Subject: "In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed Man is King"

Dear Mr. [deleted],

Thank you for your e-mail in response to my bulletin 'Electronic Loose Cannon' No. 8.

From the way your message was received by me, the e-mail software that my computer uses does not seem to be very compatible with yours. I hope this message gets to you in a readable form. Let me know if it does not, and I can send you the text as an attachment in 'Word' or some other text format which you computer can unzip.

There is not a simple one-sentence answer to your question ["Could you please tell me your purpose of wanting to expose Nick Griffin?"]

If you have been following my 'Loose Cannon' items from the printed version issued in September 1999 through the various issues of the electronic version up to the recent isue No. 8, you should be fairly well up-to-speed with my reasons for seeking to expose Nick Griffin.

Have you had all those items?

If not, let me know which issues you have NOT seen and I will e-mail them to you in separate messages.

There are many so many incidents in the life of Nick Griffin that I do not have the time to rehearse them all here, but which I will be covering in another (printed) issue of 'Loose Cannon' which I will be posting out in due course. (Let me have an address and I will send you a copy.)


However, a short(ish) answer to your question is that I have known Nick Griffin since he attended his first National Front meeting (at the Cavalier Hotel, Norwich, in 1975, at which I was guest speaker).

As the years went by I got to know him personally and then - to put no finer point on it for the moment - intimately.

The whole of my experience of him, which has been replicated by the experience of him of numerous other people, is that he is:(a) an unprincipled careerist-opportunist in politics;(b) a disreputable-unreliable-dishonest spiv in his management of funds;and,(c) a hypocrite in the matter of sexual morality.

He has switched, spasmodically, from one ideological position to another (diametrically opposite) position not on the grounds of a genuine intellectual and principled conversion, but for reasons of personal self-advancement.

I have time to give but two short examples of this:

1. BRITISH NATIONALISM OR CELTIC NATIONALISM?

Griffin began his political life in England as a convinced BRITISH nationalist. By 1982 he fell in with a subversive group then called 'Rising' (later the International Third Position). He judged the ITP was the "New Wave" of racialist politics and so abandoned his British Nationalism in favour of the ITP ideology which promoted the break-up of Britain, the independence of Wales and Scotland and the take-over of Northern Ireland by the Irish Republic.Because the ITP was dominated by Italians and Welsh and Irish nationalists, Griffin, the only Englishman among its co-founders, felt very out of place. So he abandoned his Englishness and moved himself and his family to Wales where, on account of his surname, he claimed his "ethnic roots" were to be found. His home is "Y Gribbin" and his children all have Welsh names and learn the Welsh language.His ITP colleagues were all fanatical "Counter-Reformationist" Roman Catholics and several of them were openly pro IRA. ITP supremo Roberto Fiore, with whom Griffin set up a business partnership, actually went to Dublin to meet the IRA leadership in the early 1982.
He boasted about this meeting to a Birmingham NF official who put him up overnight as he was en route to Dublin for the meeting in question.Griffin did not convert to the RC Church, but he dropped his once active membership of the 'Cromwellian' section of the Sealed Knot Society!

Then he got up to one of his bouts of financial shenanigans and the ITP and one of its financial supporters (an early friend of Griffin's called Tony Williams) got very badly burned over Griffin's purchase of dud printing equipment.

Griffin had to depart the ITP very quickly.

However, his political ambition still burned - but where would the gad-fly find its next perch?

In another split-second ideological back-somersault he decided that the BRITISH NATIONAL Party was the party for him!

This leads me on to my second example of his unprincipled opportunist approach:

2. "EXTREMIST" OR "MODERATE" BRITISH NATIONALIST?

Having decided to return to BRITISH nationalism, to which branch of the BNP did he turn?

To his NEAREST branch?

No.

To the most ideologically MODERATE branch?

No again.

He turned to the Sutton and Croydon Branch which was the focus or hub for ultra-violent militant groups such as Column 18 and which, furthermore, produced its own magazine 'The Rune', which was overtly National Socialist in its editorial content and graphics.He joined that branch BECAUSE of and not DESPITE its "extremist" connections and, indeed, quickly jostled himself into the positon of Editor of 'The Rune' where he maintained its National Socialist tone. (No mention of celtic nationalism, the break-up of Great Britain, betraying Northern Ireland, etc., which had been his ideological life-blood whilst with the ITP!)

Griffin calculated that because 'The Rune' was distributed nationally within the BNP, it would provide him with a platform for self-promotion. He figured (rightly) that the membership calibre of nationalist movements being so low (at least in the area of educational attainment, social skills and monetary 'savvy') and so fast-changing, that anybody with a degree from Cambridge University would have an edge and that the rank and file would be too uninformed and dull to be able to grasp the implications of his ideological and financial past history.

Never was this old folk saying more apposite: "In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king".Because he believed that the ultra-militant 'biff-boy' tendency was on the rise, Griffin made speeches about "clearing the streets with fist, boot and bottle. . . " It was on the grounds of this approach to politics that he and his unfortunate 'Rune' publisher Paul Ballard got prosecuted for "publishing material intended or likely to incite racial hatred" contrary to Section 19 of the Public Order Act.Then, to his horror, Griffin discovered that the coming tendencey within the BNP was NOT the 'biff-boy' thug crowd, but people who called themselves the "Modernists".

It was their intention to drive John Tyndall out of the BNP leadership and to effect a public relations 'makeover' of the party with a raft of "moderate" policies.

The biff-boys were, in fact, on their way out.

Fortuntely for Griffin, the "Modernists" did not have anybody available to stand up as their leader and formally challenge John Tyndall in an election for the Chairmanship of the Party. Some of the leaders of the "Modernist" faction were, in fact OUTSIDE the membership (i.e. Adrian Davies and Eddie Butler) while on the inside Tony Lecomber was ruled out on account of his bad criminal record and Mike Newland ruled himself out as being too old. Quick as a flash, Griffin leaped in, announced his conversion to "Modernism" and "moderation" and was adopted as the "Modernist" candidate to challenge the ageing failure Tyndall.

In face-to-face meetings with Lecomber and, later, Davies, I warned of Griffin's unscrupulous political opportunism, financial unreliability and sexual hypocrisy and told them that "the only qualification Griffin has in your eyes is that he is not John Tyndall".

But I was told: "But that is a very important qualification!"

Their (understandable) desire to rid themselves of the will-hunting tyrant Tyndall blinded them to the facts about Griffin.

Within a year of my warnings, half the prominent supporters of the "Modernist" faction which had promoted Griffin into power abandoned the BNP as a result of Griffin's conduct all of which I had predicted.

This suited Griffin very well as he did not want too many talented people around him. Such people are a threat to a Leader's position (as he would be the first to know!).

He wants to be surrounded either by devoted ignoramuses - or cynical but competent people with such bad criminal records that they cannot have any public political ambition.

3. HETEROSEXUAL, BI-SEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL?

Griffin's unprincipled approach to political ideology and to finances is fully reflected in his hypocritical approach to sexual mores. He has regularly engaged in very intemperate attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality in general both as a member of the ITP and then later as a member of the BNP.

I made no comment about his even though he sustained a homosexual relationship with me for four years.(Yes! HE sustained it with ME. There are numerous witnesses to attest that he always insisted on staying at my home whenever he visited London from 1976 onwards to 1980. My sexual orientation was known in the NF in 1969 when I joined the party, and was known to John Tyndall by 1972 because I discussed the topic with him, and he then immediately discussed it with Frank Clifford, the octogenarian Tyndall appointed to be President of the party and who, unknown to Tyndall at the time, was also homosexual.)

I figured that private life should be kept private and did not make public the facts about Griffin's past sexual relationship with me (which ended in 1980) despite many opportunities and provocations.

I decided that enough was enough when he not only made personal attack on me (and my partner of, now, nearly 30 years) for being homosexual but also wrote an article for Tyndall's 'Spearhead' which constituted a plea of mitigation (if not an outright justification) for the nail-bombing of a Soho 'gay' pub in which a woman and her unborn baby were killed and her husband maimed.Griffin considered that I would be too embarrassed to confront him with his lies and hypocrisy on this and other topics. He was wrong.

I published the facts in the first (printed) issue of the 'Loose Cannon' which I issued in September 1999. (I have this on disc in a Plain Text format which I can e-mail to you if you request.) The facts were picked up and re-published in 'The Sunday Times' and later by the Jewish anti-fascist magazine 'Searchlight'.Griffin predictably said it was "all lies" but would not sue me for libel because I was "a man of straw" (i.e. have no money).

Putting to one side the fact that he has made himself a "man of straw" by signing over all of his assets to his wife for fear of litigation, Griffin could have sued 'The Sunday Times' and/or the enemy magazine 'Searchlight'. But he has not done so.

He has a Cambridge Law degree - he could sue me as a litigant in person if he did not wish to hire expensive lawyers. (I defended myself with some success as a litigant in person when the Anti Nazi League leader Peter Hain sued me for libel, using top lawyers, in 1982.)

Griffin elsewhere has said he can "prove" he is heterosexual by pointing to the fact that he is married with four children. This is absurd.

On that basis can we calculate that he is half as homosexual as Oscar Wilde, who was married with two children!?I am quite happy to accept that he is bi-sexual.

Whatever a person's sexual orientation, if as a private citizen they wish to keep their sexual inclinations private, that is their right. But if, as a politician striving for public office, they make public attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality when they have a background of homosexual and bi-sexual activity, then they makes themselves and their party a hostage to fortune.

Griffin's lies and hypocrisy on this topic have been so categorical that he has cut himself off from the possibility of being able to admit that he has "a past life, while a younger man, of homosexual activity" (four years cannot be written off as "experimentation"!) without also admitting that he previously told bare-faced lies on that subject.

This would then beg the question: on what other subjects has he told bare-faced lies?

He can now no more admit that he has lied about his past sex life than he can admit that he has constantly altered his fundamental ideological position in diametrically opposite ways or that he has continually been less than honest in handling other peoples' money.

This combination of character failings which are incorporated in Nick Griffin cannot but fail to exert themselves again and again in the future, just as they have done in the past.

The bigger he is allowed to grow, the more damage he will inflict on the cause which he presently claims to represent.

He cannot help himself.

He constitutes an unhappy fusion of Jeffrey Archer and Michael Portillo.

If I were in charge of the Establishment, Griffin is the very kind of man who I would wish to have in charge of the British nationalist movement at this, its eleventh hour of opportunity.

Yours sincerely,


Martin Webster.



---------->From: < [deleted] @freedom.net>To:
>Subject: expose>Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001, 10:43 pm>Zero-Knowledge MIME Encapsulated Message>>------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C116ED.92245780>Content-Type: text/plain;> charset = "iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable>> Dear Mr Webster
>

could you please tell me your purpose, =>of wanting to expose Nick Griffin?