraped a GLA seat with 5.4%.
In the wake of this apparent "landmark" victory, as they touted it, the BNP seemed oblivious to the fact that 30 years ago the more honestly racist National Front averaged pretty much the same vote and better over large swathes of London. The truth is that the BNP should have achieved election on 7-8% of the vote if there was to be any credibility to their claim of "progress". They did not.
Again Nick Griffin failed to deliver.
After nine years of Nick Griffin's "vision and flair", in the most favourable circumstances imaginable, the BNP still manages a miserable grand total of 55 (real) local councillors and one elected (just) member of the GLA.
This is not a record that would wash in any political party other than the BNP.
To sum up the nine years of Nick Griffin's leadership, then, there has been, from the beginning and ever since, a long series of legally challengable expulsions of those who either cast doubt on Griffin's financial management of the party or who were deemed a threat to his position. There has been a ruthless willingness to wreck the BNP in its own areas of strength for no better reason than that members in those areas felt their loyalties to the party over-rode any presumed loyalty to a man they did not trust or in who [sic] they lacked confidence. In short, there has been continual internal strife since 1999.
If the incessant amendments to the BNP's risible constitution were not enough to make Nick feel safe, then, as some of you will be aware, the party has issued "Activist Declaration" forms - the only case we know of in British politics where ordinary members of a political party are being forced to swear something not a million miles removed from the Nazi oath of allegiance, and at the same time to give themselves as hostage to fortune to whatever constitutional changes Griffin chooses to enact.
Clearly a trap is being loaded, since: "I agree to abide by the British National Party’s Constitution and any amendments made to it under the provisions of the Constitution".
Those signing this (Barnsian?) document, especially those closely allied with Griffin's internal opponents, may as well hand the man a loaded gun and wait to be shot the moment the inevitable constitutional amendments are made.
It can have no other purpose.
Perhaps the sudden appearance of this scurrilous document can be best explained by the fact that elections for the European parliament are now a year away, and if there is one thing we know Griffin longs to do it is to bag his ticket on the Euro gravy-train.
To that end he has already deposed Chris Jackson as North-west Regional Organiser in favour of himself, and parachuted himself in as the BNP's number one candidate in the region. We also saw, when a general election seemed but weeks away last autumn, that Griffin's overarching concern was to preserve BNP finances for the Euro elections - strange behaviour for a British "national" party.
You or I might think a good general election performance would be of more lasting benefit to the BNP than Griffin's flying off to Strasbourg and the riches of an MEP on the back of a tiny vote in north-west England, but the BNP have convinced themselves that this is the way forward - failing to notice that a similar exercise has done the UKIP no good at all, and never really asking themselves exactly what a lone BNP representative in Europe is going to achieve for the party.
However that may be, with the prize now in sight the Griffin Family Business must be protected from hostile takeover, and we can't help but to think [sic] that the "Activist Declaration" form is a large and sinister part of that protection.
In perspective, then: in nine years Nick Griffin has taken the BNP from nowhere to next to nowhere. In the most favourable conditions ever to exist in which a racialist and nationalist party could expect to grow, the BNP under Griffin has remained stunted, its membership numbering well under 10,000, despite the regular repetition of the lie that hundreds join every week.
It remains electorally moribund, and where it has met with success it has done so despite the turbulent Griffin, not because of him. His record is, by any measure, lamentable, nine years of effort and eye-watering expenditure on the part of the BNP producing a paltry crop of 55 local councillors who all too often are not up to the job and all too prone to find themselves confronted with past indiscretions.
That Griffin has managed for so long to pass off his leadership as a story of unparalleled success is an achievement of sorts, we suppose, but we on our side of the fence really do thank our stars that the BNP chose to land itself with the most divisive and incompetent leader ever to grace the stage of the far-Right in Britain.
"Flair and vision"? It seems more like stuff and nonsense to us.
The grass roots demand new leadership
BNPIDEAS.COM Now as Popular as the Party’s Main Website
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
As many people visit BNPIdeas.com as visit the main party website, new figures from the internet’s Alexa web rank measuring body has shown.
BNPIdeas.com has only been in existence for a little over three weeks, and thus it is not possible to get a three month, or even a one month, ranking from Alexa for the site.
However, the Alexa rankings for the last seven day period show that BNPIDEAS.COM stands at 61,611 in the United Kingdom, compared to BNP.ORG.UK’s 60,822 seven-day ranking in Britain.
What this means is that in Britain, at least as many people visit BNPideas.com as visit BNP.ORG.UK.
This development must be highly worrying for the current party leadership. BNPIdeas.com was initially only created after the party leadership deliberately and maliciously severed all links to Andrew Brons’s MEP website.
This petty factionalism, so typical of Nick Griffin’s political career, has now had unintended consequences for the BNP chairman. Instead of Mr Brons being cast off into the wilderness (like the hundreds of other members and activists Mr Griffin has chased away), this site has recruited an array of the finest writers and thinkers from within the BNP.
They in turn have now combined to produce a website which, in the space of just three weeks, has reached the popularity ranking of the Griffin-controlled site, and, given current trends, will soon surpass it.
Once again, it is Mr Griffin who has created the situation.
Increasingly large numbers of ordinary members are coming to the realisation that it is Mr Griffin’s leadership which is holding the party back, causing division and crippling our forward progress.
The time has come for leadership change within the BNP, and this website’s popularity is a reflection of the grassroots demand in this regard.
Posted by admin, on Jun 25th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
As many people visit BNPIdeas.com as visit the main party website, new figures from the internet’s Alexa web rank measuring body has shown.
BNPIdeas.com has only been in existence for a little over three weeks, and thus it is not possible to get a three month, or even a one month, ranking from Alexa for the site.
However, the Alexa rankings for the last seven day period show that BNPIDEAS.COM stands at 61,611 in the United Kingdom, compared to BNP.ORG.UK’s 60,822 seven-day ranking in Britain.
What this means is that in Britain, at least as many people visit BNPideas.com as visit BNP.ORG.UK.
This development must be highly worrying for the current party leadership. BNPIdeas.com was initially only created after the party leadership deliberately and maliciously severed all links to Andrew Brons’s MEP website.
This petty factionalism, so typical of Nick Griffin’s political career, has now had unintended consequences for the BNP chairman. Instead of Mr Brons being cast off into the wilderness (like the hundreds of other members and activists Mr Griffin has chased away), this site has recruited an array of the finest writers and thinkers from within the BNP.
They in turn have now combined to produce a website which, in the space of just three weeks, has reached the popularity ranking of the Griffin-controlled site, and, given current trends, will soon surpass it.
Once again, it is Mr Griffin who has created the situation.
Increasingly large numbers of ordinary members are coming to the realisation that it is Mr Griffin’s leadership which is holding the party back, causing division and crippling our forward progress.
The time has come for leadership change within the BNP, and this website’s popularity is a reflection of the grassroots demand in this regard.
Heads Griffin 'wins', tails the BNP loses
The following article comes from Eddy Butler's blog.
Eddy is an experienced, former senior officer of the British National Party, who was expelled by Griffin, via a patently corrupt process, following a valiant but unsuccessful leadership challenge last year. The BNP cannot afford to lose such veterans as Eddy if it is to succeed in its true mission of returning our country to its rightful owners, the British people.
Eddy continues to be employed, as a political researcher, on the European 'parliament' staff of Andrew Brons, the BNP's first and most senior MEP, who is currently challenging Griffin for the leadership of what remains of our party.
Surely, even the most cretinous of tacticians can see that Griffin's chronic failure to honour any rules for the management of the BNP, other than those he makes up to suit himself as he goes along, is a self-defeating and self-destructive policy, for both himself and more importantly, the party. Such a policy seems almost designed to neutralize the BNP as a political force and to render it both insignificant and impotent. Perhaps it is designed for that very purpose.
Whether Griffin's malignant factiousness is whistled up at the behest of the secret state, or simply used as a means of supposedly protecting his family's first call on the party's dwindling revenue stream, it now seems clear that the BNP can make no further headway while Griffin remains at the steering-wheel.
This presents members with a stark choice: either Griffin goes, or the BNP continues to wither on the vine.
EXCITED BY HIS OWN BRILLIANCE
Nick Griffin can hardly disguise his glee at the apparent success of his knavish scheme to subvert the BNP’s internal democratic processes for the second year running.
As always it comes out in his Twitters rather as puss [sic] rises out of a boil. Take this beauty:
Around a thousand proxy votes now in. Being kept sealed until Advisory Council meeting on Saturday.
A thousand indeed. If, say, 150 attend the now somewhat pointless General Members’ Meeting on Sunday then perhaps 1,200 votes will decide the three proposals to change the constitution. This means that Nick Griffin will require around 800 votes at most to get his changes through (a 2/3rds majority being required).
Something tells me that Saturday’s AC meeting will see enough pieces of paper with crosses in the right places to render the GMM in St Helens superfluous.
However he is clearly disturbed that in doing so he has been exposed as a bare faced liar. Any ‘victory’ he achieves will be of the pyrrhic variety. It will only be courtesy of the unknown and faceless armchair ‘paper’ members. The overwhelming majority of activists – those who understand and can see him for what he is – will only have their levels of disgust at his antics increased to the point where they cannot stomach him any longer and if he then wins the leadership election they will vote with their feet. He will be left with nothing.
This is no doubt why he tweeted the following:
Full video of the definitive Sunday meeting at Annual Conference now on our website. I'm amazed by the blatant disregard for truth shown by Searchlight's useful idiots who posted footage from the previous day to support their lie that we have ignored the conference decision.
If you're coming to the General Members' Meeting, do watch the Conference video on bnp.org.uk
And on subject of liars, don't forget to keep on covering up the Daily Mirror!
Here is the article with the video:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/gmm-motions-line-2010-conference-vote
He is desperate to convince isn't he? This has resulted in a ‘he said, she said’ type of argument with the ‘rebel’ BNP Ideas website retorting as follows:
http://bnpideas.com/?p=402
Perhaps the most interesting aspect however is the familiar Griffinite claim that those who oppose him are ‘Searchlight’s useful idiots’. By this he means that they are doing Searchlight’s bidding by pointing out his lies, but possibly are unaware of the fact, and they are too stupid to realise it. Nick Griffin is one of those people who fools himself. He lies so much that he starts to believe his own lies. He has practiced [sic] mock indignation so many times that he gets indignant if you question his fake indignation. He will go through the range of emotions. From anger to sorrow, with a special appearance of that trusty onion and a few tears for good measure.
Of course he says all his opponents are ‘liars’ - Andrew Brons, his fellow MEP, is a liar. You may recall that like a slimey [sic] coward he called me a liar when I left the room in Brussels recently. When I came back in the room and confronted him he couldn’t remember any lies that I had told. That says it all.
The simple fact is Searchlight and the entire enemy establishment are more than happy for Nick Griffin to remain as Chairman of the BNP. He is inept and a walking talking PR disaster area. He is made for them.
IF HE WINS ON SUNDAY...
I will remind you what will happen if he does indeed ‘triumph’ on Sunday.
Nominations for the leadership election will open this Monday and close the Monday after (4th July). There is a mistaken belief that ten nomination signatures are required. In fact no signatures are required at all.
The eleven hustings meetings (one per region) will be held between 7th July and 21st July.
I can inform you that the National Organiser has already commanded the Regional Organisers to arrange these hustings meetings.
Ballot papers will be sent out on 7th July and must be returned by 25th July. The count will take place on 25th July.
It will all be over and done with before you have time to catch breath. Or before a challenger has time to get his campaign going. Has any potential challenger and his team got themselves in a position where they can spring into action? Or will there be a flurry of legal challenges? Or will Nick Griffin – against the odds – lose on Sunday? If Nick Griffin gets his constitutional change through via his postal vote chicanery, will it be a harbinger for what will happen in the actual leadership contest? Drama indeed. We will have to wait and see.
I recommended at an early stage to go with the flow and accept the constitutional change, ratchet up the challenge campaign and go for it immediately and with massive vigour. I stand by that. A defeat in the constitutional struggle will not be a good start to a leadership campaign, and as I have spelt out the timetable is very restricted with no room for a day being wasted by inaction.
About 1,300 people ‘nominated’ in last year’s leadership challenge out of 4,200 members with over two years continuous membership. That leadership challenge nomination process was protracted and relatively well advertised – certainly compared to the proxy vote element to this GMM. The 1,000 returned proxies implies that the two year membership is around the figure I have previously suggested (about 4,000) and that an inordinately large number of signatures (a good 800) will be required by any challenger should Nick Griffin’s constitutional changes somehow fail to get through on Sunday.
That is not an enticing prospect.
PROXY.... OR POSTAL VOTES?
Although Nick Griffin has chosen to call his new process a proxy vote, it in fact bears all the characteristics of a postal vote. Under proper proxy votes you nominate someone to vote for you. On Nick Griffin’s proxy vote form, the member votes then selects a proxy to hand the vote in. It is effectively a postal vote.
The same form allows the member to select a proxy to do their thinking form them – to act as a real proxy.
Thus it is a composite proxy and postal vote form.
As there is no provision in the constitution for postal votes in voting for constitutional changes, this is perhaps one area that might be open to legal challenge.
If you want to take a look at the forms, I reproduced them in the previous article.
Of course many of you who should have received your forms haven’t, and many who shouldn’t have. The entire membership database is in melt down. The BNP’s internal administration is in utter chaos.
Do you think they will be able to tell if someone who has voted by proxy also turns up to vote in person at the GMM?
Do you think that their leading henchmen will not have thought of that one and already voted by proxy? Or do you think they might have been voting by proxy for untold numbers of ‘ghost’ members all week, with freshly printed proxy forms. Vote early vote often. No wonder there have been 1,000 proxy/postal votes sent in.
I just remembered that’s why the BNP has always opposed postal votes. It is a system that is wide open to abuse and corruption. It is of course Nick Griffin’s favoured method.
Nick Griffin represents everything we are fighting against, down to the smallest detail.
ANY HIDDEN ‘GOODIES’?
We should always look out for hidden extras when Nick Griffin prepares a document. Let me take another look at that proxy form. Hmmm. Let me see, is there anything?
Ah yes found it - here:
‘I authorise my proxy to vote (or abstain from voting) as they think fit in relation to any other matter which is properly put before the meeting.’
What other matters might be ‘properly put before the meeting’? After all two weeks’ notice is surely required before anything can be put to members at the GMM.
Try this for size:
‘The meetings that day will be voting on the Motions and amendments on the enclosed sheets and on any further amendments put forward by the Advisory Council.’
So according to Nick Griffin the AC can add extra amendments and I will remind you that the AC is meeting on Saturday – today!
Anyone who has sent their form in and instructed their chosen proxy to vote as they have indicated, has also authorised their proxy to vote on any other matter that the AC chooses to add to the GMM. They have signed a blank cheque.
Will Nick Griffin get his hand-picked AC to make all sorts of imaginative amendments and then pass them on the nod via his 1,000 proxy votes? Or will he hold them back and decide whether to pass them on the day, depending on how things go? The members actually attending the GMM will be powerless to do anything about it.
I am sure the GMM will be interesting anyway and that a frank exchange of views will take place.
For my part I have been expelled!
Eddy is an experienced, former senior officer of the British National Party, who was expelled by Griffin, via a patently corrupt process, following a valiant but unsuccessful leadership challenge last year. The BNP cannot afford to lose such veterans as Eddy if it is to succeed in its true mission of returning our country to its rightful owners, the British people.
Eddy continues to be employed, as a political researcher, on the European 'parliament' staff of Andrew Brons, the BNP's first and most senior MEP, who is currently challenging Griffin for the leadership of what remains of our party.
Surely, even the most cretinous of tacticians can see that Griffin's chronic failure to honour any rules for the management of the BNP, other than those he makes up to suit himself as he goes along, is a self-defeating and self-destructive policy, for both himself and more importantly, the party. Such a policy seems almost designed to neutralize the BNP as a political force and to render it both insignificant and impotent. Perhaps it is designed for that very purpose.
Whether Griffin's malignant factiousness is whistled up at the behest of the secret state, or simply used as a means of supposedly protecting his family's first call on the party's dwindling revenue stream, it now seems clear that the BNP can make no further headway while Griffin remains at the steering-wheel.
This presents members with a stark choice: either Griffin goes, or the BNP continues to wither on the vine.
EXCITED BY HIS OWN BRILLIANCE
Nick Griffin can hardly disguise his glee at the apparent success of his knavish scheme to subvert the BNP’s internal democratic processes for the second year running.
As always it comes out in his Twitters rather as puss [sic] rises out of a boil. Take this beauty:
Around a thousand proxy votes now in. Being kept sealed until Advisory Council meeting on Saturday.
A thousand indeed. If, say, 150 attend the now somewhat pointless General Members’ Meeting on Sunday then perhaps 1,200 votes will decide the three proposals to change the constitution. This means that Nick Griffin will require around 800 votes at most to get his changes through (a 2/3rds majority being required).
Something tells me that Saturday’s AC meeting will see enough pieces of paper with crosses in the right places to render the GMM in St Helens superfluous.
However he is clearly disturbed that in doing so he has been exposed as a bare faced liar. Any ‘victory’ he achieves will be of the pyrrhic variety. It will only be courtesy of the unknown and faceless armchair ‘paper’ members. The overwhelming majority of activists – those who understand and can see him for what he is – will only have their levels of disgust at his antics increased to the point where they cannot stomach him any longer and if he then wins the leadership election they will vote with their feet. He will be left with nothing.
This is no doubt why he tweeted the following:
Full video of the definitive Sunday meeting at Annual Conference now on our website. I'm amazed by the blatant disregard for truth shown by Searchlight's useful idiots who posted footage from the previous day to support their lie that we have ignored the conference decision.
If you're coming to the General Members' Meeting, do watch the Conference video on bnp.org.uk
And on subject of liars, don't forget to keep on covering up the Daily Mirror!
Here is the article with the video:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/gmm-motions-line-2010-conference-vote
He is desperate to convince isn't he? This has resulted in a ‘he said, she said’ type of argument with the ‘rebel’ BNP Ideas website retorting as follows:
http://bnpideas.com/?p=402
Perhaps the most interesting aspect however is the familiar Griffinite claim that those who oppose him are ‘Searchlight’s useful idiots’. By this he means that they are doing Searchlight’s bidding by pointing out his lies, but possibly are unaware of the fact, and they are too stupid to realise it. Nick Griffin is one of those people who fools himself. He lies so much that he starts to believe his own lies. He has practiced [sic] mock indignation so many times that he gets indignant if you question his fake indignation. He will go through the range of emotions. From anger to sorrow, with a special appearance of that trusty onion and a few tears for good measure.
Of course he says all his opponents are ‘liars’ - Andrew Brons, his fellow MEP, is a liar. You may recall that like a slimey [sic] coward he called me a liar when I left the room in Brussels recently. When I came back in the room and confronted him he couldn’t remember any lies that I had told. That says it all.
The simple fact is Searchlight and the entire enemy establishment are more than happy for Nick Griffin to remain as Chairman of the BNP. He is inept and a walking talking PR disaster area. He is made for them.
IF HE WINS ON SUNDAY...
I will remind you what will happen if he does indeed ‘triumph’ on Sunday.
Nominations for the leadership election will open this Monday and close the Monday after (4th July). There is a mistaken belief that ten nomination signatures are required. In fact no signatures are required at all.
The eleven hustings meetings (one per region) will be held between 7th July and 21st July.
I can inform you that the National Organiser has already commanded the Regional Organisers to arrange these hustings meetings.
Ballot papers will be sent out on 7th July and must be returned by 25th July. The count will take place on 25th July.
It will all be over and done with before you have time to catch breath. Or before a challenger has time to get his campaign going. Has any potential challenger and his team got themselves in a position where they can spring into action? Or will there be a flurry of legal challenges? Or will Nick Griffin – against the odds – lose on Sunday? If Nick Griffin gets his constitutional change through via his postal vote chicanery, will it be a harbinger for what will happen in the actual leadership contest? Drama indeed. We will have to wait and see.
I recommended at an early stage to go with the flow and accept the constitutional change, ratchet up the challenge campaign and go for it immediately and with massive vigour. I stand by that. A defeat in the constitutional struggle will not be a good start to a leadership campaign, and as I have spelt out the timetable is very restricted with no room for a day being wasted by inaction.
About 1,300 people ‘nominated’ in last year’s leadership challenge out of 4,200 members with over two years continuous membership. That leadership challenge nomination process was protracted and relatively well advertised – certainly compared to the proxy vote element to this GMM. The 1,000 returned proxies implies that the two year membership is around the figure I have previously suggested (about 4,000) and that an inordinately large number of signatures (a good 800) will be required by any challenger should Nick Griffin’s constitutional changes somehow fail to get through on Sunday.
That is not an enticing prospect.
PROXY.... OR POSTAL VOTES?
Although Nick Griffin has chosen to call his new process a proxy vote, it in fact bears all the characteristics of a postal vote. Under proper proxy votes you nominate someone to vote for you. On Nick Griffin’s proxy vote form, the member votes then selects a proxy to hand the vote in. It is effectively a postal vote.
The same form allows the member to select a proxy to do their thinking form them – to act as a real proxy.
Thus it is a composite proxy and postal vote form.
As there is no provision in the constitution for postal votes in voting for constitutional changes, this is perhaps one area that might be open to legal challenge.
If you want to take a look at the forms, I reproduced them in the previous article.
Of course many of you who should have received your forms haven’t, and many who shouldn’t have. The entire membership database is in melt down. The BNP’s internal administration is in utter chaos.
Do you think they will be able to tell if someone who has voted by proxy also turns up to vote in person at the GMM?
Do you think that their leading henchmen will not have thought of that one and already voted by proxy? Or do you think they might have been voting by proxy for untold numbers of ‘ghost’ members all week, with freshly printed proxy forms. Vote early vote often. No wonder there have been 1,000 proxy/postal votes sent in.
I just remembered that’s why the BNP has always opposed postal votes. It is a system that is wide open to abuse and corruption. It is of course Nick Griffin’s favoured method.
Nick Griffin represents everything we are fighting against, down to the smallest detail.
ANY HIDDEN ‘GOODIES’?
We should always look out for hidden extras when Nick Griffin prepares a document. Let me take another look at that proxy form. Hmmm. Let me see, is there anything?
Ah yes found it - here:
‘I authorise my proxy to vote (or abstain from voting) as they think fit in relation to any other matter which is properly put before the meeting.’
What other matters might be ‘properly put before the meeting’? After all two weeks’ notice is surely required before anything can be put to members at the GMM.
Try this for size:
‘The meetings that day will be voting on the Motions and amendments on the enclosed sheets and on any further amendments put forward by the Advisory Council.’
So according to Nick Griffin the AC can add extra amendments and I will remind you that the AC is meeting on Saturday – today!
Anyone who has sent their form in and instructed their chosen proxy to vote as they have indicated, has also authorised their proxy to vote on any other matter that the AC chooses to add to the GMM. They have signed a blank cheque.
Will Nick Griffin get his hand-picked AC to make all sorts of imaginative amendments and then pass them on the nod via his 1,000 proxy votes? Or will he hold them back and decide whether to pass them on the day, depending on how things go? The members actually attending the GMM will be powerless to do anything about it.
I am sure the GMM will be interesting anyway and that a frank exchange of views will take place.
For my part I have been expelled!
Friday 24 June 2011
Veritas Omnia Vincit
Geert Wilders acquitted of hate speech against Muslims
![]()
Dutch MP Geert Wilders speaks during a news conference in central London March 5, 2010. The Dutch MP was in London to show an anti-Islam film, local media reported.
Credit: Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett
By Gilbert Kreijger and Aaron Gray-Block
AMSTERDAM
Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:43am BST
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred of Muslims in a court ruling on Thursday that may strengthen his political influence and exacerbate tensions over immigration policy.
The case was seen by some as a test of free speech in a country which has a long tradition of tolerance and blunt talk, but where opposition to immigration, particularly from Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries, is on the rise.
Instantly recognisable by his mane of dyed blond hair, Wilders, 47, is one of the most outspoken critics of Islam and immigration in the Netherlands.
His Freedom Party is now the third-largest in parliament, a measure of support for its anti-immigrant stance, and is the minority government's chief ally. But many of Wilders' comments -- such as likening Islam to Nazism -- are socially divisive.
The presiding judge said Wilders' remarks were sometimes "hurtful," "shocking" or "offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.
"I am extremely pleased and happy," Wilders told reporters after the ruling. "This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech. Fortunately you can criticise Islam and not be gagged in public debate."
The ruling could embolden Wilders further. He has already won concessions from the government on cutting immigration and introducing a ban on Muslim face veils and burqas.
"This means that his political views are condoned by law, his political rhetoric has been legalised," said Andre Krouwel, a political scientist at Amsterdam's Free University.
"This has made him stronger politically. He is needed for a political majority, he is basically vice prime minister without even being in the government."
Some Dutch citizens have started to question their country's traditionally generous immigration and aid policies, worried by the deteriorating economic climate, higher unemployment, incidence of ethnic crime and signs that Muslim immigrants have not fully integrated into Dutch society.
Similar concerns have helped far-right parties to gain traction elsewhere in Europe, from France to Scandinavia.
Farid Azarkan of the SMN association of Moroccans in the Netherlands said he feared the acquittal could further split Dutch society and encourage others to repeat Wilders' comments.
"You see that people feel more and more supported in saying that minorities are good for nothing," Azarkan said.
"Wilders has said very extreme things about Muslims and Moroccans, so when will it ever stop? Some will feel this as a sort of support for what they feel and as justification."
Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.
"The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.," said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.
Wilders, who has received numerous death threats and has to live under 24-hour guard, argued that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech when criticising Islam.
The Amsterdam court had used a Supreme Court ruling -- that an offensive statement about someone's religion was not a criminal offence -- as the basis of its decision, leading to acquittal, the judge said.
Unusually, the prosecution team had also asked for an acquittal, arguing that politicians have the right to comment on problem issues and that Wilders was not trying to foment violence or division.
"I think it is good that he has been acquitted," said Elsbeth Kalff, an 83-year-old retired sociologist in Amsterdam.
"He has been told that he has been rude and offensive but it is on the border of what the criminal law allows. It is good, the Netherlands is, after all, a tolerant country and we should keep it that way."
(Editing by Sara Webb and Mark Trevelyan)
Dutch MP Geert Wilders speaks during a news conference in central London March 5, 2010. The Dutch MP was in London to show an anti-Islam film, local media reported.
Credit: Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett
By Gilbert Kreijger and Aaron Gray-Block
AMSTERDAM
Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:43am BST
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred of Muslims in a court ruling on Thursday that may strengthen his political influence and exacerbate tensions over immigration policy.
The case was seen by some as a test of free speech in a country which has a long tradition of tolerance and blunt talk, but where opposition to immigration, particularly from Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries, is on the rise.
Instantly recognisable by his mane of dyed blond hair, Wilders, 47, is one of the most outspoken critics of Islam and immigration in the Netherlands.
His Freedom Party is now the third-largest in parliament, a measure of support for its anti-immigrant stance, and is the minority government's chief ally. But many of Wilders' comments -- such as likening Islam to Nazism -- are socially divisive.
The presiding judge said Wilders' remarks were sometimes "hurtful," "shocking" or "offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.
"I am extremely pleased and happy," Wilders told reporters after the ruling. "This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech. Fortunately you can criticise Islam and not be gagged in public debate."
The ruling could embolden Wilders further. He has already won concessions from the government on cutting immigration and introducing a ban on Muslim face veils and burqas.
"This means that his political views are condoned by law, his political rhetoric has been legalised," said Andre Krouwel, a political scientist at Amsterdam's Free University.
"This has made him stronger politically. He is needed for a political majority, he is basically vice prime minister without even being in the government."
Some Dutch citizens have started to question their country's traditionally generous immigration and aid policies, worried by the deteriorating economic climate, higher unemployment, incidence of ethnic crime and signs that Muslim immigrants have not fully integrated into Dutch society.
Similar concerns have helped far-right parties to gain traction elsewhere in Europe, from France to Scandinavia.
Farid Azarkan of the SMN association of Moroccans in the Netherlands said he feared the acquittal could further split Dutch society and encourage others to repeat Wilders' comments.
"You see that people feel more and more supported in saying that minorities are good for nothing," Azarkan said.
"Wilders has said very extreme things about Muslims and Moroccans, so when will it ever stop? Some will feel this as a sort of support for what they feel and as justification."
Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.
"The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.," said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.
Wilders, who has received numerous death threats and has to live under 24-hour guard, argued that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech when criticising Islam.
The Amsterdam court had used a Supreme Court ruling -- that an offensive statement about someone's religion was not a criminal offence -- as the basis of its decision, leading to acquittal, the judge said.
Unusually, the prosecution team had also asked for an acquittal, arguing that politicians have the right to comment on problem issues and that Wilders was not trying to foment violence or division.
"I think it is good that he has been acquitted," said Elsbeth Kalff, an 83-year-old retired sociologist in Amsterdam.
"He has been told that he has been rude and offensive but it is on the border of what the criminal law allows. It is good, the Netherlands is, after all, a tolerant country and we should keep it that way."
(Editing by Sara Webb and Mark Trevelyan)
Wednesday 22 June 2011
Break this chain-Migration!
Bizarre Foreign “Marriage” Laws Make Britain a Laughing Stock
Posted by admin, on Jun 20th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
Bizarre Third World “marriage laws” which entail telephone weddings and “ceremonies” involving no partners but a “bottle of gin and cash” are being used to subvert immigration laws, it has emerged.
The incredible tales of how British law is being made into the world’s laughing stock emerged last week during a court case in Scotland after a female Pakistani immigrant tried to have her marriage by telephone to another Pakistani annulled.
The woman, who was unnamed, claimed to have met the Pakistani man only “on the internet” and never in person, said she had married him over the telephone in 2005. She was in Edinburgh at the time, and he was in Pakistan.
Now, however, the two appear to have fallen out. The woman applied to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to grant a decree of nullity because, she argued, the “telephone marriage” was not valid under Scottish law.
The court however disagreed. Lord Stewart, in a written decision, said the ceremony was valid under Pakistani law and he therefore had no power to annul the marriage.
Maria Clarke, counsel for the woman, admitted that an expert on Muslim and Pakistani law said that telephone marriages were valid and increasingly common in Pakistan and, according to the laws of that country, the wedding seemed to be legal.
Lord Stewart said in his judgment that previous court decisions had established the principle that if a marriage was legal in one country it could not be overturned in another.
He quoted the case of an Irishman and a Ghanaian woman in England who sent a bottle of gin and some cash to Ghana where a ceremony was held according to tribal custom, even though neither bride nor groom attended.
“The Court of Appeal recognised the union on the basis of expert opinion to the effect that a marriage in absentia was formally valid according to the customary law in question,” he said.
The situation has thus arisen whereby marriages conducted according to Third World “laws” are now recognised as valid in Britain.
This has, amongst other things, given rise to “legal” polygamy, particularly amongst the Muslim population of Britain. Although it is against British law to have more than one wife, multiple unions conducted in another country under Islamic law are recognised.
Hence it has become possible for a Muslim male in Britain to have multiple partners, all recognised as such. He and his partners can, and do, claim child support for all their offspring.
A 2009 review by the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office on the topic, revealed that a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa.
A Muslim male can receive £92.80 per week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses.
Therefore, if he has four wives (the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings) he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer.
A polygamist is also, the review added, entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. In addition, he can claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each child.
This is an intolerable situation, created by the insanity of modern liberalism which has infected society. An urgent review of the legal system and its application is long overdue in Britain, and only the British National Party has the understanding and the political willpower to make this change.
1 Response to " Bizarre Foreign “Marriage” Laws Make Britain a Laughing Stock "
Will Mossop says:
June 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“Lord Stewart said in his judgment that previous court decisions had established the principle that if a marriage was legal in one country it could not be overturned in another.”
That still doesn’t mean you have to recognise the validity of the marriage or accept the “spouse” into your country.
Is this part of Alex Salmond’s desire to see mass immigration destroy the Scottish people?
Really, Scots, what are you doing voting SNP?
Posted by admin, on Jun 20th, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
Bizarre Third World “marriage laws” which entail telephone weddings and “ceremonies” involving no partners but a “bottle of gin and cash” are being used to subvert immigration laws, it has emerged.
The incredible tales of how British law is being made into the world’s laughing stock emerged last week during a court case in Scotland after a female Pakistani immigrant tried to have her marriage by telephone to another Pakistani annulled.
The woman, who was unnamed, claimed to have met the Pakistani man only “on the internet” and never in person, said she had married him over the telephone in 2005. She was in Edinburgh at the time, and he was in Pakistan.
Now, however, the two appear to have fallen out. The woman applied to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to grant a decree of nullity because, she argued, the “telephone marriage” was not valid under Scottish law.
The court however disagreed. Lord Stewart, in a written decision, said the ceremony was valid under Pakistani law and he therefore had no power to annul the marriage.
Maria Clarke, counsel for the woman, admitted that an expert on Muslim and Pakistani law said that telephone marriages were valid and increasingly common in Pakistan and, according to the laws of that country, the wedding seemed to be legal.
Lord Stewart said in his judgment that previous court decisions had established the principle that if a marriage was legal in one country it could not be overturned in another.
He quoted the case of an Irishman and a Ghanaian woman in England who sent a bottle of gin and some cash to Ghana where a ceremony was held according to tribal custom, even though neither bride nor groom attended.
“The Court of Appeal recognised the union on the basis of expert opinion to the effect that a marriage in absentia was formally valid according to the customary law in question,” he said.
The situation has thus arisen whereby marriages conducted according to Third World “laws” are now recognised as valid in Britain.
This has, amongst other things, given rise to “legal” polygamy, particularly amongst the Muslim population of Britain. Although it is against British law to have more than one wife, multiple unions conducted in another country under Islamic law are recognised.
Hence it has become possible for a Muslim male in Britain to have multiple partners, all recognised as such. He and his partners can, and do, claim child support for all their offspring.
A 2009 review by the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office on the topic, revealed that a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa.
A Muslim male can receive £92.80 per week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses.
Therefore, if he has four wives (the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings) he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer.
A polygamist is also, the review added, entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. In addition, he can claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each child.
This is an intolerable situation, created by the insanity of modern liberalism which has infected society. An urgent review of the legal system and its application is long overdue in Britain, and only the British National Party has the understanding and the political willpower to make this change.
1 Response to " Bizarre Foreign “Marriage” Laws Make Britain a Laughing Stock "
Will Mossop says:
June 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“Lord Stewart said in his judgment that previous court decisions had established the principle that if a marriage was legal in one country it could not be overturned in another.”
That still doesn’t mean you have to recognise the validity of the marriage or accept the “spouse” into your country.
Is this part of Alex Salmond’s desire to see mass immigration destroy the Scottish people?
Really, Scots, what are you doing voting SNP?
Tuesday 21 June 2011
Apres moi le Deluge
Acknowledgements to the AlternativeRight.com site, from which the following article is taken
Griffin Must Go
British Nationalism on Hold
By Colin Liddell
Across Europe ethno-nationalist parties have been making considerable gains, but in Britain, one of the countries most threatened by mass immigration, multi-culturalism, and the liberal fascist thought crime legislation needed to maintain this unnatural state, the main ethno-nationalist party, the BNP, has been failing miserably.
In recent months, the party's vote has dropped dramatically in every election, and it has even been humiliated twice in a row by UKIP, a civic nationalist party, in former party heartlands such as Oldham and Barnsley. What makes this so tragic is that for a few years in the last decade the BNP was the rising force in British politics. Led by Nick Griffin, the party weathered everything the establishment could throw at it and made one breakthrough after another.
In 2006, the party won 12 seats in elections for Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council, as part of widespread gains in other council elections. In 2008, Richard Barnbrook, the leader of the BNP group in Barking, was elected to the London Assembly. Then in 2009, Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin were elected as Members of the European Parliament.
Naturally, such success led to an intensive campaign against the party that included the usual media demonization, refusal by other parties and politicians to share platforms with the party, physical intimidation by the fascist Unite Against Fascism (sic) group, legal attacks on the party's constitution and membership rules, and other underhanded tricks.
It would be easy to blame this massive anti-BNP campaign for the BNP's stalled progress and recent losses but the evidence suggests otherwise. One of the keys to the BNP's earlier success was the fact that it was seen as an outsider party by the large segment of the electorate who are deeply disenchanted with mainstream British politics. The attempt by the political establishment to marginalize and ostracize it therefore helped rather than hindered the party.
It is noteworthy that its greatest breakthroughs occurred after vicious, non-political attacks on the party. In 2004, Griffin and Mark Collett, Director of Publicity for the Party, were charged under Britain's Orwellian thought crime laws of stirring up racial hatred after they made some run-of-the-mill comments about Islam. During the almost two-year legal case, which ended when the pair was acquitted in early 2006, the party continued to gain support.
Likewise on 18th November, 2008, Wikileaks published a list of over 10,000 BNP members, which included names, addresses and other details, in what was a clear attempt to intimidate members and those thinking of joining the party. BNP members have frequently been physically attacked or sacked in the past. Despite this, a few months later the party made its biggest breakthrough, gaining its two seats in the European Parliament.
The attacks by the establishment clearly backfired, so why has the BNP gone into decline? The evidence suggests that the main reason is that its greatest asset in the past, Nick Griffin, has turned into its greatest liability. Make no mistake about it: Griffin's contribution to the rise of the BNP was massive. Before him it was still mired in neo-Nazi street politics. Griffin realized that, in order to grow, the party had to appeal to ordinary British voters with common sense policies that appealed to their natural sense of ethnic identity and survival. Under Griffin the party improved its image and became more media savvy. Instead of fighting street battles with leftist thugs or indulging in holocaust trainspotting, the party concentrated on improving its image and connecting with voters concerned about the disastrous direction the country was headed in.
But anybody closely watching the party over the last few years, will realize that Griffin has now become the main problem and, as long as he remains Chairman, the party will continue to stagnate, shrink, and die. This is because Griffin has disastrously adapted Louis XIV's old aphorism "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the State") to the running of what is still, unfortunately, a minor British political party.
Griffin's main weakness is the way that he antagonizes other members of the party and attempts to crush all opposition, usually accusing opponents of being traitors, plants, or spies. Fomenting such an atmosphere of paranoia also helps Griffin retain almost dictatorial control over the party. At present the party's constitution gives the Chairman sweeping powers.
Given past attempts to infiltrate and sabotage the party, such powers may even be justifiable, but they have clearly been used against members whom everyone knows are sincere nationalists, people like Richard Barnbrook, Mark Collett, and Eddy Butler, the former head of the Elections Department who was widely credited with boosting the party's ability to get out the vote. Last year Butler challenged Griffin for the leadership, but after failing to get the required number of nominations, he was expelled from the party for breaching its code of conduct, including section 12, which reads:
The spreading of false or malicious rumours shall be considered an offence against this Code of Conduct. So too shall be the deliberate causing of disruption to the working of our Party.
With the Chairman deciding what are false or malicious rumours and from whom they originate, this means that Griffin effectively has the power to expel anyone from the party anytime he likes. Such draconian power, if used extremely sparingly would be tolerable, but there is no indication that Griffin has the requisite magnanimity. Collett and Barnbrook have also been kicked out of the party. Their offence? To have sided with Butler.
The expulsion of key members and the disaffection of large parts of the party's activist base under Griffin's recent leadership have effectively hamstrung the party. Some have even said that Griffin is in effect the establishment's most effective plant. My own view is that Griffin is a sincere nationalist, but that the pressures of leading the BNP have made him increasingly paranoid, while the habits of power are too engrained for him to willingly relinquish them.
Recently a new challenge to Griffin's leadership has been launched by his fellow MEP Andrew Brons, who is campaigning against Griffin on five main points:
1.Financial mismanagement
2.His poor performance on the BBC's political debate program "Question Time" in 2009
3.Bad staffing choices, including nepotism
4.Poor election results
5.Dishonest reinterpretation and amending of constitutional decisions made at last year's party conference
Brons is seen as the unity candidate, who wishes to recognize both Griffin's past contribution to the party as well as the concerns of Griffin's strongest critics. This is a role for which the well-spoken and magisterial former college lecturer is well suited. The important date is 26th of June, when a General Members' Meeting will be held to decide the method by which the leadership election will be contested, but already Griffin seems to be up to his old tricks, aimed at keeping him as captain of a sinking ship.
Because of the threat of organized acts of violence by groups like the UAF, BNP meetings are always held at undisclosed locations with members showing up at a re-direction point where they are given directions to the venue. Griffin and his cronies have decided to hold the meeting near Liverpool, because this is one of the main Griffinite power bases. But the re-direction point will only remain open until 10.00 a.m., making it extremely difficult for members from the South, the East Midlands, the North East and Scotland to arrive at the re-direction point on time, a move designed to filter out opponents. There is also the chance that the quality of the directions may vary between those Griffin thinks are loyal to him and those he suspects of being his opponents.
If Griffin manages to defeat Brons' leadership challenge, then there is every chance that some flimsy excuse will be found to expel Brons from the party in the same way that Butler was. If that happens, then Griffin will be unmistakably revealed as the cockerel that prefers to remain on top of a dunghill, rather than an effective leader of a party whose future success is vital to the survival of the British people.
Griffin Must Go
British Nationalism on Hold
By Colin Liddell
Across Europe ethno-nationalist parties have been making considerable gains, but in Britain, one of the countries most threatened by mass immigration, multi-culturalism, and the liberal fascist thought crime legislation needed to maintain this unnatural state, the main ethno-nationalist party, the BNP, has been failing miserably.
In recent months, the party's vote has dropped dramatically in every election, and it has even been humiliated twice in a row by UKIP, a civic nationalist party, in former party heartlands such as Oldham and Barnsley. What makes this so tragic is that for a few years in the last decade the BNP was the rising force in British politics. Led by Nick Griffin, the party weathered everything the establishment could throw at it and made one breakthrough after another.
In 2006, the party won 12 seats in elections for Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council, as part of widespread gains in other council elections. In 2008, Richard Barnbrook, the leader of the BNP group in Barking, was elected to the London Assembly. Then in 2009, Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin were elected as Members of the European Parliament.
Naturally, such success led to an intensive campaign against the party that included the usual media demonization, refusal by other parties and politicians to share platforms with the party, physical intimidation by the fascist Unite Against Fascism (sic) group, legal attacks on the party's constitution and membership rules, and other underhanded tricks.
It would be easy to blame this massive anti-BNP campaign for the BNP's stalled progress and recent losses but the evidence suggests otherwise. One of the keys to the BNP's earlier success was the fact that it was seen as an outsider party by the large segment of the electorate who are deeply disenchanted with mainstream British politics. The attempt by the political establishment to marginalize and ostracize it therefore helped rather than hindered the party.
It is noteworthy that its greatest breakthroughs occurred after vicious, non-political attacks on the party. In 2004, Griffin and Mark Collett, Director of Publicity for the Party, were charged under Britain's Orwellian thought crime laws of stirring up racial hatred after they made some run-of-the-mill comments about Islam. During the almost two-year legal case, which ended when the pair was acquitted in early 2006, the party continued to gain support.
Likewise on 18th November, 2008, Wikileaks published a list of over 10,000 BNP members, which included names, addresses and other details, in what was a clear attempt to intimidate members and those thinking of joining the party. BNP members have frequently been physically attacked or sacked in the past. Despite this, a few months later the party made its biggest breakthrough, gaining its two seats in the European Parliament.
The attacks by the establishment clearly backfired, so why has the BNP gone into decline? The evidence suggests that the main reason is that its greatest asset in the past, Nick Griffin, has turned into its greatest liability. Make no mistake about it: Griffin's contribution to the rise of the BNP was massive. Before him it was still mired in neo-Nazi street politics. Griffin realized that, in order to grow, the party had to appeal to ordinary British voters with common sense policies that appealed to their natural sense of ethnic identity and survival. Under Griffin the party improved its image and became more media savvy. Instead of fighting street battles with leftist thugs or indulging in holocaust trainspotting, the party concentrated on improving its image and connecting with voters concerned about the disastrous direction the country was headed in.
But anybody closely watching the party over the last few years, will realize that Griffin has now become the main problem and, as long as he remains Chairman, the party will continue to stagnate, shrink, and die. This is because Griffin has disastrously adapted Louis XIV's old aphorism "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the State") to the running of what is still, unfortunately, a minor British political party.
Griffin's main weakness is the way that he antagonizes other members of the party and attempts to crush all opposition, usually accusing opponents of being traitors, plants, or spies. Fomenting such an atmosphere of paranoia also helps Griffin retain almost dictatorial control over the party. At present the party's constitution gives the Chairman sweeping powers.
Given past attempts to infiltrate and sabotage the party, such powers may even be justifiable, but they have clearly been used against members whom everyone knows are sincere nationalists, people like Richard Barnbrook, Mark Collett, and Eddy Butler, the former head of the Elections Department who was widely credited with boosting the party's ability to get out the vote. Last year Butler challenged Griffin for the leadership, but after failing to get the required number of nominations, he was expelled from the party for breaching its code of conduct, including section 12, which reads:
The spreading of false or malicious rumours shall be considered an offence against this Code of Conduct. So too shall be the deliberate causing of disruption to the working of our Party.
With the Chairman deciding what are false or malicious rumours and from whom they originate, this means that Griffin effectively has the power to expel anyone from the party anytime he likes. Such draconian power, if used extremely sparingly would be tolerable, but there is no indication that Griffin has the requisite magnanimity. Collett and Barnbrook have also been kicked out of the party. Their offence? To have sided with Butler.
The expulsion of key members and the disaffection of large parts of the party's activist base under Griffin's recent leadership have effectively hamstrung the party. Some have even said that Griffin is in effect the establishment's most effective plant. My own view is that Griffin is a sincere nationalist, but that the pressures of leading the BNP have made him increasingly paranoid, while the habits of power are too engrained for him to willingly relinquish them.
Recently a new challenge to Griffin's leadership has been launched by his fellow MEP Andrew Brons, who is campaigning against Griffin on five main points:
1.Financial mismanagement
2.His poor performance on the BBC's political debate program "Question Time" in 2009
3.Bad staffing choices, including nepotism
4.Poor election results
5.Dishonest reinterpretation and amending of constitutional decisions made at last year's party conference
Brons is seen as the unity candidate, who wishes to recognize both Griffin's past contribution to the party as well as the concerns of Griffin's strongest critics. This is a role for which the well-spoken and magisterial former college lecturer is well suited. The important date is 26th of June, when a General Members' Meeting will be held to decide the method by which the leadership election will be contested, but already Griffin seems to be up to his old tricks, aimed at keeping him as captain of a sinking ship.
Because of the threat of organized acts of violence by groups like the UAF, BNP meetings are always held at undisclosed locations with members showing up at a re-direction point where they are given directions to the venue. Griffin and his cronies have decided to hold the meeting near Liverpool, because this is one of the main Griffinite power bases. But the re-direction point will only remain open until 10.00 a.m., making it extremely difficult for members from the South, the East Midlands, the North East and Scotland to arrive at the re-direction point on time, a move designed to filter out opponents. There is also the chance that the quality of the directions may vary between those Griffin thinks are loyal to him and those he suspects of being his opponents.
If Griffin manages to defeat Brons' leadership challenge, then there is every chance that some flimsy excuse will be found to expel Brons from the party in the same way that Butler was. If that happens, then Griffin will be unmistakably revealed as the cockerel that prefers to remain on top of a dunghill, rather than an effective leader of a party whose future success is vital to the survival of the British people.
Griffin's weasel words won't wash
Proxy Voting Forms and the Truth
Posted by admin on Jun 21st, 2011 to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas site
The mailing out of proxy voting forms by the Chairman is legal in terms of the party’s current constitution, but the wording of the accompanying letter contains malicious lies which are designed to trick members into supporting the motions.
In particular, the line in the letter which says “Should we stay with an Advisory Council or move on to a largely elected National Executive?” is highly deceitful because, as explained earlier, the majority of the “new” executive in the Chairman’s proposals are in fact appointed, and not elected.
In addition, the following sentence in the letter, “Should we stick with the possibility of a leadership battle every single year or opt for the certainty of a leadership contest every four or five years?” deliberately hides the fact that at the party conference in December 2010, the proposal which was accepted, specifically empowered the fully elected National Executive with the ability to recall the National Leader at any time, should he lose the confidence of the members.
There was thus no “guaranteed” four or five year term in the original proposals, only a term of office subject to the wishes of the membership.
Note also the sentence: “I direct my proxy to vote on the following resolutions as I have indicated by marking the appropriate box with an ‘X’. If no indication is given, my proxy will vote or abstain from voting at their discretion, and I authorise my proxy to vote (or abstain from voting) as they think fit in relation to any other matter which is properly put before the meeting.”
What this means is that anyone who sends the proxy form in, even if they are opposed to the motions, grants the Chairman the right to vote any way they choose on any other matter which comes before the meeting!
Astute party members will now have seen the Mugabe-esque strategy that the Chairman is following:
1. Hold the GMM in a place which makes it as difficult as possible for the majority of members to get to;
2. Recruit “proxy votes” from those members unable to attend by telling them outrageous lies in the letter which accompanies the proxy voting form.
If the Chairman had been fair and honest in his intention with the proxy voting form mailing, he would have included the counter-arguments to the motions as well.
He did not, and this is a clear indication of an attempt to hoodwink those party members who are not aware of the chicanery and Third World-standards to which our Chairman has resorted.
3. Trick the members in to giving the proxy voters a blank cheque to vote as they see fit on any other motion which comes before the meeting.
This latest devious move has underlined once again the urgent need for complete reform in this party, from top to bottom. A culture of corruption, deceit, lies and deception has taken hold and needs to be rooted out if our party is to survive.
All members are urged once again to ensure that they attend the GMM so that these disgraceful and flagrant violations of decency, fair play and honesty, are overwhelmingly rejected.
COMMENTS
Chris Roberts says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Should the proxy votes have been issued with the original GMM invitation packs and as this was not done is the leadership in breach of the 14 day notice rule? In my humble opinion it is doubtful that the GMM has been properly convened.
Posted by admin on Jun 21st, 2011 to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas site
The mailing out of proxy voting forms by the Chairman is legal in terms of the party’s current constitution, but the wording of the accompanying letter contains malicious lies which are designed to trick members into supporting the motions.
In particular, the line in the letter which says “Should we stay with an Advisory Council or move on to a largely elected National Executive?” is highly deceitful because, as explained earlier, the majority of the “new” executive in the Chairman’s proposals are in fact appointed, and not elected.
In addition, the following sentence in the letter, “Should we stick with the possibility of a leadership battle every single year or opt for the certainty of a leadership contest every four or five years?” deliberately hides the fact that at the party conference in December 2010, the proposal which was accepted, specifically empowered the fully elected National Executive with the ability to recall the National Leader at any time, should he lose the confidence of the members.
There was thus no “guaranteed” four or five year term in the original proposals, only a term of office subject to the wishes of the membership.
Note also the sentence: “I direct my proxy to vote on the following resolutions as I have indicated by marking the appropriate box with an ‘X’. If no indication is given, my proxy will vote or abstain from voting at their discretion, and I authorise my proxy to vote (or abstain from voting) as they think fit in relation to any other matter which is properly put before the meeting.”
What this means is that anyone who sends the proxy form in, even if they are opposed to the motions, grants the Chairman the right to vote any way they choose on any other matter which comes before the meeting!
Astute party members will now have seen the Mugabe-esque strategy that the Chairman is following:
1. Hold the GMM in a place which makes it as difficult as possible for the majority of members to get to;
2. Recruit “proxy votes” from those members unable to attend by telling them outrageous lies in the letter which accompanies the proxy voting form.
If the Chairman had been fair and honest in his intention with the proxy voting form mailing, he would have included the counter-arguments to the motions as well.
He did not, and this is a clear indication of an attempt to hoodwink those party members who are not aware of the chicanery and Third World-standards to which our Chairman has resorted.
3. Trick the members in to giving the proxy voters a blank cheque to vote as they see fit on any other motion which comes before the meeting.
This latest devious move has underlined once again the urgent need for complete reform in this party, from top to bottom. A culture of corruption, deceit, lies and deception has taken hold and needs to be rooted out if our party is to survive.
All members are urged once again to ensure that they attend the GMM so that these disgraceful and flagrant violations of decency, fair play and honesty, are overwhelmingly rejected.
COMMENTS
Chris Roberts says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Should the proxy votes have been issued with the original GMM invitation packs and as this was not done is the leadership in breach of the 14 day notice rule? In my humble opinion it is doubtful that the GMM has been properly convened.
Democracy - or Tyranny?
"Democracy - The British Way"
is the headline given to the proposed constitutional changes, that the Party leadership has called upon the members to debate and to vote on, at this coming Sunday's General Members' Meeting.
The BRITISH way of organizing democratic elections is for the candidate for office to obtain the signatures of TEN nominators. AND the practice of the major parties at Westminster is that the incumbent, serving party leader is liable to a challenge in ANY year. Within living memory, the then leader of the Tory party, Margaret Thatcher, was challenged one year, and then successfully challenged the following year, causing her to stand down both as party leader and as Prime Minister.
The British Way of Democracy is for us to improve our party constitution by:
retaining the right of annual challenge;
and requiring the challenger(s) to obtain a reasonable number of nomination signatures, rather than, as at present, hundreds.
This all being so, an AMENDMENT should be submitted to the Chairman of Sunday's General Members' Meeting, to read:
"Remove Clauses 7.2.4.1 to 7.2.4.3 of the present constitution".
By this simple and straightforward measure the party could obtain the "free and fair" elections that the Party Chairman acknowledges we need and to which we are entitled. That is, we secure the right to hold the incumbent chairman to account by retaining the right to an annual challenge; and the practical exercise of this right to challenge is not rendered almost impossible by the need for the challenger(s) to collect hundreds of nomination signatures.
Richard Edmonds
Founder Member and
Former Deputy Chairman
British National Party
is the headline given to the proposed constitutional changes, that the Party leadership has called upon the members to debate and to vote on, at this coming Sunday's General Members' Meeting.
The BRITISH way of organizing democratic elections is for the candidate for office to obtain the signatures of TEN nominators. AND the practice of the major parties at Westminster is that the incumbent, serving party leader is liable to a challenge in ANY year. Within living memory, the then leader of the Tory party, Margaret Thatcher, was challenged one year, and then successfully challenged the following year, causing her to stand down both as party leader and as Prime Minister.
The British Way of Democracy is for us to improve our party constitution by:
retaining the right of annual challenge;
and requiring the challenger(s) to obtain a reasonable number of nomination signatures, rather than, as at present, hundreds.
This all being so, an AMENDMENT should be submitted to the Chairman of Sunday's General Members' Meeting, to read:
"Remove Clauses 7.2.4.1 to 7.2.4.3 of the present constitution".
By this simple and straightforward measure the party could obtain the "free and fair" elections that the Party Chairman acknowledges we need and to which we are entitled. That is, we secure the right to hold the incumbent chairman to account by retaining the right to an annual challenge; and the practical exercise of this right to challenge is not rendered almost impossible by the need for the challenger(s) to collect hundreds of nomination signatures.
Richard Edmonds
Founder Member and
Former Deputy Chairman
British National Party
If elections changed anything they would be made illegal?
Acknowledgements to the British Resistance site for this article
Andrew Brons meeting in Wales postponed
Written by Green Arrow
Tuesday, 21 June 2011 08:47
Some interesting pieces of information over on the site of former British National Party councillor, Kevin Edwards, among which is the news that BNP leadership challenger Andrew Brons MEP will not now be attending the planned South Wales meeting.
Originally, the meeting was scheduled for Monday 27th of June but it is now planned that an "Open Nationalist Meeting" will take place in Bridgend, early in July, where the guest speaker will be veteran patriot and nationalist, Mr Richard Edmonds. Mr Edmonds is a founder member of the BNP and was once the Deputy Chairman of the party and until Andrew threw his hat in the ring, was the prime leadership challenger.
Postponing the Andrew Brons meeting, was more than likely a good shout, given that the BNP have stated that "individual leadership meetings" will be banned - I have no doubt in my mind that had the meeting gone ahead we could have been looking at yet another "expulsion" of a respected patriot from the party for having the temerity to question the running of the party.
And a penny drops. Councillor Edwards reports that the Welsh Regional Organiser Brian Mahoney objects to Andrew Brons' appearance in South Wales. Why? And why did Brian Mahoney NOT invite Mr Brons to Wales back in 2010 and to assist in the Welsh Assembly elections earlier this year?
I can confirm that whilst I and this site were in denial about "the truth" about the chairman and the party leadership, I spoke personally to Brian Mahoney and other leading Welsh BNP officials and informed them that Andrew had offered to visit Wales to speak at meetings and also would be prepared to assist in the Welsh Assembly elections. All of their responses were non-committal but I figured I had played my part by informing them of Andrew's offer and if they were too stupid not to take advantage of his offer there was little I could do. Now I believe they were not stupid but treasonous and working to their own private agenda.
Now I also hear that BNP Wales have stated, that should Andrew Brons be successful in his attempt to restore honour and decency to the leadership of the party, then they would be happy to accept his chairmanship. How big of them. But this site will still be demanding a full investigation into the behaviour of Wales BNP thugs over the last year and the way the Welsh Assembly elections were, in my opinion, sabotaged by officers of BNP Wales.
If you wish to restore honesty and democracy to the BNP you can make a start by downloading Andrew's nomination form here.
By the way I am informed that there is a very interesting article about Solidarity over on The Griffin Watch site. Please check it out.
Andrew Brons meeting in Wales postponed
Written by Green Arrow
Tuesday, 21 June 2011 08:47
Some interesting pieces of information over on the site of former British National Party councillor, Kevin Edwards, among which is the news that BNP leadership challenger Andrew Brons MEP will not now be attending the planned South Wales meeting.
Originally, the meeting was scheduled for Monday 27th of June but it is now planned that an "Open Nationalist Meeting" will take place in Bridgend, early in July, where the guest speaker will be veteran patriot and nationalist, Mr Richard Edmonds. Mr Edmonds is a founder member of the BNP and was once the Deputy Chairman of the party and until Andrew threw his hat in the ring, was the prime leadership challenger.
Postponing the Andrew Brons meeting, was more than likely a good shout, given that the BNP have stated that "individual leadership meetings" will be banned - I have no doubt in my mind that had the meeting gone ahead we could have been looking at yet another "expulsion" of a respected patriot from the party for having the temerity to question the running of the party.
And a penny drops. Councillor Edwards reports that the Welsh Regional Organiser Brian Mahoney objects to Andrew Brons' appearance in South Wales. Why? And why did Brian Mahoney NOT invite Mr Brons to Wales back in 2010 and to assist in the Welsh Assembly elections earlier this year?
I can confirm that whilst I and this site were in denial about "the truth" about the chairman and the party leadership, I spoke personally to Brian Mahoney and other leading Welsh BNP officials and informed them that Andrew had offered to visit Wales to speak at meetings and also would be prepared to assist in the Welsh Assembly elections. All of their responses were non-committal but I figured I had played my part by informing them of Andrew's offer and if they were too stupid not to take advantage of his offer there was little I could do. Now I believe they were not stupid but treasonous and working to their own private agenda.
Now I also hear that BNP Wales have stated, that should Andrew Brons be successful in his attempt to restore honour and decency to the leadership of the party, then they would be happy to accept his chairmanship. How big of them. But this site will still be demanding a full investigation into the behaviour of Wales BNP thugs over the last year and the way the Welsh Assembly elections were, in my opinion, sabotaged by officers of BNP Wales.
If you wish to restore honesty and democracy to the BNP you can make a start by downloading Andrew's nomination form here.
By the way I am informed that there is a very interesting article about Solidarity over on The Griffin Watch site. Please check it out.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched
Acknowledgements to Cllr Kevin Edwards' blog for the following article
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”
A Hungarian adage sometimes attributed to Stalin, or a Welsh adage attributed to Griffin.
Some very interesting information being received at the moment.
Apparently Adam Walker is busily booking venues around the country in the assumption (certainty?) that Mr Griffin will win the vote on Sunday (Motion One), therefore "Hustings Meetings" will take place in rapid succession and "Individual Leadership meetings" will be banned!
How do they know what the result will be?
Wales BNP is to hold an emergency meeting next Tuesday, 28th June in Abertillery, as a result of the announcement that Mr Andrew Brons is to speak in South Wales. Panic stations ahead.
Brian Mahoney objects to Andrew Brons' appearence in South Wales and tries to influence Brons' camp by stating that he has had enough of Griffin.
What a liar, who does he think he is kidding?
As a result we have decided to cancel Mr Andrew Brons' meeting that was due to be held in the next few weeks in South Wales - as already stated, "Individual Leadership Meetings" will be banned.
Democracy, Griffin style, in action.
This meeting was due to go ahead on Monday the 27th of June at a location in the Neath - Port Talbot area.
It is now planned that an "Open Nationalist Meeting" will take place in early July, in the Bridgend area, where the guest speaker will be Mr Richard Edmonds.
Richard is a very well respected founder member of the party, former Deputy Chairman and Leadership Challenger.
Richard's attendance will be supplemented by other influential guest speakers, all of whom have the true interest of the party at heart.
Please endorse Mr Andrew Brons MEP in the upcoming Leadership Challenge.
To download Andrew's nomination form click on
http://freepdfhosting.com/a3905bf9bc.pdf
More information to follow.
Kevin
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”
A Hungarian adage sometimes attributed to Stalin, or a Welsh adage attributed to Griffin.
 |
| "Nurse!" |
Apparently Adam Walker is busily booking venues around the country in the assumption (certainty?) that Mr Griffin will win the vote on Sunday (Motion One), therefore "Hustings Meetings" will take place in rapid succession and "Individual Leadership meetings" will be banned!
How do they know what the result will be?
Wales BNP is to hold an emergency meeting next Tuesday, 28th June in Abertillery, as a result of the announcement that Mr Andrew Brons is to speak in South Wales. Panic stations ahead.
Brian Mahoney objects to Andrew Brons' appearence in South Wales and tries to influence Brons' camp by stating that he has had enough of Griffin.
What a liar, who does he think he is kidding?
As a result we have decided to cancel Mr Andrew Brons' meeting that was due to be held in the next few weeks in South Wales - as already stated, "Individual Leadership Meetings" will be banned.
Democracy, Griffin style, in action.
This meeting was due to go ahead on Monday the 27th of June at a location in the Neath - Port Talbot area.
It is now planned that an "Open Nationalist Meeting" will take place in early July, in the Bridgend area, where the guest speaker will be Mr Richard Edmonds.
Richard is a very well respected founder member of the party, former Deputy Chairman and Leadership Challenger.
Richard's attendance will be supplemented by other influential guest speakers, all of whom have the true interest of the party at heart.
Please endorse Mr Andrew Brons MEP in the upcoming Leadership Challenge.
To download Andrew's nomination form click on
http://freepdfhosting.com/a3905bf9bc.pdf
More information to follow.
Kevin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
