An 'Electronic Loose Cannon' Extra!
GRIFFIN AS 'PHANTOM OF THE OPERA
'Scenes of Hilarious Farce and Fiasco at last Saturday's West Midlands BNP Rally!
Exclusive report by our Drama Correspondent
Yesterday (Saturday 14th October 2000) I attended a West Midlands BNP meeting at the Tipton Sports and Social Club held to call for the reinstatement to the party of Steve and Sharron Edwards ("S and S") and Mike Newland ("MN").
As you will be aware, party chairman Nick Griffin ("NG") had expelled S and S and MN following a stormy meeting of the party's Advisory Council in August. W. Mids. Region however strongly supported S and S, and convened yesterday's meeting to put pressure on NG to reverse his unpopular decision.
About 100 or so people attended the meeting.
For reasons to which I shall come, it is clear that NG had anticipated a far smaller attendance.
He himself did not (at first) grace the meeting with his august presence, but instead sent his principal lieutenant, Tony Lecomber ("TL") to face down those attending.
Numerous speakers addressed the meeting, including MN, S and S, TL, Eddy Butler, Jonathan Bowden and Richard Edmonds. MN denounced NG and TL in the most bitter and vitriolic terms. Choice gems include describing NG and TL as "criminals" (which is of course true) and NG in particular as an "asset stripper" who had "done the rounds of all the various nationalist groups, sticking around long enough to appropriate their assets in the form of salary and expenses, before moving on to the next target". TL, who displayed considerable courage in attempting to face down a large and hostile meeting, then demeaned himself by losing his temper, swearing at hecklers from the platform in a disgraceful outburst of vile obscenities.
TL also stated in terms that there was "nothing really wrong with defrauding the public exchequer as a means of financing a nationalist party". No doubt 'Searchlight' will bring this imprudent public observation to the attention of the Inland Revenue Special Investigations Unit in due course!
S and S made very effective and dignified speeches which confirmed the good opinion that I had formed of them in earlier discussions. Eddy Butler made a characteristically sensible and low key speech, not overlooking to mention his long standing friendship with TL, formed when NG had expelled Eddy from the NF fourteen years ago, and pointing out that to expel leading members of the party without a proper hearing on trivial charges was unacceptable if the party sought to become a serious democratic mass party capable of winning elections.
In a witty and well received intervention, Jonathan Bowden observed that England was not Iraq. It was not open to NG to answer questions from the party treasurer such as "where's that quid?" by saying "You are mad and you are out!", especially when there was compelling evidence of false accounting by NG and TL, nor should NG make ill disguised threats of violence against S and S in a members' bulletin (as to which see below).
Richard Edmonds wound up with a powerful and eloquent speech in which he lambasted NG, saying that NG was "a coward who had sent TL to face the music instead of coming himself", that NG's motive in expelling S and S was simply "fear that Sharron might one day challenge him for the leadership, which any member of the party was entitled to do", and that the veiled incitement to violence against S and S in the October members' bulletin was the most disgraceful thing that he had seen in his long years in the movement.
At the end of this speech, a whey faced NG emerged from behind the curtains at the back of the hall where he had been hiding for the previous fifteen minutes or so, after TL had summoned him to a parley with S and S. S and S agreed with NG that they should be immediately and unconditionally readmitted, and that the question of who should be the party's candidate in the pending West Bromwich bye-election should stand over for fourteen days.
MN refused to be readmitted, telling the assembled gathering that NG was "a crook and a con man, and would con them all again as he had before".
NG took this intervention without attempting to answer for fear of exacerbating the situation, if that were possible.
Make of this what you will.
3 comments:
There are some very interesting and relevant comments posted on the Lancaster UAF blogspot on this whole subject.
It seems I am not te only nationalist to read the enemy's weblog.
These gems are longer and more thoughtful than the usual silly knee jerk lefty comments, so they should easily be found.
NG's leadership seems to be unravelling. Proving again that it is not the cock up that gets you, it's the cover up.
Whether he beats Chris Jackson or any other leadership candidate this year is not the issue. The whole question of NG's character and performance is now out in the open and cannot be ignored for long.
Unless it is sorted, how many BNP members will drift off to other patriotic/nationalist parties that are currently little more than 'grouplets' but which will thereby expand into something more effective?
Why is there no such disciplinary charge available against Tony Lecomber for such behaviour?
Something like:
"Conduct likely to bring the party into disrepute"
for behaviour which is bad but lacks intent....and
"Conduct calculated to bring the party into disrepute"
for behaviour which is bad and intended to be so.
Tony Lecomber swearing etc at a party meeting...even if attended exclusively by party members...is still likely to bring the party into disrepute, because some members are likely to want to leave a party that tolerates such behaviour.
This behaviour was probably unintended by Lecomber, in that he probably just lost his temper without planning to do so.
However, threats of violence, however obliquely stated, in a written party publication show intent, because there would have been ample opportunity to review the words and meaning before final publication.
Therefore, EVERYBODY associated with such a published threat is guilty of "copnduct calculated to bring the party into disrepute".
If this is not in the constitution, it should be introduced.
It is a very effective weapon against bad behaviour...at every level...even the highest...AND would be enforceable in court.
There are at least three comments posted on the Lancaster UAF weblog that are releveant to this story.
One of them you have already published on this weblog under the title "Griffin as leader...oh bugger" or something.
Anyway all three are below...if you are interested. They have a particularly depressing view of the BNP, but one which should nevertheless provoke constructive thought among its members when they consider who to vote for in the leadership contest.
-----------------------
Anonymous said...
Each of the steps taken by Griffin to take money out of the BNP is probably legal...in isolation...but taken together as part of a whole scheme, they may well amount to theft.
It all depends on intent.
If dishonest from the outset, it is theft.
If not, it is incompetence or a difference of opinion.Proving intent or the state of an individual's mind is obviously difficult.However, it can be shown by the combination of two or more actions that lead inevitably to a result.
If the board of directors of a limited company did the following:gained election;used office to promote their friends/relatives bypassing usual selection procedures based on assessment of merit;(such as Mark Collett after incurring the PR disaster of 'young, nazi and proud')changed internal rules to choke information channels to the shareholders;witheld relevant information - ie information that would allow a proper assessment - from shareholders;(such as full, open, audited accounts showing directors' fees etc)changed rules by which others could seek election to office of director;massively increased directors' fees without any corresponding increase in revenue that could be attributed to the actions/performance of the directors;employed friends to do jobs with substantial salaries that had previously been done by others - not necessarily friends of the directors - with no salary;then I guess that the DTI might well rule that such a board of directors had 'done a Maxwell'.
I refer not to the looting of the Mirror pension funds, but to Maxwell's previous behaviour in the late 1960s, when the DTI ruled that he was not fit to run a public company.
What Griffin is accused of doing is in fact very common; treating the money of members as their own.
The founders or controlling members of small societies, be they local amateur dramatic or even small private limited companies or even large public limited companies - often do this.
Think of what Conrad Black is accused of: treating company money, the money contributed by shareholders, as his own piggy bank.
The local amdram society may be the victim of the same attitude, especially when the tresurer and secretary have held office for several years because nobody else can be bothered.
However, with companies, the list of shareholders is a public document. Any shareholder who believes the company is being run for the benefit of a few directors and not the benefit of all shareholders can eithercontact all the other shareholders to ask them to vote him onto the board of directors,orapply to the court to wind up the company compulsorily.
This involves selling all the assets and distributing the proceeds to the shareholders.
Neither of these is available to BNP members.
Griffin appears to have done the following.
Packed the 'board of directors' or its equivalent in the BNP with his friends.
Restricted access by members to other members, by keeping the membership lists secret AND by restricting access to party publications.
It is the combination of the two that is important.
Either one on its own can be justified, but when acting together, they cannot.
Seized control of the rule book by which he can change the rules at critical moments - such as after nominations close and before any election contest starts.
The effect is to remove any real prospect of being held accountable for his actions.
Then he has done what he liked with the revenue.
What does this combination reveal about his intent?
POSTED SATURDAY 9th JUNE
--------------------------
Anonymous said...
Anon said:
"What you write on this site will not stop the donations for the BNP coming in, it will not stop people joining the party and it will not stop people voting for them.BNP in government by the year 2015."
The victims/investors of multi level marketing and chainletter frauds go on a 'sucker list' to be sold to the next promoter of such a fraud. Why? Because the promoters know that many such victims prefer to hide from the truth that they have been foolish and greedy rather than face up to it. Such victims then go on to 'invest' in the next 'something for nothing' miracle money maker.
So too have thousands of nationalists.
Was the National Front led by John Tyndall a political party, in that its PRIMARY purpose was the pursuit of power? Or was it rather a list of subscribers to John Tyndall's privately owned magazine "Spearhead" ?
If it was a political party, then Tyndall would have happily donated all the profits from Spearhead and kept only a subsistence wage for himself.
All the parties led by John Tyndall - The British Movement, National Front, New National Front, BNP etc - were falsely named. The correct name was 'The John Tyndall Party'. As soon as he faced competition for the leadership, he reverted to type by publishing yet another scrawl on the so called 'jewish problem'. This caused an exodus leaving a rump of loyalists.
Has Griffin converted the BNP from John Tyndall's pension plan into a political party? Or into an even bigger pension plan for himself?
What do his actions - described by anon above - say?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from outraged JT loyalists at these comments only reveal the emotional pain at facing up to personal foolishness.
It is easy to talk in childish hyperbole..."Victory or Valhalla" and other puerile nonsense...and rather more difficult and boring to run a serious political party with realistic and therefore humane policies and principles.
4:28 PM, June 08, 2007
-----------------------------
Re Anon of 10:19 AM, June 09, 2007:
"Your party's a bad joke and your party leader is a buffoon."
No, the BNP is not a bad joke, but neither is it a political party.
It is a collection of unwitting customers and unwitting unpaid sales staff for the NG pension fund.
Just as the members of AMWAY are customers and unpaid sales staff.
This explains why the BNP cannot operate with a committee or directorate in charge, but only with an all powerful 'leader' or dare I say 'owner'.
When previous parties, such as NF, had a committee or directorate in charge, they all fought each other like hell to get the top job. None would actually sacrifice their own ego or ambition for the good of the party or the good of the cause...because those at the top knew the cause was personal profit, not political power to 'save the nation'.
But only the revered leader, John Tyndall, actually made anything out of it.
So, it mattered not a jot nor a tittle to those in the ruling directorate how much damage their in fighting did to the cause of 'saving the nation' or to the party, because John Tyndall would not share it out and anyway they all of them wanted it all for themselves.
Better to have 100% of a small and splintered cake than sweet nothing of a large and growing cake.
If you want to achieve everything, then you have to risk everything. That means personal sacrifice that may never be recognised or even lead to anything. You have to risk wasting your whole life and being, if you want a mere chance of the greatest success.
None of the NF, BNP etc leaders have anything like the moral courage or commitment required.
10:44 AM, June 11, 2007
Post a Comment