"However much people might have respected Brons or Wingfield in the past, it was clear that this ridiculous and disruptive attitude left the new leadership with no alternative but to seek their expulsion. A powerful political organisation can only be built on discipline and respect for the authority of its constitution. But because the decision had not gone in favour of Wingfield and his clique, they now deliberately set out to undermine the constitution and the authority of the properly elected leadership. Such a breach of discipline had to be dealt with firmly to avoid a slide into anarchy.
"The plotters were also sacked from the other positions they had misused, including the editorship of Party publications. After these decisions had been made, the reactionary minority walked out of the meeting, which was then able to get down to constructive work. When Wakeling heard the news he resigned from the Party, but several of the lesser plotters, including Brady, reacted by making conciliatory gestures to the victors in the hope of eventual forgiveness. They left it too late."
The two foregoing paragraphs are an extract from Mr Griffin's 1986 pamphlet, Attempted Murder. It's worth a read for those who wish to understand how the British National Party came to be in its present sorry plight.
Mr Griffin, the author of Attempted Murder, has some very uncharitable things to say about certain individuals whom today he works alongside as ostensibly highly valued and respected senior colleagues. Was he wrong about them then, and is he right now? Or was he right then and wrong now? You decide. Mr Griffin himself seems to have changed remarkably little. Like the Bourbon kings of ancien regime France, he has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Note Mr Griffin's lack of magnanimity towards members of the ousted faction who sought to make a conciliatory gesture. What an unpleasant man Mr Griffin is!
By their fruits shall ye know them, he recently opines. Well, what are we to make of the trail of havoc Mr Griffin leaves in his wake? Did the National Front go on to save the country, following Mr Griffin's unconstitutional and unlawful seizure of power in the 1980s? Alas, it did not. How could it, under the leadership of a Nick Griffin?
Mr Griffin, the master of the botched, the bungled and the bizarre, has now done almost exactly what he did to the National Front in the 1980s to the BNP. That is to say, he has split the party down the middle - effectively neutralizing it as a political force. Cui bono: to whom is the benefit of this? Who else but the traitorous Establishment of this country, and their foreign clients and paymasters?
Why has Mr Griffin done this shameful thing? By their fruits judge ye them.
Let's examine Mr Griffin's background a little more shall we?
Mr Griffin attended Cambridge University. Cambridge University was where the homosexual spies and traitors Philby, Burgess, Maclean, Blunt et al, studied. It was, and probably still is, the favourite recruiting ground of the Security Service, otherwise known as MI5, and hence also of the former KGB, now the SVR.
Mr Griffin's father is, one understands, a senior freemason, a member of the secret society that includes in its brotherhood many senior members of the Establishment, including the police, and doubtless also the secret service. I should like to know whether Mr Nick Griffin is now, or has ever been, a freemason. Perhaps the sphinx-like Nick Griffin will be so good as to oblige me with an honest answer to this honest question.
Following the rapid demise of the National Front under Mr Griffin's chairmanship in the 1980's, he dallied briefly with an organization glorying in the name of the International Third Position, before seemingly giving up politics as a bad job (or no doubt a job well done, in the eyes of the Establishment) and trying his hand as a property speculator - an odd choice of career for this failed 'revolutionary' nationalist. One wonders where he obtained the money to engage in such speculation. Be that as it may, this venture too turned out badly for Mr Griffin (or should that be for his creditors), ending in the public discredit of Carey Street - in other words, in bankruptcy.
Early on in his involvement with the National Front, Mr Griffin became intimately acquainted with its national activities organizer, Martin Webster. Is this not exactly the kind of behaviour which Mr Griffin warns us to beware of in others, in his piece, "Sex, Manipulation, Lies, etc"? It's a pity Mr Webster didn't have a little of Mr Griffin's suspicious nature himself. It might have warned him before it was too late.
Mr Griffin is clearly a paid agent of the state, in that as an MEP he is a political officer of the crown, and receives a very generous salary, and expenses, for undertaking the duties of this post. He has never had a proper job in his life. Being a first class passenger on the Brussels' gravy train scarcely counts, nor for that matter does being the autocratic and capricious leader of a small political party like the BNP.
Is he a paid agent of the state in a more sinister sense, as well? The jury is still out on that one. However, there does appear to be some circumstantial evidence against Mr Griffin, and "some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk" (Thoreau).
Perhaps we shall have to await the publication of Mr Griffin's memoirs for the truth. Will the BNP be merely a footnote in the history books by then? Will Mr Griffin, the Abominable Showman, follow in the footsteps of Tony Blair, and go on the lucrative celebrity lecture circuit, finally owning himself to be the cynical puppet-master, and the betrayer, of ethno-nationalism?
You like to point the finger of suspicion at others, Mr Griffin, who have merely sought to exercise their constitutional right. You fail to realize that it points at you more than at anyone.
Tu quoque, Caesar.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Monday, 6 September 2010
Attempted murder of the BNP, by its own leader: Nick Griffin
Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion — Real Life Studies of Anti-Nationalist Dirty Tricks
Sat, 04/09/2010 - 15:59
News Team
Vital reading for all BNP members! In this important article, Nick Griffin gives us an in-depth account and provides real-life examples of how opposition 'moles' strive to disrupt and divide nationalist parties. Once you've read this, you'll have a much better understanding of what is really behind the current wave of 'internal' and media attacks on our party.
"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Very few BNP members have been actively taken in by the campaign of attempted destabilisation currently being waged against both the party itself and its elected leadership. But rather more are at present somewhat bewildered by the ferocity of the assault and by the way in which several apparently very different strains of discontent have come together.
Everyone wants to know the answer to the same question: Why are people who have in the past seemed so devoted to our common Cause now doing all they can — including providing ammunition for our traditional enemies in the media - to try to destroy the party?
This is absolutely the right question to ask. And for those who haven't yet worked out the full picture for themselves, I hope that this analysis will help.
There are four key factors at work here:
First, there are the innocents who have been told lies or fed gossip by individuals they trust. Being innocent, they have believed at least some of what they have heard and, because it would be deeply worrying if true, have been conned into being deeply worried about the future of the party for which they and we have sacrificed so much.
I have no doubt that a significant number of those currently in the Butler camp come into this first category, and to them I simply say: "The British National Party's door, and my door, are still open to you. Come, individually, to us and tell us what you've heard that worries you so much that you have been taken in by people who are now very clearly trying to destroy the party.
We can talk about it, demolish their lies, shake hands and welcome you back. By the time the core parts of this article are read and digested by our party collectively, those who at present would tend to be unforgiving will have a far better idea of how good individuals have been conned and led astray.
From such understanding comes the opportunity for reconciliation. There are far too few genuine committed nationalists in Britain for us to quarrel and fight, or even to hold genuine mistakes against each other. Please come home!
Second, there are also formerly good nationalists who have become embittered by some personal grudge. This may be based on some genuine minor injustice they have suffered owing to a mistake or misjudgment by some key party official; we all make mistakes, myself included, and if anyone in this category has been wronged by me I am always happy to listen, apologise and make amends. In the meantime, I ask them not to take it out on the party as a whole by giving an ounce of backing to what we all know is an attempted demolition job.
On the other hand, several of the figures behind all the lies, half-truths and bullying that continue to spew from the present operation against the BNP hold grudges over matters for which they have merely received their just desserts.
When a thief is stopped or exposed, it's no surprise when he rails against those who found him out. When employees are found to be unwilling or incapable of performing their jobs to satisfactory standards, it's almost inevitable that they will cut up rough over being pulled up, disciplined or sacked. It's part of human nature to tend to be lazy, and it's equally part of human nature to resent being exposed as lazy and called to account.
In several of these cases I could have opted for an easy life by turning my blind eye to such failings. But I'm not here for an easy life, I'm here to get things done and to build an effective organisation.
Crooks, spongers and timewasters therefore have to go — so why should anyone be surprised or even worried when they take the first opportunity to get their revenge on me and on the organisation of which — through no one's fault but their own — they are no longer a useful part?
Thirdly, there are the plain jealous. In the roll call of homegrown troublemakers, there are always in any organisation a few whose opinion of themselves and their abilities is either so high that they will stop at no treachery or deceit to elbow their way to the front, or so low that their own sense of inferiority emerges as hatred for anyone who is competent, confident and well regarded by others.
Just as a group of teenage girls will often turn against the prettiest so as not to be outshone by her, so the Green Eyed God eats away at people's souls in adult politics.
So far, the various reasons for which disgruntled individuals can turn on their former friends and colleagues will be familiar to anyone who has ever been a member of any human organisation. In his sermon at the Indigenous Forum Family weekend the Rev. West told us how this ugly but understandable side of human nature even comes into play in the internal politics of the Church.
But now we come on to a factor which only affects radical political parties and pressure groups whose message, activities and indeed very existence pose a threat or potential threat to the State — or rather to those people, interest groups and ideologies which motivate and direct the State. This factor is deliberate infiltration by hostile individuals and the 'turning', whether through bribery, flattery or blackmail, of people who start off on the Light side and cross over to the Dark.
Let's get one thing straight right at the start of our examination of the problem of external infiltration and subversion: I am NOT saying that all those who fit into this category will necessarily have appeared to side with the 'Get Griffin' camp which has made so much empty noise recently. Of course, most will have done so, because turning good people against the current leadership is a highly effective way of wrecking any organisation.
But there is obviously mileage in the old 'good cop, bad cop' trick that has long been used by detectives trying to persuade suspects to confess. In the case of a political organisation this could easily be adapted to having a well-placed State or Searchlight 'mole' who is apparently 'loyal' to the leadership but who in fact is working to undermine faith in it.
This could be done, for example, by making deliberate mistakes in his or her job which annoy people and reflect badly on the leadership, giving ammunition to other plants or simple malcontents in the 'anti' camp. Or by playing on the normal personal dislikes and foibles that crop up in any joint human endeavour, telling lies designed to create and then mutually antagonise two sides.
There is no point speculating which individuals in the recent attempted wrecking operation have from the beginning been conscious enemies of the entire party. What is more fruitful is simply to provide you with the cast iron proof that such paid agents and traitors are not a figment of the imagination of the writers of TV series such as Spooks, but an all too real, clear and present danger to our Movement.
The very first thing to understand is that. just because someone does good work for the Cause, befriends you and buys pints all round, doesn't mean that they can't possibly be agents of the security services or their plausibly deniable catspaws in the Searchlight criminal conspiracy. These people have almost limitless money and decades of experience to pass to their agents and turncoats — and use both to get them into the best positions from which to do the most damage when the time comes to activate them.
Since the good people who are their eventual targets will take no notice of someone known only for doing very little badly, this means allowing such an 'asset' to make a valuable contribution to our Cause.
In the case, to give an example from a very different side of politics, of the IRA, it was routine practice for MI5 and military intelligence to allow their moles and assets to shoot lower level 'touts' (as informers are known over there) and to plant bombs in order to establish their credentials of 'good nationalists', in order that they be trusted with plans for even worse atrocities. Going leafleting in all weathers, putting money in the collection or helping us win some by-elections is nothing by comparison.
Most of our people are already well-aware of the fact that, despite our strict adherence to constitutional and peaceful campaigning, the Powers-That-Be regard our party as at least as big a threat to their control and ideas as the IRA ever was.
Anyone who doubts that need only compare the attitude of the 'mainstream' politicians and David Dimbleby to Gerry Adams and to me on our respective first appearances on Question Time. Then remember that these people went to the same schools and universities, move in the same social circles and dine in the same clubs as those who run the intelligence services. Hence it would be very odd indeed if their attitude to us was any less hysterical.
Add in the inbuilt Stalinist and tribal Zionist fanaticism of those running Searchlight and it becomes clear exactly why the BNP has been, is, and always will be the victim of the unwelcome attentions of a literally never-ending supply of plants and agents provocateurs.
Lest any unusually naive reader still have any doubts as to the truth of this basic fact of nationalist life, it is useful to look at four case studies involving the past subversion of British nationalist organisations:
SEX FOR INFLUENCE — the sordid history of Mrs. Gable.
In 1975, various young and not so young males in the National Front in London were pleased to see a young woman, Sonia Hochfelder, getting involved and active. Early suspicions over her potentially Jewish surname (an issue in an organisation heavily influenced by people who had served in Palestine up until 1948, and who had cut their political teeth under virtual siege by violent gangs of militant Zionist thugs) were allayed by her explanation that it was German.
Even initial doubters were won over by her eagerness to turn up on activities, reassuringly 'hardline' comments, and readiness to sleep with various other members — not all of whom knew that they weren't the only one. While not exactly a beauty, she was readily available, so various nationalist males did what came naturally.
So 'hardline' was young Sonia that by 1976, she was flirting politically — and a lot more personally — with various leading lights in Column 88, a lunatic - and informant riddled extremist group today roughly paralleled by the wilder fringes of the English Defence League (though anti-Jewish rather than anti-Muslim).
To put none too fine a point on it, young Sonia slept her way into positions which gave her access to gossip, intelligence and secrets in both organisations. And, having done so, she then began to use her position and inside knowledge to set people against each other and to undermine the morale and cohesion of her bedfellows and the wider movement. Her activities also contributed to the atmosphere of careless extremism which provided the media with material for smear stories designed to frighten off normal members of the public.
While some people had warned of what she was right from the start, but it still came as a shock to many when it emerged that Sonia Hochfelder was in fact an agent for Searchlight and a dedicated Jewish 'anti-fascist'.
While she did seem to get genuine sexual and psychological kicks from involvement with extremists and talk of violence, she was also ideologically motivated. Her father had fled to Britain as a socialist refugee when the Nazis marched into the Sudetanland. Brought up as a Marxist, she had joined the Communist Party at 16, before switching to a Maoist splinter group at the age of 18.
In Sonia's distinctly mixed up head, therefore, infiltrating the fascists wasn't just a big personal turn on, but also a heroic political adventure on behalf of her Marxist, Jewish, gay and coloured friends.
Gerry Gable later wrote this about Sonia, later to become his second wife and still today an active member of the Searchlight anti-nationalist conspiracy. A gushingly romanticised account of their spy-ring activities was published in the Independent on 22nd Feb 1997.
In addition to her specialised knowledge as a tax inspector, Sonia now also uses her experience as a very effective infiltrator/disrupter to teach a new generation of Searchlight spooks and grasses the tricks of the trade, and to brief and debrief them on their subversive activities.
The debriefings are particularly important, because they allow information collected by one agent to be fed to the others. The case of Andy Sykes, the Searchlight mole who became Bradford BNP Branch Organiser, and Jason Gwyn, the BBC infiltrator who used Syke's protection to make the Secret Agent smear 'documentary', shows how two operatives working to a co-ordinated plan are much more effective than two individuals working separately.
But for security reasons most moles and turncoats are 'run' without knowing each other, so their individual debriefs by experienced handlers like Mr. and Mrs. Gable are a crucial part of the whole operation, especially during one of their periodic campaigns of frantic subversion, when their various operatives are all used to inject as much poison into the nationalist body politic, and to target specific individuals for maximum effect.
How many of these creatures are there in our ranks at present? There is no way of knowing, but all experienced true nationalists will know that groups like Searchlight-UAF have along history of publishing detailed accounts not just of our major national events, but even of the goings on in many local BNP branches. That information can only come from their grasses, so there must be several dozen at least.
It would be very strange indeed if these people had not been active trying to spread alarm and division over the last couple of months, and if they are not right now agitating in support of Mr. Butler and in favour of some kind of split.
THE 'RESPECTABLE' WRECKER — the strange career of Paul Kavanagh
As the National Front rose to prominence in the mid-1970s, so did one of its newer recruits. Paul Kavanagh described himself as a businessman, wore the right suits and talked the right talk.
In a party desperately short of talented middle management and 'respectability', he quickly rose through the ranks. Industrious and apparently loyal, Kavanagh wasn't a great speaker, but he did try and, more important, he was constantly on the go, organising and attending activities in the London boroughs around his small but smart flat in the expensive Barbican development.
So when the NF launched its bid to buy a large prestige Headquarters building in London, the experienced and well-heeled Mr. Kavanagh seemed the natural and obvious choice to be given charge of setting up the holding company required — NF Properties. The fact that he packed it, and the local branches in the area, with people loyal to him, passed unnoticed in the excitement of raising the money, buying and converting the five floor Victorian warehouse in Great Eastern Street.
Kavanagh worked patiently until the 1979 General Election, then struck. Working harder than anyone had ever seen him work before, he ran a relentless campaign of black propaganda against the party leadership.
He and his clique — all trusted on account of the good work they had done in the past — regaled shocked and angry East London activists with lies about how John Tyndall and the NF's office staff were stealing all the money. Brown envelopes, mockingly marked "Members' Hard-Earned Cash" were supposedly waved around and blown with glee in pubs and Indian restaurants.
Not everyone fell for it, but enough did to give Kavanagh the head of steam to declare himself the leader of a 'reform' body, The NF Constitutional Movement, and to use this as the fig leaf excuse to try to seize control of Excalibur House for his own faction.
The asset-grab was thwarted, but amid confident predictions that the Front itself was doomed to bankruptcy Kavanagh persuaded a significant number of well-meaning London activists to defect to his new party, which was also 'sold' as the antidote to the 'extremism' — both real and imagined — of the Front's elected leadership.
Was Paul Kavanagh perhaps just a conman trying to lie his rivals out of office in order to get his hands on a valuable piece of real estate? Those who saw him operate didn't believe so. For one thing, he kept his 'Con Movement' going well after the chance of making any money was long gone. It was a joke party right from the start, so the only purpose it served was to allow the media to portray the NF as hopelessly divided demoralising its existing members and put off potential new recruits from among the 10,000 enquiries it had received during the election.
Even more telling, Kavanagh had always claimed to be in business buying and selling machine tools. In the frenetic factionalism of late 1979, a fair few activists and officials visited him in his office and industrial unit. Machine tools were clearly visible, but not one moved for months.
A young NF member had a summer job on the switchboard, secretly passing to the party's proper leadership details of who was phoning the head of the artificial rebellion against financial impropriety that never was. One kind of call was noticeable by its total absence — no-one ever phoned to inquire about buying or selling a single piece of machinery. Not so much as a single nut or bolt!
The supposed business was clearly nothing more than a cover — there only to stop people asking how someone could afford to live and give so much time and energy to the Cause.
Nowadays, sadly, to use machine tools as a cover in de-industrialised Britain would raise more suspicions than it would allay. But plenty of other excuses could serve the same purpose — a well-paid job with a public sector employer who mysteriously showed no interest in or suffered any pressure over the presence of a high profile nationalist, for example. Or a fortuitous inheritance, generously spent in pursuit of the Greater Good. Wouldn't that be convincing — and noble? It would probably even fool some people for a while.
THE BOGUS LEADERSHIP CONTENDER — Searchlight's Ray Hill and the attack on British Movement.
While Paul Kavanagh was working to destroy the NF in its East London heartland, another enemy mole was brought into play in Leicester, where the party had achieved huge votes and acquired a local Headquarters building in Humberstone Road.
The NF AGM in 1979 witnessed the return to Britain of Ray Hill, a petty criminal who had been involved on the far-right scene in the 1960s before emigrating to South Africa. Hill had already concluded that betraying his nationalist comrades was more profitable than robbing cigarette machines, and was working for Searchlight.
As the following quotes illustrate, Hill's autobiography, The Other Face of Terror, provides valuable insights into the work of a Searchlight mole, and how such wretched creatures manipulate the naive and good-hearted into helping them to wreck nationalist organisations.
Successive editions of Searchlight magazine (in the days before the Internet the main tool used for injecting black propaganda into the nationalist movement) worked to build Hill up as a big fish. Settling in Leicester, he played a major role behind the scenes pushing for the creation of another splinter group, the British Democratic Party, and then ruining its naive leader with a fake gun-running scam.
"Between us, World in Action and Searchlight and myself ran such rings around the characters involved that they must have believed that the gods themselves were conspiring against them. When the dust settled, one of Britain's smaller but more promising right-wing parties lay in ruins and its leader was in exile in Ireland." (Page 87).
Having played a small but significant role in helping to tear the NF apart — and destroyed perhaps the most promising party that emerged from the wreckage — Hill now switched to another target. The openly neo-Nazi British Movement had been founded by Colin Jordan, but by now was run by Mike McCloughlin, a Liverpudlian who in the course of the previous ten years had led the BM to a ten-fold increase in size.
Gable and Hill hatched a plan to deal with the threat, either by dividing and demoralising the British Movement so it fell below the size at which it could be effective, or — even better — saddle it with a leader who was actually a Searchlight agent. This was particularly attractive, as it would not only then be completely under control but could then also be used to siphon off the harder core elements of any genuine nationalist party into a bogus extremist safety valve, thus damaging two parties for the price of one.
Hill joined British Movement, taking with him some of the genuine but gullible nationalists he had lured out of the Front and into the BPD. With their help, and with the regular plugs in Searchlight about how good he was as an organiser, and how dangerous it would be if he became leader of the BM, he rapidly came to be seen as a serious heavyweight.
"The strategy we adopted envisaged that I would endeavour to establish myself as a rival to McLaughlin for the party leadership. As long as I recruited enough support, the plan could not fail. Either I would depose McLaughlin and then allow BM to collapse under leadership the like of which they would never have seen before, or McLaughlin would be forced to expel me, in which case I would split the party, taking as many members as possible with me." (Page 133).
Central to the plan was a concerted effort to discredit McLaughlin by accusing him of failure and of financial impropriety:
"In private conversations with activists I missed no opportunity to make guarded suggestions that while I was out there on the 'front line' with them, McLaughlin was comfortably ensconced in North Wales 'raking in the membership fees'." (Page 134).
As the lies and poison manufactured by Hill seeped through and undermined the BM, the Searchlight plotters began to work on the final stages of the plan — to get Hill expelled from the already weakened organisation, and then join up with John Tyndall (then leading the small and ineffective New National Front) in a new 'party of nationalist unity', in which Hill would already have enough influence to be able to set off a civil war in that in due course.
"If I could present a challenge to McLoughlin, and strongly make a case for unity, we could both tempt him into expelling me, in which case I could not be accused of splitting the movement, and prepare the ground for a significant number of BM members to leave with me, encouraged by the prospect of unification with another organisation.
"For the moment, I concentrated on building myself up as an alternative leader, assiduously cultivating activist members at every opportunity. I used the same old theme that the movement's leadership was stale, tired, lazy and probably corrupt and that Change was needed.... Some members even started muttering about having an election for a new leader." (Page 137).
Faced with Hill's relentless campaign of black propaganda lies, McLaughlin did indeed expel him, and the naive members Hill had conned rose up in his defence:
"My expulsion caused a furore among the membership. In London Tony Malksi pledged his support for me..... at the next Leicester meeting, the members unanimously agreed that I should ignore McLoughlin's edict and carry on as local BM leader.... From around the country came similar declarations of support from groups of activists.... To all intents and purposes, BM was split down the middle." (Page 141).
Backed by Searchlight's money and lawyers, Hill went on to issue a writ against McLaughlin for 'invalid' expulsion. The costs of contesting this added to the financial crisis caused by the split over Hill's removal and the artificially created worries over financial probity. Ground down by the character assassination and by the endless financial crisis, in September 1983 McLaughlin simply closed British Movement down.
Even before that happened, however, Hill had already taken enough members with him to join the newly-founded British National Party to be a major player in it. His autobiography includes a photo of him sharing the top table with John Tyndall at the press conference at which the BNP was launched in 1982, and another of him and Tyndall at the head of the new party's first march in London a few weeks later.
Hill was already in pole position to continue his work:
"Behind my involvement in the whole enterprise was the certain knowledge that as long as the process of splitting and fusion and then more splitting could be prolonged, no far-right group would be in a position to look outwards and project itself as a serious political force. At that time, we anticipated that we would later be in a position, if BNP began to grow, to split it down the middle by provoking a life or death leadership battle between myself and Tyndall, and then begin the cycle of internal war all over again. As it happened, the BNP never even began to show potential for growth, a factor which helped our later decision that I should go public." (Page 165).
Ray Hill "came out" not long afterwards, in a Channel 4 documentary that cast him as the hero who had broken up the National Front, the British Democratic Party and the British Movement. In the case of the NF, that was a huge over-statement. In the case of the BDP and BM, it was all too true.
One man, having worked his way up, been a drinking mate and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with real nationalists in confrontations with the violent left, had set real comrades against each other and destroyed all they had achieved. Yet despite the clear evidence of what he had done, and despite repeated warnings from the more perceptive, some of those who had followed him didn't believe it until they heard his boastful confession on TV.
As our study of the parallel case of Sonia Hochfelder has already shown, such plants can also be female. When they are, they have the added advantage of being able to make allegations about sexual harassment or assault — a totally different line of attack to the financial impropriety trick but one which can be used in the same way.
When the now defunct Workers Revolutionary Party, for example, was proving a nuisance to the British State (at one point they had a daily newspaper, funded by Libya's Colonel Gadaffi), their leader Gerry Healy was repeatedly accused of molesting the idealistic but often neurotic young females who formed a high proportion of their recruits.
Internal jealousies, attention seeking, crude attempts at blackmail and straightforward Special Branch black propaganda lies about "cold, clammy hands" (the exact phrase used in a recent recycling of the tactic) combined to create a cloud of suspicion over the target, who — while undoubtedly a Marxist fanatic — appears to have been wholly innocent.
It was and is noticeable, however, that those involved in making unfounded allegations never have any assets and so are safe from any chance of having to provide evidence for their smears in a court of law.
POLICE PLANTS TOO — the State intervenes directly
So far we've looked mainly at plants who are almost certainly nothing more or less that assets of the sinister Searchlight operation. Unfortunately, however, it is not the only well-funded agency that runs agents and disrupters within radical organisations. The black propaganda campaign against the leader of the Workers Revolutionary Party, for instance, was the work of Special Branch and MI5, and it is a well documented fact that various such State agencies have long taken an unhealthy (for us) interest in the BNP
On Sunday 14th March this year, The Observer ran two remarkable reports on the undercover life of a policeman member of a hitherto secret unit of the Metropolitan Police, the Special Demonstration Squad.
"Officer A — with a long ponytail, angry persona and willingness to be educated in the finer points of Trotskyist ideology — was never suspected by those he befriended of being a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit within Special Branch, whose job is to prevent violent public disorder on the streets of the capital. Known as the "hairies" due to the fact that its members do not have to abide by usual police regulations about their appearance, the unit consists of 10 full-time undercover operatives who are given new identities, and provided with flats, vehicles and "cover" jobs while working in the field for up to five years at a time.
"Officer A joined the SDS in 1993 after two years in Special Branch. It was a time of heightened tension between the extreme left and right and almost every weekend saw clashes between the likes of the Anti-Nazi League, Youth Against Racism, the British National Party and the National Front. The SDS is believed to have infiltrated all such organisations."
The second article is more valuable still. Entitled "Inside the lonely and violent world of the Yard s elite undercover unit," it reads:
"They got drunk together, stood shoulder to shoulder as they fought the police and far-right activists, and became so intimately acquainted with each other's lives that in the end they were closer than brothers. But it was all a sham. Hidden among the close-knit and highly motivated group of violent far-left activists was a serving police officer, operating deep undercover, whose presence was intended to bring the group to its knees.
"That man, known only as Officer A, has now come forward to give his account of the years he spent working for Scotland Yard's most secret unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), on a mission to prevent disorder on the streets of London. For four years in the mid-1990s, he lived a double life six days a week, spending just one day a week with his wife and family.
"Week after week, year in and year out, he lived and breathed the life of a hardcore Trotskyist agitator with a passion for heavy drinking, a deep-seated hatred of the police and a predilection for extreme violence."
"I had a really good time with my targets and enjoyed their company enormously – here was a genuine bond. But I was never under any illusion about what I was there to do. They were not truly my friends. The friendship would last only up until the point when they found out what I really was. I was under no illusion about what would happen to me if they did."
Officer A allowed himself to be spotted and recruited by his target, and then agreed to attend a small demonstration the following weekend. When the event turned violent, he found himself standing next to his target and others from the group as they launched a series of attacks on uniformed police.... "That day developed into a major ruck. At the end no one would have believed I was a police officer."
Officer A wasn't the only one attacking his former colleagues. At the time of his deployment, other SDS officers had infiltrated opposing right-wing groups such as the BNP and Combat 18, as well as other far-left groups.
Once inside the groups they were ordered to infiltrate, it was relatively easy for SDS officers to rise to the top because they were often prepared to work long hours on boring, administrative jobs.
Having won the trust of several high-profile anti-facism and anti-racism activists on the far left, Officer A was ideally placed. Over the next two years he worked his way up to become branch secretary of Youth Against Racism in Europe, a leading anti-racist organisation that was a front for the far-left group Militant.
"You get given a file on your target that tells you everything you need to know. You become that person's brother. You know everything that makes them tick. You know how much they like to drink, you know where they like to drink. You know what kind of music they like, you know what kind of women they like. You become the brother they never knew they had. None of it is ever said to the target, it's far more subtle than that. The first time they get in the car, it will be just the right kind of music playing. The first time a redhead walks by it will be: 'God, I'm really into redheads.' It's all done fantastically cleverly.
"If someone started talking about getting good information from a female target, we all knew there was only one way that could have happened. They had been sleeping with them." He himself had slept with two members of his target group. Although not officially sanctioned, such activity among SDS officers – both male and female – was tacitly accepted and in many cases was vital in maintaining an undercover role. "You can't be in that world full-time for five years and never have a girlfriend or boyfriend. People would start to ask questions," said Officer A.
The most chilling part of the article is Officer A s assessment of the effectiveness of such tactics:
"If the SDS had been in existence at the time of the Suffragettes, their campaigns would never have got off the ground and would have been quickly forgotten.....Once the SDS get into an organisation, it is effectively finished."
Bear in mind that this is only one police squad, working only in London. Are there similar teams in the police forces of Merseyside, Yorkshire, Glasgow, etc? It would be strange if there weren't, wouldn't it?
After all, virtually every urban police force in Britain operates in the knowledge that one spark could set off an explosion of communal violence between various different ethnic and religious groups. Wouldn't the really odd thing be if the leftist/Common Purpose clones who have been put in charge of our police forces DIDN'T use their power and resources to try to destabilise the British National Party?
We see their orders being carried out every time venue owners are intimidated by police threats, so why should we have any doubts as to their capacity to use other dirty tricks against us in the shadows?
Then there are the national security services, who operate separately from the police, jealously guarding their own bureaucratic and intelligence empires, as well as doing the jobs for which they too are well paid. Chief among these is Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5 (not to be confused with MI6, which handles foreign affairs intelligence matters.
MI5 has spent a hundred years monitoring and disrupting home-grown 'subversive' organisations. There is a small library of serious studies of its activities, many of which confirm that part of MI5's brief is to infiltrate and destabilise a wide variety of target groups, including the BNP.
To give just one example, in Defending The Realm - inside MI5 and the war on terrorism, published in 2003, Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding note that: "...as the National Front declined into a mere rump, the British National Party has been seen as a more serious threat. By the early 1990s, MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents within the BNP, although they also retained some full-time active agents in the National Front."
The authors go on to point out that one of MI5's ways of justifying its continued huge budget in the wake of the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989 has been to brief Ministers and journalists alike on the need to keep 'far-right extremists' under surveillance and control.
Would it not be really strange if these various State security bodies hadn't been mobilised to disrupt our General Election campaign, and if they weren't right now doing everything in their power to keep the disruption going - especially given the inevitable social and political impact of the gathering storm clouds of spending cuts, financial crises, the unwinnable Afghan War and the inevitability that, sooner or later, another Muslim terror plot will work?
Why would they not be working to hinder us from signing up the new recruits attracted by that campaign and from applying the lessons we've learned from that campaign to improve our organisation for the future? Stopping such things is exactly what they are paid for, and you can bet your life that they are at their work right now.
CONCLUSION
So now you know! Four different, real-life examples of the use of credible, long-term, at times popular and apparently sincere and constructive 'moles' who wreaked havoc in the British nationalist movement by playing on the honest naivety of some and the ambition or discontents of others.
In a way it's a frightening thought - that we're up against well-connected and massively funded opponents who have such a long track record of using a succession of plants and traitors to keep the nationalist movement in repeated factional convulsions designed to demoralise and demotivate.
But at least the hysterical desperation of their current efforts gives us an insight of just how frightened our opponents are of the formidable party machine that we have built together - and of the growing support it commands among huge numbers of ordinary Brits [sic, Britons].
The more an individual involved is attacked with smears and demonization propaganda, the more you know he or she is understood by our enemies to be vital to our continued progress.
Fortunately, the very fact that you now know their game gives you the moral shield and psychological armour you need to brush off the blows aimed at you and other sincere patriots by our most dangerous and relentless enemies.
How can you tell friend from such camouflaged foes? Clearly, as the case studies above show very well, their training and collective experience makes it virtually impossible to catch them out for certain. Only occasionally do Searchlight allow one of their top moles to 'come out' for the purposes of a sensationalist TV programme, only once in a blue moon does a police officer end up going rogue and suing over stress.
So you have to make up your mind on the balance of probability rather than absolute proof. So don't judge people who claim to be sincere nationalists on how they look or sound, or on what they claim to be. Judge them simply on the crucial question: Is what they are doing good or bad for the British National Party?
Are they encouraging activism or apathy?
Are they trying to raise money or to stop people giving?
Are they telling the truth or spreading lies?
If there is a genuine problem (for no party is perfect) are they quietly taking it to the people who could do something about it, or are they plastering it all over the Internet to the delight of our external enemies?
Are they being attacked by the ruthlessly controlled and anti-British mainstream media, or are they suddenly in favour with the papers, the BBC and Rupert Murdoch's Sky News?
Are they brutally attacked on the far-left blogs and crank neo-Nazi forums, or are they treated with kid gloves by such enemies of our Cause?
If you read what they write or listen to what they say, do you feel enthused, enlightened and more determined than ever to win our sacred struggle? Or do they leave you sad, worried and demotivated?
The answers to those questions will tell you all you need to know for, as ever, the Biblical maxim sums it up: By their fruits shall ye know them!
Sat, 04/09/2010 - 15:59
News Team
Vital reading for all BNP members! In this important article, Nick Griffin gives us an in-depth account and provides real-life examples of how opposition 'moles' strive to disrupt and divide nationalist parties. Once you've read this, you'll have a much better understanding of what is really behind the current wave of 'internal' and media attacks on our party.
"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Very few BNP members have been actively taken in by the campaign of attempted destabilisation currently being waged against both the party itself and its elected leadership. But rather more are at present somewhat bewildered by the ferocity of the assault and by the way in which several apparently very different strains of discontent have come together.
Everyone wants to know the answer to the same question: Why are people who have in the past seemed so devoted to our common Cause now doing all they can — including providing ammunition for our traditional enemies in the media - to try to destroy the party?
This is absolutely the right question to ask. And for those who haven't yet worked out the full picture for themselves, I hope that this analysis will help.
There are four key factors at work here:
First, there are the innocents who have been told lies or fed gossip by individuals they trust. Being innocent, they have believed at least some of what they have heard and, because it would be deeply worrying if true, have been conned into being deeply worried about the future of the party for which they and we have sacrificed so much.
I have no doubt that a significant number of those currently in the Butler camp come into this first category, and to them I simply say: "The British National Party's door, and my door, are still open to you. Come, individually, to us and tell us what you've heard that worries you so much that you have been taken in by people who are now very clearly trying to destroy the party.
We can talk about it, demolish their lies, shake hands and welcome you back. By the time the core parts of this article are read and digested by our party collectively, those who at present would tend to be unforgiving will have a far better idea of how good individuals have been conned and led astray.
From such understanding comes the opportunity for reconciliation. There are far too few genuine committed nationalists in Britain for us to quarrel and fight, or even to hold genuine mistakes against each other. Please come home!
Second, there are also formerly good nationalists who have become embittered by some personal grudge. This may be based on some genuine minor injustice they have suffered owing to a mistake or misjudgment by some key party official; we all make mistakes, myself included, and if anyone in this category has been wronged by me I am always happy to listen, apologise and make amends. In the meantime, I ask them not to take it out on the party as a whole by giving an ounce of backing to what we all know is an attempted demolition job.
On the other hand, several of the figures behind all the lies, half-truths and bullying that continue to spew from the present operation against the BNP hold grudges over matters for which they have merely received their just desserts.
When a thief is stopped or exposed, it's no surprise when he rails against those who found him out. When employees are found to be unwilling or incapable of performing their jobs to satisfactory standards, it's almost inevitable that they will cut up rough over being pulled up, disciplined or sacked. It's part of human nature to tend to be lazy, and it's equally part of human nature to resent being exposed as lazy and called to account.
In several of these cases I could have opted for an easy life by turning my blind eye to such failings. But I'm not here for an easy life, I'm here to get things done and to build an effective organisation.
Crooks, spongers and timewasters therefore have to go — so why should anyone be surprised or even worried when they take the first opportunity to get their revenge on me and on the organisation of which — through no one's fault but their own — they are no longer a useful part?
Thirdly, there are the plain jealous. In the roll call of homegrown troublemakers, there are always in any organisation a few whose opinion of themselves and their abilities is either so high that they will stop at no treachery or deceit to elbow their way to the front, or so low that their own sense of inferiority emerges as hatred for anyone who is competent, confident and well regarded by others.
Just as a group of teenage girls will often turn against the prettiest so as not to be outshone by her, so the Green Eyed God eats away at people's souls in adult politics.
So far, the various reasons for which disgruntled individuals can turn on their former friends and colleagues will be familiar to anyone who has ever been a member of any human organisation. In his sermon at the Indigenous Forum Family weekend the Rev. West told us how this ugly but understandable side of human nature even comes into play in the internal politics of the Church.
But now we come on to a factor which only affects radical political parties and pressure groups whose message, activities and indeed very existence pose a threat or potential threat to the State — or rather to those people, interest groups and ideologies which motivate and direct the State. This factor is deliberate infiltration by hostile individuals and the 'turning', whether through bribery, flattery or blackmail, of people who start off on the Light side and cross over to the Dark.
Let's get one thing straight right at the start of our examination of the problem of external infiltration and subversion: I am NOT saying that all those who fit into this category will necessarily have appeared to side with the 'Get Griffin' camp which has made so much empty noise recently. Of course, most will have done so, because turning good people against the current leadership is a highly effective way of wrecking any organisation.
But there is obviously mileage in the old 'good cop, bad cop' trick that has long been used by detectives trying to persuade suspects to confess. In the case of a political organisation this could easily be adapted to having a well-placed State or Searchlight 'mole' who is apparently 'loyal' to the leadership but who in fact is working to undermine faith in it.
This could be done, for example, by making deliberate mistakes in his or her job which annoy people and reflect badly on the leadership, giving ammunition to other plants or simple malcontents in the 'anti' camp. Or by playing on the normal personal dislikes and foibles that crop up in any joint human endeavour, telling lies designed to create and then mutually antagonise two sides.
There is no point speculating which individuals in the recent attempted wrecking operation have from the beginning been conscious enemies of the entire party. What is more fruitful is simply to provide you with the cast iron proof that such paid agents and traitors are not a figment of the imagination of the writers of TV series such as Spooks, but an all too real, clear and present danger to our Movement.
The very first thing to understand is that. just because someone does good work for the Cause, befriends you and buys pints all round, doesn't mean that they can't possibly be agents of the security services or their plausibly deniable catspaws in the Searchlight criminal conspiracy. These people have almost limitless money and decades of experience to pass to their agents and turncoats — and use both to get them into the best positions from which to do the most damage when the time comes to activate them.
Since the good people who are their eventual targets will take no notice of someone known only for doing very little badly, this means allowing such an 'asset' to make a valuable contribution to our Cause.
In the case, to give an example from a very different side of politics, of the IRA, it was routine practice for MI5 and military intelligence to allow their moles and assets to shoot lower level 'touts' (as informers are known over there) and to plant bombs in order to establish their credentials of 'good nationalists', in order that they be trusted with plans for even worse atrocities. Going leafleting in all weathers, putting money in the collection or helping us win some by-elections is nothing by comparison.
Most of our people are already well-aware of the fact that, despite our strict adherence to constitutional and peaceful campaigning, the Powers-That-Be regard our party as at least as big a threat to their control and ideas as the IRA ever was.
Anyone who doubts that need only compare the attitude of the 'mainstream' politicians and David Dimbleby to Gerry Adams and to me on our respective first appearances on Question Time. Then remember that these people went to the same schools and universities, move in the same social circles and dine in the same clubs as those who run the intelligence services. Hence it would be very odd indeed if their attitude to us was any less hysterical.
Add in the inbuilt Stalinist and tribal Zionist fanaticism of those running Searchlight and it becomes clear exactly why the BNP has been, is, and always will be the victim of the unwelcome attentions of a literally never-ending supply of plants and agents provocateurs.
Lest any unusually naive reader still have any doubts as to the truth of this basic fact of nationalist life, it is useful to look at four case studies involving the past subversion of British nationalist organisations:
SEX FOR INFLUENCE — the sordid history of Mrs. Gable.
In 1975, various young and not so young males in the National Front in London were pleased to see a young woman, Sonia Hochfelder, getting involved and active. Early suspicions over her potentially Jewish surname (an issue in an organisation heavily influenced by people who had served in Palestine up until 1948, and who had cut their political teeth under virtual siege by violent gangs of militant Zionist thugs) were allayed by her explanation that it was German.
Even initial doubters were won over by her eagerness to turn up on activities, reassuringly 'hardline' comments, and readiness to sleep with various other members — not all of whom knew that they weren't the only one. While not exactly a beauty, she was readily available, so various nationalist males did what came naturally.
So 'hardline' was young Sonia that by 1976, she was flirting politically — and a lot more personally — with various leading lights in Column 88, a lunatic - and informant riddled extremist group today roughly paralleled by the wilder fringes of the English Defence League (though anti-Jewish rather than anti-Muslim).
To put none too fine a point on it, young Sonia slept her way into positions which gave her access to gossip, intelligence and secrets in both organisations. And, having done so, she then began to use her position and inside knowledge to set people against each other and to undermine the morale and cohesion of her bedfellows and the wider movement. Her activities also contributed to the atmosphere of careless extremism which provided the media with material for smear stories designed to frighten off normal members of the public.
While some people had warned of what she was right from the start, but it still came as a shock to many when it emerged that Sonia Hochfelder was in fact an agent for Searchlight and a dedicated Jewish 'anti-fascist'.
While she did seem to get genuine sexual and psychological kicks from involvement with extremists and talk of violence, she was also ideologically motivated. Her father had fled to Britain as a socialist refugee when the Nazis marched into the Sudetanland. Brought up as a Marxist, she had joined the Communist Party at 16, before switching to a Maoist splinter group at the age of 18.
In Sonia's distinctly mixed up head, therefore, infiltrating the fascists wasn't just a big personal turn on, but also a heroic political adventure on behalf of her Marxist, Jewish, gay and coloured friends.
Gerry Gable later wrote this about Sonia, later to become his second wife and still today an active member of the Searchlight anti-nationalist conspiracy. A gushingly romanticised account of their spy-ring activities was published in the Independent on 22nd Feb 1997.
In addition to her specialised knowledge as a tax inspector, Sonia now also uses her experience as a very effective infiltrator/disrupter to teach a new generation of Searchlight spooks and grasses the tricks of the trade, and to brief and debrief them on their subversive activities.
The debriefings are particularly important, because they allow information collected by one agent to be fed to the others. The case of Andy Sykes, the Searchlight mole who became Bradford BNP Branch Organiser, and Jason Gwyn, the BBC infiltrator who used Syke's protection to make the Secret Agent smear 'documentary', shows how two operatives working to a co-ordinated plan are much more effective than two individuals working separately.
But for security reasons most moles and turncoats are 'run' without knowing each other, so their individual debriefs by experienced handlers like Mr. and Mrs. Gable are a crucial part of the whole operation, especially during one of their periodic campaigns of frantic subversion, when their various operatives are all used to inject as much poison into the nationalist body politic, and to target specific individuals for maximum effect.
How many of these creatures are there in our ranks at present? There is no way of knowing, but all experienced true nationalists will know that groups like Searchlight-UAF have along history of publishing detailed accounts not just of our major national events, but even of the goings on in many local BNP branches. That information can only come from their grasses, so there must be several dozen at least.
It would be very strange indeed if these people had not been active trying to spread alarm and division over the last couple of months, and if they are not right now agitating in support of Mr. Butler and in favour of some kind of split.
THE 'RESPECTABLE' WRECKER — the strange career of Paul Kavanagh
As the National Front rose to prominence in the mid-1970s, so did one of its newer recruits. Paul Kavanagh described himself as a businessman, wore the right suits and talked the right talk.
In a party desperately short of talented middle management and 'respectability', he quickly rose through the ranks. Industrious and apparently loyal, Kavanagh wasn't a great speaker, but he did try and, more important, he was constantly on the go, organising and attending activities in the London boroughs around his small but smart flat in the expensive Barbican development.
So when the NF launched its bid to buy a large prestige Headquarters building in London, the experienced and well-heeled Mr. Kavanagh seemed the natural and obvious choice to be given charge of setting up the holding company required — NF Properties. The fact that he packed it, and the local branches in the area, with people loyal to him, passed unnoticed in the excitement of raising the money, buying and converting the five floor Victorian warehouse in Great Eastern Street.
Kavanagh worked patiently until the 1979 General Election, then struck. Working harder than anyone had ever seen him work before, he ran a relentless campaign of black propaganda against the party leadership.
He and his clique — all trusted on account of the good work they had done in the past — regaled shocked and angry East London activists with lies about how John Tyndall and the NF's office staff were stealing all the money. Brown envelopes, mockingly marked "Members' Hard-Earned Cash" were supposedly waved around and blown with glee in pubs and Indian restaurants.
Not everyone fell for it, but enough did to give Kavanagh the head of steam to declare himself the leader of a 'reform' body, The NF Constitutional Movement, and to use this as the fig leaf excuse to try to seize control of Excalibur House for his own faction.
The asset-grab was thwarted, but amid confident predictions that the Front itself was doomed to bankruptcy Kavanagh persuaded a significant number of well-meaning London activists to defect to his new party, which was also 'sold' as the antidote to the 'extremism' — both real and imagined — of the Front's elected leadership.
Was Paul Kavanagh perhaps just a conman trying to lie his rivals out of office in order to get his hands on a valuable piece of real estate? Those who saw him operate didn't believe so. For one thing, he kept his 'Con Movement' going well after the chance of making any money was long gone. It was a joke party right from the start, so the only purpose it served was to allow the media to portray the NF as hopelessly divided demoralising its existing members and put off potential new recruits from among the 10,000 enquiries it had received during the election.
Even more telling, Kavanagh had always claimed to be in business buying and selling machine tools. In the frenetic factionalism of late 1979, a fair few activists and officials visited him in his office and industrial unit. Machine tools were clearly visible, but not one moved for months.
A young NF member had a summer job on the switchboard, secretly passing to the party's proper leadership details of who was phoning the head of the artificial rebellion against financial impropriety that never was. One kind of call was noticeable by its total absence — no-one ever phoned to inquire about buying or selling a single piece of machinery. Not so much as a single nut or bolt!
The supposed business was clearly nothing more than a cover — there only to stop people asking how someone could afford to live and give so much time and energy to the Cause.
Nowadays, sadly, to use machine tools as a cover in de-industrialised Britain would raise more suspicions than it would allay. But plenty of other excuses could serve the same purpose — a well-paid job with a public sector employer who mysteriously showed no interest in or suffered any pressure over the presence of a high profile nationalist, for example. Or a fortuitous inheritance, generously spent in pursuit of the Greater Good. Wouldn't that be convincing — and noble? It would probably even fool some people for a while.
THE BOGUS LEADERSHIP CONTENDER — Searchlight's Ray Hill and the attack on British Movement.
While Paul Kavanagh was working to destroy the NF in its East London heartland, another enemy mole was brought into play in Leicester, where the party had achieved huge votes and acquired a local Headquarters building in Humberstone Road.
The NF AGM in 1979 witnessed the return to Britain of Ray Hill, a petty criminal who had been involved on the far-right scene in the 1960s before emigrating to South Africa. Hill had already concluded that betraying his nationalist comrades was more profitable than robbing cigarette machines, and was working for Searchlight.
As the following quotes illustrate, Hill's autobiography, The Other Face of Terror, provides valuable insights into the work of a Searchlight mole, and how such wretched creatures manipulate the naive and good-hearted into helping them to wreck nationalist organisations.
Successive editions of Searchlight magazine (in the days before the Internet the main tool used for injecting black propaganda into the nationalist movement) worked to build Hill up as a big fish. Settling in Leicester, he played a major role behind the scenes pushing for the creation of another splinter group, the British Democratic Party, and then ruining its naive leader with a fake gun-running scam.
"Between us, World in Action and Searchlight and myself ran such rings around the characters involved that they must have believed that the gods themselves were conspiring against them. When the dust settled, one of Britain's smaller but more promising right-wing parties lay in ruins and its leader was in exile in Ireland." (Page 87).
Having played a small but significant role in helping to tear the NF apart — and destroyed perhaps the most promising party that emerged from the wreckage — Hill now switched to another target. The openly neo-Nazi British Movement had been founded by Colin Jordan, but by now was run by Mike McCloughlin, a Liverpudlian who in the course of the previous ten years had led the BM to a ten-fold increase in size.
Gable and Hill hatched a plan to deal with the threat, either by dividing and demoralising the British Movement so it fell below the size at which it could be effective, or — even better — saddle it with a leader who was actually a Searchlight agent. This was particularly attractive, as it would not only then be completely under control but could then also be used to siphon off the harder core elements of any genuine nationalist party into a bogus extremist safety valve, thus damaging two parties for the price of one.
Hill joined British Movement, taking with him some of the genuine but gullible nationalists he had lured out of the Front and into the BPD. With their help, and with the regular plugs in Searchlight about how good he was as an organiser, and how dangerous it would be if he became leader of the BM, he rapidly came to be seen as a serious heavyweight.
"The strategy we adopted envisaged that I would endeavour to establish myself as a rival to McLaughlin for the party leadership. As long as I recruited enough support, the plan could not fail. Either I would depose McLaughlin and then allow BM to collapse under leadership the like of which they would never have seen before, or McLaughlin would be forced to expel me, in which case I would split the party, taking as many members as possible with me." (Page 133).
Central to the plan was a concerted effort to discredit McLaughlin by accusing him of failure and of financial impropriety:
"In private conversations with activists I missed no opportunity to make guarded suggestions that while I was out there on the 'front line' with them, McLaughlin was comfortably ensconced in North Wales 'raking in the membership fees'." (Page 134).
As the lies and poison manufactured by Hill seeped through and undermined the BM, the Searchlight plotters began to work on the final stages of the plan — to get Hill expelled from the already weakened organisation, and then join up with John Tyndall (then leading the small and ineffective New National Front) in a new 'party of nationalist unity', in which Hill would already have enough influence to be able to set off a civil war in that in due course.
"If I could present a challenge to McLoughlin, and strongly make a case for unity, we could both tempt him into expelling me, in which case I could not be accused of splitting the movement, and prepare the ground for a significant number of BM members to leave with me, encouraged by the prospect of unification with another organisation.
"For the moment, I concentrated on building myself up as an alternative leader, assiduously cultivating activist members at every opportunity. I used the same old theme that the movement's leadership was stale, tired, lazy and probably corrupt and that Change was needed.... Some members even started muttering about having an election for a new leader." (Page 137).
Faced with Hill's relentless campaign of black propaganda lies, McLaughlin did indeed expel him, and the naive members Hill had conned rose up in his defence:
"My expulsion caused a furore among the membership. In London Tony Malksi pledged his support for me..... at the next Leicester meeting, the members unanimously agreed that I should ignore McLoughlin's edict and carry on as local BM leader.... From around the country came similar declarations of support from groups of activists.... To all intents and purposes, BM was split down the middle." (Page 141).
Backed by Searchlight's money and lawyers, Hill went on to issue a writ against McLaughlin for 'invalid' expulsion. The costs of contesting this added to the financial crisis caused by the split over Hill's removal and the artificially created worries over financial probity. Ground down by the character assassination and by the endless financial crisis, in September 1983 McLaughlin simply closed British Movement down.
Even before that happened, however, Hill had already taken enough members with him to join the newly-founded British National Party to be a major player in it. His autobiography includes a photo of him sharing the top table with John Tyndall at the press conference at which the BNP was launched in 1982, and another of him and Tyndall at the head of the new party's first march in London a few weeks later.
Hill was already in pole position to continue his work:
"Behind my involvement in the whole enterprise was the certain knowledge that as long as the process of splitting and fusion and then more splitting could be prolonged, no far-right group would be in a position to look outwards and project itself as a serious political force. At that time, we anticipated that we would later be in a position, if BNP began to grow, to split it down the middle by provoking a life or death leadership battle between myself and Tyndall, and then begin the cycle of internal war all over again. As it happened, the BNP never even began to show potential for growth, a factor which helped our later decision that I should go public." (Page 165).
Ray Hill "came out" not long afterwards, in a Channel 4 documentary that cast him as the hero who had broken up the National Front, the British Democratic Party and the British Movement. In the case of the NF, that was a huge over-statement. In the case of the BDP and BM, it was all too true.
One man, having worked his way up, been a drinking mate and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with real nationalists in confrontations with the violent left, had set real comrades against each other and destroyed all they had achieved. Yet despite the clear evidence of what he had done, and despite repeated warnings from the more perceptive, some of those who had followed him didn't believe it until they heard his boastful confession on TV.
As our study of the parallel case of Sonia Hochfelder has already shown, such plants can also be female. When they are, they have the added advantage of being able to make allegations about sexual harassment or assault — a totally different line of attack to the financial impropriety trick but one which can be used in the same way.
When the now defunct Workers Revolutionary Party, for example, was proving a nuisance to the British State (at one point they had a daily newspaper, funded by Libya's Colonel Gadaffi), their leader Gerry Healy was repeatedly accused of molesting the idealistic but often neurotic young females who formed a high proportion of their recruits.
Internal jealousies, attention seeking, crude attempts at blackmail and straightforward Special Branch black propaganda lies about "cold, clammy hands" (the exact phrase used in a recent recycling of the tactic) combined to create a cloud of suspicion over the target, who — while undoubtedly a Marxist fanatic — appears to have been wholly innocent.
It was and is noticeable, however, that those involved in making unfounded allegations never have any assets and so are safe from any chance of having to provide evidence for their smears in a court of law.
POLICE PLANTS TOO — the State intervenes directly
So far we've looked mainly at plants who are almost certainly nothing more or less that assets of the sinister Searchlight operation. Unfortunately, however, it is not the only well-funded agency that runs agents and disrupters within radical organisations. The black propaganda campaign against the leader of the Workers Revolutionary Party, for instance, was the work of Special Branch and MI5, and it is a well documented fact that various such State agencies have long taken an unhealthy (for us) interest in the BNP
On Sunday 14th March this year, The Observer ran two remarkable reports on the undercover life of a policeman member of a hitherto secret unit of the Metropolitan Police, the Special Demonstration Squad.
"Officer A — with a long ponytail, angry persona and willingness to be educated in the finer points of Trotskyist ideology — was never suspected by those he befriended of being a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit within Special Branch, whose job is to prevent violent public disorder on the streets of the capital. Known as the "hairies" due to the fact that its members do not have to abide by usual police regulations about their appearance, the unit consists of 10 full-time undercover operatives who are given new identities, and provided with flats, vehicles and "cover" jobs while working in the field for up to five years at a time.
"Officer A joined the SDS in 1993 after two years in Special Branch. It was a time of heightened tension between the extreme left and right and almost every weekend saw clashes between the likes of the Anti-Nazi League, Youth Against Racism, the British National Party and the National Front. The SDS is believed to have infiltrated all such organisations."
The second article is more valuable still. Entitled "Inside the lonely and violent world of the Yard s elite undercover unit," it reads:
"They got drunk together, stood shoulder to shoulder as they fought the police and far-right activists, and became so intimately acquainted with each other's lives that in the end they were closer than brothers. But it was all a sham. Hidden among the close-knit and highly motivated group of violent far-left activists was a serving police officer, operating deep undercover, whose presence was intended to bring the group to its knees.
"That man, known only as Officer A, has now come forward to give his account of the years he spent working for Scotland Yard's most secret unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), on a mission to prevent disorder on the streets of London. For four years in the mid-1990s, he lived a double life six days a week, spending just one day a week with his wife and family.
"Week after week, year in and year out, he lived and breathed the life of a hardcore Trotskyist agitator with a passion for heavy drinking, a deep-seated hatred of the police and a predilection for extreme violence."
"I had a really good time with my targets and enjoyed their company enormously – here was a genuine bond. But I was never under any illusion about what I was there to do. They were not truly my friends. The friendship would last only up until the point when they found out what I really was. I was under no illusion about what would happen to me if they did."
Officer A allowed himself to be spotted and recruited by his target, and then agreed to attend a small demonstration the following weekend. When the event turned violent, he found himself standing next to his target and others from the group as they launched a series of attacks on uniformed police.... "That day developed into a major ruck. At the end no one would have believed I was a police officer."
Officer A wasn't the only one attacking his former colleagues. At the time of his deployment, other SDS officers had infiltrated opposing right-wing groups such as the BNP and Combat 18, as well as other far-left groups.
Once inside the groups they were ordered to infiltrate, it was relatively easy for SDS officers to rise to the top because they were often prepared to work long hours on boring, administrative jobs.
Having won the trust of several high-profile anti-facism and anti-racism activists on the far left, Officer A was ideally placed. Over the next two years he worked his way up to become branch secretary of Youth Against Racism in Europe, a leading anti-racist organisation that was a front for the far-left group Militant.
"You get given a file on your target that tells you everything you need to know. You become that person's brother. You know everything that makes them tick. You know how much they like to drink, you know where they like to drink. You know what kind of music they like, you know what kind of women they like. You become the brother they never knew they had. None of it is ever said to the target, it's far more subtle than that. The first time they get in the car, it will be just the right kind of music playing. The first time a redhead walks by it will be: 'God, I'm really into redheads.' It's all done fantastically cleverly.
"If someone started talking about getting good information from a female target, we all knew there was only one way that could have happened. They had been sleeping with them." He himself had slept with two members of his target group. Although not officially sanctioned, such activity among SDS officers – both male and female – was tacitly accepted and in many cases was vital in maintaining an undercover role. "You can't be in that world full-time for five years and never have a girlfriend or boyfriend. People would start to ask questions," said Officer A.
The most chilling part of the article is Officer A s assessment of the effectiveness of such tactics:
"If the SDS had been in existence at the time of the Suffragettes, their campaigns would never have got off the ground and would have been quickly forgotten.....Once the SDS get into an organisation, it is effectively finished."
Bear in mind that this is only one police squad, working only in London. Are there similar teams in the police forces of Merseyside, Yorkshire, Glasgow, etc? It would be strange if there weren't, wouldn't it?
After all, virtually every urban police force in Britain operates in the knowledge that one spark could set off an explosion of communal violence between various different ethnic and religious groups. Wouldn't the really odd thing be if the leftist/Common Purpose clones who have been put in charge of our police forces DIDN'T use their power and resources to try to destabilise the British National Party?
We see their orders being carried out every time venue owners are intimidated by police threats, so why should we have any doubts as to their capacity to use other dirty tricks against us in the shadows?
Then there are the national security services, who operate separately from the police, jealously guarding their own bureaucratic and intelligence empires, as well as doing the jobs for which they too are well paid. Chief among these is Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5 (not to be confused with MI6, which handles foreign affairs intelligence matters.
MI5 has spent a hundred years monitoring and disrupting home-grown 'subversive' organisations. There is a small library of serious studies of its activities, many of which confirm that part of MI5's brief is to infiltrate and destabilise a wide variety of target groups, including the BNP.
To give just one example, in Defending The Realm - inside MI5 and the war on terrorism, published in 2003, Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding note that: "...as the National Front declined into a mere rump, the British National Party has been seen as a more serious threat. By the early 1990s, MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents within the BNP, although they also retained some full-time active agents in the National Front."
The authors go on to point out that one of MI5's ways of justifying its continued huge budget in the wake of the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989 has been to brief Ministers and journalists alike on the need to keep 'far-right extremists' under surveillance and control.
Would it not be really strange if these various State security bodies hadn't been mobilised to disrupt our General Election campaign, and if they weren't right now doing everything in their power to keep the disruption going - especially given the inevitable social and political impact of the gathering storm clouds of spending cuts, financial crises, the unwinnable Afghan War and the inevitability that, sooner or later, another Muslim terror plot will work?
Why would they not be working to hinder us from signing up the new recruits attracted by that campaign and from applying the lessons we've learned from that campaign to improve our organisation for the future? Stopping such things is exactly what they are paid for, and you can bet your life that they are at their work right now.
CONCLUSION
So now you know! Four different, real-life examples of the use of credible, long-term, at times popular and apparently sincere and constructive 'moles' who wreaked havoc in the British nationalist movement by playing on the honest naivety of some and the ambition or discontents of others.
In a way it's a frightening thought - that we're up against well-connected and massively funded opponents who have such a long track record of using a succession of plants and traitors to keep the nationalist movement in repeated factional convulsions designed to demoralise and demotivate.
But at least the hysterical desperation of their current efforts gives us an insight of just how frightened our opponents are of the formidable party machine that we have built together - and of the growing support it commands among huge numbers of ordinary Brits [sic, Britons].
The more an individual involved is attacked with smears and demonization propaganda, the more you know he or she is understood by our enemies to be vital to our continued progress.
Fortunately, the very fact that you now know their game gives you the moral shield and psychological armour you need to brush off the blows aimed at you and other sincere patriots by our most dangerous and relentless enemies.
How can you tell friend from such camouflaged foes? Clearly, as the case studies above show very well, their training and collective experience makes it virtually impossible to catch them out for certain. Only occasionally do Searchlight allow one of their top moles to 'come out' for the purposes of a sensationalist TV programme, only once in a blue moon does a police officer end up going rogue and suing over stress.
So you have to make up your mind on the balance of probability rather than absolute proof. So don't judge people who claim to be sincere nationalists on how they look or sound, or on what they claim to be. Judge them simply on the crucial question: Is what they are doing good or bad for the British National Party?
Are they encouraging activism or apathy?
Are they trying to raise money or to stop people giving?
Are they telling the truth or spreading lies?
If there is a genuine problem (for no party is perfect) are they quietly taking it to the people who could do something about it, or are they plastering it all over the Internet to the delight of our external enemies?
Are they being attacked by the ruthlessly controlled and anti-British mainstream media, or are they suddenly in favour with the papers, the BBC and Rupert Murdoch's Sky News?
Are they brutally attacked on the far-left blogs and crank neo-Nazi forums, or are they treated with kid gloves by such enemies of our Cause?
If you read what they write or listen to what they say, do you feel enthused, enlightened and more determined than ever to win our sacred struggle? Or do they leave you sad, worried and demotivated?
The answers to those questions will tell you all you need to know for, as ever, the Biblical maxim sums it up: By their fruits shall ye know them!
Statement by Martin Webster
Gri££in updates his "Attempted Murder" farrago of 1986
Hello, everybody!
Nick Gri££in, Chairman of the British National Party, has updated his 1986 classic.....
‘ATTEMPTED MURDER
– The State / Reactionary Plot Against the National Front’
(regarded by many as the definitive exhibition of political paranoia)
......with a new diatribe of paranoid delusion and self-justification entitled:
‘SEX, MANIPULATION, LIES and SUBVERSION
– Real Life Studies of Anti-Nationalist Dirty Tricks’
This latest opus is designed to convince naïve newcomers to the nationalist movement in Britain that the blame for the British National Party turning into a political, financial and legal train wreck is not his – even though he has had personal dictatorial control over all aspects of the party’s operation for ten years.
Oh no!
The blame for the catastrophe must be imposed on the Satanic conspiracies of Sonia Gable of Searchlight (who, I am sorry to say, comments accurately on his financial shenanigans) and any number of un-named infiltrators from State security agencies who, working in tandem, were behind such “plots” as to try and prompt an election this August for the leadership of the BNP as provided for (just about) in the party’s constitution.
Just how evil can these conspirators get?
I will not run out the text of Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion here as it is a very long text. I won’t say more about as I don’t want to put people off reading it. I want people to read it at least once so that they can compare it with the contents of his 1986 work Attempted Murder. In fact, I ask everybody to read Attempted Murder first.
Attempted Murder, published as a booklet by a faction of the crumbling National Front in 1986, can be seen at:
http://www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html
Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion, published on the BNP web site last Saturday, can be seen at:
http://bnp.org.uk/news/sex-manipulation-lies-and-subversion-%E2%80%94-real-life-studies-anti-nationalist-dirty-tricks
To those able to persevere with a reading of both documents will be struck by their essential similarity.
In 1983 Gri££in, with the support of Andrew Brons, Ian Anderson, Joe Pearce and sundry other members of the NF’s National Directorate seized control of the party by means which, months later, a High Court Judge described as “....unconstitutional....illegal....disgraceful....” This ruling and various court injunctions in my favour were given too late to rescue the NF from ruination.
By 1986 the NF was riven with factional warfare. There were bloody street fights between them. The faction which Gri££in ran (motto: “Long Live Death!” – I kid you not) had control of the party’s Head Office and its administrative and financial affairs became a shambles. Cheque payments for supplies of books and leaflets were cashed but the goods not despatched was just one of myriad complaints, most of which focused on money.
In an attempt the fend off the crisis brought about by his and his associates’ maladministration and dishonesty he brought out the booklet Attempted Murder in order to try and demonstrate that the party was the victim of a conspiracy by (among others!) State security agencies and the Post Office....and, of course, members of the faction which opposed his little crew of International Third Position nut-cases led by the Italian crook Roberto Fiore, (with whom Gri££in and his family are still in business relationships which involve the importation of Afro-Asian “students” into Britain!)
This inane – insane – propaganda ploy failed and within another year or so the NF finally succumbed to all that the loonies had inflicted on it, and died. The group which nowadays parades about using the name “National Front” is not a legitimate continuance of the original party and has policies and a constitution considerably different from the original party.
I will not attempt to summarise Attempted Murder beyond what I have said above, other than to ask those who read it to look out for Gri££in’s vituperations against his then factional opponents, and then reflect on how many of these “poisonous subversives” of 1986 are now “valued close colleagues” of 2010! (See what Gri££in has to say about his current best mate Martin Wingfield, for example!)
Having read Attempted Murder, and come up for air, you should then turn to Gri££in’s August 2010 screed Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion. You will find yourself of familiar ground.
The BNP is crumbling politically, administratively, financially and legally as a result of his decade long maladministration. The keys to the collapse are improper and dishonest maladministration of the party’s financial affairs and cowardice and surrender in the face of the legal challenge by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
What is Gri££in’s response to the situation – other than to send out almost daily begging letters and e-mails to people who have already given till it hurts?
His response is to devise a long turgid text designed to show that all the trouble the party faces is not down to him, the dictator of the party since 1999, but down to the machinations of Sonia Gable, State security agents and senior members of the party who have either infiltrated the party as enemies from the outset, or who have been suborned.
How Gri££in has had the time to churn out such self-serving paranoid drivel when his party is facing crisis on a number of fronts, all of which require the attention of a proper leader, is proof enough of this man’s lack of balance and sense of proportion.
The time is soon coming when the men with the flapping white coats and a secure van will be calling at a certain farmhouse in Wales. Will they precede the bailiffs?
Martin Webster.
Hello, everybody!
Nick Gri££in, Chairman of the British National Party, has updated his 1986 classic.....
‘ATTEMPTED MURDER
– The State / Reactionary Plot Against the National Front’
(regarded by many as the definitive exhibition of political paranoia)
......with a new diatribe of paranoid delusion and self-justification entitled:
‘SEX, MANIPULATION, LIES and SUBVERSION
– Real Life Studies of Anti-Nationalist Dirty Tricks’
This latest opus is designed to convince naïve newcomers to the nationalist movement in Britain that the blame for the British National Party turning into a political, financial and legal train wreck is not his – even though he has had personal dictatorial control over all aspects of the party’s operation for ten years.
Oh no!
The blame for the catastrophe must be imposed on the Satanic conspiracies of Sonia Gable of Searchlight (who, I am sorry to say, comments accurately on his financial shenanigans) and any number of un-named infiltrators from State security agencies who, working in tandem, were behind such “plots” as to try and prompt an election this August for the leadership of the BNP as provided for (just about) in the party’s constitution.
Just how evil can these conspirators get?
I will not run out the text of Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion here as it is a very long text. I won’t say more about as I don’t want to put people off reading it. I want people to read it at least once so that they can compare it with the contents of his 1986 work Attempted Murder. In fact, I ask everybody to read Attempted Murder first.
Attempted Murder, published as a booklet by a faction of the crumbling National Front in 1986, can be seen at:
http://www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html
Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion, published on the BNP web site last Saturday, can be seen at:
http://bnp.org.uk/news/sex-manipulation-lies-and-subversion-%E2%80%94-real-life-studies-anti-nationalist-dirty-tricks
To those able to persevere with a reading of both documents will be struck by their essential similarity.
In 1983 Gri££in, with the support of Andrew Brons, Ian Anderson, Joe Pearce and sundry other members of the NF’s National Directorate seized control of the party by means which, months later, a High Court Judge described as “....unconstitutional....illegal....disgraceful....” This ruling and various court injunctions in my favour were given too late to rescue the NF from ruination.
By 1986 the NF was riven with factional warfare. There were bloody street fights between them. The faction which Gri££in ran (motto: “Long Live Death!” – I kid you not) had control of the party’s Head Office and its administrative and financial affairs became a shambles. Cheque payments for supplies of books and leaflets were cashed but the goods not despatched was just one of myriad complaints, most of which focused on money.
In an attempt the fend off the crisis brought about by his and his associates’ maladministration and dishonesty he brought out the booklet Attempted Murder in order to try and demonstrate that the party was the victim of a conspiracy by (among others!) State security agencies and the Post Office....and, of course, members of the faction which opposed his little crew of International Third Position nut-cases led by the Italian crook Roberto Fiore, (with whom Gri££in and his family are still in business relationships which involve the importation of Afro-Asian “students” into Britain!)
This inane – insane – propaganda ploy failed and within another year or so the NF finally succumbed to all that the loonies had inflicted on it, and died. The group which nowadays parades about using the name “National Front” is not a legitimate continuance of the original party and has policies and a constitution considerably different from the original party.
I will not attempt to summarise Attempted Murder beyond what I have said above, other than to ask those who read it to look out for Gri££in’s vituperations against his then factional opponents, and then reflect on how many of these “poisonous subversives” of 1986 are now “valued close colleagues” of 2010! (See what Gri££in has to say about his current best mate Martin Wingfield, for example!)
Having read Attempted Murder, and come up for air, you should then turn to Gri££in’s August 2010 screed Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion. You will find yourself of familiar ground.
The BNP is crumbling politically, administratively, financially and legally as a result of his decade long maladministration. The keys to the collapse are improper and dishonest maladministration of the party’s financial affairs and cowardice and surrender in the face of the legal challenge by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
What is Gri££in’s response to the situation – other than to send out almost daily begging letters and e-mails to people who have already given till it hurts?
His response is to devise a long turgid text designed to show that all the trouble the party faces is not down to him, the dictator of the party since 1999, but down to the machinations of Sonia Gable, State security agents and senior members of the party who have either infiltrated the party as enemies from the outset, or who have been suborned.
How Gri££in has had the time to churn out such self-serving paranoid drivel when his party is facing crisis on a number of fronts, all of which require the attention of a proper leader, is proof enough of this man’s lack of balance and sense of proportion.
The time is soon coming when the men with the flapping white coats and a secure van will be calling at a certain farmhouse in Wales. Will they precede the bailiffs?
Martin Webster.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Walker's visit to shrine dishonours British war dead
Adam Walker, BNP staff manager, should not have visited the Yasukuni shrine during his visit to Japan, representing, as he was, the British National Party in an official capacity.
To quote Mr Walker's own words, which may also be seen reported in an article on the party web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, "We realize terrible things happened in the war on both sides and we do not condone them. We are simply here to show the Japanese people that we have respect for their culture, traditions, and values".
Mr Walker's statement is tantamont to an exoneration of the Japanese nation in respect of the atrocities perpetrated by their armed forces during World War II. Note the way in which Mr Walker seeks to exculpate the Japanese, his hosts on the junket, from their war guilt, by saying that "...terrible things happened in the war on both sides...". It is as if Mr Walker believed that we, the British, and our Commonwealth and American allies, were in some unspecified way equally as guilty as the Japanese.
Mr Walker, a former teacher, speaks Japanese it seems. I have no reason to believe that he is other than an intelligent man, which makes his behaviour all the more blameworthy, since, presumably, he would have fully understood the significance of what he was doing when he visited the Yasukuni shrine, and made the statement quoted above.
Visiting the Yasukuni shrine was an odd way to show the Japanese people that the BNP has "...respect for their culture, traditions, and values", since even the Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, refuses to visit the shrine because, in his own words "As Class-A war criminals are enshrined there, an official visit by the prime minister or cabinet members is problematic". This is a polite Japanese way of saying that it is impolitic to do honour to the memory of war criminals, even of one's own nation.
They were criminals indeed.
Murder, massacres, death marches, rape, mutilation, human vivisection, and cannibalism were all perpetrated by members of the Japanese armed forces, and countenanced by the High Command, and home government. The mass murder of British troops by starvation and forced labour that turned tens of thousands of healthy men into emaciated invalids, was intentional military and governmental policy.
Mr Walker should learn one thing, if nothing else, from his Japanese hosts: that one's first loyalty is to one's own nation.
It is a great pity that he does not appear to know this.
To quote Mr Walker's own words, which may also be seen reported in an article on the party web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, "We realize terrible things happened in the war on both sides and we do not condone them. We are simply here to show the Japanese people that we have respect for their culture, traditions, and values".
Mr Walker's statement is tantamont to an exoneration of the Japanese nation in respect of the atrocities perpetrated by their armed forces during World War II. Note the way in which Mr Walker seeks to exculpate the Japanese, his hosts on the junket, from their war guilt, by saying that "...terrible things happened in the war on both sides...". It is as if Mr Walker believed that we, the British, and our Commonwealth and American allies, were in some unspecified way equally as guilty as the Japanese.
Mr Walker, a former teacher, speaks Japanese it seems. I have no reason to believe that he is other than an intelligent man, which makes his behaviour all the more blameworthy, since, presumably, he would have fully understood the significance of what he was doing when he visited the Yasukuni shrine, and made the statement quoted above.
Visiting the Yasukuni shrine was an odd way to show the Japanese people that the BNP has "...respect for their culture, traditions, and values", since even the Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, refuses to visit the shrine because, in his own words "As Class-A war criminals are enshrined there, an official visit by the prime minister or cabinet members is problematic". This is a polite Japanese way of saying that it is impolitic to do honour to the memory of war criminals, even of one's own nation.
They were criminals indeed.
Murder, massacres, death marches, rape, mutilation, human vivisection, and cannibalism were all perpetrated by members of the Japanese armed forces, and countenanced by the High Command, and home government. The mass murder of British troops by starvation and forced labour that turned tens of thousands of healthy men into emaciated invalids, was intentional military and governmental policy.
Mr Walker should learn one thing, if nothing else, from his Japanese hosts: that one's first loyalty is to one's own nation.
It is a great pity that he does not appear to know this.
Monday, 16 August 2010
VoF spin cannot hide leadership disarray
On page five of Voice of Freedom, #117, in an article entitled "A tale of two MEPs: one went to the Palace...the other went on television", the fiasco of Mr Griffin's barring from the queen's garden party is presented as a public relations coup for the British National Party.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact it was more like a comedy of errors.
Error number one: Mr Griffin should not have attempted to make political capital out of his invitation to what is generally regarded as a non-political event. More particularly, he should not have asked, on the BNP web site, for suggestions as to what he ought to say to the queen should he meet her. This was naturally regarded as provocation by the Palace authorities, and as an attempt by a politician to embroil the queen in party politics - a constitutional faux pas, if not a case of lese-majesty.
Mr Griffin's defence: that nowhere in "...the book of rules..." does it state that a guest should not give media interviews about their invitation is either disingenuous or crass. The "book of rules" cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and some things are so obvious that it is assumed that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be aware of them.
Mr Griffin should have known that attempting to upstage the queen by turning her garden party into a political circus, with himself hogging the limelight, would be viewed with displeasure by the Palace authorities.
Their subsequent barring of him should then have come as no great surprise to him.
Error number two: Mr Griffin clearly believes, contrary to all the evidence, that the British public cannot get enough of him. His tour of the TV studios, following his barring from the garden party, did not help the party's image. This was demonstrated by a local election result on the same day, in Basildon, in which, whereas in the past the BNP's share of the vote had been approximately 15%, this time it was less than 4%.
This was another Pyrrhic victory of the BBC Question Time variety.
Error number three: Andrew Brons MEP should not have attended the garden party after Mr Griffin had been turned away from it. Despite the fact that Mr Griffin had courted his own humiliation, indeed had brought it upon himself, through his poor judgement and lack of common sense, and that Andrew Brons had not made the same mistake, Andrew should have shown greater solidarity with the party leader, and not attended the garden party.
Both MEPs should then have held a joint press confrence, in which they issued a joint statement, in which the tardiness of the withdrawal of Mr Griffin's invitation, and the Palace's failure to communicate with Tina Wingfield, as promised, could rightly have been censured.
The point should also have been made that it is infra dig for any elected representative of the BNP to treat what is essentially only a social event as being of greater importance than it actually is. Which is, frankly, not much.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact it was more like a comedy of errors.
Error number one: Mr Griffin should not have attempted to make political capital out of his invitation to what is generally regarded as a non-political event. More particularly, he should not have asked, on the BNP web site, for suggestions as to what he ought to say to the queen should he meet her. This was naturally regarded as provocation by the Palace authorities, and as an attempt by a politician to embroil the queen in party politics - a constitutional faux pas, if not a case of lese-majesty.
Mr Griffin's defence: that nowhere in "...the book of rules..." does it state that a guest should not give media interviews about their invitation is either disingenuous or crass. The "book of rules" cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and some things are so obvious that it is assumed that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be aware of them.
Mr Griffin should have known that attempting to upstage the queen by turning her garden party into a political circus, with himself hogging the limelight, would be viewed with displeasure by the Palace authorities.
Their subsequent barring of him should then have come as no great surprise to him.
Error number two: Mr Griffin clearly believes, contrary to all the evidence, that the British public cannot get enough of him. His tour of the TV studios, following his barring from the garden party, did not help the party's image. This was demonstrated by a local election result on the same day, in Basildon, in which, whereas in the past the BNP's share of the vote had been approximately 15%, this time it was less than 4%.
This was another Pyrrhic victory of the BBC Question Time variety.
Error number three: Andrew Brons MEP should not have attended the garden party after Mr Griffin had been turned away from it. Despite the fact that Mr Griffin had courted his own humiliation, indeed had brought it upon himself, through his poor judgement and lack of common sense, and that Andrew Brons had not made the same mistake, Andrew should have shown greater solidarity with the party leader, and not attended the garden party.
Both MEPs should then have held a joint press confrence, in which they issued a joint statement, in which the tardiness of the withdrawal of Mr Griffin's invitation, and the Palace's failure to communicate with Tina Wingfield, as promised, could rightly have been censured.
The point should also have been made that it is infra dig for any elected representative of the BNP to treat what is essentially only a social event as being of greater importance than it actually is. Which is, frankly, not much.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Griffinism - a suitable case for treatment
Leafing through a medical dictionary the other day, I came across the following entry.
Griffinism: a disease of political parties, it attacks their immune system, leaving them vulnerable to opportunistic infection by "industry experts", and other similar parasites. Treatment: carefully titrated doses of democratic reform, administered internally, under hospital supervision. Prognosis: often fatal due to its insidious onset but may be cured if correctly diagnosed, and treated in its early stages. Case study: British National Party, 2007-2010.
Griffinism: a disease of political parties, it attacks their immune system, leaving them vulnerable to opportunistic infection by "industry experts", and other similar parasites. Treatment: carefully titrated doses of democratic reform, administered internally, under hospital supervision. Prognosis: often fatal due to its insidious onset but may be cured if correctly diagnosed, and treated in its early stages. Case study: British National Party, 2007-2010.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Statement by Lee Barnes
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
My Resignation Letter From the BNP
Formal Resignation Letter.
10th August 2010.
Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.
The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.
For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.
I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.
As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.
Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;
1) The Marmite Case
2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections
3) The EHRC court cases
4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie
5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others
All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.
Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.
Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.
This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.
What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.
I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.
Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.
The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.
This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.
As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.
Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.
As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.
This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.
Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.
If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.
This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.
In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.
It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.
During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.
I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.
It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.
My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.
All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.
These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.
Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.
The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.
Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.
The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.
Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.
The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.
Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.
The law is clear.
BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.
To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.
The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.
I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.
The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.
But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.
I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.
I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.
As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.
The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.
Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.
Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.
Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.
If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.
If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.
Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.
Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.
They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.
This is intolerable.
The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.
All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
All such allegations must be investigated.
The issue is simple enough to understand.
Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.
This must be done for one simple reason.
A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.
Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.
A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.
If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.
And we would never know about it.
Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.
In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.
Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.
But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.
It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.
Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.
If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.
Unless the BNP begins ;
1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.
2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.
3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.
4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from potential legal liabilities.
5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.
6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.
7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.
8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.
If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.
I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.
In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.
If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.
I am not prepared to do that.
I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.
L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)
My Resignation Letter From the BNP
Formal Resignation Letter.
10th August 2010.
Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.
The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.
For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.
I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.
As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.
Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;
1) The Marmite Case
2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections
3) The EHRC court cases
4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie
5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others
All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.
Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.
Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.
This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.
What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.
I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.
Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.
The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.
This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.
As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.
Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.
As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.
This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.
Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.
If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.
This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.
In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.
It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.
During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.
I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.
It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.
My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.
All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.
These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.
Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.
The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.
Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.
The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.
Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.
The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.
Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.
The law is clear.
BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.
To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.
The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.
I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.
The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.
But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.
I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.
I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.
As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.
The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.
Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.
Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.
Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.
If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.
If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.
Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.
Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.
They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.
This is intolerable.
The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.
All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.
All such allegations must be investigated.
The issue is simple enough to understand.
Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.
This must be done for one simple reason.
A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.
Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.
A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.
If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.
And we would never know about it.
Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.
In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.
Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.
But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.
It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.
I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.
Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.
If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.
Unless the BNP begins ;
1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.
2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.
3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.
4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from potential legal liabilities.
5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.
6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.
7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.
8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.
If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.
I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.
In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.
If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.
I am not prepared to do that.
I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.
L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)
Griffin subverts constitution in bid to dodge contest
The flurry of unconstitutional letters of suspension recently issued to the best and bravest of the British National Party, namely those organizers and activists supporting Eddy Butler's leadership challenge, is a mark of the desperation of the rotten clique that is running, or rather, ruining the party - two of whom are not even members of the BNP.
I have a proposal for our national chairman: collect all of the unconstitutional and unlawful letters of suspension and hold a public bonfire of inanities, on the model of Savonarola's "bonfire of vanities".
Mr Griffin is behaving like Bad King John with his barons, or a pope of the early Reformation, issuing nugatory bulls of excommunication for heresy, from the Vatican, near Welshpool. Actually, "bull" is a very apt description of their contents, such as they are.
One has to marvel at the panic which induced such an otiose bureaucratic manoeuvre. Does Mr Griffin seriously believe that the genie of democratic dissent can be put back into the bottle by such methods? From their strange behaviour one might be forgiven for suspecting that Messrs Griffin and Dowson have something to hide from the members of the BNP.
Be sure your sin will find you out, Numbers 32:23 - as Rev West might say.
I have a proposal for our national chairman: collect all of the unconstitutional and unlawful letters of suspension and hold a public bonfire of inanities, on the model of Savonarola's "bonfire of vanities".
Mr Griffin is behaving like Bad King John with his barons, or a pope of the early Reformation, issuing nugatory bulls of excommunication for heresy, from the Vatican, near Welshpool. Actually, "bull" is a very apt description of their contents, such as they are.
One has to marvel at the panic which induced such an otiose bureaucratic manoeuvre. Does Mr Griffin seriously believe that the genie of democratic dissent can be put back into the bottle by such methods? From their strange behaviour one might be forgiven for suspecting that Messrs Griffin and Dowson have something to hide from the members of the BNP.
Be sure your sin will find you out, Numbers 32:23 - as Rev West might say.
Monday, 9 August 2010
BNP news item removed from party web site
The news item to which I referred in my last but one post, on Saturday, 7 August, has been removed from the party web site. Could this be a tacit admission of its falsity, as regards the leadership's risible claim of fairness in its conduct of the nomination process? Or has Mr Kemp had second thoughts about the wisdom of a public threat of further disciplinary action against the party's organizers and activists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
