The following article was recently posted on Eddy Butler's blog, www.eddybutler.blogspot.com.
Other excellent articles on the British National Party may be found on the new web site of BNP Reform at http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk/.
The BNP's long overdue 2009 accounts, which were belatedly submitted to the Electoral Commission recently, yet again without having been signed off by the auditors as representing a "true and fair view" of the party's finances, may be viewed on the Electoral Commission's web site at www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
The utter shambles that is the BNP's finances was allowed to develop on Mr Griffin's watch, as party leader. Only he wasn't watching. He was, and is, an absentee leader, who spends most of his time in that House of Indolence, Luxury, and Futility, otherwise known as the European 'parliament'. That is where he wishes to spend most of his time. It is where he now feels most at home, away from the tiresome "plebs" and "grunts" of the BNP.
Mr Griffin's negligence, his dereliction of duty, and his delusions of grandeur, and competence, must not, and will not be permitted to destroy the party that tens of thousands of genuine patriots and nationalists have built up over the past three decades.
Griffin must go, bag and baggage, and he must go, not in 2014, not next year, nor next month. No, Griffin must go now, immediately, at once.
Every member of the BNP who cares about the party's survival, and wishes to see it flourish, and fulfil its destiny as the saviour of the British people, should impress upon Mr Griffin that he is now no longer either wanted or needed. He has outstayed his welcome more than a little, and should seek alternative lodgings, forthwith.
Let Griffin's last order be for the party's web editor, Arthur Kemp, to publish the 2009 accounts, and all of the previous years' accounts on the BNP web site, www.bnp.org.uk, so that members may see the full scale of the degradation that Griffin's 'leadership' has inflicted upon our party.
I call upon every decent member of the BNP to tell Mr Griffin to resign as leader, without delay.
Griffin's e-mail address is nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu.
Please be courteous but also be firm and forthright in your language. There is no need to mince matters but avoid bad language, and personal abuse.
Eddy Butler's devastating critique now follows.
DO THE ACCOUNTS TELL US ANYTHING?
On one level it is questionable whether the BNP’s published accounts tell us anything about the true situation. About how much money was really raised, about what it was spent on or about how much debt was left at the end of the year.
The Auditor had to rely on the records he was given. At the start of the year the BNP ran at least eighteen different bank accounts. I know that more were set up subsequently. No wonder bank reconciliations were difficult.
What if some bank accounts and income streams were not passed over to the auditor to scrutinise? Take the Trafalgar Club monies for example. The accounts are strangely silent about any income whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club. My own investigations have indicated that Trafalgar Club income was paid into various different back accounts. Was this unravelled by the Auditor? We have no idea.
We will see what we can find on close inspection...
MISSING MONEY
The first part of the accounts consists of the Income and Expenditure Account.
This quite simply is a listing of what was received, sub totalled by various categories, and what was spent, again sub totalled by various categories.
‘Wrongdoings’ could take the form of understating the income (i.e. hiding some of it or in the worse case stealing it) or of misidentifying expenditure (i.e. pretending the money was spent on one thing when it was actually spent on something else, or in the worse case stealing it).
Let’s look at the Expenditure Account first.
Costs of Commercial Activities £449,857
Staff Costs £659,994
Management and Administration £361,281
Depreciation and Loss on sale £60,358
Campaign Expenditure £277,412
Unknown Cheques £32,400
Other expenditure £199,847
Total Expenditure £2,041,149
It will immediately be seen that there is an item for ‘Unknown Cheques’. In other words payments were made by the Treasury Department for £32,400 and there is no information whatsoever what these relate to.
There is much more than this within the figures however.
• Within the Cost of Commercial Activities are payments totalling £23,900 with no proper description as to what they relate (they are listed under the name D Hannam).
• Within the Staff Costs are payments totalling £37,450 listed as J A Walker (but unrelated to actual pay).
• Within Management and Administration £11,300 in cash has been drawn without any explanation.
• With the Unknown Cheques these unaccounted items of expenditure total £105,050.
Let me put it another way. £105,050 was spent and we have no way of knowing what a single penny of that was spent on.
The income totalled £1,983,947. Estimating shortfalls there is a lot more difficult.
We have no figure whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club, although estimates are that it raises around £100,000 a year. It is conceivable that the revenue from the Trafalgar Club is included within the globular Donation Income figure of £1,260,374. There is however no indication that this is the case.
There is no figure for bequests. This is not unusual. Bequests have been strangely absent from the accounts in recent years. However as if my magic we are aware of three in 2010 and one was even reported to the Electoral Commission in the third quarter of 2010. Another for £2,000 was received just before Christmas.
Voice of Freedom sales are listed as zero. In 2008 the sales were listed as £29,489. These mainly consist of sales to units who then sell them on or distribute them for free. In all likelihood, with the European Elections, most units will have bought more from the party centre than in 2008. The regional accounts show that local units spent £26,446 on VoF. The total likely sales figure must be around £30,000. Yet it is given as zero in the accounts.
Identity sales are also listed as zero. Part way through 2009 it was decided to re-launch Identity to come out four times a year and free to members. This hasn’t happened and members have been cheated, but that is a separate issue for the Small Claims Court. However several issues were sold at the beginning of 2009. The annual 2008 figure was £21,007. It is fair to say that the true 2009 figure must be around £7,000 yet the sales figure in the account is given as zero.
So by how much in total has the total income for 2009 been understated? A conservative ball park figure, factoring in the Trafalgar Club, bequests, VoF sales and Identity sales might be £150,000.
From this examination we can readily see that in total something like £250,000 has gone astray.
This figure is turning up again and again.
THE AUDITOR FILLS IN THE GAPS
On numerous occasions the Auditor confesses that he doesn’t know how to explain apparent discrepancies or figures that seem drastically out from the previous year. Clearly he was given no help or assistance by the current Treasurer, nor the previous incumbents. The Auditor was left to speculate as can be seen from the following.
For example the Auditor had no idea why the membership income went up by so much. He says:
“The figure seems high and may include an element of donation income”.
He should have been told it was just due to the Life Membership scheme which netted around £400,000. The balance was made up of new Gold Members and membership growth in 2009. The fact that this simple explanation was not told to him and that he was left scratching around for information that is supposedly available on the superb membership database is baffling. However, if the Treasurer showed that he was able to provide any information to the Auditor it might have opened a can of worms, so best to play totally dumb – eh?
Then the Auditor speculated that the reason no income figures were given for VoF or Identity was: “As members receive ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ as part of their membership, it is likely that some of that income will be shown within the membership income”.
Clearly someone told the Auditor that VoF was given free to members! That is completely untrue. Also as I have already stated, Identity as only given free to members part way through the year.
Next the Auditor raises an eyebrow at the big increases in Postage and Delivery and Printing and Reproduction. This is purely due to the call centre. However the Auditor thinks that “Given the level of ‘Campaign Expenditure’ it is likely that here is a significant element of the charge... should be allocated to ‘Campaign Expenditure’ “. The Auditor clearly cannot believe that out of over £2 million total expenditure, a political party would only spend £277,412 on campaigning. Unfortunately this is the British National Party.
The BNP expense return listed on the Electoral Commission website for the European Election states that the BNP actually spent £282,843, which is about £5,000 more than stated in the Annual Accounts. This is a small discrepancy for the BNP. However as the BNP’s Election campaign expenditure return was not signed off by an Auditor, contrary to the regulations, the Auditor can hardly be blamed for being ignorant of this figure.
Clutching at straws and getting no help from the BNP Treasury team past or present, the Auditor then makes various wild stabs:
“In a similar way it is possible that there is an element of the costs of ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ are included in the above costs” (he was still desperately trying to account for the missing figures).
“The advertising costs, will contain a mixture of elements, of which part will be the promotion of the party and campaign expenditure”. Not campaign expenditure –see above!
“A considerable amount of the ‘Trafalgar Club’ costs could be considered to be more to do with printing costs. The total cost covered is £23,900”. This sum actually seems to be Simon Bennett’s fees as a web contractor and nothing to do with the Trafalgar Club at all.
THERE IS STILL A LOT MORE TO COME OUT OF THESE ACCOUNTS.
BUT NOTE THE ACCOUNTS SUGGEST THAT £250,000 HAS GONE ASTRAY.
AT THE VERY LEAST £105,000 IN EXPENDITURE IT TOTALLY UNACCOUNTED FOR.
BY ANY STANDARD THIS IS A DISGRACE.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
The BNP should be whiter than white but shamefully isn't
What lessons can the British National Party learn from the devastating scandal that engulfed its sister party, the NPD, in Germany, two years ago?
The need for a party leadership with probity, and the need for that leadership to be democratically accountable to the members, via a free and fair leadership election every year, for its temporary stewardship of the party.
German neo-Nazi [sic] NPD party faces collapse after being fined
By Fran Yeoman in Berlin for Times Online April 2, 2009
Germany’s main neo-Nazi [sic] party faces financial collapse after it was fined nearly £2.3 million for accounts irregularities.
The National Democratic Party (NPD), which is struggling to cope with bitter in-fighting and an embezzlement scandal, was ordered by the national parliament to pay €2.5 million (£2.3 million) by May 1.
A lawyer for the party warned that the fine, which comes four months after its former treasurer was jailed for stealing €741,000 (£677,000) from NPD coffers, threatens its existence. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The NPD is a legal political party and although it has no seats in the federal parliament it is represented in two of Germany’s 16 state legislatures. It is eligible for state funding which in 2007 amounted to more than £1 million, despite being described by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as racist, anti-Semitic and revisionist. NPD officials have, for example, praised Iran's President Ahmadinejad for arguing that Israel should be wiped off the map and the party’s leader, Udo Voigt, has said that Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been a number of attempts to close the party down, including a legal attempt by the Government in 2003 which failed when it emerged that key prosecution witnesses were paid state informants.
After today's fine, however, the NPD’s future looks uncertain. It was already struggling to make ends meet after the Bundestag withheld a payment of €300,000 in state funding in February in anticipation of the fine, and must now come up with a further €2.2 million by the end of the month. The embezzlement by Erwin Kemna, a former treasurer, has put another huge hole in party finances. [Emphasis mine, AE].
A power struggle within the leadership – accusations of being “one-eighth Jewish” were among the remarks hurled between rivals – also threatens to tear the party apart. The NPD is facing state elections in its strongholds of Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in the former East Germany as well as a nationwide general election in September, but it is unclear how it can fund a major campaign.
A spokesman for the parliamentary investigators who issued the fine said that the party had given an inaccurate account of its assets and inadequate details of its income in its 2007 financial statement. The NPD said that the discrepancies were due to an “office error” and the fine meant that its “political existence is threatened,” the German publication Spiegel reported.
The NPD has around 7,000 registered members in Germany and won 1.8 per cent of the vote in the 2005 general election, but its influence in some areas is considerably greater. Despite the NPD’s woes, there are fears that far-right sentiment is on the rise in Germany, particularly as unemployment rises with the recession.
The number of right-wing crimes, which ranged from assault and arson to displaying banned symbols, rose 28 per cent in 2008 compared with the previous year, while a survey last month indicated that almost one in 20 boys aged 15 were members of a right-wing group. Earlier this week the interior ministry banned a neo-Nazi youth organisation, Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend - German Youth Faithful to the Homeland - which organised military-style camps to teach children racial ideology.
The need for a party leadership with probity, and the need for that leadership to be democratically accountable to the members, via a free and fair leadership election every year, for its temporary stewardship of the party.
German neo-Nazi [sic] NPD party faces collapse after being fined
By Fran Yeoman in Berlin for Times Online April 2, 2009
Germany’s main neo-Nazi [sic] party faces financial collapse after it was fined nearly £2.3 million for accounts irregularities.
The National Democratic Party (NPD), which is struggling to cope with bitter in-fighting and an embezzlement scandal, was ordered by the national parliament to pay €2.5 million (£2.3 million) by May 1.
A lawyer for the party warned that the fine, which comes four months after its former treasurer was jailed for stealing €741,000 (£677,000) from NPD coffers, threatens its existence. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The NPD is a legal political party and although it has no seats in the federal parliament it is represented in two of Germany’s 16 state legislatures. It is eligible for state funding which in 2007 amounted to more than £1 million, despite being described by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as racist, anti-Semitic and revisionist. NPD officials have, for example, praised Iran's President Ahmadinejad for arguing that Israel should be wiped off the map and the party’s leader, Udo Voigt, has said that Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been a number of attempts to close the party down, including a legal attempt by the Government in 2003 which failed when it emerged that key prosecution witnesses were paid state informants.
After today's fine, however, the NPD’s future looks uncertain. It was already struggling to make ends meet after the Bundestag withheld a payment of €300,000 in state funding in February in anticipation of the fine, and must now come up with a further €2.2 million by the end of the month. The embezzlement by Erwin Kemna, a former treasurer, has put another huge hole in party finances. [Emphasis mine, AE].
A power struggle within the leadership – accusations of being “one-eighth Jewish” were among the remarks hurled between rivals – also threatens to tear the party apart. The NPD is facing state elections in its strongholds of Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in the former East Germany as well as a nationwide general election in September, but it is unclear how it can fund a major campaign.
A spokesman for the parliamentary investigators who issued the fine said that the party had given an inaccurate account of its assets and inadequate details of its income in its 2007 financial statement. The NPD said that the discrepancies were due to an “office error” and the fine meant that its “political existence is threatened,” the German publication Spiegel reported.
The NPD has around 7,000 registered members in Germany and won 1.8 per cent of the vote in the 2005 general election, but its influence in some areas is considerably greater. Despite the NPD’s woes, there are fears that far-right sentiment is on the rise in Germany, particularly as unemployment rises with the recession.
The number of right-wing crimes, which ranged from assault and arson to displaying banned symbols, rose 28 per cent in 2008 compared with the previous year, while a survey last month indicated that almost one in 20 boys aged 15 were members of a right-wing group. Earlier this week the interior ministry banned a neo-Nazi youth organisation, Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend - German Youth Faithful to the Homeland - which organised military-style camps to teach children racial ideology.
United we stand, divided we fall
The following post is a statement by Lee Barnes, the former legal officer of the British National Party, regarding the treatment of Chris Beverley, the BNP's former councillor, and regional organizer of the party's highly successful Yorkshire region.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Chris Beverley's sacking - a statement by Lee Barnes LLB
I have known Chris Beverley for over a decade.
He is one of the few people in nationalism who every nationalist knows they can fully trust and respect as a fully committed and dedicated nationalist activist.
In the past I have attacked Chris under the direct orders of Nick Griffin.
Griffin even supplied me with a file of documents he had collected concerning Chris to issue to activists and BNP members to attack him during the Sadie Graham fall out.
At the time I did so, as I was told to do so. ["Superior orders" is no justification for wrongdoing, AE].
The news he has been sacked [as regional organizer] is a disaster for the BNP.
Chris is one of the most loyal BNP activists in the country.
His intelligence, commitment to nationalism and dedication to the party are second to none.
The fact that Andrew Brons has sat so long on the fence as regards Griffin, and his pillaging of the party, that a fence post now visibly protrudes from his silent mouth, is a source of confusion to many BNP members.
Griffin once expelled Brons from the NF, and Brons' silence now is pathetic.
Some people are saying to me that the only reason Brons is silent is because he has his snout alongside Griffin in the EU pig trough, though I state in my opinion that this is not the case.
I believe he is silent as he cares about his personal legacy in nationalism and doesn't want to split the party.
The fact though that one of his most trusted and loyal friends has now had the Griffin Knife inserted into his back should, if he has any sense of loyalty, force Brons to pull his finger out and say something about what has been happening in the BNP.
The knife that has been stuck in Chris's back will go into Brons's as soon as Griffin thinks he can get away with it.
I know Andrew Brons is no coward and that he is a true nationalist.
We respect the man for who he is and his dedication to the nationalist cause.
But his silence has been taken by many people as a tacit approval of what Griffin and his cult of sycophants, half-wits and crooks have been doing in the party.
Now Brons must show he understands the meaning of loyalty to a friend, and to a man who is a true BNP loyalist and nationalist.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Chris Beverley's sacking - a statement by Lee Barnes LLB
I have known Chris Beverley for over a decade.
He is one of the few people in nationalism who every nationalist knows they can fully trust and respect as a fully committed and dedicated nationalist activist.
In the past I have attacked Chris under the direct orders of Nick Griffin.
Griffin even supplied me with a file of documents he had collected concerning Chris to issue to activists and BNP members to attack him during the Sadie Graham fall out.
At the time I did so, as I was told to do so. ["Superior orders" is no justification for wrongdoing, AE].
The news he has been sacked [as regional organizer] is a disaster for the BNP.
Chris is one of the most loyal BNP activists in the country.
His intelligence, commitment to nationalism and dedication to the party are second to none.
The fact that Andrew Brons has sat so long on the fence as regards Griffin, and his pillaging of the party, that a fence post now visibly protrudes from his silent mouth, is a source of confusion to many BNP members.
Griffin once expelled Brons from the NF, and Brons' silence now is pathetic.
Some people are saying to me that the only reason Brons is silent is because he has his snout alongside Griffin in the EU pig trough, though I state in my opinion that this is not the case.
I believe he is silent as he cares about his personal legacy in nationalism and doesn't want to split the party.
The fact though that one of his most trusted and loyal friends has now had the Griffin Knife inserted into his back should, if he has any sense of loyalty, force Brons to pull his finger out and say something about what has been happening in the BNP.
The knife that has been stuck in Chris's back will go into Brons's as soon as Griffin thinks he can get away with it.
I know Andrew Brons is no coward and that he is a true nationalist.
We respect the man for who he is and his dedication to the nationalist cause.
But his silence has been taken by many people as a tacit approval of what Griffin and his cult of sycophants, half-wits and crooks have been doing in the party.
Now Brons must show he understands the meaning of loyalty to a friend, and to a man who is a true BNP loyalist and nationalist.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Griffin's "political soldier" speaks
What follows is a recent exchange of correspondence via my Facebook page between Mr Pat Harrington, a senior officer of both the British National Party and its rival, the National Liberal Party, and myself.
Since Mr Harrington chose to conduct this correspondence in a public forum, viz, my Facebook page, he can hardly object to my re-publishing it on my blog.
BNP members should note the way in which Mr Harrington refers to "your party" rather than "our party". Is this because he does not regard the BNP as "his" party at all, his real loyalty lying with the National Liberal Party, of which he is both a senior officer and a member?
Patrick Antony Harrington : I read through your blog and noted that you imply that you think I am incompetent in comments you make when reposting an email from Paul Golding. I would be interested to know your grounds for that. Paul Golding earned a large salary from your Party and commission. Even though he knew your Party was in debt he demanded more money. He resigned his position and seemed shocked that he was not begged to return. Consequently your Party will be at least £40,000 a year better off. Everything he did is now done on a voluntary basis. I would have thought you might approve.
Dr Andrew Emerson : Mr Harrington: if as you say, you have read through my blog, then you will have seen that I also criticize Cllr Golding for corruption and hypocrisy. I am very pleased that he is now no longer employed by the British National Party.
Regarding your own incompetence: I use the word in the sense of being unfit, or unsuitable, to discharge the duties of the post you hold, rather than as a reflection upon your ability. You are unsuitable because you hold a senior post in a rival political party that has fielded candidates against the BNP in elections, and because you are not a member of the British National Party.
If you can now prevail upon Mr Griffin to put the interests of the BNP before what he mistakenly believes to be his own personal interest, by resigning from the post of national chairman, then I shall be even happier.
Since Mr Harrington chose to conduct this correspondence in a public forum, viz, my Facebook page, he can hardly object to my re-publishing it on my blog.
BNP members should note the way in which Mr Harrington refers to "your party" rather than "our party". Is this because he does not regard the BNP as "his" party at all, his real loyalty lying with the National Liberal Party, of which he is both a senior officer and a member?
Patrick Antony Harrington : I read through your blog and noted that you imply that you think I am incompetent in comments you make when reposting an email from Paul Golding. I would be interested to know your grounds for that. Paul Golding earned a large salary from your Party and commission. Even though he knew your Party was in debt he demanded more money. He resigned his position and seemed shocked that he was not begged to return. Consequently your Party will be at least £40,000 a year better off. Everything he did is now done on a voluntary basis. I would have thought you might approve.
Dr Andrew Emerson : Mr Harrington: if as you say, you have read through my blog, then you will have seen that I also criticize Cllr Golding for corruption and hypocrisy. I am very pleased that he is now no longer employed by the British National Party.
Regarding your own incompetence: I use the word in the sense of being unfit, or unsuitable, to discharge the duties of the post you hold, rather than as a reflection upon your ability. You are unsuitable because you hold a senior post in a rival political party that has fielded candidates against the BNP in elections, and because you are not a member of the British National Party.
If you can now prevail upon Mr Griffin to put the interests of the BNP before what he mistakenly believes to be his own personal interest, by resigning from the post of national chairman, then I shall be even happier.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
"We value you, Nick"
The following article, published in the Guardian yesterday, describes how Mr Griffin is being shielded by the state from unwelcome publicity regarding his personal circumstances.
Quite why "...the commission of an offence..." by an MEP, and the "...political opinions" of an MEP, having been aired in open court, as they were in Griffin's case in his 1998 trial, should be treated by the Crown Prosecution Service as not being in the public domain, and the release of such information, on request, be regarded as not in the public interest, or as contrary to policy, is frankly anyone's guess.
Could it be an example of "the hidden hand" reaching out to protect its highly valued asset?
The article now follows.
CPS refuses to reveal details of Nick Griffin's race hate trial. Prosecutors claim releasing information about 1998 case would breach BNP leader's data protection rights
Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2010 19.09 GMT
The Crown Prosecution Service is blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.
Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.
The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.
Griffin has been widely reported as dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.
Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.
In a letter to the Guardian, which submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.
"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."
On appeal, the CPS last week reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.
Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".
The Guardian is now lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final decisions on FoI requests.
Quite why "...the commission of an offence..." by an MEP, and the "...political opinions" of an MEP, having been aired in open court, as they were in Griffin's case in his 1998 trial, should be treated by the Crown Prosecution Service as not being in the public domain, and the release of such information, on request, be regarded as not in the public interest, or as contrary to policy, is frankly anyone's guess.
Could it be an example of "the hidden hand" reaching out to protect its highly valued asset?
The article now follows.
CPS refuses to reveal details of Nick Griffin's race hate trial. Prosecutors claim releasing information about 1998 case would breach BNP leader's data protection rights
Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2010 19.09 GMT
The Crown Prosecution Service is blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.
Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.
The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.
Griffin has been widely reported as dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.
Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.
In a letter to the Guardian, which submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.
"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."
On appeal, the CPS last week reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.
Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".
The Guardian is now lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final decisions on FoI requests.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Credibility: zero
Here we see Mr Griffin where he now feels most at home, among the pampered fat cats of the European 'parliament'.
Mr Griffin feels he has now 'arrived'. He holds forth, reading his one-minute speech to the chamber, for all the world as if he believed what he said could have any effect on the lives of his constituents in the north west of England. The bored and languid manner of the session chairman, in itself, tells one all one needs to know about this stage- managed shadow play.
Yet Griffin wants to believe that it is all for real. He has gone native with a vengeance. He "loves" being there.
While Griffin play-acts the statesman in five-star foreign luxury, the real, the crucial, fight here in Britain is allowed to go by default.
While Griffin lords it, as an MEP in Brussels and Strasbourg, the British National Party's finances are allowed to go to pot. Despite Griffin's claims that all was well, the BNP's 2009 accounts, which have now belatedly been submitted to the Electoral Commission, and published by them, tell a very different story.
They tell a truly shocking story of negligence, of incompetence. They tell a story, indeed, of dereliction of duty, by Mr Griffin.
Mr Griffin's words, at the beginning of his speech, have a tragic irony to them.
He says "The most important priority of any budget should be only to spend your own money. Spending someone else's without their permission is not budgetting, it's theft."
Can anyone seriously be expected to take lessons on economy from a former bankrupt, and incorrigibly prodigal spendthrift, such as Mr Griffin, who has bid fair to bury the BNP under a mountain of avoidable debt, and who has welshed on the party's debts to its friendly suppliers?
Griffin's credibility as a nationalist politician is now zero. He would fit in better with those MPs of the Establishment parties who 'decided' not to seek re-election, under a cloud, before the 2010 general election, than with the crusading white knights of a genuine party of the people: which is what the candidates of a British National Party ought to be, if they condemn the status quo, without hypocrisy.
Will Griffin draw the necessary conclusion, and fall on his sword? His entire record sadly suggests otherwise.
Indeed, the traitor-parties of the Establishment, as well as Griffin's hireling flunkeys, have a vested interest in keeping this man without honour or decency exactly where he is, as the lame duck leader of a party which, were it not for him, might be led to the glory it deserves.
Nevertheless, the BNP will rid itself of this incubus.
No-one should feel faint-hearted at the prospect of a political fight to the finish with Griffin. Having joined a party whose raison d'etre was to reform the rotten old order of society, and re-establish patriotic decency in our land, settling accounts with a corrupt and incompetent sell-out like Griffin should be regarded as on-the-job training.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
BNP Spoof General Election Broadcast 2010
This piece of stupid spitefulness on the part of Mr Griffin cost the British National Party an estimated £70,000 of its members' money.
By authorizing this folly, Griffin demonstrates that his judgement is so poor that he is unfit to be the leader of a serious political party.
The "sheeple" are not those electors who declined to vote for the erratic Griffin, or one of his stooges, but those members of the BNP who still believe that Griffin has the qualities necessary to lead the party into government.
German Freedom under attack
The leaders of a new political party in Germany, Freedom, modelled on Geert Wilders' party of the same name in Holland, have found that their political opponents on the 'left' have attempted to deny them their right to free speech. This undemocratic and oppressive behaviour has a particularly poignant resonance in Germany, which has been, within living memory, the scene of both white and red terror.
Today, for all the hypocritical talk of democracy from Germany's political Establishment, it seems clear that double standards apply. If a party is nationalist, like the NPD, its leadership may be infiltrated and subverted by paid agents of the state.
The German Freedom is just beginning its journey but already the young child has been viciously attacked by those who fear what it may achieve when full-grown.
Such attacks should be regarded as the most sincere form of compliment, and as confirmation that the party is on the right track.
More strength to Freiheit!
An open letter by the party's leaders to the bully-boys of the 'left' now follows.
The Freedom Party — Open Letter to the Left
We have heard that many of you are celebrating the cancellation of the first state convention of the citizens’ rights party for more freedom and democracy, Die Freiheit [Freedom], after you and/or your fellow travellers caused the situation by pressure and threats. On this day, there was one winner and one loser. On this day, fascism won and democracy lost.
We use the word fascism neither hyperbolically nor lightly, since it must at any rate be measured against the methods of National Socialism. Given the development of the political Left (again) in the meantime, this is more than appropriate. Apparently, it is only obvious to a few on the Left — indeed the most intelligent of them — in what tradition they actually stand.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the political debate was carried out only in part in the parliaments — and much more in the streets. Shock troops sought out those who represented a different opinion than their own, and made sure that the ordinary citizen no longer dared to voice his opinion. The intimidation by force penetrated all political levels. The SA [Sturmabteilung — Nazi storm troopers] stood by at meetings of parliament, and woe to the parliament member who dared to deviate from the party line. That is how the debate was influenced. A political system was created which instituted violence as a legitimate means.
The present-day “Antifa” is very little different from the SA of that time. Their “look” is now black instead of brown, but they use the same methods: Dissenters are pursued and silenced violently, They find every method justified — not even the family, the children, who did not choose to whom they should be born, are safe from the red SA. The red SA know no moral limits. The ideology that leads them is stronger.
They march side by side with the ultra-rightist “Grey Wolves,” who would be happy to have a greater Turkish empire — even better dominion over the whole world, and do not see that they are being used as useful idiots. They demonstrate together with the radical Islamists in demonstrations where “Jews to the gas” is shouted, and do not notice that history is repeating itself.
No doubt there will always be some insane Nazis as a fringe group. What is horrifying is the fact that Leftist Nazi organizations are cultivated and politically protected by various funds and groups. Senator Körting (SPD) cannot even perceive a political motivation in the leftist extremists. But then, why should he take action against those who are bullying his political opponents with violence and terror?
Die Freiheit differentiates quite clearly between the spiritual, religious part of Islam and the political ideology. If Muslims wish to pray to Mecca five times a day or fast for a month, we will stand protectively for their right to do so. If Muslim men treat their wives like slaves or force headscarf-wearing children to marry, that is when Clara Herrmann [Berlin representative for the Greens] stands before them to protect this “right.” That is the difference. The Left has made a virtue of turning a blind eye. It gives them the pleasant feeling of having “done good,” and it is better than good to attack those who do look and criticize.
The cry was always “you have to differentiate.” Now there is a party that does exactly that, and immediately it is attacked; its arguments are not heard. This shows that it was never about differentiating, but about censoring. Islam was long ago declared a sacred subject in this country by the Left. Indeed, they pursue the same goal: proceeding through overwhelming democracy and doing away with freedom, onward to a totalitarian ideology.
Even though fascism and communism lack the religious component, there is much common ground with the Islamic ideology.
It is easy for you leftists to criticize Christianity, but you are incapable of criticizing Islam. For you, any criticism of Islam — no matter how differentiated — is rightist extremism. Even clever people who have lived in Islamic countries, according to this logic, are “fishing in a brown swamp” [stumbling in the dark]. You have imposed an ideologically qualified thought ban on yourselves, and now demand that everyone else follow it to the letter. Your denunciations teach the citizen that Islam is untouchable, must not be criticized, and so we are back at the (Left’s) imposed thought ban.
Furthermore, the law which forbids criticism of Islam is called sharia, and is diametrically opposed to universal human rights — it is the absolute intolerance of dissidents and infidels, with the injunction to kill them, and with claims to world domination, anti-Semitism, murder of apostates, oppression of women, child abuse, and many other manifestations inherent to Islam which you find worthy of protection — so much so that critics must be denounced.
Sooner or later, you will have to explain clearly how you define rightist extremism and how you make that fit with our party program. Since when do right extremists demand direct democracy? Freedom of expression? A constitution decided upon by the people? Does it not rather sound like unadulterated democracy, to demand the independence of the media from party monies and the independence of parties from lobbyists’ money, because there is too great a danger that both of them will only be puppets of the money dispensers?
And our demand that the bad habit of financing the political caste with debts that will never be paid and thus gambling away our children’s future sounds more like upstanding representatives of the people, of whom there are too few in our political landscape.
But above all, since when have German rightist extremists been invited into the Israeli parliament, blessed by the representatives of the Knesset, and seen by countless Jews as the hope for their survival?
And how can a party be extreme-right when it has no extremists? Unlike you, Die Freiheit accepts no extremists, neither from the Right nor the Left. You know that you can never win a democratic debate in this way, so you avoid taking this stance.
The central problem, no doubt, is quite different. Direct democracy means giving the people more voice and consequently reducing the power of the established political parties. It is more than logical that Die Freiheit is a thorn in the side of the established parties and must be massively combated at the outset. That is how the retention of power has functioned for decades. That is why the SPD is immediately calling up its union troops.
The more intelligent of those on the Left know of course, that this is not a question of justice or human dignity, for these things languish most in leftist ruling systems, and only serve as deception. It is about moving an entire people to Socialism. For this purpose, mature structures must first be destroyed so that a new system can be built on the ruins.
The Nazis contributed to destroying the political landscape of the Weimar Republic. We know the ghastly results. But immediately thereafter the next Socialism carried on. The SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] regime also ruthlessly persecuted dissidents, declared them insane, and locked them up. As in National Socialism, the state intervened massively in the private sphere of the citizen in even the most perverse way: in his thoughts. Anyone who wanted to flee this dictatorship was shot. And we find this pattern everywhere where Socialism has been, and is, attempted.
From the start, your leftist ideology is false. Human beings are not alike. They are of equal value from birth on, but not homogeneous. That is our nature and it is good the way it is. Every attempt to force this multiplicity into a prepared mould cannot be accomplished and maintained without totalitarian oppression and state-sponsored terror. Anyone who wants to make all human beings alike must reduce them to the lowest common denominator and trim off whatever extrudes. What remains is a zombie-like shell, robbed of everything that makes us real. And all that simply for the sake of an ideology.
Our opinion is different from yours in many ways, and we are betting that in the end our convictions will touch more voters than yours. But we leave you your convictions — will never threaten or intimidate you. We denounce no one, and it would never occur to us to use violence. On the contrary, we would even combat those who employed violence against you. And that is what distinguishes democrats from fascists.
As we said, the winner on January 11, 2011 was fascism; the loser was democracy.
Decide for yourself which side you are on!
Marc Doll and René Stadtkewitz
For the Board of the Citizens’ Rights Party Die Freiheit
Today, for all the hypocritical talk of democracy from Germany's political Establishment, it seems clear that double standards apply. If a party is nationalist, like the NPD, its leadership may be infiltrated and subverted by paid agents of the state.
The German Freedom is just beginning its journey but already the young child has been viciously attacked by those who fear what it may achieve when full-grown.
Such attacks should be regarded as the most sincere form of compliment, and as confirmation that the party is on the right track.
More strength to Freiheit!
An open letter by the party's leaders to the bully-boys of the 'left' now follows.
The Freedom Party — Open Letter to the Left
We have heard that many of you are celebrating the cancellation of the first state convention of the citizens’ rights party for more freedom and democracy, Die Freiheit [Freedom], after you and/or your fellow travellers caused the situation by pressure and threats. On this day, there was one winner and one loser. On this day, fascism won and democracy lost.
We use the word fascism neither hyperbolically nor lightly, since it must at any rate be measured against the methods of National Socialism. Given the development of the political Left (again) in the meantime, this is more than appropriate. Apparently, it is only obvious to a few on the Left — indeed the most intelligent of them — in what tradition they actually stand.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the political debate was carried out only in part in the parliaments — and much more in the streets. Shock troops sought out those who represented a different opinion than their own, and made sure that the ordinary citizen no longer dared to voice his opinion. The intimidation by force penetrated all political levels. The SA [Sturmabteilung — Nazi storm troopers] stood by at meetings of parliament, and woe to the parliament member who dared to deviate from the party line. That is how the debate was influenced. A political system was created which instituted violence as a legitimate means.
The present-day “Antifa” is very little different from the SA of that time. Their “look” is now black instead of brown, but they use the same methods: Dissenters are pursued and silenced violently, They find every method justified — not even the family, the children, who did not choose to whom they should be born, are safe from the red SA. The red SA know no moral limits. The ideology that leads them is stronger.
They march side by side with the ultra-rightist “Grey Wolves,” who would be happy to have a greater Turkish empire — even better dominion over the whole world, and do not see that they are being used as useful idiots. They demonstrate together with the radical Islamists in demonstrations where “Jews to the gas” is shouted, and do not notice that history is repeating itself.
No doubt there will always be some insane Nazis as a fringe group. What is horrifying is the fact that Leftist Nazi organizations are cultivated and politically protected by various funds and groups. Senator Körting (SPD) cannot even perceive a political motivation in the leftist extremists. But then, why should he take action against those who are bullying his political opponents with violence and terror?
Die Freiheit differentiates quite clearly between the spiritual, religious part of Islam and the political ideology. If Muslims wish to pray to Mecca five times a day or fast for a month, we will stand protectively for their right to do so. If Muslim men treat their wives like slaves or force headscarf-wearing children to marry, that is when Clara Herrmann [Berlin representative for the Greens] stands before them to protect this “right.” That is the difference. The Left has made a virtue of turning a blind eye. It gives them the pleasant feeling of having “done good,” and it is better than good to attack those who do look and criticize.
The cry was always “you have to differentiate.” Now there is a party that does exactly that, and immediately it is attacked; its arguments are not heard. This shows that it was never about differentiating, but about censoring. Islam was long ago declared a sacred subject in this country by the Left. Indeed, they pursue the same goal: proceeding through overwhelming democracy and doing away with freedom, onward to a totalitarian ideology.
Even though fascism and communism lack the religious component, there is much common ground with the Islamic ideology.
It is easy for you leftists to criticize Christianity, but you are incapable of criticizing Islam. For you, any criticism of Islam — no matter how differentiated — is rightist extremism. Even clever people who have lived in Islamic countries, according to this logic, are “fishing in a brown swamp” [stumbling in the dark]. You have imposed an ideologically qualified thought ban on yourselves, and now demand that everyone else follow it to the letter. Your denunciations teach the citizen that Islam is untouchable, must not be criticized, and so we are back at the (Left’s) imposed thought ban.
Furthermore, the law which forbids criticism of Islam is called sharia, and is diametrically opposed to universal human rights — it is the absolute intolerance of dissidents and infidels, with the injunction to kill them, and with claims to world domination, anti-Semitism, murder of apostates, oppression of women, child abuse, and many other manifestations inherent to Islam which you find worthy of protection — so much so that critics must be denounced.
Sooner or later, you will have to explain clearly how you define rightist extremism and how you make that fit with our party program. Since when do right extremists demand direct democracy? Freedom of expression? A constitution decided upon by the people? Does it not rather sound like unadulterated democracy, to demand the independence of the media from party monies and the independence of parties from lobbyists’ money, because there is too great a danger that both of them will only be puppets of the money dispensers?
And our demand that the bad habit of financing the political caste with debts that will never be paid and thus gambling away our children’s future sounds more like upstanding representatives of the people, of whom there are too few in our political landscape.
But above all, since when have German rightist extremists been invited into the Israeli parliament, blessed by the representatives of the Knesset, and seen by countless Jews as the hope for their survival?
And how can a party be extreme-right when it has no extremists? Unlike you, Die Freiheit accepts no extremists, neither from the Right nor the Left. You know that you can never win a democratic debate in this way, so you avoid taking this stance.
The central problem, no doubt, is quite different. Direct democracy means giving the people more voice and consequently reducing the power of the established political parties. It is more than logical that Die Freiheit is a thorn in the side of the established parties and must be massively combated at the outset. That is how the retention of power has functioned for decades. That is why the SPD is immediately calling up its union troops.
The more intelligent of those on the Left know of course, that this is not a question of justice or human dignity, for these things languish most in leftist ruling systems, and only serve as deception. It is about moving an entire people to Socialism. For this purpose, mature structures must first be destroyed so that a new system can be built on the ruins.
The Nazis contributed to destroying the political landscape of the Weimar Republic. We know the ghastly results. But immediately thereafter the next Socialism carried on. The SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] regime also ruthlessly persecuted dissidents, declared them insane, and locked them up. As in National Socialism, the state intervened massively in the private sphere of the citizen in even the most perverse way: in his thoughts. Anyone who wanted to flee this dictatorship was shot. And we find this pattern everywhere where Socialism has been, and is, attempted.
From the start, your leftist ideology is false. Human beings are not alike. They are of equal value from birth on, but not homogeneous. That is our nature and it is good the way it is. Every attempt to force this multiplicity into a prepared mould cannot be accomplished and maintained without totalitarian oppression and state-sponsored terror. Anyone who wants to make all human beings alike must reduce them to the lowest common denominator and trim off whatever extrudes. What remains is a zombie-like shell, robbed of everything that makes us real. And all that simply for the sake of an ideology.
Our opinion is different from yours in many ways, and we are betting that in the end our convictions will touch more voters than yours. But we leave you your convictions — will never threaten or intimidate you. We denounce no one, and it would never occur to us to use violence. On the contrary, we would even combat those who employed violence against you. And that is what distinguishes democrats from fascists.
As we said, the winner on January 11, 2011 was fascism; the loser was democracy.
Decide for yourself which side you are on!
Marc Doll and René Stadtkewitz
For the Board of the Citizens’ Rights Party Die Freiheit
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
How quickly they forget
The following article, by Martin Webster, is an important contribution towards exposing the disinformation that Griffin perennially feeds the credulous members of the British National Party, on matters of party organization and finance.
Which chapter of Mein Kampf (My Fight) was it that Griffin found interesting? Was it Chapter ten, of Volume one, in which Hitler asserts that most people are more ready to believe a big lie than a little one? The reason being, supposedly, that because they themselves often tell little lies in their everyday lives but would baulk at telling a big lie, they assume that others are like themselves.
Martin Webster is a controversial figure within a controversial movement. Even his harshest critics, however, can scarce forbear to acknowledge his self-evident quality as a nationalist polemic and orator.
I do not subscribe to his description of the Palestinians as "...an innocent and unthreatening people..." though I acknowledge that they, like the Jews, have a right to their own homeland, just as my people, the English, have a right to England.
Nor do I believe that Jewish opinion is undivided. Hollywood may be dominated by Jews, and the media heavily influenced by them but one should not blame all Jews for the antagonistic behaviour of a small number of Jewish plutocrats.
With the foregoing caveat, Martin's interesting article now follows.
Griffin’s “Alfred” confidence trick
It looks like my bulletin of last Saturday....
From: Martin Webster
Date: Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:05
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Griffin's “technology” excuse exploded
Griffin’s “computer technology” excuse
for electoral failure exploded at Oldham
....prompted Griffin to issue in his own name an explanation and “in-depth” ‘analysis’ for the BNP flop at Oldham. I run this out below. (You can’t say I’m not fair!) [visit www.bnp.org.uk to read Griffin's apologia, AE].
Though this second stab at an explanation is about six times longer than the initial explanation proffered by “BNP Web Admin” which I reviewed last Saturday, it contains no additional substantial facts or analysis.
In view of his promotion of Winston Churchill’s image in last year’s BNP general election literature, I’m only surprised that Griffin did not conclude the second version of the Oldham ‘analysis’ with the words: “I can only offer you blood, toil, tears and sweat....”!
He certainly did not repeat his claim in last year’s video that the BNP’s possession (or imminent possession) of a new computer voter-profiling programme would restore the party to electoral success!
We now learn that, contrary to the impression given in the post-general election video, this computer programme (which he now tells us is called “Alfred”) does not actually exist but is still being developed!
But in last year’s video he gave the clear impression that the computer programme did exist; that the Labour Party already had it (which was the reason why it swamped the BNP’s effort at Barking); that it was available to other parties; that the BNP was to / had already bought it; and that it would transform the BNP’s ability to contest elections on an equal footing with Labour and other big parties.
The BNP’s figures at Oldham last Thursday and Griffin’s admission today that the magic software does not exist are proof that last year’s video was simply a confidence trick to “explain” to BNP members the “technological reasons” for their party’s disappointing general election results and to give them hope of better things in the future....
[especially if members send in more cash NOW! Are you with me? Then Donate HERE!].
That future arrived last Thursday at Oldham.
Why aren’t donors and responsible BNP officials asking: Where’s that computer programme? What’s happened to the money subscribed to buy it?
It’s almost as if Griffin thinks that the majority of BNP members are so goldfish-brained that they cannot remember what he told them six days — let alone six months — ago; and that the few who can remember are so intimidated, or inexperienced, or gullible that he can bury their misgivings and anxieties under a torrent of words.
Very likely he’s right in this assessment of the human material he’s looting. The same sort of explanation applies as to why Zionist-Jewry is able to jackboot its way about the world with nobody except a tiny minority of “extremists” raising a peep of protest. [*See P.S. #1]
Clearly, the vast majority of people are stupid and/or cowardly and/or corrupt. The BNP is simply humanity at large, writ small.
Martin Webster.
P.S. #1: Now the Jews are out to smear George VI, father of our present Queen, as a raving Nazi because he followed government policy in resisting the mass immigration of German Jews to Palestine, which as a constitutional monarch he was obliged to do. He was a good and brave man who won the affection and admiration of all who remember him.
As a nine year old at a L.C.C. Catholic primary school I remember our headmistress, an Assumptionist nun called Mother Andrew, calling the whole school to assembly mid-morning. She announced: “Our King is dead”. The immediate response to this was a spontaneous exclamation of “Ohhh!....” — even from Irish children whose families had recently come to London from the Republic. An evil unkind man does not earn a spontaneous sigh of sadness from innocents when they hear of his passing.
The Jews have launched this vile campaign not to make sure a new film about him and his stammering problem does not win any Oscar awards (as British media creeps postulate) but to impose on our Royal Family and on the British nation at large a “Holocaust guilt burden” and to try to justify the Jewish theft of Palestine.
Why should any British Monarch, his government or his people pursue policies which are not only contrary to current British national interests, but involve the infliction of theft of national territory, ethnic cleansing and genocide against an innocent and unthreatening people — in this case the Palestinians?
This is a classic example of how the Jews incite what they call “anti-semitism”.
Which chapter of Mein Kampf (My Fight) was it that Griffin found interesting? Was it Chapter ten, of Volume one, in which Hitler asserts that most people are more ready to believe a big lie than a little one? The reason being, supposedly, that because they themselves often tell little lies in their everyday lives but would baulk at telling a big lie, they assume that others are like themselves.
Martin Webster is a controversial figure within a controversial movement. Even his harshest critics, however, can scarce forbear to acknowledge his self-evident quality as a nationalist polemic and orator.
I do not subscribe to his description of the Palestinians as "...an innocent and unthreatening people..." though I acknowledge that they, like the Jews, have a right to their own homeland, just as my people, the English, have a right to England.
Nor do I believe that Jewish opinion is undivided. Hollywood may be dominated by Jews, and the media heavily influenced by them but one should not blame all Jews for the antagonistic behaviour of a small number of Jewish plutocrats.
With the foregoing caveat, Martin's interesting article now follows.
Griffin’s “Alfred” confidence trick
It looks like my bulletin of last Saturday....
From: Martin Webster
Date: Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:05
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Griffin's “technology” excuse exploded
Griffin’s “computer technology” excuse
for electoral failure exploded at Oldham
....prompted Griffin to issue in his own name an explanation and “in-depth” ‘analysis’ for the BNP flop at Oldham. I run this out below. (You can’t say I’m not fair!) [visit www.bnp.org.uk to read Griffin's apologia, AE].
Though this second stab at an explanation is about six times longer than the initial explanation proffered by “BNP Web Admin” which I reviewed last Saturday, it contains no additional substantial facts or analysis.
In view of his promotion of Winston Churchill’s image in last year’s BNP general election literature, I’m only surprised that Griffin did not conclude the second version of the Oldham ‘analysis’ with the words: “I can only offer you blood, toil, tears and sweat....”!
He certainly did not repeat his claim in last year’s video that the BNP’s possession (or imminent possession) of a new computer voter-profiling programme would restore the party to electoral success!
We now learn that, contrary to the impression given in the post-general election video, this computer programme (which he now tells us is called “Alfred”) does not actually exist but is still being developed!
But in last year’s video he gave the clear impression that the computer programme did exist; that the Labour Party already had it (which was the reason why it swamped the BNP’s effort at Barking); that it was available to other parties; that the BNP was to / had already bought it; and that it would transform the BNP’s ability to contest elections on an equal footing with Labour and other big parties.
The BNP’s figures at Oldham last Thursday and Griffin’s admission today that the magic software does not exist are proof that last year’s video was simply a confidence trick to “explain” to BNP members the “technological reasons” for their party’s disappointing general election results and to give them hope of better things in the future....
[especially if members send in more cash NOW! Are you with me? Then Donate HERE!].
That future arrived last Thursday at Oldham.
Why aren’t donors and responsible BNP officials asking: Where’s that computer programme? What’s happened to the money subscribed to buy it?
It’s almost as if Griffin thinks that the majority of BNP members are so goldfish-brained that they cannot remember what he told them six days — let alone six months — ago; and that the few who can remember are so intimidated, or inexperienced, or gullible that he can bury their misgivings and anxieties under a torrent of words.
Very likely he’s right in this assessment of the human material he’s looting. The same sort of explanation applies as to why Zionist-Jewry is able to jackboot its way about the world with nobody except a tiny minority of “extremists” raising a peep of protest. [*See P.S. #1]
Clearly, the vast majority of people are stupid and/or cowardly and/or corrupt. The BNP is simply humanity at large, writ small.
Martin Webster.
P.S. #1: Now the Jews are out to smear George VI, father of our present Queen, as a raving Nazi because he followed government policy in resisting the mass immigration of German Jews to Palestine, which as a constitutional monarch he was obliged to do. He was a good and brave man who won the affection and admiration of all who remember him.
As a nine year old at a L.C.C. Catholic primary school I remember our headmistress, an Assumptionist nun called Mother Andrew, calling the whole school to assembly mid-morning. She announced: “Our King is dead”. The immediate response to this was a spontaneous exclamation of “Ohhh!....” — even from Irish children whose families had recently come to London from the Republic. An evil unkind man does not earn a spontaneous sigh of sadness from innocents when they hear of his passing.
The Jews have launched this vile campaign not to make sure a new film about him and his stammering problem does not win any Oscar awards (as British media creeps postulate) but to impose on our Royal Family and on the British nation at large a “Holocaust guilt burden” and to try to justify the Jewish theft of Palestine.
Why should any British Monarch, his government or his people pursue policies which are not only contrary to current British national interests, but involve the infliction of theft of national territory, ethnic cleansing and genocide against an innocent and unthreatening people — in this case the Palestinians?
This is a classic example of how the Jews incite what they call “anti-semitism”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
