Electronic Loose Cannon No. 23

Saturday 9th February 2008

Published in tandem with the Electronic Watch on Zion

EDITOR: MARTIN WEBSTER

Information about Griffin and those who back him

I am told that at 8.00pm on Tuesday 12th February BBC Radio 4's 'File on Four' programme will be running an analysis of the way in which British National Party Chairman Nick Griffin has been managing the party's finances.None of my British readers will need to be told that politicians' claims for personal expenses and allowances is a very hot topic these days. In recent weeks scandals have erupted within both main parliamentary political parties which have brought discredit of the Establishment's political system.Perhaps 'File on Four' will be asking if Griffin and the BNP offers the British electorate anything better, cleaner and less corrupt.

This issue of ELC will focus on that very point. Further down I run out an edited/revised portion of an e-mail I sent on 2nd January to one of the leaders of the current revolt against Griffin's leadership of the BNP.

In sum, this issue is a summary of my analysis of Griffin and the direction in which he has been taking the BNP since he became Chairman in September 1999.

To make sense of Griffin, you have to follow the money-trail.

GRIFFIN HELPS COLLETT BECOME A 'PRINT FARMER'
Many BNP local organisers have been complaining during the last year or so that the price of BNP leaflets has increased considerably -- estimates range between 25 and 33 per cent.Before this radical price hike, BNP leaflets (designed by Griffin's young protégée Mark Collett) were posted on the BNP web site as Pdf files so that competent local units could download them and get the printing done by local printers, thus saving on shipping costs.

Other units and individuals ordered supplies from Head Office. But for a year or more such Pdf files have no longer been posted on the web site. Instead, all orders have to go to Head Office.

The reason for the hike in price is because Griffin has allowed Collett to put out the printing work himself to commercial printers and to sell-on the product to the party at a handsome mark-up.As all BNP units are required by Griffin to remit to Head Office all their funds beyond a £100 petty cash 'float', this gives Collett/Griffin an easy method for enforcing the new printing arrangement.

In the print trade, the kind of operation being run by Collett (with Griffin's permission) is known as "print farming". So we have Griffin, a pig farmer, helping his young friend Collett to become a print farmer -- all at the cost of gullible, hard-working British patriots.

Whether Griffin has insisted on his own 'skim' from Collett's mark-up will no doubt emerge when the two squabble -- as squabble they will, sooner or later.

"WHY IS ONLY ONE-SIXTH OF BNP INCOME SPENT ON CAMPAIGNING?"
The authoritative analyst of BNP legal and financial affairs, the barrister Mr. Davies, is soon to circulate a report concerning the latest set of BNP accounts submitted (late, as ever) to the Electoral Commission.

As I understand it, the most crucial of his points is this:Only about one-sixth of the BNP's income is spent on campaigning. This is a far smaller proportion than any other noteworthy political party in the land.

Why?

Davies believes it is because a huge chunk of BNP members' money is spent on paying party employees, whose number of grotesquely out of proportion to the number of party members.I hear Davies has also picked up on is a "£19,000" per year payment to Griffin from party funds for "rent" for "accommodation" made available to the BNP at Griffin's pig farm in Wales.

(I don't think this "accommodation" refers to the use which Griffin's ex-South African Police 'Security' spook Arthur Kemp makes of a house on Griffin's farm property, which is in his wife's name.)Could this "accommodation" be the barn on the property which a few years ago was refurbished by the party and converted into a Conference Centre?

The refurbishment was carried out by BNP members. Skilled tradesmen devoted their time and labour free of charge in order to create an asset for the party. The materials they used were paid for from party funds. On that basis the party, surely, had an equity in the property which, at the very least, should allow it to be used for party purposes gratis.

If Griffin is charging the party £19,000 per year for that property, then the entire arrangement can only be viewed as an outrage, a book-keeping swiz designed to allow Griffin to draw extra cash from the party on top of his "£1,800 a month" salary and on top of his "expenses", which will be at least the equal of his salary.

With this kind of approach to party funds, is it any wonder that within a year of becoming Chairman, Griffin was able to take his entire family on a two-week holiday to the South of France, Europe's most expensive holiday destination, and since then take two or three flights to the USA, together with his wife and his security goons, for National Renaissance conferences?

WHY HAS THE TIMES BEEN SO SYMPATHETIC TO GRIFFIN?
How do we know that Griffin allegedly awards himself "£1,800" per month? Because last year 'The Times' published another of its promotional articles about Griffin and the BNP.

The reporter's sympathetic review of Griffin's activities included a remark that the "£1,800 a month" salary he is paid is "something of a bargain".Putting to one side consideration of whether that amount (on Griffin's word) is accurate, and the additional amount he draws as "expenses", when have we ever heard of an Establishment newspaper stating that the salary paid to ANY politician -- let alone a (genuine?) Nationalist leader -- is "something of bargain"?

Why did 'The Times' -- noted for its pro-Zionist enthusiasm -- feel itself called upon to boost the credibility of a (genuine?) Nationalist figure in such a way?

Why would its Deputy-Editor, Danny Finklestein, (who is a regular 'Jewish Chronicle' columnist), allow his paper to bestow on Griffin flattering treatment of a kind which no self-respecting journalist would grant to ANY politician of ANY party, let alone a (genuine?) Nationalist?

That is the kind of question I have been asking in ELC for the past eight years.My questioning began when 'The Times' launched Griffin's career as a "moderate" and "reforming" new leader of the BNP soon after he became its Chairman by means of an article by Michael Gove.

To grasp the intention of Gove's report, one had only to take in the two photos which it used: One, showed a smiling Griffin, leaning over his gate wearing a check shirt, corduroy trousers and green wellies and looking like a character out of "The Archers", which had obviously been especially taken for the report. The other showed the ousted leader John Tyndall -- arms waving, fluff of hair flying, mouth agape -- in the final spasm of a peroration.That item established the BNP as part of the news agenda. It prompted a flow of Griffin-boosting coverage ranging from a huge text and photo feature in the 'The Observer' colour magazine to regular unconfrontational interviews conducted on 'Today', BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme, when under the editorship of the noted Islamophobe Rod Liddle.

At the time of 'The Times' ground-breaking feature, Gove was that paper's Assistant Editor. He is now Conservative Party MP for Surrey Heath, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, and said to be Conservative Party leader David Cameron's senior political strategist.Gove is notorious as a back-scratcher to the Zionist harpie Melanie Phillips (a 'Daily Mail' and 'Jewish Chronicle' columnist) on BBC Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze', but his sympathies for Zionist-Jewry may be a little more directly attributable to his wife, the journalist Sarah Vine.

He is by no means the only Conservative Party supporting gentile journalist with a Jewish connection -- and 'The Times' by no means the only slavishly pro-Zionist national newspaper which has published reports puffing the "new", "less extreme" (i.e. anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish) BNP and its "modernising" leader Nick Griffin.

Let us turn, for example, to Matthew D'Ancona, editor of 'The Spectator', and the principal 'Sunday Telegraph' political columnist, whose ancestry is said to trace back to the relatively distant English shire of Goa.

As I reported in ELC#19 of 16th April 2006:[QUOTE]:"Britain is in the run-up to a nation-wide series of local government elections to be held on Thursday 4th May. To mark this, the current issue of 'The Spectator' magazine has published a glowing account of how well the BNP is expected to do. This may appear to be strange as 'The Spectator' and its large circulation 'Telegraph' stable-mates are staunch supporters of the Conservative Party."
The article by Peter Oborne, headed: 'Beware: the voters Blair neglected are angry - and looking elsewhere' will be seen as a tremendous puff for the BNP by naive newcomers to the cause and also to old hands frantic for signs of a nationalist dawn. But to my eye, the article and the froth of media publicity which flowed from it, serve only to confirm my worst fears about what is happening to that party under Griffin's leadership.

"The almost exultantly pro-BNP tone of Oborne's item will seem all the more extraordinary to those who read 'The Spectator's' editorial in the 1st April issue ('The task the Israelis have set us') in which the war criminal mass murderer Ariel Sharon is praised to the skies in a commentary about the recent Israeli general election."[END QUOTE]

I am grateful to the 'Evening Standard's' "Londoner's Diary" of 4th July last year for recording that D'Ancona's "brilliantly clever" wife Sarah Schaeffer is a close friend of multi-millionaire Citigroup banker Michael Klein and that she had been recruited by Britain's new Jewish Foreign Secretary David Milliband to become his Special Adviser.

WHY DO ZIONISTS IN THE 'RIGHT WING' MEDIA SEEK TO PROMOTE THE BNP?
Members of the BNP who have half a brain and half an idea about British Nationalism must ask themselves: what are these kind of people doing puffing Nick Griffin?

An important element in the answer to that question is that Jewry's totem-pole, Israel, is being pressured to come to a settlement with the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing and oppression of the Palestinian people since the 1940s is the greatest single cause of instability in the Middle East and the hatred which Muslim people feel for "The West".It is the principal driver of Islamic Terrorism, which is closely modelled on modern terrorist tactics devised by 'Revisionist' Zionists such as Menachem Begin of the Irgun Zwei Leumi in Israel in the 1940s.One of the crucial and entirely legitimate (according to the U.N.'s Charter) demands of the Palestinians is the right of return of 800,000 of their people who were driven from their homes by Jewish terrorism in 1948 and in subsequent Israeli wars of aggression.

The Israelis, and their Jewish supporters world-wide (along with the likes of President Bush) say: "NO!! Israel was created to be a home FOR THE JEWS!"

Yet Israel's Jewish supporters world-wide since 1948 have been the key force in promoting Coloured Immigration into White gentile lands, not least into Britain.It was the Board of Deputies of British Jews who drafted the first version of the Race Relations Act back in the 1950s and every one of its revisions since then.

In the USA, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People and numerous other race-mixing organisations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, have always been wholly dependent on Jewish cash and Jewish political leadership.

In Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and throughout Europe, Jews founded, finance and ran what has become known as "The Race Relations Industry".So now, as we approach another crunch time in the Middle East, Jewry has to try and square on the one hand.....* its promotion of race mixing and multi-racial societies in White gentile lands, which the Jews like as it makes them cast a low profile and destroys White peoples' sense of nationhood ("essential if another Hitler is to be prevented!")with, on the other hand.....* its demand to be the only ethnic group on the planet to be allowed the right to create an ethnically exclusive nation-state on the basis of the principle: "Only Members of the Race may be Citizens of the State". (© 1936 Adolf Hitler - "Nuremberg Race Law"; revised in 1950 for Israel's "The Law of the Return".)So, for the time being, until it can force a sufficient degree of Double-Think into the political culture of the entire gentile world, so that the essential Jewish proposition "Racialism for US, but not for YOU" becomes accepted without question, Jewry needs new allies wherever it can find them, people who will grant the Jews to be racialist, just so long as the Jews promise to grant them the right to be racialist as well (just so long as they are not "anti-semitic").

It was on this basis that Israel formed an alliance with White-ruled Apartheid South Africa -- and also because it needed help to develop its own illegal and still unadmitted nuclear bomb. Yet left wing Jews, who uttered not a word against Israel, were the financial and political backbone of the African National Congress.

That is why, for all its multi-racial/anti-racist posturing, Jewry is trying to make friends with "White Racists" the world over, and has been via people like the New York Yeshiva lecturer Rabbi Meyer Schiller, who tried to recruit me at a meeting in Victoria, London, a decade ago, but who was more successful with Griffin at a National Renaissance meeting in New York a couple of years back.

That is why two years ago the leading "right wing" Zionist Barbara Amiel (wife of the disgraced former Telegraph Group owner 'Lord' Conrad Black and close ally of leading Israeli politician Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu) phoned Griffin at his home and opened the conversation with the phrase: "Isn't it about time that we started to work together for mutual defence against the Muslim threat?"

Vain Griffin couldn't help boasting about this to his side-kicks, which is how I came to hear of it.

To BNP members who have questioned him about the wisdom of such conversations, Griffin tries to convey by nudges and winks that he is clever enough to outwit the Jews.

But Griffin does not want to outwit the Jews.

He wants their continued media patronage so that he can have a successful career.And so the game goes on. I will keep you informed.
Martin Webster.

=========================================================
From: Martin Webster To: [name deleted]Cc: [names deleted]Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Subject: My knowledge of GriffinPostal Communications to:Box ICR, 44 The Common, IP22 2QP.Mobile: 07932 049019---------------------------------

Hello [name deleted],
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURT ACTION AGAINST GRIFFIN

The LEGAL aspect of your and your associates' current predicament with Nick Griffin is crucial and urgent.I would strongly urge you to get Griffin before the Courts -- and if possible the Criminal courts. I understand that the breaking into your home by means of a deception and the removal of your property by persons who are presumed to have been acting on Griffin's instructions, offers you an opportunity to go via the Criminal Court route.But the High Court route of civil litigation is also open to you and several of your colleagues, and should be pursued regardless of whether or not Criminal proceedings are instituted.

A similar situation to that which you now face occurred in about 2000 when an opportunity presented itself for Griffin to be stopped dead in his tracks by means of a High Court action against him for breach of Natural Justice.

Griffin expelled two prominent West Midlands BNP members (Steve and Sharron Edwards) without specifying any "disciplinary charge" against them and without setting up an independent Tribunal so that they could make representations in their defence.

All they had done was ask Griffin to publish party accounts.

At that time there was a scandal involving Griffin making 'ex gratia' wage payments to his side-kick Tony Lecomber in the form of money taken from Trafalgar Club funds. These payments were disguised in the club's accounts as "repayment of a loan". The 'loan', needless to say, had never been transacted.

I say the Edwards were expelled unlawfully as Griffin did not prefer a "charge" against them in writing and did not give them an opportunity to defend themselves before a party Tribunal.

Such conduct is contrary to the English Common Law precept of Natural Justice.

This Natural Justice precedent in relation to the way in which political parties regulated themselves was established a case which Andrew Fountaine, (the former Deputy-Chairman of the National Front), brought in the High Court in 1967/8 against A.K. Chesterton (NF's founding Chairman).

It was this court action which prompted the NF to establish a proper lawful Constitution, something which the BNP does not have.The BNP has something which its founding chairman John Tyndall and its current current chairmen Griffin have been pleased to call a "constitution", but it is, in fact, a farrago of dictatorial illegality contrived by Tyndall.

It is the same "constitution" which he tried to foist on the National Front, but which the NF's membership rejected resoundingly at the NF AGM held at Great Yarmouth in October 1979. This defeat eventually prompted Tyndall to leave the NF early in 1980, ultimately to form the BNP in 1982, equipped with his disastrous "Constitution".Tyndall's "constitution" is in accordance with "Führerprinzip", but it is not in accordance with English Common Law and hence is unlawful.

It is noteworthy that for all of Griffin's denunciations of Tyndall for being a "Nazi", he did not replace Tyndall's "constitution" with a proper English Common Law constitution when he took over the BNP in 1999.

On the contrary, he further refined its dictatorial and corruption-encouraging features.

I wrote a memorandum about the legal precedents to the Edwards. The barrister Mr. Davies then e-mailed them to say that the facts I had given were "spot on" and that if they sued Griffin they would be bound to win and impose on him a heavy burden of legal costs which he would have to pay personally.

Then Tyndall contacted them and offered to pay all their legal costs in instructing lawyers to fight the case and undertaking to pay any Costs order made against them in the very unlikely event that they would lose the action.

But, as Sharron Edwards later told me, she was terrified of being attacked by thugs acting for Griffin, so she refused to institute legal action, and a prime opportunity to get rid of Griffin before he could do too much harm was lost.

It is important that you and your colleagues do not fumble your opportunity by acting indecisively. Get good legal advice and act quickly. The Civil courts punish delay as much as wrong-doing.

THE ELECTRONIC LOOSE CANNON AND THE ELECTRONIC WATCH ON ZION
Not long after I published the pamphlet 'Loose Cannon' #1 ("Come For An 'Outing' Down Memory Lane") I became sufficiently computer-literate to issue my ongoing commentary about Griffin via the Internet and so I established the 'Electronic Loose Cannon' (ELC) and, later, its companion bulletin, the 'Electronic Watch on Zion' (EWoZ).I do not produce ELC or EWoZ on a regular basis, but only when I feel I have something to say, some new information to impart.ELC deals with developments within the BNP and the activities of its various personalities, not least Griffin.

The problem for the BNP (but not for Griffin!) is that the party has had such a fast turnover of membership since 1999 that few of its current crop will know what Griffin and his coterie got up to six, seven and eight years ago, let alone his record within the nationalist movement, starting with the old National Front in 1975.

EWoZ deals with the sustained but largely unpublicised initiative by "right wing" Zionists, maintained over the past 10 to 15 years, to recruit white-gentile nationalist movements (and not just in the UK) into the ranks of its supportership, providing they abandon "anti-semitism", drop their opposition to all immigration and all race-mixing and instead adopt the narrower focus of opposition to Muslim immigration and the consequent growing political and economic influence of Islam.

This is a focus with which Jewry would find to its advantage, but it is (in my opinion) of no benefit to the British people who, if they are to survive as a distinct ethnically homogeneous folk, must have sole occupancy of their ancestral homeland, the British Isles.

IN CONCLUSION:The BNP must revert to the fundamental authentic nationalist policy: "Stop Immigration -- Start Repatriation" of ALL ethnically alien people and their descendants and dependants who have settled here since the passing of the British Nationalities Act of 1948.

Nothing else will secure British survival. Of course all alien Muslim settlers should be repatriated to their ethnic homelands, but unless one also repatriates the West Indians, Africans, Indians, Chinese, Gypsies, Albanians, Kurds, etc., one will not be resolving the threat to British survival merely by removing the Muslims. One will simply be reshaping the multi-racial society in a manner that the Jews will find congenial.

However the multi-racial society is reformulated, it will remain a deadly threat to indigenous Britons and must be terminated.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Webster