Info needed for the following
This e-mail is addressed to a small selection of ELC subscribers.
I have had numerous responses to ELC#23 and to the subsequent ELC 'Extra'. Thanks to those who have posted those items on to their web sites, blogs and forums.Two responses from ELC readers have been particularly interesting, especially since they both come from officials of the BNP who have both been nationalist activists for several decades.
1) Regarding the Dee-side property-----From: [deleted]To:
Hello (after twenty five years) Martin.
I understand, from one of your ELC publications, that you are looking for an address on Deeside.
The address that you are looking for will, I believe, be:
25 Mechanics Lane,
I hope that this will be helpful to you.
Please put me on your subscription list for the ELC.
All the best.[deleted]-----
This information will facilitate a Land Registry search.
That search may help in finding answers to some questions such as:
1) Who is specified as being the owner of the property?
2) Was it BNP money or Griffin's or Griffin family money which bought the property?
3) Is a rental for this Deeside property included in the amount of £19,000 p.a. which, according to BNP accounts, Griffin charges the party for "accommodation"?
4) If the property was bought with the BNP's money, then why is Griffin charging the party a rent for its use?
5) If the ownership of the property is registered in the name of Griffin' s wife, and if the property was bought with BNP funds, is Griffin's wife registered as a Trustee of BNP assets with the Electoral Commission?
6) If the property was bought with Griffin's or Griffin family money:
(a) Is the rent being charged Griffin/Griffin's fair or excessive?
(b) Who set the rents?
(c) Who are the parties to the rental agreement?
7) Are organisations or entities other than the BNP (i.e. BNP trading companies) or individuals (i.e. employees of the BNP or associated companies) occupying and/or trading from this address?
8) If the answer to 7 is "yes" these other entities or individuals, then:
(a) Who are they?
(b) Do they pay rent in addition to the rent paid by the BNP; and if so, to whom do they pay it?
(c) If not, is their rent-free status a payment for services rendered; and if so, for what services rendered to whom?
(d) In which accounts are these transactions recorded for the inspection, as appropriate, for the Inland Revenue and Electoral Commission?Answers to each one of those questions prompt other questions, not least in connection with an aspect of English law which barrister Mr. Davies drew to my attention some years ago when explaining the illegal aspects of the "Führerprinzip" 'Constitution' which John Tyndall drew up for the BNP and which is still being used under Nick Griffin's administration, although with additional dictatorial refinements:
That aspect is this: The BNP "Constitution" purports to allow the Chairman of a party to conclude a contract with himself.
Any such contract is unlawful and, if it involved the expenditure of other peoples' money, then the person involved would be ordered by a High Court judge to pay back all moneys transacted under such a contract, plus legal costs, from his own pocket.
That could tot up to many scores of thousands of pounds. Any such court order would obviously follow a forensic and public examination of the party's accounts since Griffin became its chairman in 1999.
In John Tyndall's day a typical contract would be between JT (wearing his party chairman's hat) coming to an agreement with JT (wearing his owner of Albion Press hat) to use BNP funds to buy supplies of 'Spearhead'.
There may be a whole raft of much more complex 'contracts' set up by Griffin since he replaced Tyndall.
2. Is "Freedom Promotions' an "Unauthorised Internet Bank"?[N.B.: The "FSA" organisation mentioned below is the UK Financial Standards Authority, which is the -- or one of the -- official bodies which is supposed to regulate the "financial services industry".]
-----From: [deleted]To: Martin Webster
Subject: FREEDOM PROMOTIONS
But I now come to the point of my mail. I have discovered that on the FSA website is a list of "Unauthorised Internet banks" and which features one "Freedom Promotions".
The identical name of one of the BNP's names used by membership renewals and the Voice of Freedom and Group support.I did not know for sure whether they are one and the same.
So I TWICE telephoned the FSA today to asertain information.
The first time I was told by a young lady that she would have to consult a colleague and that she or they would ring me back.
They did not.
The second time a young man answered.
He consulted his computer -- I heard the keys -- then he put me on hold saying he had to consult a colleague.After 30 or 40 SECONDS he returned with a changed, more aggresive manner.
He virtually demanded to know what dealings I had with them, when and how etc. I tended a (lame) story about my wife using a credit card and this name appearing on the bill. I tried to obtain address details of Freedom Promotions off the young man but he said that they "Had no information available on the matter" in that bureaucratic / police tone of voice which means they HAVE details.
I resisted the temptation to ask why they were on the "unauthorised" list if they knew nothing about them!
I frankly don't know what to make of this episode but thought it worth reporting, if only because it is first hand testimony and not an internet rumour or cyber-myth
Best regards and keep up the good work[deleted]-----
If there are any ELC readers who are able to make more headway with the FSA than my correspondent, or have other information to give concerning 'Freedom Promotions' (if only to establish that the BNP entity by that name is not the same as, or connected with, the entity on file with the FSA) could they please contact me.
The recent BBC Radio 4 'File on 4' programme was a joke.
The very fact that the BBC journalists responsible for 'File on 4' did not insist on interviewing Griffin himself over the financial conduct of his party and, when he refused, did not chase after him and 'door-step' him for an interview (as did BBC radio journalist Roger Cook in an issue of 'The Cook Report' broadcast in the days before he became BNP chairman) was telling enough.
But to accept without challenge Griffin's statement: "This is a matter for the party's Treasury, not for me", was beyond belief bearing in mind that the 'File on 4' team knew quite well that the party Treasurer and every other official of the BNP is in office by Griffin's grace and favour and not by any independent authority or electorate within the party.
BBC journalists (and every other kind of journalist) did not meekly accept such a saucy fob-off from senior government ministers during the recent round of party-funding scandals, so why accept it from Griffin?
That aspect of the matter brings us to the broader consideration of the way in which much of the media has been treating Griffin within a year of him becoming BNP chairman -- an issue I have been ventilating in ELC for years.
When his gentle treatment by the media is contrasted with the media onslaught that was launched against the NF (especially from 1977) one would have to be deeply stupid not to realise that "something is up".
The long and the short of the situation is that Griffin is a serial swindler.
The Establishment knows this well and is happy to protect him just so long as he continues to lead the BNP in the direction he has been leading it within months of him getting the chairmanship in 1999.
The fact that he knows that he could face serious trouble if his financial predations were looked-into is the "stick" aspect of the "stick and carrot" method which the Establishment (Special Branch/MI5, Electoral Commission, Tax/PAYE authorities and, last but not least, the Media) deploy to keep him trotting along the 'right' path.
There is much, much more to come.