Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Eddy Butler, joke BNP Official, attacks democratic challenge in BNP

Statement On The So-called Leadership Challenge


Anyone in the Party who has more than five years continuous membership has the Right to stand for the leadership of the Party. The only limit to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained and for non officers a hundred signatures are required. This is to ensure that frivolous candidates do not stand.

As I said this is a Right that members have. And it is an important Right – it is a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to democracy. However with Rights come responsibilities and duties. A Right without a duty is an abomination in any society. It is a recipe for chaos. Indeed in our modern society it is the incessant claiming of Rights by groups that shown no sense of duty or responsibility that is one of the key components of the undermining of the civic order of our country.

So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members. We as members should expect that a candidate would only put themselves forward if they were of sufficient stature and ability to potentially be able to lead the Party if they were to win. Otherwise why would someone wish to challenge for the leadership? It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender. That is the whole point of the requirement for signatories.

A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances. It is not there for disgruntled people to act out their personal bitterness about things – no matter how ‘justified’ they may think their grievances are. It is an abuse of the process to misuse it in that way. It is an abuse of their Constitutional Right.

And that is precisely what we are seeing this year. We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway and they admit that the sole reason they are doing it is to air their own personal grievances. In other words their sole aim is to raise issues which have already been fully aired and which could be raised at a variety of different forums such as the Summer School (where there is always a session for all participants where they can bring up matters they are unhappy about) or the Annual Conference.

What is the likely outcome of this leadership challenge? The challengers (there may in fact be two!) will be comprehensively defeated. The leadership challenge process as it currently stands in the Constitution will be brought into disrepute. There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.

I would not normally comment on a leadership election. It should normally be up to the membership to make their own minds up without non-participants trying to influence the process.

But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution. It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a legitimate way.

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

Eddy Butler

National Elections Officer

Eastern Regional Organiser

NWN: And this character is the BNP's national elections officer !

14 comments:

Simon Smith said...

A good leader would surround himself with cleverer people than himself.

Griffin obviously doesn't.

You know. There are enough people with ability on the "outside" of the BNP now who could certainly organise "something".

It seems strange that we have the those that don't think too much or don't understand too much voting for Gri££in and yet there can't be that many actually "running" the BNP.

There have been attempts at smaller parties. There are a few mobilising as Independents, including a couple of principled decent ex UKIPers.

Because of his duplicity Griffin has succeeded to some extent in keeping a broad church of beliefs within the BNP. (In fact on an internet forum he will send an attack dog who is a Nazi fetishist after a "softliner" BUT send a "softliner" against a traditional BNPer, depending on where along the ideological spectrum, the attack is coming from. I think JT referred to fallouts in the party caused by insignificant things , BUT SERVED THE PURPOSES OF THOSE CLIMBING THE GREASY POLE !)

Even without the Gri££in factor, the challenge would still be great in allowing a broad church of opinion to unite and take on the ideologically identical Lib/Lab/Con.

Richard Chadfield said...

Is the author of this email ,Eddy Butler, the same Eddy Butler who met with myself , David Jones, Sadie Graham, Steve Blake, Mic Simpson, Chris Beveley and Bev Jones at Leicester Forest East M1 services in January 2008 to discuss the BNP's internal problems . Is this the same Eddy Butler who attended that meeting and stated that he too wanted a change in the leadership of the BNP and those who,like him, wanted a change in leadership of the BNP should have followed his advice about how to attain that change and not gone off half cocked.

If it is the same Eddy he is clearly now running for cover or was he just giving us a bit of b******t back in January?

Now lets have a quick look at his email.
In paragraph two Eddy asserts the need to earn the right to stand as a leadership challenger.
My answer. I quite agree. Colin Auty ,by any decent persons reckoning, has earned that right. He has been a paid up member for over five years, an activist for all that time. Colin has been a BNP councillor in Dewsbury for two years. He is the sole nationalist councillor in a council chamber dominated by Muslims and Labour. In addition colin is a prominent writer of nationalist music.
By contrast what were Mr Griffin's 'rights' to stand for the BNP leadership back in 1999? Mr Griffin had never held ,and still has not held, any elected position outside of the BNP or National Front. What exactly were Mr Griffin's credentials for standing for leader in 1999? He had been the Chairman of the National Front in the eighties –that was when the National Front was split and split again .His chairmanship of the National Front could not be described as a successful chairmanship .

In paragraph 3. we have this quote:
So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members
My answer. Colin Auty, as above, has done his duty by the cause, the party and the members. And the members know it. This quote also states that the sitting leadership will decide who ,if any , may challenge for the leadership.

Quote:
It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender.
My answer. Those BNP members who are right now signing Colin Auty's nomination forms do regard him as 'a viable and serious leadership contender' So does the current BNP leadership—if they did not this email would not have been sent out. Interestingly if we extend Eddy'd idea to council and national elections very few members of the public should sign BNP election nomination forms since very few BNP council/parliamentary candidates are 'viable'. And what does that tell us about the viability of the current BNP leadership?

In paragraph.4.
Quote: A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances
My answer Actually it is. Though the would 'excuse' should be replaced with the word 'reason' Leadership challenges occur because the membership have lost faith in the leadership. The membership have grevencies and believe that those grevencies can only be addressed by a change of leadership.
In paragraph 5.
quote: We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway

My answer. Who are these people who think colin can not win? Clearly they are not among the ranks of the BNP leadership who appear to be in panic at the prospect of a leadership challenge. If not why the L.B email and then this email?

In paragraph 6.
Quote: 'The challengers (there may in fact be two!) '
Who is the other challenger? Many members think Richard Barnbrook will challenge but next year. So who is the other challenger. Will it be a leadership stooge to split the Colin Auty vote?

Quote: to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years

My answer. This is called disenfranchising the membership. That is dictatorship.

In paragraph 9

Quote: This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

My answer. The leadership openly flaunt their anti-democratic natures. 'if it goes ahead' they are thinking of banning the election. 'Zero publicity' this means keep the membership ignorant of party developments , deny the membership information and negate the democratic process. The above two sentences are an open declaration by the BNP leadership that the BNP ,under their leadership, despises democracy. It also is a statement of the current leaderships foolishness. In the computer age it is increasing difficult to deny information and those who try are likely to come unstuck. Notice also the beginning of the belittling of councillor Auty. (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc). Next will come the smears. Notice also how Colin is spoken of as a 'joke candidate'

Conclusion. It really is time for a change in leadership----thankfully this is a believe shared by many members.

Richard Chadfield (thirty years an active nationalist, council candidate, Parliamentary candidate, Euro candidate etc)

Shambles 83 said...

Not bad from Ed.

I've always admired him for bringing up Ian Anderson's love child.

It was an open secret in east London and something that Richard Edmonds had to stop Lecomber from spreading far and wide.

I kept it a secret myself until now as I though Ed may have had some decency left inside of him.

I guess not.

ES said...

Eddy butler is a complete Cunt & the most two-faced , smarmiest prick in Neo-conservatism. No wonder Lecomber attacked him - pity it wasn't with a machete. He just wants to make sure he don't ever bump into me on the Central line when he's on his way home from work.

ES said...

Whilst on the subject of Butler's `love children` - has Emma collgate had an abortion or what?

Anonymous said...

The most interesting part of this is the comment about "unstoppable pressure" and "every four years".

In other words, Gri££in will use this is an excuse to stop all leadership challenges.

Nice little Fuhrer touch from the 'anti-Nazi'.

Butler is also exposed as a self-seeking sycophant.

Richard Chadfield said...

How did this email get into the public domain? I think it was deliberately leaked. The leadership are testing the water. They want to know what the membership will let them get away with. The answer from the membership must be 'nothing' We must make sure all BNP members see this and L.B email and are kept fully informed on internal developememts. So if you have bnp members email addresses on your address book forward this and L.B email with appropriate comments. If you know bnp members who on not on the internet print off the emails and post them a copy with appropriate comments and explanations. Defeating the current 'leadership' will only happen if we all communicate with each other. The leadership have V of F and I.D --we must use personal communication.
Richard Chadfield

Anonymous said...

I think folk are missing the point here. The Butler email is the equivilent of a soldiers begging letter.

Read it, and this in particular

'There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.'

Butler, is warning you all that if the challenges go ahead Griffin will be unstoppable. If Griffin pushes through that challenges can only take place every 4 years at this years BNP AGM, then, you're ALL fucked. Think about it, the twats who pay for voting rights actually agreed to NO AUDIT of the accounts at last years, so, they'll sure as hell pass this for Griffin once he's manipulated the idiots with his snake charmer words.

Regards

SE

Anonymous said...

Still no mention of this on Gri££ins controlled Stormfront.

yorkie said...

Leaving aside external events, only a successful challenge to the legality of the BNP constitution itself would weaken Griffin sufficiently to give any rebels a chance of sucess.

The worst case scenario is that the leadership challenge is either disallowed or unsuccessful, future challenges are banned, and Griffin's opponents form another party attempting to accommodate everyone from traditional nationalists to those who want an even more 'Torified' BNP.

I am an outsider now (and don't regret it), but the decisions that are made will affect all nationalists.

Final Conflict said...

It beggars belief! Robert Mugabe must be taking notes...

Anonymous said...

All getting rather interesting, is'nt it. Griffin, has blatantly, and openly put his own interests above the interests of the BNP. Now wide open and vulnerable, all his loyal attack dogs expelled, poor poor, Griffin.

The beginning of the end.

Good riddance you evil, and now powerless, bastard. The vanguard you created, is now toppling you.

Hahahahaha

Regards

SE

Anonymous said...

"The only limit to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained and for non officers a hundred signatures are required."

Is a branch organiser classed as an "officer"? What abut fund-holders? The constitution is unclear on this point. I guess a Regional Organiser definitely would be considered as an officer. This would explain Gri££in's determination to deny Chris Jackson the North West position.

Anonymous said...

"Is a branch organiser classed as an "officer"? What abut fund-holders? The constitution is unclear on this point. I guess a Regional Organiser definitely would be considered as an officer. This would explain Gri££in's determination to deny Chris Jackson the North West position."


Quite right, Chris would only need to collect 10 signatures if he were regional organiser. Just goes to show what a devious wanker Griffin is.

We seem to be experiencing some problems with BLOGGER. Hopefully this will soon be sorted out.