It seems at first sight to be a paradox. Yet the explanation, as with many things in this world, is really very simple. The electorate judges a political party, not merely by its policies, but also by its public image, which is predominantly determined by the public image of its leader - who is almost invariably its main spokesman.
Observing the physical appearance of the party leader, the non-verbal, often unconscious, cues they give off via their body language, as well as things like the tone, and pitch of their voice, and the words they choose with which to express their thoughts, gives the public an insight into the personality of the leader.
Of course, the content of what is said is also very important but there is something in Marshall McLuhan's dictum that "the medium is the message", the medium in this case being the party leader, through whom, or rather, in whom, the party's message is embodied.
A leader who lacks the ability to impress in debate, and who looks uncomfortable in front of the TV cameras, is a tremendous handicap to any party, but even more of a liability to an ethno-nationalist party, which is in the position of an outsider, needing to break the mould of the status quo in order to make electoral progress.
On all the foregoing counts, Mr Griffin, has been weighed in the balance, by the electorate, and found wanting.
Mr Griffin's holocaust-denying baggage is also something that turns off the public, not so much because they actually care about it per se, but because it suggests to them that Mr Griffin's judgement and personality are flawed, and that consequently he is not someone who could, or should, be trusted with the levers of power.
With a new leader, who possessed the X factor which Mr Griffin lacks, and who lacked his electorally debilitating holocaust-denying baggage, the BNP would be forging ahead, would see off UKIP without any trouble at all, and soon have MPs in Westminster.
All over the rest of Europe parties similar to the BNP are making stunning progress, challenging seriously for government in some cases. Only in Britain is the nationalist cause in apparent decline.
If Mr Griffin has the best interests of the British National Party at heart he should resign as leader, and concentrate his efforts on the European 'parliament'.
It is no use asking "Who else could do the job?"
We know what happens to BNP members who incur Mr Griffin's jealousy or displeasure.
Let Mr Griffin resign, and his likely successors will then appear.
They may then present their wares to the party's membership in a free and fair leadership election, and the members may choose the person they feel would be best for the party.
The alternative is a continuation of the progressive wasting disease that is currently afflicting the party, more electoral humiliation, and more embarrassing gaffes, and ineffectual thrashing around, by the party's beached whale of a leader.
Nearly 80% of People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More
Sat, 15/01/2011 - 17:24 | Web Admin, www.bnp.org.uk.
Nearly four out of five people in Britain want to see a reduction in immigration, a Government survey has revealed.
The poll, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, shows that 78% of people in England and Wales want to see immigration into the UK cut back. Twenty-four per cent of participants said they would like to see immigration reduced a little, while 54% said they wanted it cut “a lot”. Conversely, only nineteen per cent said levels should stay the same, and just three per cent said there should be more.
These statistics are all the more remarkable considering that in addition to the 10,000 participants from England and Wales, the survey also added the views of two “boost samples” of 5,000 “ethnic minorities” and 1,200 Muslims, suggesting that it is not just the indigenous people of these islands that want to see immigration slashed.
This begs the question as to why such high numbers of people continue to vote for parties that have created the mass immigration problem in the first place and will only continue to worsen it.
Unfortunately, many may have been fooled by Prime Minister David Cameron’s posturing on the promise of an “immigration cap”, an impossible pledge for a country that is open to unlimited immigration as a member of the European Union.
Mr Cameron’s loophole-riddled promise of reducing visas for less skilled workers from outside Europe by a pathetic 6,300 a year is a pointless drop in the ocean for a country that lets in nearly 600,000 immigrants annually. It is made all the more insignificant by his scrapping of limits on intra-company transfers, his commitment to the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, which will ensure another 20,000 Indians per year gain access to work in Britain's IT sector alone, and his febrile desire to hasten Turkey’s accession to the EU.
The British National Party is the only party that promises to halt all immigration into Britain, with no misleading talk of caps, quotas or politically correct “moratoria”. If this policy is “racist”, then so is the majority of the population.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Sunday, 16 January 2011
The speech that never was
*Struts onto the stage*
Now, everybody that helped out with my campaign, despite not being remotely local to Oldham, can now define themselves as 'true nationalists' forever more*.
I believe that I should be given due respect for my performance. After all, how many activists have shielded Mr Chairman's rear-end with their own? Yes, I might've taken an electoral caning in Oldham, but better me than our leader.
It goes without saying, of course, that our campaign in Oldham was severely hindered by the 'sheeple'. You see, it's not our fault that the sheeple won't vote for good, honest bar-stewards like my good self. It's their fault! If I had my way, the sheeple would be paraded before a nationalist firing sq......but that's another matter, I'll save that for my General Election address.
Now, those malcontents on this forum, you know the sort - Squashclanger windows XP, Brit-Nit, Polar bear - well, they're not true nationalists and therefore every observation they've ever made is therefore null and void. I may lack a basic education, but my logic is peerless in nationalist circles.
I was quite frankly disgusted with one of those malcontents listed above, when following my debasement at the count, I received a text message:
"You should've gone down with your pub, like any good landlord."
The BNP is growing; more members, more voters and more cash. We will not tolerate contradiction of these self-evident facts.
Good Night.
* In the event of criticism levelled against Mr Chairman, formerly 'true nationalists' and 'super-activists' will be rebranded as reds and malcontents.
By Brit-Nat
Now, everybody that helped out with my campaign, despite not being remotely local to Oldham, can now define themselves as 'true nationalists' forever more*.
I believe that I should be given due respect for my performance. After all, how many activists have shielded Mr Chairman's rear-end with their own? Yes, I might've taken an electoral caning in Oldham, but better me than our leader.
It goes without saying, of course, that our campaign in Oldham was severely hindered by the 'sheeple'. You see, it's not our fault that the sheeple won't vote for good, honest bar-stewards like my good self. It's their fault! If I had my way, the sheeple would be paraded before a nationalist firing sq......but that's another matter, I'll save that for my General Election address.
Now, those malcontents on this forum, you know the sort - Squashclanger windows XP, Brit-Nit, Polar bear - well, they're not true nationalists and therefore every observation they've ever made is therefore null and void. I may lack a basic education, but my logic is peerless in nationalist circles.
I was quite frankly disgusted with one of those malcontents listed above, when following my debasement at the count, I received a text message:
"You should've gone down with your pub, like any good landlord."
The BNP is growing; more members, more voters and more cash. We will not tolerate contradiction of these self-evident facts.
Good Night.
* In the event of criticism levelled against Mr Chairman, formerly 'true nationalists' and 'super-activists' will be rebranded as reds and malcontents.
By Brit-Nat
Golding: where did it all go wrong?
The following post was published on the BNP sub-forum of the British Democracy web site, earlier today.
Cllr Golding, it will be remembered, worked very closely with Mr Dowson, right up to the time they both lost out in a sordid little power struggle to Messrs Harrington and Jefferson. Consequently Golding was in a position to know approximately how much money was raised by his 'boss', Dowson. Golding claims it was roughly £4,000,000, FOUR MILLION POUNDS, over the last three years.
Yet the British National Party now has debts totalling several hundred thousand pounds. Even Griffin admits to £200,000, and Golding suggests that is an understatement of the party's actual liabilities.
We know that only just over a quarter of a million pounds was spent on the European 'parliament' elections, and that the general election campaign was financed, almost exclusively, by locally raised branch funds.
One does not need to be any kind of accountant to see that something is seriously amiss here: the sums just do not add up.
So, to repeat a question which I have asked before: where has all the money gone?
Moreover, where are the 2009 accounts, that could conceivably help to answer this question? Still with the auditors?
While agreeing with what Golding has to say about Griffin's, Harrington's, Jefferson's, and Hannam's incompetence, it has to be said that, despite knowing what they were, Golding went along with Griffin, and with Dowson, who is no better, until Dowson and Golding lost out in a power struggle to control the party's management and administration, including the so-called treasury department.
At this point, Golding jumps, before he is pushed, no doubt.
At this point, knowing he would almost certainly lose his paid employment with the BNP, at the behest of Mr Harrington, Cllr Golding develops a conscience, and resigns.
"I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what 'party central' had become". Touching isn't it?
It should always be remembered that Cllr Paul Golding had played an enthusiastic part in corrupting the BNP - never mind 'party central'.
Why did he not support the leadership challenge of Eddy Butler, the only serious challenger for the leadership, last summer? Butler's platform was reform: of the corrupt and incompetent management, and the maladministration of both human and financial resources, of which Golding was a part.
Because it didn't suit his personal agenda at the time, which was all he was concerned about. The party could go hang.
Why did Golding not speak out, or resign, when loyal members of the BNP (loyal to the party, and our people, not to a particular unworthy man) were unjustly victimized, in blatant disregard of the constitution, so that Griffin could rig the nomination process, and cheat his way into remaining as party leader.
Golding's tender conscience did not appear to give him any trouble while all that was going on.
No, he was happy to be a part of the "nefarious element" that was ruining the BNP, and leading it towards the destruction, that even he now, miraculously, is able to see looming ahead.
Golding ends his despicable, hypocritical letter with a little whine that he feels he may be for the chop soon.
I hope he does not expect any sympathy from those of us who genuinely put the party's interests before our personal interest, and sought to exercise our democratic rights under the constitution, only to be subjected to vile character assassination, and to be unjustly victimized by a corrupt leadership.
You made your bed, Cllr Golding. I suggest you lie on it.
Incidentally, if it is true that this letter from Golding was forwarded to a BNP member by the south east regional organizer: what was the latter doing spreading bad news, in this way, in breach of the constitution?
The party's code of conduct states that bad news should only be passed up the chain of command, not down it.
More evidence of double standards at work, as if we needed any more.
Cllr Golding's letter now follows.
Paul Golding resignation letter
Just been forwarded this via email from my regional organiser:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PRIVATE COMMUNICATION - 16th January 2011
Fellow nationalist,
I am writing to you privately and in a personal capacity because now the dust has settled I thought it both prudent and courteous to give you a brief outline of why I resigned from my position last November. It was a great privilege and honour to work full time for the party and I was always conscious of this, and of the trust vested in me by the members and party officers and my duty towards them - that is why I resigned.
I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what ‘party central’ had become. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to moan about things from the sidelines - please don’t for one minute think that this is what I am doing. I merely want to set a few things straight for the future advancement of this party and the nationalist movement generally, also considering that Nick Griffin has been spreading false reasons why I resigned. I have been forced to set the record straight. I resigned for several reasons, the main ones being:
1) The EU fiasco: I was/am totally dismayed by the amount of time our Chairman spends in the EU parliament, much to the determent of our party overall, and the ‘gravy train’ mentality that now infects the new Solidarity ‘elite’ who have jumped on board the leadership team in more recent months.
It seems that the party now plays a secondary role to Nick Griffin’s European Parliament indulgence. Having our Chairman over in Brussels almost every week, Monday to Thursday (then taking Friday off), has been catastrophic and has lead to serious problems that could have been easily dealt with had Nick been on home soil with his eye on the ball.
Unfortunately, Nick Griffin appears to have lost interest in the day-to-day grind of running the BNP, and has submerged himself in the grandiose – but totally ineffectual – farce that is the European Parliament. A farce, yes, but a very lucrative one, as the attendance and travel allowances involved can net an MEP around an extra £5,000 per month on top of an 80,000 euros annual salary. After years of struggle, Nick is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labours but not at the expense of the party.
2) Clive Jefferson: This man has in a few short months been appointed to the posts of National Elections Officer, National Organiser, National Nominating Officer and National Treasurer. I could see the ‘game plan’ take shape in the summer and warned the Chairman but nothing was done and now we have nearly every senior position held by one man. How can we be taken seriously by the public and the general membership when we have allowed such a farce to occur?
I also see little evidence that Mr. Jefferson is suited to any of the positions he now clings too. As National Organiser, Mr Jefferson has brought about no tangible improvements to our organisation and its functionality; as National Elections Officer, he has presided over the longest and most embarrassing string of mediocre election results in our history; and now this man has been appointed National Treasurer, instead of a suitably qualified individual. He has talked a good talk to the Chairman, but this man has not produced the goods for our party, quite the opposite in fact. The Oldham result being the latest in a long series of Jefferson-created electoral disasters.
Clive’s ineptitude was a key reason for my resignation. I was sickened to watch the highly successful “Bring Our Boys Home” campaign being totally wasted by Mr Jefferson. After the hundreds of activist stalls, after all the hard work and sweat of our members and organisers, after the Communications Department worked hard to produce the leaflet, banner and petition, and organised the promotion of the campaign via email bulletin, website, and organisers’ bulletins, all Clive had to do was to utilise and do something meaningful with the resulting data (around 100,000 names and addresses).
But to date nothing substantial has been done with the data (a few thousand were imputed by Belfast). The 100,000 names and addresses are gathering dust - what a total waste and failure of all our efforts. Any talk of ‘using them for the future’ is pie in the sky, as anyone who understands data handling will tell you, data goes cold very quickly and is rendered useless. The party did at the time, employ data experts working in our own headquarters but through Jefferson’s ineptitude an excellent opportunity, the goodwill of the public and the hard graft of our activists, has been shamefully squandered.
Talk about the new super ‘Alfred’ data system is not even worth commenting on as it is such a fantasy and another hair-brain dream that I do not believe it will ever be a credible election tool while being developed by amateurs (wait for the appeals to finance its so-called development appearing shortly).
Considering the image problem that always hinders our progress, was it wise for the Chairman to have appointed a man like Mr Jefferson who (although never convicted) was a named defendant in a major international drug trafficking trial in 2002 that resulted in lengthy jail sentences for several of his co-defendants, to his multiple senior posts within our party?
Nick Griffin has effectively handed over control of the entire party to Clive Jefferson (and Pat Harrington) – I fear this is so Mr Griffin can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe. This would be half-acceptable if party affairs were sound and in order – but as we are in a crisis, and have been for a long time, Nick’s persistence with his EU trips must raise some serious concerns.
3) Pat Harrington: This man’s involvement with our party has, I believe, been a huge mistake. He is not a member and in fact is the leader of a rival party that has even stood against us. Harrington, his wife, and a group of his Solidarity officials, are now on the European pay roll as ‘researchers’ but in effect Pat is the main decision maker in OUR party and has given Nick some terrible advice in recent months that has, in my opinion, led to the administration and staff management chaos that now prevails.
His track record in nationalist politics is shocking, and those who are old enough will know this and his involvement in the destruction of the National Front, and his roles in the formation of so many other micro-entities that never amount to anything. His amateurish Machiavellian approach to our party was a key feature in my decision to leave my job.
Six months into his job as de-facto staff/party manager, we still have chronic wastage, staff chaos, inefficiency, no contracts (a legal requirement), no staff training and wages not paid and several NEW employment-related court cases looming. Several staff are even complaining that they are employed but haven’t got any work to do. Pat’s interference in our party has been highly corrosive and much of his advice has been farcical and demoralising. Despite all this, Pat and his Solidarity ilk are safe and thriving financially off our party on the secure European payroll. Shameful and disgusting.
I could not and would not abuse the trust of our members by being involved with what I consider a detrimental situation, i.e. a political rival with an unimpressive past effectively taking overall control of the BNP, usurping the authority of our senior officials and presiding over a total management disaster of the party. Again, I fear Nick has brought Pat and his group of useless Solidarity officials in so he can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe.
4) Finances and the treasury department: All I am prepared to say is that after years of presiding over the shambles that is our “treasury”, the person mainly responsible has now been ‘rewarded’ for making us the laughing stock of British politics by being given a secure job in Europe on a safe and generous salary while the financial chaos he caused threatens to destroy everything we have all worked hard to build over the years. Why has this happened?
Again, faced with foreknowledge of this disgusting situation I felt that I had no alternative but to remove myself from this immoral and contemptible charade. I was involved in fundraising for the party, so I know that around £4million was raised over the last three years by the party overall, so what did treasury do with it all considering the crushing debts that we now face? The spin that the party has only £200k worth of debts is wishful thinking and won’t help or assist us in facing up to our REAL liabilities and potentially fatal financial crisis. Action, not spin, is what we need to save the party.
These are the facts and it grieves me to have to admit that I probably should have done the only honourable thing I could have done and resigned sooner. I could say a lot more but it is not my intention to stir up trouble or to be a hindrance to our survival but I do feel strongly that you should be informed of my heartfelt reasons for walking away from a job I felt privileged to do for our party and our people.
I am no rebel and despise those that have worked against the party over the last year but much of our troubles could have been avoided. I fought hard against the rebels last year and will fight again if our party is attacked by the same nefarious elements, but enough is enough, things need to change now if the BNP is to survive as a credible political party.
Recently, it has come to my intention that certain individuals are trying to have me expelled from the party and withdraw the whip from me as a BNP councillor out of hatred and spite. I cherish my BNP membership and will use every means available to protect myself and remain a member of the party.
Paul Golding
Former BNP Communications Officer
Cllr Golding, it will be remembered, worked very closely with Mr Dowson, right up to the time they both lost out in a sordid little power struggle to Messrs Harrington and Jefferson. Consequently Golding was in a position to know approximately how much money was raised by his 'boss', Dowson. Golding claims it was roughly £4,000,000, FOUR MILLION POUNDS, over the last three years.
Yet the British National Party now has debts totalling several hundred thousand pounds. Even Griffin admits to £200,000, and Golding suggests that is an understatement of the party's actual liabilities.
We know that only just over a quarter of a million pounds was spent on the European 'parliament' elections, and that the general election campaign was financed, almost exclusively, by locally raised branch funds.
One does not need to be any kind of accountant to see that something is seriously amiss here: the sums just do not add up.
So, to repeat a question which I have asked before: where has all the money gone?
Moreover, where are the 2009 accounts, that could conceivably help to answer this question? Still with the auditors?
While agreeing with what Golding has to say about Griffin's, Harrington's, Jefferson's, and Hannam's incompetence, it has to be said that, despite knowing what they were, Golding went along with Griffin, and with Dowson, who is no better, until Dowson and Golding lost out in a power struggle to control the party's management and administration, including the so-called treasury department.
At this point, Golding jumps, before he is pushed, no doubt.
At this point, knowing he would almost certainly lose his paid employment with the BNP, at the behest of Mr Harrington, Cllr Golding develops a conscience, and resigns.
"I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what 'party central' had become". Touching isn't it?
It should always be remembered that Cllr Paul Golding had played an enthusiastic part in corrupting the BNP - never mind 'party central'.
Why did he not support the leadership challenge of Eddy Butler, the only serious challenger for the leadership, last summer? Butler's platform was reform: of the corrupt and incompetent management, and the maladministration of both human and financial resources, of which Golding was a part.
Because it didn't suit his personal agenda at the time, which was all he was concerned about. The party could go hang.
Why did Golding not speak out, or resign, when loyal members of the BNP (loyal to the party, and our people, not to a particular unworthy man) were unjustly victimized, in blatant disregard of the constitution, so that Griffin could rig the nomination process, and cheat his way into remaining as party leader.
Golding's tender conscience did not appear to give him any trouble while all that was going on.
No, he was happy to be a part of the "nefarious element" that was ruining the BNP, and leading it towards the destruction, that even he now, miraculously, is able to see looming ahead.
Golding ends his despicable, hypocritical letter with a little whine that he feels he may be for the chop soon.
I hope he does not expect any sympathy from those of us who genuinely put the party's interests before our personal interest, and sought to exercise our democratic rights under the constitution, only to be subjected to vile character assassination, and to be unjustly victimized by a corrupt leadership.
You made your bed, Cllr Golding. I suggest you lie on it.
Incidentally, if it is true that this letter from Golding was forwarded to a BNP member by the south east regional organizer: what was the latter doing spreading bad news, in this way, in breach of the constitution?
The party's code of conduct states that bad news should only be passed up the chain of command, not down it.
More evidence of double standards at work, as if we needed any more.
Cllr Golding's letter now follows.
Paul Golding resignation letter
Just been forwarded this via email from my regional organiser:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PRIVATE COMMUNICATION - 16th January 2011
Fellow nationalist,
I am writing to you privately and in a personal capacity because now the dust has settled I thought it both prudent and courteous to give you a brief outline of why I resigned from my position last November. It was a great privilege and honour to work full time for the party and I was always conscious of this, and of the trust vested in me by the members and party officers and my duty towards them - that is why I resigned.
I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what ‘party central’ had become. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to moan about things from the sidelines - please don’t for one minute think that this is what I am doing. I merely want to set a few things straight for the future advancement of this party and the nationalist movement generally, also considering that Nick Griffin has been spreading false reasons why I resigned. I have been forced to set the record straight. I resigned for several reasons, the main ones being:
1) The EU fiasco: I was/am totally dismayed by the amount of time our Chairman spends in the EU parliament, much to the determent of our party overall, and the ‘gravy train’ mentality that now infects the new Solidarity ‘elite’ who have jumped on board the leadership team in more recent months.
It seems that the party now plays a secondary role to Nick Griffin’s European Parliament indulgence. Having our Chairman over in Brussels almost every week, Monday to Thursday (then taking Friday off), has been catastrophic and has lead to serious problems that could have been easily dealt with had Nick been on home soil with his eye on the ball.
Unfortunately, Nick Griffin appears to have lost interest in the day-to-day grind of running the BNP, and has submerged himself in the grandiose – but totally ineffectual – farce that is the European Parliament. A farce, yes, but a very lucrative one, as the attendance and travel allowances involved can net an MEP around an extra £5,000 per month on top of an 80,000 euros annual salary. After years of struggle, Nick is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labours but not at the expense of the party.
2) Clive Jefferson: This man has in a few short months been appointed to the posts of National Elections Officer, National Organiser, National Nominating Officer and National Treasurer. I could see the ‘game plan’ take shape in the summer and warned the Chairman but nothing was done and now we have nearly every senior position held by one man. How can we be taken seriously by the public and the general membership when we have allowed such a farce to occur?
I also see little evidence that Mr. Jefferson is suited to any of the positions he now clings too. As National Organiser, Mr Jefferson has brought about no tangible improvements to our organisation and its functionality; as National Elections Officer, he has presided over the longest and most embarrassing string of mediocre election results in our history; and now this man has been appointed National Treasurer, instead of a suitably qualified individual. He has talked a good talk to the Chairman, but this man has not produced the goods for our party, quite the opposite in fact. The Oldham result being the latest in a long series of Jefferson-created electoral disasters.
Clive’s ineptitude was a key reason for my resignation. I was sickened to watch the highly successful “Bring Our Boys Home” campaign being totally wasted by Mr Jefferson. After the hundreds of activist stalls, after all the hard work and sweat of our members and organisers, after the Communications Department worked hard to produce the leaflet, banner and petition, and organised the promotion of the campaign via email bulletin, website, and organisers’ bulletins, all Clive had to do was to utilise and do something meaningful with the resulting data (around 100,000 names and addresses).
But to date nothing substantial has been done with the data (a few thousand were imputed by Belfast). The 100,000 names and addresses are gathering dust - what a total waste and failure of all our efforts. Any talk of ‘using them for the future’ is pie in the sky, as anyone who understands data handling will tell you, data goes cold very quickly and is rendered useless. The party did at the time, employ data experts working in our own headquarters but through Jefferson’s ineptitude an excellent opportunity, the goodwill of the public and the hard graft of our activists, has been shamefully squandered.
Talk about the new super ‘Alfred’ data system is not even worth commenting on as it is such a fantasy and another hair-brain dream that I do not believe it will ever be a credible election tool while being developed by amateurs (wait for the appeals to finance its so-called development appearing shortly).
Considering the image problem that always hinders our progress, was it wise for the Chairman to have appointed a man like Mr Jefferson who (although never convicted) was a named defendant in a major international drug trafficking trial in 2002 that resulted in lengthy jail sentences for several of his co-defendants, to his multiple senior posts within our party?
Nick Griffin has effectively handed over control of the entire party to Clive Jefferson (and Pat Harrington) – I fear this is so Mr Griffin can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe. This would be half-acceptable if party affairs were sound and in order – but as we are in a crisis, and have been for a long time, Nick’s persistence with his EU trips must raise some serious concerns.
3) Pat Harrington: This man’s involvement with our party has, I believe, been a huge mistake. He is not a member and in fact is the leader of a rival party that has even stood against us. Harrington, his wife, and a group of his Solidarity officials, are now on the European pay roll as ‘researchers’ but in effect Pat is the main decision maker in OUR party and has given Nick some terrible advice in recent months that has, in my opinion, led to the administration and staff management chaos that now prevails.
His track record in nationalist politics is shocking, and those who are old enough will know this and his involvement in the destruction of the National Front, and his roles in the formation of so many other micro-entities that never amount to anything. His amateurish Machiavellian approach to our party was a key feature in my decision to leave my job.
Six months into his job as de-facto staff/party manager, we still have chronic wastage, staff chaos, inefficiency, no contracts (a legal requirement), no staff training and wages not paid and several NEW employment-related court cases looming. Several staff are even complaining that they are employed but haven’t got any work to do. Pat’s interference in our party has been highly corrosive and much of his advice has been farcical and demoralising. Despite all this, Pat and his Solidarity ilk are safe and thriving financially off our party on the secure European payroll. Shameful and disgusting.
I could not and would not abuse the trust of our members by being involved with what I consider a detrimental situation, i.e. a political rival with an unimpressive past effectively taking overall control of the BNP, usurping the authority of our senior officials and presiding over a total management disaster of the party. Again, I fear Nick has brought Pat and his group of useless Solidarity officials in so he can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe.
4) Finances and the treasury department: All I am prepared to say is that after years of presiding over the shambles that is our “treasury”, the person mainly responsible has now been ‘rewarded’ for making us the laughing stock of British politics by being given a secure job in Europe on a safe and generous salary while the financial chaos he caused threatens to destroy everything we have all worked hard to build over the years. Why has this happened?
Again, faced with foreknowledge of this disgusting situation I felt that I had no alternative but to remove myself from this immoral and contemptible charade. I was involved in fundraising for the party, so I know that around £4million was raised over the last three years by the party overall, so what did treasury do with it all considering the crushing debts that we now face? The spin that the party has only £200k worth of debts is wishful thinking and won’t help or assist us in facing up to our REAL liabilities and potentially fatal financial crisis. Action, not spin, is what we need to save the party.
These are the facts and it grieves me to have to admit that I probably should have done the only honourable thing I could have done and resigned sooner. I could say a lot more but it is not my intention to stir up trouble or to be a hindrance to our survival but I do feel strongly that you should be informed of my heartfelt reasons for walking away from a job I felt privileged to do for our party and our people.
I am no rebel and despise those that have worked against the party over the last year but much of our troubles could have been avoided. I fought hard against the rebels last year and will fight again if our party is attacked by the same nefarious elements, but enough is enough, things need to change now if the BNP is to survive as a credible political party.
Recently, it has come to my intention that certain individuals are trying to have me expelled from the party and withdraw the whip from me as a BNP councillor out of hatred and spite. I cherish my BNP membership and will use every means available to protect myself and remain a member of the party.
Paul Golding
Former BNP Communications Officer
"There, there, dear - of course you're still the leader"
Griffin, regardless of his good work for the BNP in the past, is clearly now the greatest liability the party has, and the root cause of all its current woes. Power and cupidity appear to have corrupted any decency and integrity he may once have possessed.
He appears to be losing touch with reality, and to be in a state of denial. No doubt his having surrounded himself with a kitchen cabinet of depraved and slavish sycophants, who merely parrot what it is they know their master wishes to hear, instead of speaking the truth, has helped to reduce him to this pitiable state.
From now on his words should be viewed with profound scepticism, though he should be humoured up to a point, in the way that one would make certain allowances for the mentally disordered.
The one thing that the BNP needs now, more than anything else, is a new leader.
Any genuinely ethno-nationalist member of the party, untainted by Griffin's corruption, would be a significant improvement.
He appears to be losing touch with reality, and to be in a state of denial. No doubt his having surrounded himself with a kitchen cabinet of depraved and slavish sycophants, who merely parrot what it is they know their master wishes to hear, instead of speaking the truth, has helped to reduce him to this pitiable state.
From now on his words should be viewed with profound scepticism, though he should be humoured up to a point, in the way that one would make certain allowances for the mentally disordered.
The one thing that the BNP needs now, more than anything else, is a new leader.
Any genuinely ethno-nationalist member of the party, untainted by Griffin's corruption, would be a significant improvement.
Griffin rats on his old mates - again
The following post was published on the Final Conflict web site in reply to Griffin's New Year message of 2008, at a time when the British National Party was convulsed by a split which was not, contrary to Griffin's tendentious claim, about ideology, or policy, but, like the current split, about organization and management.
While re-publication of the post here should not be taken to imply agreement with the entirety of the ideological world view of Final Conflict, or of Blood and Honour, it should be seen as fair comment on a matter of public interest: the character and integrity of a British MEP, and the leader of a British political party.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
BNP Boss Attacks Blood & Honour
The BNP leader has lost the plot.
In his "New Year message" he makes up all kinds of conspiracies, but central to which he attacks:
"Blood & Honour skinheads who Kenny Smith and Sadie Graham invite to their ‘socials’, want to bring back into the party, and use to try to intimidate decent nationalists".
and
"Great White Records operation precisely because it is moving nationalist music on from the grim, raucous, counter-productive hatred of the old neo-Nazi Blood & Honour"
I would say a couple of things:
1. Will Mr. Griffin now demand that the adverts that appear in every issue of B&H magazine promoting the BNP are dropped? There's also the "neo-nazi" League of St George magazine too...
2. Will Mr. Griffin stop collections being taken and BNP papers being sold at B&H concerts and socials?
3. Will Mr. Griffin stop BNP members, organisers etc. attending B&H events - and ask those who are members of B&H bands to quit the BNP or B&H?
Mr. Griffin is pandering to liberals and the Zionist press with this outburst.
a. B&H supporters have provided the BNP with good activists and security.
b. B&H supporters have stood as BNP candidates and done much of the "donkey work" - indeed in some areas security has been carried out by British Movement and Third Positionists when requested by local BNP organisers.
c. To call B&H music "grim" is to display a great ignorance of the range of B&H music which includes music as wide and varied as folkish, Heavy Metal, Oi, Rock, ballads etc. It may not all be everyone's cup of tea, but there are some superb musicians from many genres involved.
No doubt there is more money to be gained via defending race-mixing and attacking "anti-Semitism" these days...
Let's hope this latest outburst isn't shrugged off as yet more "softly softly catchee monkey" because after 7 years of churning out increasingly liberal and Searchlight-sounding invective against other nationalists (he likes to condemn those outside the BNP who comment on his sell-out, yet is quick to smear other nationalists -- remember his personal leaflet, with the Welshpool PO Box, put out slagging off the NF and BM?) how long before people wake and smell the (kosher) coffee?
After all how many times can nationalists be (verbally) punched in the face by a man more interested in sucking up to race-mixers, practicing [homosexuals] and neo-con journalists before they react in kind?
While re-publication of the post here should not be taken to imply agreement with the entirety of the ideological world view of Final Conflict, or of Blood and Honour, it should be seen as fair comment on a matter of public interest: the character and integrity of a British MEP, and the leader of a British political party.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
BNP Boss Attacks Blood & Honour
The BNP leader has lost the plot.
In his "New Year message" he makes up all kinds of conspiracies, but central to which he attacks:
"Blood & Honour skinheads who Kenny Smith and Sadie Graham invite to their ‘socials’, want to bring back into the party, and use to try to intimidate decent nationalists".
and
"Great White Records operation precisely because it is moving nationalist music on from the grim, raucous, counter-productive hatred of the old neo-Nazi Blood & Honour"
I would say a couple of things:
1. Will Mr. Griffin now demand that the adverts that appear in every issue of B&H magazine promoting the BNP are dropped? There's also the "neo-nazi" League of St George magazine too...
2. Will Mr. Griffin stop collections being taken and BNP papers being sold at B&H concerts and socials?
3. Will Mr. Griffin stop BNP members, organisers etc. attending B&H events - and ask those who are members of B&H bands to quit the BNP or B&H?
Mr. Griffin is pandering to liberals and the Zionist press with this outburst.
a. B&H supporters have provided the BNP with good activists and security.
b. B&H supporters have stood as BNP candidates and done much of the "donkey work" - indeed in some areas security has been carried out by British Movement and Third Positionists when requested by local BNP organisers.
c. To call B&H music "grim" is to display a great ignorance of the range of B&H music which includes music as wide and varied as folkish, Heavy Metal, Oi, Rock, ballads etc. It may not all be everyone's cup of tea, but there are some superb musicians from many genres involved.
No doubt there is more money to be gained via defending race-mixing and attacking "anti-Semitism" these days...
Let's hope this latest outburst isn't shrugged off as yet more "softly softly catchee monkey" because after 7 years of churning out increasingly liberal and Searchlight-sounding invective against other nationalists (he likes to condemn those outside the BNP who comment on his sell-out, yet is quick to smear other nationalists -- remember his personal leaflet, with the Welshpool PO Box, put out slagging off the NF and BM?) how long before people wake and smell the (kosher) coffee?
After all how many times can nationalists be (verbally) punched in the face by a man more interested in sucking up to race-mixers, practicing [homosexuals] and neo-con journalists before they react in kind?
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Gilligan's island
Andrew Gilligan, whom some may remember for an inability to control his temper when interviewing a Scientologist, on camera, provides his take on the Muslim paedophile gang cover-up scandal.
Gilligan cites an isolated campaign by a single LOCAL newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, in 2006-07, as evidence that the media were not involved in a conspiracy of silence for the last decade, as the British National Party rightly asserts.
What an insult to the intelligence!
Gilligan's hypocritical apologia for the rest of the vile media now follows.
Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, claims that some Pakistani men see young white women as prime targets for sexual grooming. Is he right, asks Andrew Gilligan?
If you want an example of the official “conspiracy of silence” that has allegedly allowed hundreds of vulnerable white girls in some towns to be abused by Asian men, the case of Ajmal Mohammed, a 43-year-old from Blackburn, might seem to be it. In 2004, Mohammed, an amateur cricketer in the Ribblesdale league, took a schoolgirl to a Manchester hotel room and got her drunk – to celebrate, he said, her 14th birthday. The child ran away. Police were called, but he denied having sex with her and they issued him with a “child abduction warning letter”. He was never prosecuted.
Two years later, Mohammed took another 14-year-old to a hotel room, this time in Blackpool – and this time he raped her. When the police came for him, they found the numbers of six other vulnerable youngsters on his mobile phone.
In industrial towns across the North and the Midlands, over the past three years, at least 51 people have been convicted in trials involving groups of men who have picked up young girls for sexual exploitation. Forty-eight of the offenders were Asian; the vast majority of the victims were white. Last week, in Derby, nine men, eight of them Asian, were sentenced for their parts in a gang that groomed, sexually exploited and in some cases raped 27 local children, 22 of them white.
The issue exploded on to the national agenda on Friday after Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary who is also MP for Blackburn, said that in his town, some Pakistani men saw white girls as “easy meat”. There was, he said, “a specific problem of Pakistani-heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls, and we need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani-heritage men thinking it’s OK to target white girls in this way”.
Many other figures involved in this field have fought shy. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, initially described the evidence as merely “anecdotal”. A Channel 4 documentary on the subject in 2004 was pulled at the request of police. Few experts were willing to talk openly yesterday.
Yet as early as 2006, Blackburn’s local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, launched a “Keep Them Safe” campaign to make the authorities tackle what it called “sexual grooming and abduction […] which predominantly involves Asian men”. In article after article, the paper charted locals’ frustration at officialdom’s reluctance to get involved: in 2007, it reported, the parents of some victims even threatened to sue the police for their failure to act. The editor, Kevin Young, said: “This is an extremely sensitive subject, and the Telegraph gave it a lot of consideration before launching its campaign.”
In response, in 2008, Lancashire police and Blackburn social services set up Operation Engage. By March last year, it had offered protection to some 385 girls and young women. Similar operations have sprung up in Preston and other nearby towns. Some schools in East Lancashire now offer their female pupils lessons in “how to spot a sexual groomer”.
There could, of course, hardly be a more emotive story than this. Sexual abuse! White girls! Pakistani men! Politically-correct establishment letting it all happen! No wonder the BNP has been licking its lips [sic] (though, unfortunately for them, the only two white Blackburn people recently convicted of this crime, in November 2008, turned out to be members of the party) [who were promptly expelled from the party, AE].
Yet just because the BNP exploits an issue, does not mean there is nothing in it. The questions really should be: is it simply a local problem in those towns? What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities? And what, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?
Sadly for the racists [sic], the figures just do not support any attempt to paint British Muslims and Asians as sex predators on a national scale. Asians are, in fact, under-represented among sex offenders. As at June 2009, there were 7,021 British men in prison for sex crimes, of whom only 234 were Asian. That is 3.3 per cent, rather less than the proportion of Asians in the population. And a 2008 study by Malcolm Cowburn of Sheffield Hallam University found that jailed sex criminals from ethnic minorities were less likely to have abused children than white sex offenders.
Haras Rafique, of the Centri counter-extremism think tank, says: “There is a problem, a massive problem, but I don’t think it’s confined to Pakistani communities. It only appears to be a bigger problem with immigrants because immigrants are more visible.”
And not just because of their skin colour. Asians do not commit more sex crimes, but they do, perhaps, commit different sorts of sex crimes. White child abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in private, on the internet. The evidence suggests that Asian abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in public, on the street.
Straw says young men “fizzing and popping with testosterone” are taking up with white children because “Pakistani-heritage girls are off limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan”. Rafique says the former Home Secretary is living in the 1970s: “These guys are just as happy to groom Asian girls if they can get them,” he says. “It’s just that the parents of Asian girls tend to keep a closer eye on them.” Quite a lot of those convicted are also in their 30s.
One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate. Only two weeks ago, the East London Mosque, the largest mosque in Britain’s largest Muslim community, held an event condemning “child-rearing in the Western context” as a “social ill”.
This mosque, and many others, has also hosted events condemning music, immodest dress and the wearing of perfume. A young Muslim man brought up on that sort of diet is less likely to treat a white girl in a short skirt with respect.
But the East London Mosque, and many other such havens of hatred and extremism, was, at least until recently, treated by the white political establishment as a respectable, mainstream institution. And that brings us to the sense of denial by some white liberals, and their refusal to hold Muslims to the standards they expect in others.
Last year, this newspaper told how more than £100,000 of public money was paid to two schools with connections to the racist, extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir – the Muslim equivalent of the BNP [sic]. The headmistress of one described English as “the most dangerous subject a school can teach”. If the BNP had been given public money to run schools, it would have been stopped. But the then schools secretary, Ed Balls, defended the payments.
Many other parts of the British state, from Ofsted to the Charity Commission, have been less than willing to confront prima facie evidence of extremism and intolerance, often to the frustration of Muslims themselves. Even last week, one Guardian columnist dismissed the Muslim grooming claims as “part of the ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country”.
Even though sex crimes committed by Pakistanis may be no more prevalent than those committed by people of any other race, that still leaves the question of whether those crimes are being less effectively tackled by the authorities. Some might argue that the relative lack of Asian sex offenders in prison reflects the authorities’ relative unwillingness to pursue Asian sex offenders.
Criminologists say that that is probably not the explanation. But as with any offenders of any race, people commit crime more if they think they can get away with it. And in the eyes of many people in East Lancashire, there was, at least until recently, a willingness to let Pakistani offenders get away with it, for fear of being accused of racism. The danger, of course, is that that stokes the very bigotry it seeks to avoid [sic].
The lesson from Blackburn, however, is that if the problem is brought out into the open, it can be addressed. Since the local paper’s campaign, and the establishment of Operation Engage, there have been 63 charges, a number of convictions and, apparently, a deterrent effect: according to Engage’s co-ordinator, 80 per cent of the cases they now deal with (albeit on a broader front than merely street grooming) do not involve Pakistanis.
Last night, in the inevitable political row, some of the usual suspects accused Straw of “stereotyping a whole community”. But this subject does not have to become a racial melodrama; it is, principally, a crime. We can tackle it – but first we have to start talking about it.
Telegraph
Gilligan cites an isolated campaign by a single LOCAL newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, in 2006-07, as evidence that the media were not involved in a conspiracy of silence for the last decade, as the British National Party rightly asserts.
What an insult to the intelligence!
Gilligan's hypocritical apologia for the rest of the vile media now follows.
Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, claims that some Pakistani men see young white women as prime targets for sexual grooming. Is he right, asks Andrew Gilligan?
If you want an example of the official “conspiracy of silence” that has allegedly allowed hundreds of vulnerable white girls in some towns to be abused by Asian men, the case of Ajmal Mohammed, a 43-year-old from Blackburn, might seem to be it. In 2004, Mohammed, an amateur cricketer in the Ribblesdale league, took a schoolgirl to a Manchester hotel room and got her drunk – to celebrate, he said, her 14th birthday. The child ran away. Police were called, but he denied having sex with her and they issued him with a “child abduction warning letter”. He was never prosecuted.
Two years later, Mohammed took another 14-year-old to a hotel room, this time in Blackpool – and this time he raped her. When the police came for him, they found the numbers of six other vulnerable youngsters on his mobile phone.
In industrial towns across the North and the Midlands, over the past three years, at least 51 people have been convicted in trials involving groups of men who have picked up young girls for sexual exploitation. Forty-eight of the offenders were Asian; the vast majority of the victims were white. Last week, in Derby, nine men, eight of them Asian, were sentenced for their parts in a gang that groomed, sexually exploited and in some cases raped 27 local children, 22 of them white.
The issue exploded on to the national agenda on Friday after Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary who is also MP for Blackburn, said that in his town, some Pakistani men saw white girls as “easy meat”. There was, he said, “a specific problem of Pakistani-heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls, and we need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani-heritage men thinking it’s OK to target white girls in this way”.
Many other figures involved in this field have fought shy. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, initially described the evidence as merely “anecdotal”. A Channel 4 documentary on the subject in 2004 was pulled at the request of police. Few experts were willing to talk openly yesterday.
Yet as early as 2006, Blackburn’s local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, launched a “Keep Them Safe” campaign to make the authorities tackle what it called “sexual grooming and abduction […] which predominantly involves Asian men”. In article after article, the paper charted locals’ frustration at officialdom’s reluctance to get involved: in 2007, it reported, the parents of some victims even threatened to sue the police for their failure to act. The editor, Kevin Young, said: “This is an extremely sensitive subject, and the Telegraph gave it a lot of consideration before launching its campaign.”
In response, in 2008, Lancashire police and Blackburn social services set up Operation Engage. By March last year, it had offered protection to some 385 girls and young women. Similar operations have sprung up in Preston and other nearby towns. Some schools in East Lancashire now offer their female pupils lessons in “how to spot a sexual groomer”.
There could, of course, hardly be a more emotive story than this. Sexual abuse! White girls! Pakistani men! Politically-correct establishment letting it all happen! No wonder the BNP has been licking its lips [sic] (though, unfortunately for them, the only two white Blackburn people recently convicted of this crime, in November 2008, turned out to be members of the party) [who were promptly expelled from the party, AE].
Yet just because the BNP exploits an issue, does not mean there is nothing in it. The questions really should be: is it simply a local problem in those towns? What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities? And what, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?
Sadly for the racists [sic], the figures just do not support any attempt to paint British Muslims and Asians as sex predators on a national scale. Asians are, in fact, under-represented among sex offenders. As at June 2009, there were 7,021 British men in prison for sex crimes, of whom only 234 were Asian. That is 3.3 per cent, rather less than the proportion of Asians in the population. And a 2008 study by Malcolm Cowburn of Sheffield Hallam University found that jailed sex criminals from ethnic minorities were less likely to have abused children than white sex offenders.
Haras Rafique, of the Centri counter-extremism think tank, says: “There is a problem, a massive problem, but I don’t think it’s confined to Pakistani communities. It only appears to be a bigger problem with immigrants because immigrants are more visible.”
And not just because of their skin colour. Asians do not commit more sex crimes, but they do, perhaps, commit different sorts of sex crimes. White child abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in private, on the internet. The evidence suggests that Asian abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in public, on the street.
Straw says young men “fizzing and popping with testosterone” are taking up with white children because “Pakistani-heritage girls are off limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan”. Rafique says the former Home Secretary is living in the 1970s: “These guys are just as happy to groom Asian girls if they can get them,” he says. “It’s just that the parents of Asian girls tend to keep a closer eye on them.” Quite a lot of those convicted are also in their 30s.
One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate. Only two weeks ago, the East London Mosque, the largest mosque in Britain’s largest Muslim community, held an event condemning “child-rearing in the Western context” as a “social ill”.
This mosque, and many others, has also hosted events condemning music, immodest dress and the wearing of perfume. A young Muslim man brought up on that sort of diet is less likely to treat a white girl in a short skirt with respect.
But the East London Mosque, and many other such havens of hatred and extremism, was, at least until recently, treated by the white political establishment as a respectable, mainstream institution. And that brings us to the sense of denial by some white liberals, and their refusal to hold Muslims to the standards they expect in others.
Last year, this newspaper told how more than £100,000 of public money was paid to two schools with connections to the racist, extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir – the Muslim equivalent of the BNP [sic]. The headmistress of one described English as “the most dangerous subject a school can teach”. If the BNP had been given public money to run schools, it would have been stopped. But the then schools secretary, Ed Balls, defended the payments.
Many other parts of the British state, from Ofsted to the Charity Commission, have been less than willing to confront prima facie evidence of extremism and intolerance, often to the frustration of Muslims themselves. Even last week, one Guardian columnist dismissed the Muslim grooming claims as “part of the ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country”.
Even though sex crimes committed by Pakistanis may be no more prevalent than those committed by people of any other race, that still leaves the question of whether those crimes are being less effectively tackled by the authorities. Some might argue that the relative lack of Asian sex offenders in prison reflects the authorities’ relative unwillingness to pursue Asian sex offenders.
Criminologists say that that is probably not the explanation. But as with any offenders of any race, people commit crime more if they think they can get away with it. And in the eyes of many people in East Lancashire, there was, at least until recently, a willingness to let Pakistani offenders get away with it, for fear of being accused of racism. The danger, of course, is that that stokes the very bigotry it seeks to avoid [sic].
The lesson from Blackburn, however, is that if the problem is brought out into the open, it can be addressed. Since the local paper’s campaign, and the establishment of Operation Engage, there have been 63 charges, a number of convictions and, apparently, a deterrent effect: according to Engage’s co-ordinator, 80 per cent of the cases they now deal with (albeit on a broader front than merely street grooming) do not involve Pakistanis.
Last night, in the inevitable political row, some of the usual suspects accused Straw of “stereotyping a whole community”. But this subject does not have to become a racial melodrama; it is, principally, a crime. We can tackle it – but first we have to start talking about it.
Telegraph
By accident or design?
The following post was recently published on the Northwest nationalists web site.
While re-publishing one of their posts, with due attribution, does not in any way imply agreement with, or support for, the entirety of their ideological outlook, or world view, I am in agreement with them in their evaluation of the lessons to be learnt from a re-reading, or in the case of many no doubt, a first reading, of John Tyndall's pellucid polemic.
Indeed, the writings of this great British nationalist seem almost more relevant today then when they were first written.
The NWN post now follows.
Is Nick Griffin 'working for the State', or is he just an absolute loser in everything he does ?
After the debacle of last nights result in Oldham, we must ask if Mr.Griffin is just constantly accident prone, and always has been, or is it something much more sinister ?
Perhaps if we look back at some information we might get a better picture.
On the 18th.February 1999, the Metropolitan Police said that; "intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party". And also; "Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations...".
Later that year Mr.Griffin launched his plan to hijack the BNP.
The BNP has been gutted and just about destroyed. Expulsions and promotion of 'deadbeats' has become the norm, but of course Nick Griffin has done all this before ! He helped to destroy the NF in the late 1980's together with his chum Patrick Harrington.
DEJA VU ?
Because we at NWN have seen Mr.Griffins 'mad cap antics' before.
Now might be a good time to have another look at the article written by the late John Tyndall, in his magazine SPEARHEAD of January 2005, not too long before Mr.Tyndall died.
We copy most of that article below, as it needs to be kept at the forefront of our thoughts as to what just has been going on in the BNP, and to make sense of it all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enemy Finger in the Pie
John Tyndall asks: Is the BNP infiltrated by hostile agents?
A study of the history of Nick Griffin's involvement in nationalist politics indicates that he gets rather a kick out of expelling people – or, if not that, proscribing them – which amounts to almost the same thing. In our October 2003 issue we took a look at a document titled Attempted Murder, of which Mr. Griffin was the main author. This chronicled the internal quarrels that convulsed the National Front in 1986, in which he (Griffin) stood right at the centre. As a sample of paranoia it takes some beating; and it should be studied by everyone who wants to arrive at some understanding of the troubles now besetting the BNP. Attempted Murder can be read online at www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html
But this would only touch at the surface of these troubles. There is much more that is needed to explain what is now going on in our party than the personality of Chairman Nick. We need to step back for a moment and focus on the bigger picture. This is important because, from the many letters and e-mails that I receive from nationalists around the country, I sense that an awful lot of people are utterly confused. The political climate in Britain is now more favourable to us than it has ever been. Despite the disappointments of last June's round of elections, both European and municipal, we are still getting some hugely encouraging votes. We should be on the crest of a wave of high morale and optimism, with our ranks united and our tails up. Yet the BNP is racked with internal division and widespread demoralisation – a truth which is only superficially concealed by the upbeat 'spin' that comes from official publications and bulletins.
Suspensions and expulsions
Right now, one of the party's best organisers in the South of England is under suspension, with his branch virtually in a state of limbo – only a probable five months from a vital general election. Another excellent organiser, in the East Midlands, has just been expelled (welcome to the club!). A leading activist in the London area only reported to me just before Christmas the alarming state of dissatisfaction among members throughout the capital and its suburbs. Just what is happening?
I will endeavour to give my own up-to-date 'take' on the situation. It is one which necessarily requires a certain amount of repetition, over which I hope readers will bear with me. The repetition must begin with some words quoted in these pages in our March 1999 issue. They come from a report in The Express newspaper published on 18th February of that year, and they read:-
'Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.
'Other officers will tap telephones, open mail and scrutinise bank accounts and medical records. "We plan to close down these organizations by using every administrative device available to us," said a Yard source.'
I believe that we must constantly keep these words in the forefront of our minds if we are to make sense of what has been happening to our party in the near six years that have followed. And it is perhaps the right place and moment for a further quote:-
'More recently, as the National Front declined to a mere rump, the British National Party (BNP) has been seen as more dangerous. By the early 1990s MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents inside the BNP.'
These words come from a book Defending the Realm, by Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, published by Andre Deutsch in 1999. I have no way of ascertaining the sources of the writers' information, but I have to presume that they carried out considerable research into the workings of MI5, the establishment's main internal security service, and would have had no reason to invent their claim. They are almost certainly no friends of the BNP and would not have made it to do us any favours.
This aside, the claim gives all the appearance of fitting logically into the picture of what has been happening in the party. Taken in conjunction with the words of the Scotland Yard spokesman reported in The Express newspaper, they present a scenario that should at once sound loud warning bells and enlighten us as to what our enemies are doing. For myself, I can see no rhyme nor reason in the conflicts we have had in the BNP without such forces at work – and this applies not only to our party but to other nationalist organizations, past and present, where similar internal trouble has been constantly visible. In one case, in the National Front in the 1970s, I was able to observe the same pattern: recurring internecine quarrels and splits, which seemed to break out not when there was organisational and political failure but at the moments of greatest success, when in theory morale should have been high and unity at its strongest.
Internal subversion
These experiences of years ago led me to give a good deal of study and thought to the question of internal subversion of dissident political groups carried out by the state and other hostile agencies. The phenomenon is not new, and it is not confined to Britain; in fact it has been a recognised technique of political warfare for centuries. Neither should we imagine that it targets only our side of the political spectrum. The writers of Defending the Realm affirm that it is practised also against radical left-wing organisations, most notably of all the IRA but also cranky fringe groups like the Socialist Workers' Party.
The infiltrator is an animal of which most nationalists are aware, but many have only the sketchiest idea of his chief function. There is often talk of 'enemy plants' working to get inside information, but where this occurs it is only for the purpose of that information being used in much more destructive designs. At the end of the day, nationalist political parties like the BNP are absolutely legal: unlike terrorist groups, they have nothing to hide. Not a single one of their activities is secret. The infiltrator, whether state or other, can obtain no information about these activities that his controllers do not already know about because of their completely open nature.
The principal function of the infiltrator in a nationalist political group that operates within the law (and nearly all do) is to promote internal sabotage. This can best be done by encouraging the formation of rival factions, in conflict with one another over matters of leadership or policy. Here there is almost always ready-made fuel for the saboteur.
Radical organisations tend by their nature to be fractious. They attract individuals with strong opinions, sometimes amounting to obsessions. This fractiousness is most common on the left, where ideological arguments that would appear to us ridiculously nit-picking in their proportions can become the subject of passionate and raging quarrels. On our side of politics conflicts of this kind are less common, though far from unknown. In the early to mid-1980s a group gained ascendancy in the National Front which pushed hard and persistently for the adoption of what came to be known as 'Strasserite' policies. This appellation was taken from a rebel faction in Hitler's National Socialist Party in Germany led by the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, which sought to combine a kind of civic Nationalism with social and economic doctrines that were little short of Bolshevism.
At the time all this was happening, I and people of like mind to me had parted company with the official Front over matters in no way connected with it, but we were still hoping for the fractured marriage to be repaired and the party united again. I noted that those most vociferous in their advocacy of the 'Strasser' line of thought were the most obdurately resistant to such a reunification, resorting to ideological pettifogging as an excuse for their self-entrenchment rather than focusing on the bigger picture. At the time I thought of them, politically speaking, as immature schoolboys who had a lot of growing up to do: their political ideas were shallow, sloppily thought out and very easy to demolish in debate. What I did not consider seriously enough then – though I did later – was that there could be some method in their evident silliness, and that 'Strasserite' politics could well have been some skilfully conceived wedge driven into the remnants of the former NF in order to ensure its continued division.
Unnecessary divide
However, a more obvious and easily available pretext for division within nationalism has always been the disagreement between what, for simplification, we might call the 'hard-liners' and the 'modernisers' within the movement. I have always regarded this conflict as grossly exaggerated in substance and wholly unnecessary when measured beside the strategic imperatives confronting us.
In all politics there is the ever-present debate as to ways and means: whether to present objectives in strident, uncompromising tones or to employ the 'soft sell', the soothing, moderately worded approach that will encounter the fewest objectors. To a great extent, divisions over these matters are rooted in the differing personal characters of those who argue them. There are those of the born warrior outlook, who will tend naturally towards the fighting approach which brooks no compromise; and there are the natural conciliators, who will forever be seeking gentler methods because their temperaments can conceive no other way.
I have long believed that the course of practical politics demands a fusion of the two instincts: that of the fighter and that of the diplomat, wisdom lying in recognising the moments and situations in which one or the other is called for, and deciding accordingly. A movement with an excess of warrior qualities over the qualities of the conciliator will rush blindly into political action that is often ill-conceived and self-destructive, while one in which these attributes exist in reverse measure will atrophy and wither on the vine because of a shortage of courage, motivation and will.
When all is said and done, I believe that it has to be the code and approach of the fighter that must prevail over that of the conciliator; but the fighter must be one with the discernment to accept the need for conciliatory methods when the situation calls for them. Here we who like to think of ourselves as fighters must be aware of instincts within us which sometimes need curbing, and to curb them when required. Here we have the fusion that makes for the soldier-politician, of whom Caesar, Napoleon and Marlborough were outstanding examples.
On the other hand, human nature being what it is, it is only rarely that life's born conciliators can overcome their innermost instincts and face a real fight when fighting is the only option.
And as with individuals, it is the same with ideologies, which tend to conform to individual bent. An ideology of firmness and strength should be able to incorporate the gentler virtues and practise them when needs demand. But an ideology rooted in weakness can never summon firmness and strength that simply are not there.
Recipe for splits
This is a bit of a diversion but, I hope, a useful one in identifying potential sources of conflict in a political movement. Between people of goodwill there is reasoned thought and discussion over the respective tactical viewpoints; but to the would-be wrecker these viewpoints, instead of being reconciled in synthesis, present a perfect recipe for internal quarrels resulting in factions and splits.
Again and again, I have seen this happen in nationalist organisations; and again and again I have come to the conclusion that somewhere, in each case, there is an external agency stoking the fires of conflict where common sense, and a focus on the greater common good, could have avoided it. I believe that just such an external agency – indeed more than just one – has been present in the divisions which over recent years have convulsed the British National Party.
It is at this point that we should focus on a third type that is to be found in organisations. This type has instincts neither towards the 'hard-line' nor gentler approach but is in the struggle for essentially egotistical reasons – and sometimes also mercenary ones. To this type, arguments about 'hard-line' or 'soft-line' politics have only one utility and criterion: do they advance or retard his own personal ambitions and personal faction? He can be at one moment the hard-line fundamentalist and the very next moment the soft-line 'moderniser' according to tactical requirements – the tactical requirements being not those of the party but purely his own.
This type, again, is putty in the hands of the would-be wrecker. His ego and ambition can be so easily exploited by cunning manipulation which sets him against others with whom he should be working in dedication to a common cause.
Mysterious new arrivals
Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?
Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called 'modernising' faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.
In what limited contact I had with these people one thing struck me vividly. Their arrogance and conviction in the rightness of their attitudes was astounding. Most of them were young enough to be my children and some even my grandchildren. Their practical experience of the nationalist struggle was at an apprentice level. Yet they spoke to me about political ideology and tactics as if they were experienced achievers with battle honours under their belts and I a young lad just out of school. Just where had they learned all this stuff? At an MI5 training college perhaps? Or were they just wired up that way? One of these explanations is not necessarily exclusive of the other.
In previous articles I have focused on the various policy and presentational gimmicks that have been employed allegedly with the object of making the BNP more 'electable': a Sikh newspaper columnist; a Jewish candidate (and later councillor); an Asian spokesman on a TV party political broadcast; declarations that the party would be satisfied with the permanent presence of ethnic minorities in Britain, providing there were not too many of them. I could go on.
I have never believed that these innovations make more than 0.01 per cent difference either to our election results or to our recruitment. On the other hand, they have been hugely divisive to the party internally, with large numbers of members, including some of our best activists, quitting it in disgust. Is this just folly – the lack of intelligent political calculation of gain and loss? Or is it deliberate – a quite cynical manoeuvre aimed at alienating the genuine nationalists within and without and turning the BNP into nothing better than a neutered Tory pressure group? I am in no doubt myself as to the answer to these questions. I hope that what is written here will lead others to think about them seriously. Let us remember the words of the 'Yard source' back in 1999. "We plan to close down these organisations..." One way to close down an organisation is to divide it into fragments which, separately, exert almost zero influence in national politics. This was what happened to the National Front at the end of the 1970s. Is it the strategy now being pursued with regard to the BNP? There is a great deal of evidence – albeit admittedly circumstantial – that it is.
I have spoken earlier of the sacking and suspension of excellent organisers and branches. If this is not intended as a deliberate act of sabotage of the party, it most certainly is operating to that effect. The pretext for this orgy of purges is the need to maintain internal party discipline. Well, there is no one more firmly committed to the principle of internal party discipline than I. But in an organisation of volunteers – very different from a branch of the armed forces – discipline cannot be imposed by bullying and coercion; it must be maintained with prudence and must begin with its ultimate arbiter – the top party leadership – winning respect and being seen to apply it disinterestedly and with a view solely to the party's welfare. This simply has not been happening in the BNP. Certain people have been 'chopped' on purported disciplinary grounds, while others much more deserving of disciplinary action have been allowed to get away with almost anything they like – providing they show loyalty and willing subservience to the people currently in control. This is not a recipe for order in the party; it is one for self-destruction. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Financial gravy train
It is the time now to take another look at the BNP's quite ludicrously inflated wage bill. I have asked the questions before: Who is being paid and how much? And whence is coming the money to keep this gravy train on the rails? The people bidding to take over the party in 1999 made one of their main campaigning issues a demand for transparency and accountability in the handling of party finances. Yet these present questions continue to be shrouded in secrecy. Why?
I would suggest that the overriding reason for the payments that are being doled out to so many party functionaries is that they are intended to keep them subservient and acquiescent in the numerous outrageous policy decisions that have been made over the past few years and a few examples of which I have highlighted. In any other circumstances there would have been a palace revolt at the top of the party, with numerous senior officers simply not being willing to accept what has been going on. Yet there has been an almost indecent compliance. Could it be that when promptings of rebellion come from the inner conscience a self-reminder about bread-and-butter dependency stiffle the urge. Thoughts about the mortgage or instalments on the motor car act as a brake on protest.
I would strongly urge those in receipt of these emoluments to examine their consciences again. Can they reconcile their positions with personal honour and self-respect? Can they with sincerity condemn the 'bought' politicians of the established parties when they have their feet planted on the same path?
And I ask again: where is the money coming from? I remind those in control of their previous clamour for transparency. Where is the transparency here?
No to new party!
As I write these words, many still urge me to take the lead in forming a new party. As has happened in the past, I refuse to take that step. All previous experience counsels against it. Indeed I am convinced that it has been the intention and hope that I would launch and lead a breakaway movement from the BNP that explains so much of what has been happening – both to the party itself and to me personally. But I simply do not intend to play these people's game. The name of the game is divide-and-conquer. It made Nationalism in Britain impotent for so many years. It is the hope and prayer of those who seek to keep things this way.
And just as I would be playing our enemies' game by consenting to the setting up of a breakaway party, so also are those who on grounds of principle and protest have let their party subscriptions lapse, and have thus disenfranchised themselves with regard to action for internal change. If you aren't a member you can't vote. And if you can't vote you're going to leave things as they are. Here I risk offending some of my staunchest friends and allies by saying that this kind of abstention boils down to a form of self-indulgence. It is precisely what is wanted by the people who are steering the BNP – whether by intention or under manipulative forces of which they have no knowledge – to self-destruction. You may not like sending these people money at renewal time. Nor do I. But it is an utterly necessary procedure if the BNP is to be saved.
With these thoughts I wish a happy new year to all those genuinely devoted to the cause of race and nation.
John Tyndall
BNP leader, 1982-1999
http://www.spearhead.com/0501-jt3.html
While re-publishing one of their posts, with due attribution, does not in any way imply agreement with, or support for, the entirety of their ideological outlook, or world view, I am in agreement with them in their evaluation of the lessons to be learnt from a re-reading, or in the case of many no doubt, a first reading, of John Tyndall's pellucid polemic.
Indeed, the writings of this great British nationalist seem almost more relevant today then when they were first written.
The NWN post now follows.
Is Nick Griffin 'working for the State', or is he just an absolute loser in everything he does ?
After the debacle of last nights result in Oldham, we must ask if Mr.Griffin is just constantly accident prone, and always has been, or is it something much more sinister ?
Perhaps if we look back at some information we might get a better picture.
On the 18th.February 1999, the Metropolitan Police said that; "intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party". And also; "Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations...".
Later that year Mr.Griffin launched his plan to hijack the BNP.
The BNP has been gutted and just about destroyed. Expulsions and promotion of 'deadbeats' has become the norm, but of course Nick Griffin has done all this before ! He helped to destroy the NF in the late 1980's together with his chum Patrick Harrington.
DEJA VU ?
Because we at NWN have seen Mr.Griffins 'mad cap antics' before.
Now might be a good time to have another look at the article written by the late John Tyndall, in his magazine SPEARHEAD of January 2005, not too long before Mr.Tyndall died.
We copy most of that article below, as it needs to be kept at the forefront of our thoughts as to what just has been going on in the BNP, and to make sense of it all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enemy Finger in the Pie
John Tyndall asks: Is the BNP infiltrated by hostile agents?
A study of the history of Nick Griffin's involvement in nationalist politics indicates that he gets rather a kick out of expelling people – or, if not that, proscribing them – which amounts to almost the same thing. In our October 2003 issue we took a look at a document titled Attempted Murder, of which Mr. Griffin was the main author. This chronicled the internal quarrels that convulsed the National Front in 1986, in which he (Griffin) stood right at the centre. As a sample of paranoia it takes some beating; and it should be studied by everyone who wants to arrive at some understanding of the troubles now besetting the BNP. Attempted Murder can be read online at www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html
But this would only touch at the surface of these troubles. There is much more that is needed to explain what is now going on in our party than the personality of Chairman Nick. We need to step back for a moment and focus on the bigger picture. This is important because, from the many letters and e-mails that I receive from nationalists around the country, I sense that an awful lot of people are utterly confused. The political climate in Britain is now more favourable to us than it has ever been. Despite the disappointments of last June's round of elections, both European and municipal, we are still getting some hugely encouraging votes. We should be on the crest of a wave of high morale and optimism, with our ranks united and our tails up. Yet the BNP is racked with internal division and widespread demoralisation – a truth which is only superficially concealed by the upbeat 'spin' that comes from official publications and bulletins.
Suspensions and expulsions
Right now, one of the party's best organisers in the South of England is under suspension, with his branch virtually in a state of limbo – only a probable five months from a vital general election. Another excellent organiser, in the East Midlands, has just been expelled (welcome to the club!). A leading activist in the London area only reported to me just before Christmas the alarming state of dissatisfaction among members throughout the capital and its suburbs. Just what is happening?
I will endeavour to give my own up-to-date 'take' on the situation. It is one which necessarily requires a certain amount of repetition, over which I hope readers will bear with me. The repetition must begin with some words quoted in these pages in our March 1999 issue. They come from a report in The Express newspaper published on 18th February of that year, and they read:-
'Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.
'Other officers will tap telephones, open mail and scrutinise bank accounts and medical records. "We plan to close down these organizations by using every administrative device available to us," said a Yard source.'
I believe that we must constantly keep these words in the forefront of our minds if we are to make sense of what has been happening to our party in the near six years that have followed. And it is perhaps the right place and moment for a further quote:-
'More recently, as the National Front declined to a mere rump, the British National Party (BNP) has been seen as more dangerous. By the early 1990s MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents inside the BNP.'
These words come from a book Defending the Realm, by Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, published by Andre Deutsch in 1999. I have no way of ascertaining the sources of the writers' information, but I have to presume that they carried out considerable research into the workings of MI5, the establishment's main internal security service, and would have had no reason to invent their claim. They are almost certainly no friends of the BNP and would not have made it to do us any favours.
This aside, the claim gives all the appearance of fitting logically into the picture of what has been happening in the party. Taken in conjunction with the words of the Scotland Yard spokesman reported in The Express newspaper, they present a scenario that should at once sound loud warning bells and enlighten us as to what our enemies are doing. For myself, I can see no rhyme nor reason in the conflicts we have had in the BNP without such forces at work – and this applies not only to our party but to other nationalist organizations, past and present, where similar internal trouble has been constantly visible. In one case, in the National Front in the 1970s, I was able to observe the same pattern: recurring internecine quarrels and splits, which seemed to break out not when there was organisational and political failure but at the moments of greatest success, when in theory morale should have been high and unity at its strongest.
Internal subversion
These experiences of years ago led me to give a good deal of study and thought to the question of internal subversion of dissident political groups carried out by the state and other hostile agencies. The phenomenon is not new, and it is not confined to Britain; in fact it has been a recognised technique of political warfare for centuries. Neither should we imagine that it targets only our side of the political spectrum. The writers of Defending the Realm affirm that it is practised also against radical left-wing organisations, most notably of all the IRA but also cranky fringe groups like the Socialist Workers' Party.
The infiltrator is an animal of which most nationalists are aware, but many have only the sketchiest idea of his chief function. There is often talk of 'enemy plants' working to get inside information, but where this occurs it is only for the purpose of that information being used in much more destructive designs. At the end of the day, nationalist political parties like the BNP are absolutely legal: unlike terrorist groups, they have nothing to hide. Not a single one of their activities is secret. The infiltrator, whether state or other, can obtain no information about these activities that his controllers do not already know about because of their completely open nature.
The principal function of the infiltrator in a nationalist political group that operates within the law (and nearly all do) is to promote internal sabotage. This can best be done by encouraging the formation of rival factions, in conflict with one another over matters of leadership or policy. Here there is almost always ready-made fuel for the saboteur.
Radical organisations tend by their nature to be fractious. They attract individuals with strong opinions, sometimes amounting to obsessions. This fractiousness is most common on the left, where ideological arguments that would appear to us ridiculously nit-picking in their proportions can become the subject of passionate and raging quarrels. On our side of politics conflicts of this kind are less common, though far from unknown. In the early to mid-1980s a group gained ascendancy in the National Front which pushed hard and persistently for the adoption of what came to be known as 'Strasserite' policies. This appellation was taken from a rebel faction in Hitler's National Socialist Party in Germany led by the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, which sought to combine a kind of civic Nationalism with social and economic doctrines that were little short of Bolshevism.
At the time all this was happening, I and people of like mind to me had parted company with the official Front over matters in no way connected with it, but we were still hoping for the fractured marriage to be repaired and the party united again. I noted that those most vociferous in their advocacy of the 'Strasser' line of thought were the most obdurately resistant to such a reunification, resorting to ideological pettifogging as an excuse for their self-entrenchment rather than focusing on the bigger picture. At the time I thought of them, politically speaking, as immature schoolboys who had a lot of growing up to do: their political ideas were shallow, sloppily thought out and very easy to demolish in debate. What I did not consider seriously enough then – though I did later – was that there could be some method in their evident silliness, and that 'Strasserite' politics could well have been some skilfully conceived wedge driven into the remnants of the former NF in order to ensure its continued division.
Unnecessary divide
However, a more obvious and easily available pretext for division within nationalism has always been the disagreement between what, for simplification, we might call the 'hard-liners' and the 'modernisers' within the movement. I have always regarded this conflict as grossly exaggerated in substance and wholly unnecessary when measured beside the strategic imperatives confronting us.
In all politics there is the ever-present debate as to ways and means: whether to present objectives in strident, uncompromising tones or to employ the 'soft sell', the soothing, moderately worded approach that will encounter the fewest objectors. To a great extent, divisions over these matters are rooted in the differing personal characters of those who argue them. There are those of the born warrior outlook, who will tend naturally towards the fighting approach which brooks no compromise; and there are the natural conciliators, who will forever be seeking gentler methods because their temperaments can conceive no other way.
I have long believed that the course of practical politics demands a fusion of the two instincts: that of the fighter and that of the diplomat, wisdom lying in recognising the moments and situations in which one or the other is called for, and deciding accordingly. A movement with an excess of warrior qualities over the qualities of the conciliator will rush blindly into political action that is often ill-conceived and self-destructive, while one in which these attributes exist in reverse measure will atrophy and wither on the vine because of a shortage of courage, motivation and will.
When all is said and done, I believe that it has to be the code and approach of the fighter that must prevail over that of the conciliator; but the fighter must be one with the discernment to accept the need for conciliatory methods when the situation calls for them. Here we who like to think of ourselves as fighters must be aware of instincts within us which sometimes need curbing, and to curb them when required. Here we have the fusion that makes for the soldier-politician, of whom Caesar, Napoleon and Marlborough were outstanding examples.
On the other hand, human nature being what it is, it is only rarely that life's born conciliators can overcome their innermost instincts and face a real fight when fighting is the only option.
And as with individuals, it is the same with ideologies, which tend to conform to individual bent. An ideology of firmness and strength should be able to incorporate the gentler virtues and practise them when needs demand. But an ideology rooted in weakness can never summon firmness and strength that simply are not there.
Recipe for splits
This is a bit of a diversion but, I hope, a useful one in identifying potential sources of conflict in a political movement. Between people of goodwill there is reasoned thought and discussion over the respective tactical viewpoints; but to the would-be wrecker these viewpoints, instead of being reconciled in synthesis, present a perfect recipe for internal quarrels resulting in factions and splits.
Again and again, I have seen this happen in nationalist organisations; and again and again I have come to the conclusion that somewhere, in each case, there is an external agency stoking the fires of conflict where common sense, and a focus on the greater common good, could have avoided it. I believe that just such an external agency – indeed more than just one – has been present in the divisions which over recent years have convulsed the British National Party.
It is at this point that we should focus on a third type that is to be found in organisations. This type has instincts neither towards the 'hard-line' nor gentler approach but is in the struggle for essentially egotistical reasons – and sometimes also mercenary ones. To this type, arguments about 'hard-line' or 'soft-line' politics have only one utility and criterion: do they advance or retard his own personal ambitions and personal faction? He can be at one moment the hard-line fundamentalist and the very next moment the soft-line 'moderniser' according to tactical requirements – the tactical requirements being not those of the party but purely his own.
This type, again, is putty in the hands of the would-be wrecker. His ego and ambition can be so easily exploited by cunning manipulation which sets him against others with whom he should be working in dedication to a common cause.
Mysterious new arrivals
Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?
Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called 'modernising' faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.
In what limited contact I had with these people one thing struck me vividly. Their arrogance and conviction in the rightness of their attitudes was astounding. Most of them were young enough to be my children and some even my grandchildren. Their practical experience of the nationalist struggle was at an apprentice level. Yet they spoke to me about political ideology and tactics as if they were experienced achievers with battle honours under their belts and I a young lad just out of school. Just where had they learned all this stuff? At an MI5 training college perhaps? Or were they just wired up that way? One of these explanations is not necessarily exclusive of the other.
In previous articles I have focused on the various policy and presentational gimmicks that have been employed allegedly with the object of making the BNP more 'electable': a Sikh newspaper columnist; a Jewish candidate (and later councillor); an Asian spokesman on a TV party political broadcast; declarations that the party would be satisfied with the permanent presence of ethnic minorities in Britain, providing there were not too many of them. I could go on.
I have never believed that these innovations make more than 0.01 per cent difference either to our election results or to our recruitment. On the other hand, they have been hugely divisive to the party internally, with large numbers of members, including some of our best activists, quitting it in disgust. Is this just folly – the lack of intelligent political calculation of gain and loss? Or is it deliberate – a quite cynical manoeuvre aimed at alienating the genuine nationalists within and without and turning the BNP into nothing better than a neutered Tory pressure group? I am in no doubt myself as to the answer to these questions. I hope that what is written here will lead others to think about them seriously. Let us remember the words of the 'Yard source' back in 1999. "We plan to close down these organisations..." One way to close down an organisation is to divide it into fragments which, separately, exert almost zero influence in national politics. This was what happened to the National Front at the end of the 1970s. Is it the strategy now being pursued with regard to the BNP? There is a great deal of evidence – albeit admittedly circumstantial – that it is.
I have spoken earlier of the sacking and suspension of excellent organisers and branches. If this is not intended as a deliberate act of sabotage of the party, it most certainly is operating to that effect. The pretext for this orgy of purges is the need to maintain internal party discipline. Well, there is no one more firmly committed to the principle of internal party discipline than I. But in an organisation of volunteers – very different from a branch of the armed forces – discipline cannot be imposed by bullying and coercion; it must be maintained with prudence and must begin with its ultimate arbiter – the top party leadership – winning respect and being seen to apply it disinterestedly and with a view solely to the party's welfare. This simply has not been happening in the BNP. Certain people have been 'chopped' on purported disciplinary grounds, while others much more deserving of disciplinary action have been allowed to get away with almost anything they like – providing they show loyalty and willing subservience to the people currently in control. This is not a recipe for order in the party; it is one for self-destruction. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Financial gravy train
It is the time now to take another look at the BNP's quite ludicrously inflated wage bill. I have asked the questions before: Who is being paid and how much? And whence is coming the money to keep this gravy train on the rails? The people bidding to take over the party in 1999 made one of their main campaigning issues a demand for transparency and accountability in the handling of party finances. Yet these present questions continue to be shrouded in secrecy. Why?
I would suggest that the overriding reason for the payments that are being doled out to so many party functionaries is that they are intended to keep them subservient and acquiescent in the numerous outrageous policy decisions that have been made over the past few years and a few examples of which I have highlighted. In any other circumstances there would have been a palace revolt at the top of the party, with numerous senior officers simply not being willing to accept what has been going on. Yet there has been an almost indecent compliance. Could it be that when promptings of rebellion come from the inner conscience a self-reminder about bread-and-butter dependency stiffle the urge. Thoughts about the mortgage or instalments on the motor car act as a brake on protest.
I would strongly urge those in receipt of these emoluments to examine their consciences again. Can they reconcile their positions with personal honour and self-respect? Can they with sincerity condemn the 'bought' politicians of the established parties when they have their feet planted on the same path?
And I ask again: where is the money coming from? I remind those in control of their previous clamour for transparency. Where is the transparency here?
No to new party!
As I write these words, many still urge me to take the lead in forming a new party. As has happened in the past, I refuse to take that step. All previous experience counsels against it. Indeed I am convinced that it has been the intention and hope that I would launch and lead a breakaway movement from the BNP that explains so much of what has been happening – both to the party itself and to me personally. But I simply do not intend to play these people's game. The name of the game is divide-and-conquer. It made Nationalism in Britain impotent for so many years. It is the hope and prayer of those who seek to keep things this way.
And just as I would be playing our enemies' game by consenting to the setting up of a breakaway party, so also are those who on grounds of principle and protest have let their party subscriptions lapse, and have thus disenfranchised themselves with regard to action for internal change. If you aren't a member you can't vote. And if you can't vote you're going to leave things as they are. Here I risk offending some of my staunchest friends and allies by saying that this kind of abstention boils down to a form of self-indulgence. It is precisely what is wanted by the people who are steering the BNP – whether by intention or under manipulative forces of which they have no knowledge – to self-destruction. You may not like sending these people money at renewal time. Nor do I. But it is an utterly necessary procedure if the BNP is to be saved.
With these thoughts I wish a happy new year to all those genuinely devoted to the cause of race and nation.
John Tyndall
BNP leader, 1982-1999
http://www.spearhead.com/0501-jt3.html
Friday, 14 January 2011
BNP humiliated in Oldham
The following article was recently posted on Eddy Butler's blog, www.eddybutler.blogspot.com.
Populist right wins 10.7% of the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.
BNP humiliated and loses its deposit in Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.
Compared to the General Election, the BNP vote share fell on a much lower turn out and the BNP also lost its deposit with 4.5%. UKIP considerably increased its vote and its percentage and defeated the BNP for the first time in Oldham East and Saddleworth.
I can muster some sympathy for Derek Adams, the hapless BNP candidate. This is despite the fact that he agreed to stand as a stooge candidate to undermine the BNP’s internal democratic process in last year’s leadership election and despite the fact that he gloatingly expressed satisfaction in Nick Griffin’s rigged electoral process.
ALIEN LIFE FORM
Mr Adams agreed to step in over the head of a local candidate that was preferred by the local branch. This was due to a pathetic power play by Clive Jefferson who wanted everyone to know who was really in change. In charge of what though?
The BNP campaign was characterised by incompetence and cock ups. Hardly any activists could be bothered to turn up. Local activists were demoralised by Jefferson’s antics. It is extra proof that Nick Griffin has destroyed the BNP.
Clive Jefferson and Nick Griffin have been touting their electoral brilliance lately, with their fantastic new system called ALF. Houston... we have a problem.
TWITTER YE NOT
I see that Nick Griffin has taken up a new exercise regime. I don’t want to sound unkind, but it isn’t before time. However he has ignored my advice to stop his ‘Twittering’ nonsense. The trouble is that he keeps making these instant ‘Tweets’ without first engaging the remnants of his brain.
Take tonight. While in a state of high excitement, with adrenaline running through his veins and his hands trembling at twice the normal alarming rate, he had this to say:
“Speaking to Paul Morris, Eastern regional organiser. He's had relaunch Thurrock branch tonight. I'll be speaking down there soon. Like several other key areas in Essex it appears to have been deliberately neglected. Same as our elections systems. Not any more. Hand brake's off, now we motor!”
Here I presume he is hinting that the BNP in Essex was sabotaged, I guess by me. Or perhaps by others? Particularly Thurrock? Interesting claim. I wonder if he will elaborate.
He also claims that our election systems were deliberately neglected. The man is deluded and in serious need of a permanent rest from politics.
I see he is using a car driving metaphor – ‘hand break off’. He and his close colleague Clive Jefferson seem to have driven the BNP off the road.
NICK GRIFFIN – YOU HAVE CAUSED A PROBLEM
Nick Griffin mismanagement of the BNP and its finances has resulted in a situation where the party is distrusted by the electorate and starved of funds so it cannot campaign effectively.
The BNP needs a root and branch re-launch to rejuvenate it and make itself acceptable to the electorate. That takes a lot more than a new logo. It takes getting rid of the walking disaster area, the most unpopular politician in recent British history, the man who has totally run out of steam and ideas. The man who abuses his position in the party by corrupting the BNP’s internal processes. Yes that man is Nick Griffin.
This by-election defeat is Nick Griffin’s defeat. There will only be defeats until Nick Griffin is an ex-Chairman.
Make no mistake, this should have been a good constituency for the BNP. That is why Nick Griffin originally announced himself as the candidate. Remember that?
Oldham is BNP territory. The sort of place where the BNP should have won council seats. The BNP polled 5,091 votes which was 11.2% back in 2001. It is the sort of place where the BNP always outclasses UKIP. Indeed the BNP have outpolled UKIP here in the last three General Elections. In the last General Election the BNP saved its deposit with 5.7% of the vote and 2,546 votes. Quite simply the BNP under Nick Griffin has taken off the handbrake and gone into reverse gear. Fast.
To be defeated here and totally outflanked by UKIP on the ethnic question, is a disaster.
THE GOOD NEWS?
The good news is that the ‘right wing’, populist, anti-European, identity candidates together got 3,733 votes and 10.7%. If they had fought together who knows? It would certainly have been higher. It would have been an eye catching total.
The good news is that the vote is there. The task is to mobilise it through political action. There is one certainty. That cannot happen with Nick Griffin having anything to do with it. If Nick Griffin is jettisoned the activists will come back and hope will return.
This by-election is yet another urgent wake up call.
The only people to blame for this are Nick Griffin and Clive Jefferson.
WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
ELECTION RESULTS
Oldham East and Saddleworth
By-election, 13th January 2011 – Turnout 48.1%
Debbie Abrahams, Labour 14,718 votes – 42.1%
Elwyn Watkins, Liberal Democrat 11,160 votes – 31.9%
Kashif Ali, Conservative 4,481 votes – 12.8%
Paul Nuttall, UKIP 2,029 votes – 5.8%
Derek Adams, BNP 1,560 votes – 4.5%
Peter Allen, Green 530 votes – 1.5%
Nick "The Flying Brick" Delves, Monster Raving Loony 145 votes – 0.4%
Stephen Morris, English Democrats 144 votes - 0.4%
Loz Kaye, Pirate 96 votes – 0.3%
David Bishop, Bus-Pass Elvis 67 votes – 0.2%
General Election 2010 - Turnout: 61.2%
Phil Woolas, Labour 14,186 votes 31.9%
Elwyn Watkins, Liberal Democrat 14,083 votes - 31.6%
Kashif Ali, Conservative 11,773 votes - 26.4%
Alwyn Stott, BNP 2,546 votes - 5.7%
David Bentley, UKIP 1,720 votes - 3.9%
Gulzar Nazir, Christian 212 votes - 0.5%
General Election 2005 - Turnout: 57.3%
Phil Woolas, Labour 17,968 - 41.4%
Tony Dawson, Liberal Democrat 14,378 - 33.2%
Keith Chapman, Conservative 7,901, 18.2%
Michael Treacy, BNP 2,109 - 4.9%
Valerie Nield, UKIP 873 - 2.0%
Philip O'Grady, Independent 138 - 0.3%
General Election 2001 - Turnout: 61.0%
Phil Woolas, Labour 17,537 - 38.6%
Howard Sykes, Liberal Democrat 14,811 - 32.6%
Craig Heeley, Conservative 7,304 - 16.1%
Michael Treacy, BNP 5,091 - 11.2%
Barbara Little, UKIP 677 - 1.5%
Populist right wins 10.7% of the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.
BNP humiliated and loses its deposit in Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.
Compared to the General Election, the BNP vote share fell on a much lower turn out and the BNP also lost its deposit with 4.5%. UKIP considerably increased its vote and its percentage and defeated the BNP for the first time in Oldham East and Saddleworth.
I can muster some sympathy for Derek Adams, the hapless BNP candidate. This is despite the fact that he agreed to stand as a stooge candidate to undermine the BNP’s internal democratic process in last year’s leadership election and despite the fact that he gloatingly expressed satisfaction in Nick Griffin’s rigged electoral process.
ALIEN LIFE FORM
Mr Adams agreed to step in over the head of a local candidate that was preferred by the local branch. This was due to a pathetic power play by Clive Jefferson who wanted everyone to know who was really in change. In charge of what though?
The BNP campaign was characterised by incompetence and cock ups. Hardly any activists could be bothered to turn up. Local activists were demoralised by Jefferson’s antics. It is extra proof that Nick Griffin has destroyed the BNP.
Clive Jefferson and Nick Griffin have been touting their electoral brilliance lately, with their fantastic new system called ALF. Houston... we have a problem.
TWITTER YE NOT
I see that Nick Griffin has taken up a new exercise regime. I don’t want to sound unkind, but it isn’t before time. However he has ignored my advice to stop his ‘Twittering’ nonsense. The trouble is that he keeps making these instant ‘Tweets’ without first engaging the remnants of his brain.
Take tonight. While in a state of high excitement, with adrenaline running through his veins and his hands trembling at twice the normal alarming rate, he had this to say:
“Speaking to Paul Morris, Eastern regional organiser. He's had relaunch Thurrock branch tonight. I'll be speaking down there soon. Like several other key areas in Essex it appears to have been deliberately neglected. Same as our elections systems. Not any more. Hand brake's off, now we motor!”
Here I presume he is hinting that the BNP in Essex was sabotaged, I guess by me. Or perhaps by others? Particularly Thurrock? Interesting claim. I wonder if he will elaborate.
He also claims that our election systems were deliberately neglected. The man is deluded and in serious need of a permanent rest from politics.
I see he is using a car driving metaphor – ‘hand break off’. He and his close colleague Clive Jefferson seem to have driven the BNP off the road.
NICK GRIFFIN – YOU HAVE CAUSED A PROBLEM
Nick Griffin mismanagement of the BNP and its finances has resulted in a situation where the party is distrusted by the electorate and starved of funds so it cannot campaign effectively.
The BNP needs a root and branch re-launch to rejuvenate it and make itself acceptable to the electorate. That takes a lot more than a new logo. It takes getting rid of the walking disaster area, the most unpopular politician in recent British history, the man who has totally run out of steam and ideas. The man who abuses his position in the party by corrupting the BNP’s internal processes. Yes that man is Nick Griffin.
This by-election defeat is Nick Griffin’s defeat. There will only be defeats until Nick Griffin is an ex-Chairman.
Make no mistake, this should have been a good constituency for the BNP. That is why Nick Griffin originally announced himself as the candidate. Remember that?
Oldham is BNP territory. The sort of place where the BNP should have won council seats. The BNP polled 5,091 votes which was 11.2% back in 2001. It is the sort of place where the BNP always outclasses UKIP. Indeed the BNP have outpolled UKIP here in the last three General Elections. In the last General Election the BNP saved its deposit with 5.7% of the vote and 2,546 votes. Quite simply the BNP under Nick Griffin has taken off the handbrake and gone into reverse gear. Fast.
To be defeated here and totally outflanked by UKIP on the ethnic question, is a disaster.
THE GOOD NEWS?
The good news is that the ‘right wing’, populist, anti-European, identity candidates together got 3,733 votes and 10.7%. If they had fought together who knows? It would certainly have been higher. It would have been an eye catching total.
The good news is that the vote is there. The task is to mobilise it through political action. There is one certainty. That cannot happen with Nick Griffin having anything to do with it. If Nick Griffin is jettisoned the activists will come back and hope will return.
This by-election is yet another urgent wake up call.
The only people to blame for this are Nick Griffin and Clive Jefferson.
WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
ELECTION RESULTS
Oldham East and Saddleworth
By-election, 13th January 2011 – Turnout 48.1%
Debbie Abrahams, Labour 14,718 votes – 42.1%
Elwyn Watkins, Liberal Democrat 11,160 votes – 31.9%
Kashif Ali, Conservative 4,481 votes – 12.8%
Paul Nuttall, UKIP 2,029 votes – 5.8%
Derek Adams, BNP 1,560 votes – 4.5%
Peter Allen, Green 530 votes – 1.5%
Nick "The Flying Brick" Delves, Monster Raving Loony 145 votes – 0.4%
Stephen Morris, English Democrats 144 votes - 0.4%
Loz Kaye, Pirate 96 votes – 0.3%
David Bishop, Bus-Pass Elvis 67 votes – 0.2%
General Election 2010 - Turnout: 61.2%
Phil Woolas, Labour 14,186 votes 31.9%
Elwyn Watkins, Liberal Democrat 14,083 votes - 31.6%
Kashif Ali, Conservative 11,773 votes - 26.4%
Alwyn Stott, BNP 2,546 votes - 5.7%
David Bentley, UKIP 1,720 votes - 3.9%
Gulzar Nazir, Christian 212 votes - 0.5%
General Election 2005 - Turnout: 57.3%
Phil Woolas, Labour 17,968 - 41.4%
Tony Dawson, Liberal Democrat 14,378 - 33.2%
Keith Chapman, Conservative 7,901, 18.2%
Michael Treacy, BNP 2,109 - 4.9%
Valerie Nield, UKIP 873 - 2.0%
Philip O'Grady, Independent 138 - 0.3%
General Election 2001 - Turnout: 61.0%
Phil Woolas, Labour 17,537 - 38.6%
Howard Sykes, Liberal Democrat 14,811 - 32.6%
Craig Heeley, Conservative 7,304 - 16.1%
Michael Treacy, BNP 5,091 - 11.2%
Barbara Little, UKIP 677 - 1.5%
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Credit where credit is due
The following article comes from Eddy Butler's blog, www.eddybutler.blogspot.com.
Another one from the BNP’s Sleazebuster - it's starting to get repetitive...
Actually strictly speaking it’s another one from the BNP member who also happens to be a Sleazebuster but the BNP leadership wishes he didn’t exist.
Mr Eric Illsley, Labour Member of Parliament for Barnsley Central, pleaded 'Guilty' at Southwark Crown Court today to three charges of false accounting involving public funds of more than £14,000. He will be sentenced in four weeks time. He was due to stand trial today but at the last moment changed his plea to 'Guilty'.
The charges against Mr Illsley relate to expenses he claimed on his second home in London. They included council tax, service and maintenance charges, repairs and insurance charges and utilities and communications charges.
Mr Illsley is the second of four Members of Parliament, who were reported to the police by Michael Barnbrook, to plead 'Guilty' to fraud. The first, Labour MP David Chaytor, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment last week. Two more Labour MPs, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, are still awaiting trial and a fifth Labour MP, Denis Macshane is still being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for alleged fraud.
Do not expect to read about this on the main BNP website or the London Patriot website because, since supporting me in a leadership challenge, Michael Barnbrook, a former Spokesman for the British National Party on Law and Order, has become a non person.
CENSORED OUT OF EXISTENCE
Nick Griffin’s disgraced leadership cabal has censored Michael Barnbrook out of existence. He has become a non person.
Do you also remember how Nick Griffin banned me from two meetings that were held to discuss various issues where deliberate lies were told to the audience of BNP officers in an attempt to brainwash them? The first was in Nuneaton on Easter Monday when the fake Mark Collett murder plot was unveiled just before the General Election with disastrous consequences for the BNP’s electoral fortunes. The second time was at an officers meeting held just after the General Election near Leicester when further lies were told to the effect that the Party’s finances were in tremendous shape. Who remembers that pitiful interview conducted by Arthur Kemp. If you want to refresh your memory take another look:
http://bnptv.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-conference-the-way-forward/
In this interview Arthur Kemp asked Nick Griffin a load of soft questions with his hand over his mouth to hide his embarrassment. Fast forward to about 4 minutes 45 seconds to hear one lie after another on the party’s finances and accounts.
Then there was the infamous meeting in Barking in the summer, from which about twenty local members were banned from attending as Nick Griffin wanted to way clear for him to lie through his teeth to the audience.
GOOSEY GOOSEY GANDER
I just got sent an e-mail purporting to be from Nick Griffin (asking for money of course). Probably many of you have as well.
The e-mail says that it is disgraceful that Derek Adams, the BNP’s candidate in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, was removed from a hustings meeting. As bad as this might be, maybe the Labour Party creeps who aimed to stifle healthy political debate may have got their ideas on how to conduct meetings from Nick Griffin. Unfortunately when you conduct yourself in the manner that Nick Griffin does, it does not sit well when you call out foul in such circumstances. Nick Griffin does not believe in democracy, he does not believe in free speech. So with Nick Griffin in charge of the BNP how do you think the BNP will be treated?
There is an old expression.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Nick Griffin should take this on board. He has stifled Michael Barnbrook. He abused his position during the late leadership contest to stifle internal debate. Yet here he is now moaning that the state are not giving him a fair crack of the whip and the media in Oldham are giving his campaign the cold shoulder. Again, perhaps they have learnt from the Nick Griffin’s political cook book. He is setting the bad example for the media and the establishment to follow.
REPORTED TO THE POLICE?
Nick Griffin’s dogs of wear have been out on the internet moaning that their master has been reported to the police. I am able to verify this claim. All I can say is that Nick Griffin was very quick to go running to the police and the media about those fake Mark Collett murder plot claims at the outset of our General Election campaign. This was a gross act of treachery for which Nick Griffin can never be forgiven.
By running to the police, Nick Griffin has set a precedent. Furthermore, if, hypothetically, someone believed that the Chairman of the BNP had been guilty of some crime or another, who should that person rep[ort this to. Nick Griffin has seen to it that under the BNP’s constitution the only person who has any power is the Chairman. The Chairman has absolute, total and unfettered power. As a result of Nic k Griffin’s power grab, if a member thinks that there is wrongdoing and has evidence for it, the only way to seek redress is to report it to the police. I will emphasise that this is all hypothetical of course.
MICHAEL BARNBROOK’S VITAL ROLE
For reasons best known to themselves, Nick Griffin’s attack puppies have been set loose and they are busily claiming that Michael Barnbrook had nothing to do with the action taken against various MPs. The simple fact is, without someone stepping forward to make formal complaints to the right people and in the right manner nothing would have happened. I have found the following proofs of Mr Barnbrook’s vital activities in a matter of moments:
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Derek Conway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7212990.stm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton (see page 129):
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Library/MP_expenses_main_report.pdf
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Brian Binley:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/238/23802.htm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Harry Cohen:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/310/31002.htm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Nadine Dorries:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmstnprv/539/53902.htm
I attach various letters relating to these matters including one which shows that sometimes Michael Barnbrook’s complaint is not the one that the authorities rely on to take action. Click on the letters to read them properly. I apologise for the poor quality this time.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ARTHUR?
One thing strikes me as odd and is the role played by Arthur Kemp in all this. Arthur Kemp has taken on the role of gate-keeper for the main BNP website, and he has made it his business to exclude Michael Barnbrook related stories.
Why? Arthur is known to despise Nick Griffin and Nick Griffin is known to despise Arthur. Nick Griffin even thinks Arthur is a state agent. To be honest Nick Griffin thinks everyone he crosses swords with is an enemy agent. But Nick Griffin spent a long week’s conference in December 2008 repeatedly telling the entire then leadership team that Arthur Kemp was ‘state’.
Clive Jefferson hates Arthur Kemp with a passion and has been desperately briefing against him for a couple of months. Jefferson won’t tolerate anyone getting near to Nick Griffin’s ear and he fears that Arthur is trying to manoeuvre himself into that position.
For Arthur it is a battle for survival. What better way to earn your masters gratitude and a few meagre crumbs from his table than to be seen refusing to post stories relating to Michael Barnbrook? And to be seen doing it out of loyalty and devotion to the man he secretly despises. What a dilemma.
At the same time Nick Griffin is painfully aware that he has become totally dependent on Clive Jefferson. Nick Griffin has got himself into a situation where he couldn’t get rid of Jefferson even if he wanted to. Nick Griffin has managed to alienate all his former senior officers until he now finds himself with one over mighty subject who holds all the aces. Clive Jefferson (with a handful of his cronies) effectively runs the entire party now with Nick Griffin as his poodle. The only, literally the only senior officer who Nick Griffin can rely on to look after his interest is his daughter Jennifer, who is getting fast track promotion.
What a desperate situation the BNP finds itself in. Cast your mind back a year and a half and see the contrast.
Anyway, it’s high time Michael Barnbrook varied his line of attack against corruption among our politicians. Can anyone think of a, I don’t know, I’m thinking out loud here, maybe a Member of the European Parliament who has an unsavoury reputation that should be investigated?
Another one from the BNP’s Sleazebuster - it's starting to get repetitive...
Actually strictly speaking it’s another one from the BNP member who also happens to be a Sleazebuster but the BNP leadership wishes he didn’t exist.
Mr Eric Illsley, Labour Member of Parliament for Barnsley Central, pleaded 'Guilty' at Southwark Crown Court today to three charges of false accounting involving public funds of more than £14,000. He will be sentenced in four weeks time. He was due to stand trial today but at the last moment changed his plea to 'Guilty'.
The charges against Mr Illsley relate to expenses he claimed on his second home in London. They included council tax, service and maintenance charges, repairs and insurance charges and utilities and communications charges.
Mr Illsley is the second of four Members of Parliament, who were reported to the police by Michael Barnbrook, to plead 'Guilty' to fraud. The first, Labour MP David Chaytor, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment last week. Two more Labour MPs, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, are still awaiting trial and a fifth Labour MP, Denis Macshane is still being investigated by the Metropolitan Police for alleged fraud.
Do not expect to read about this on the main BNP website or the London Patriot website because, since supporting me in a leadership challenge, Michael Barnbrook, a former Spokesman for the British National Party on Law and Order, has become a non person.
CENSORED OUT OF EXISTENCE
Nick Griffin’s disgraced leadership cabal has censored Michael Barnbrook out of existence. He has become a non person.
Do you also remember how Nick Griffin banned me from two meetings that were held to discuss various issues where deliberate lies were told to the audience of BNP officers in an attempt to brainwash them? The first was in Nuneaton on Easter Monday when the fake Mark Collett murder plot was unveiled just before the General Election with disastrous consequences for the BNP’s electoral fortunes. The second time was at an officers meeting held just after the General Election near Leicester when further lies were told to the effect that the Party’s finances were in tremendous shape. Who remembers that pitiful interview conducted by Arthur Kemp. If you want to refresh your memory take another look:
http://bnptv.org.uk/2010/05/bnp-conference-the-way-forward/
In this interview Arthur Kemp asked Nick Griffin a load of soft questions with his hand over his mouth to hide his embarrassment. Fast forward to about 4 minutes 45 seconds to hear one lie after another on the party’s finances and accounts.
Then there was the infamous meeting in Barking in the summer, from which about twenty local members were banned from attending as Nick Griffin wanted to way clear for him to lie through his teeth to the audience.
GOOSEY GOOSEY GANDER
I just got sent an e-mail purporting to be from Nick Griffin (asking for money of course). Probably many of you have as well.
The e-mail says that it is disgraceful that Derek Adams, the BNP’s candidate in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, was removed from a hustings meeting. As bad as this might be, maybe the Labour Party creeps who aimed to stifle healthy political debate may have got their ideas on how to conduct meetings from Nick Griffin. Unfortunately when you conduct yourself in the manner that Nick Griffin does, it does not sit well when you call out foul in such circumstances. Nick Griffin does not believe in democracy, he does not believe in free speech. So with Nick Griffin in charge of the BNP how do you think the BNP will be treated?
There is an old expression.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Nick Griffin should take this on board. He has stifled Michael Barnbrook. He abused his position during the late leadership contest to stifle internal debate. Yet here he is now moaning that the state are not giving him a fair crack of the whip and the media in Oldham are giving his campaign the cold shoulder. Again, perhaps they have learnt from the Nick Griffin’s political cook book. He is setting the bad example for the media and the establishment to follow.
REPORTED TO THE POLICE?
Nick Griffin’s dogs of wear have been out on the internet moaning that their master has been reported to the police. I am able to verify this claim. All I can say is that Nick Griffin was very quick to go running to the police and the media about those fake Mark Collett murder plot claims at the outset of our General Election campaign. This was a gross act of treachery for which Nick Griffin can never be forgiven.
By running to the police, Nick Griffin has set a precedent. Furthermore, if, hypothetically, someone believed that the Chairman of the BNP had been guilty of some crime or another, who should that person rep[ort this to. Nick Griffin has seen to it that under the BNP’s constitution the only person who has any power is the Chairman. The Chairman has absolute, total and unfettered power. As a result of Nic k Griffin’s power grab, if a member thinks that there is wrongdoing and has evidence for it, the only way to seek redress is to report it to the police. I will emphasise that this is all hypothetical of course.
MICHAEL BARNBROOK’S VITAL ROLE
For reasons best known to themselves, Nick Griffin’s attack puppies have been set loose and they are busily claiming that Michael Barnbrook had nothing to do with the action taken against various MPs. The simple fact is, without someone stepping forward to make formal complaints to the right people and in the right manner nothing would have happened. I have found the following proofs of Mr Barnbrook’s vital activities in a matter of moments:
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Derek Conway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7212990.stm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton (see page 129):
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Library/MP_expenses_main_report.pdf
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Brian Binley:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/238/23802.htm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Harry Cohen:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/310/31002.htm
This link show that Michael Barnbrook was the complainant that led to the action against Nadine Dorries:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmstnprv/539/53902.htm
I attach various letters relating to these matters including one which shows that sometimes Michael Barnbrook’s complaint is not the one that the authorities rely on to take action. Click on the letters to read them properly. I apologise for the poor quality this time.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ARTHUR?
One thing strikes me as odd and is the role played by Arthur Kemp in all this. Arthur Kemp has taken on the role of gate-keeper for the main BNP website, and he has made it his business to exclude Michael Barnbrook related stories.
Why? Arthur is known to despise Nick Griffin and Nick Griffin is known to despise Arthur. Nick Griffin even thinks Arthur is a state agent. To be honest Nick Griffin thinks everyone he crosses swords with is an enemy agent. But Nick Griffin spent a long week’s conference in December 2008 repeatedly telling the entire then leadership team that Arthur Kemp was ‘state’.
Clive Jefferson hates Arthur Kemp with a passion and has been desperately briefing against him for a couple of months. Jefferson won’t tolerate anyone getting near to Nick Griffin’s ear and he fears that Arthur is trying to manoeuvre himself into that position.
For Arthur it is a battle for survival. What better way to earn your masters gratitude and a few meagre crumbs from his table than to be seen refusing to post stories relating to Michael Barnbrook? And to be seen doing it out of loyalty and devotion to the man he secretly despises. What a dilemma.
At the same time Nick Griffin is painfully aware that he has become totally dependent on Clive Jefferson. Nick Griffin has got himself into a situation where he couldn’t get rid of Jefferson even if he wanted to. Nick Griffin has managed to alienate all his former senior officers until he now finds himself with one over mighty subject who holds all the aces. Clive Jefferson (with a handful of his cronies) effectively runs the entire party now with Nick Griffin as his poodle. The only, literally the only senior officer who Nick Griffin can rely on to look after his interest is his daughter Jennifer, who is getting fast track promotion.
What a desperate situation the BNP finds itself in. Cast your mind back a year and a half and see the contrast.
Anyway, it’s high time Michael Barnbrook varied his line of attack against corruption among our politicians. Can anyone think of a, I don’t know, I’m thinking out loud here, maybe a Member of the European Parliament who has an unsavoury reputation that should be investigated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
