Why is the BNP still soft on Tony Lecomber ?

NWN: We have received the below e-mail off Joe Owens, most of the first part we have seen before. However, Joe has added some other info and quite rightly he asks why BNP leader Nick Griffin treated BNP founder the late John Tyndall so badly. Just what has Lecomber got on Nick Griffin ?



The real reason Griffin proscribed me.


From the desk of Joe Owens.

For immediate release.

04-04-06.

Setting the record straight.



Around two weeks before Christmas 2005, I received a card from Tony Lecomber.
I found this rather odd, as I had never received one from him at any time in the past.
I thought little of it, putting it down to simple courtesy and friendship. The message written on the card was a general seasonal greeting with a footnote that he would be visiting me sometime between X-mas and the New Year. This too struck me as strange – I had no contact with Lecomber for at least the previous eighteen months. In reply to his Christmas card I e-mailed him my mobile and land line numbers the following day.

Still confused as to why Lecomber would want to travel to Liverpool from London to see me over the festive period, I e-mailed him again stating-
“If you’re on a fishing expedition on Griffin’s behalf you shouldn’t bother.”
He responded by saying -
“This is nothing to do with the BNP, or Griffin, it’s a personal matter regarding me”.

Several days later, I received a phone call from Lecomber. He said, weather permitting, he would be down – he was also visiting someone in east Yorkshire.
It was not until after New Year that I received another e-mail from Lecomber saying he would be visiting me on the 9th or 12th of January 2006.

He finally showed up on the 12th January, we met around 12.00 noon at the Showcase cinema on the East Lancs. Road, Liverpool. Nearby there is a Pizza Hut which I often visit. The restaurant was quiet as we sat down and ordered drinks whilst perusing the menu. We ordered, and as we waited for our food to arrive, I asked Tony Lecomber the purpose of his visit.
He looked around us before saying to me –
“It’s now too late to stop immigration. In London 42% of births were from recent immigrant women, and this statistic doesn’t include births from the home grown ones.”
“Tell me something I don’t know.”
“What we need is direct action.”
“What do you mean by ‘direct action’?”
“Targeting members of the establishment who are aiding and abetting the coloured invasion of this country…”
“What does ‘targeting’ mean?”
“Killing them.”
“How is that going to stop immigration?
“It would deter other people from filling their jobs.”
“That’s rubbish! The IRA never deterred establishment figures by murdering others. Take Airey Neave for example. Which establishment figures are you referring to?”
“The likes of Greg Dyke.”

My alarm bells were now well and truly ringing. My brain raced as I tried to figure out what this man was up to. I then pressed him further on the issue of how these people were to be killed -
“A lot of intelligence would have to be gathered on those we plan to target, and cars with false number plates would have to be acquired.”

I told him I wanted no part of his mad-cap scheme and remarked that anyone embarking on such a venture would last no longer than the Brazilian shot by the police on the London tube.
We finished our meal and left the restaurant.
On leaving I reiterated that I wanted no part in his crazy scheme, to which he responded – “If you change your mind give me a call…”

After we had parted company, I immediately rang Mark Collett and told him the gist of the conversation I’d just had with Lecomber. He, like I, was deeply shocked. I also rang Stevie Cartwright, from Glasgow; he said he would call Warren Bennett, head of BNP security, to inform him about this serious threat to the party.

Warren Bennett and, I believe, Scott McLean, informed Nick Griffin of the situation. I then received a phone call from Nick Griffin, and briefly outlined to him the conversation I’d had with Lecomber. We decided to meet up on Saturday 14th January, at Chester services on the M56 motorway, to discuss this serious turn of events.

I met Nick that afternoon and recounted, almost word for word, the conversation I had had with Lecomber. To my amazement Nick claimed Lecomber was suffering from diabetes, said diabetics were prone to mood swings, and that –
“This could explain Lecomber apparently taking leave of his senses.”
After I had stopped laughing, I replied –
“Well, it must have been a long mood swing. I got the x-mas card two weeks before Christmas and had the conversation on the 12th January with Lecomber!”
Nick was forced to concede that I was right.

We spoke for some time, going over every possible scenario to explain Lecomber’s strange behaviour. We both agreed that the man was up to no good, in fact, Nick then said –
“This now explains why Searchlight have always known our exact membership numbers. Lecomber will be confronted at the forthcoming court case demo, in Leeds.” Lecomber did turn up at the Leeds demo – accompanied by his wife and children. This was something he had never done before, bringing his family with him. Some astute observers believed this was an attempt to ensure his personal safety.

I was also in regular contact with Stevie Cartwright and he informed me, as Nick Griffin did, that Lecomber would resign, fall upon his own sword. I have retained the original text message from Griffin saying –
“Tony told to resign, or fall on own sword, now let me get on with my court case.”
Before I go any further, neither Nick Griffin nor anyone else in the BNP have refuted one word I have said concerning this episode. All they have done is release a statement saying that Lecomber had approached a non-member and said words that could be “misconstrued and bring the Party into disrepute.”

How in the world I could misconstrue someone asking me to kill people is beyond me, I know exactly what Lecomber said and what he meant – as does he.

After several weeks had gone by I was led to believe that Lecomber was still working for the BNP. I e-mailed Griffin and asked him if this was the case? To which he replied – “Tony is now passing his job over to another senior member, which will take some time. Losing Tony, a good strategist, electioneer, activist etc, is a great loss to the BNP – now leave the poor man alone.”

Leave the poor man alone? The same poor man who tried to solicit me to murder people? I found this response from Griffin very strange indeed… Instead of using the full weight of a BNP tribunal to bring Lecomber to book and kick him out the party, Griffin was more concerned about Lecomber’s feelings. To this day Lecomber is actively working for the BNP in a salaried position.

Sadie Graham may have ostensibly taken over Lecomber’s old job but that is just window dressing by Griffin. Why was John Tyndall expelled immediately from the BNP just for criticising Griffin, yet Lecomber who advocates murder can nonchalantly carry on his duties in the BNP? The excuse that he is clearing his desk, and passing over his job, is just a load of bull!!!

I now challenge Lecomber and Griffin to refute one word I have written here. In point of fact, I even offered to pay for Lecomber to undergo a polygraph test if he denied what I was saying. To date Nick Griffin has not taken up my offer.

It would be pointless to go on, and on about this matter. However, the reader might like to ask himself a few questions –

· Why has Lecomber been treated with kid gloves and the whole matter brushed under the carpet by the BNP leadership?
· Why has Lecomber not received a visit from the police, as they are aware of his conspiracy/solicitation to murder?
· Why has a deafening media silence greeted what one would have expected to be a heaven-sent opportunity to smear the BNP?


I will tell you who has received a visit from the police – ME! I was not the one soliciting murder. I told the police I had no comment to make. It still strikes me as strange that I should be the one being paid a visit by Special Branch…

Whatever Lecomber’s motives were I do not know? I could speculate, but prefer just giving the facts, as I know them.

Joe Owens

The above statement was released on the internet to let fellow nationalists know exactly what was said during my meeting with Lecomber. Incidentally, he has not been expelled or proscribed and still attends BNP functions.

I believe Tony Lecomber is a Searchlight (and/or MI5) agent. He had been sent to embroil me in acts of violence in the run-up to BNP chairman Nick Griffin and Mark Collett's trial on race charges.

What the actual plan would have finally been is a matter for speculation. Had I been foolish enough to go along with Lecomber’s scheme, it could only have landed me in prison – or dead! It would also have had a seriously detrimental effect on the forthcoming trial of Griffin and Collett. The media hysteria alone would have been enough to send Griffin and Collett to jail.

This, I believe, was the main aim and objective. I was only a pawn in the grand strategy of some very sinister forces... It has long been suspected in nationalist circles that Tony Lecomber is an agent of the state. The question mark over him arose in the light of his (ridiculously short) sentence of three years on explosives charges. Lecomber’s intent and planning – as well as his political learning’s – could easily have seen him potted off with a life sentence. Why would the enemies of nationalism give a sentence of three years to a man planning to bomb and murder (because that’s what bombs do, kill people) when they had him bang to rights? It just does not add up.

It was when it was announced to fellow nationalists that I intended to feature this episode in my book that I was proscribed (19th April 2006) by Nick Griffin.

Now this is very strange considering that I announced on Stormfront that I intended to write a book on 28.7.2004, and no one called for me to be proscribed. On the contrary, Nick Griffin placed a posting on Stormfront via Odin’s Eye (Sharon Ebanks) wishing me good luck with my book! These sentiments were repeated in a number of e-mails Griffin sent me around this time.

He did not proscribe me when I donated £1000 towards his (Griffin's) Euro election campaign, and £1000 towards the London Assembly elections. Nor when I bought Oldham BNP a £2000 digital duplicator, and gave the party a video-editing system and computer worth nearly £3000 for only £500. In addition I bought the paintball guns (used at the annual Red, White & Blue festival) for £400. In addition, I paid for their gassing and re-balling every year.

There is a long list of services I performed for the BNP, and for Nick Griffin personally. To proscribe me in such a way – and for such a reason – exposes him as both ungrateful and selfish.

Why Nick Griffin is protecting Tony Lecomber, I do not know. I couldn't even begin to speculate. What I do know is that Lecomber is an enemy of nationalism – and probably in the pay of Searchlight magazine/MI5. Griffin and the BNP do themselves no favours by protecting Lecomber – the matter is something that will come back to haunt them.

As this book went to print Tony Lecomber was the focus of the BNP Organisers Bulletin-April 2007. It stated therein -

'Reminder
Tony Lecomber, while a long-term, devoted and very valuable key official in the BNP and a genuine nationalist, is no longer an official or member of the party. Internal party business should therefore not be discussed with him and he should not be invited to attend party activities. Please note that this is not a proscription aimed at personal contact and friendship. Tony is a victim of his own past and the BNP’s past follies. We recognise his sterling work for the cause in the past, and his selflessness in stepping away in order to avoid compromising the future (Nick Griffin)'

Now the reason Lecomber featured in the Organisers Bulletin was that he had, in late March 2007, attacked party activist, and BNP official, Eddy Butler. Mr Butler had, on finishing work one night, returned to his car. Suddenly a man jumped out of the darkness, wearing a white balaclava - his eyes and mouth blackened beneath it. He launched an attack on Butler. Eddy, being no pushover, fought back and in a fierce struggle managed to drag the balaclava off the attacker's head. This action revealed the assailant to be the one and only Tony Lecomber!

Butler was understandably unhappy about this, and reported the matter to Nick Griffin. This was exactly what I had done the previous year. Griffin was left in a very awkward position - this was the second time, in just over twelve months, that Lecomber had committed serious criminal acts. Faced with the likelihood of the matter entering the public realm, Griffin had to act. Eddy Butler suggested Lecomber be proscribed, at long last driven from the party. In fact, Butler had written Lecomber’s notice of proscription, only to be over-ruled by Griffin, who proceeded to write the notice himself.

As you can see, it is far from a proscription and actually throws bouquets at Lecomber. Now when I was proscribed (just for writing this book?) I was never applauded for the donations I'd given, party work I'd undertaken. Similarly, neither was John Tyndall. JT was proscribed just for publishing an opinion in Spearhead magazine that Griffin and Lecomber did not like...

Why wasn't Lecomber expelled/proscribed when he solicited me to kill cabinet ministers on Jan 12th 2006? He now goes and attacks a leading party official - supposedly, because he felt that Eddy Butler was freezing him out of the BNP. Yet he still does not get proscribed...truly bizarre - or is it?

At the very least Lecomber quite clearly has some massive hold over Griffin. My surmise is still some kind of financial skulduggery. A disclosure of such a nature could mean - depending on the scale of depredations -

a) Possibly jail for Griffin,

b) Being disbarred from MEP candidature.

It is difficult to conclude other than that Nick Griffin is a criminal, using his Chairmanship of the BNP for his own ends. For what possible reason would any political leader keep such a man as Lecomber close to him other than partnership in crime? I believe the BNP is a career move for Griffin who, in his own words, plans to pass the party reins over and retire at fifty-five. The fact he believes he can get away with whatever he wants in the party in the meantime sums up his contempt for the membership.

Sadly, the little cabal around him consist of criminals, deviants and very weak people whom he can easily control. Most of them, who have access to party money, are on the take like him. If I'm wrong then can someone please give me an explanation of why Lecomber is treated with kid gloves?