Thursday, August 14, 2008







A STAB IN THE BACK:
HOW NICK GRIFFIN BETRAYED A BNP MEMBER


By Clive Potter




The path of devastation left by BNP Chairman Nick Griffin in his rise to power and his attainment of supremacy within that party has been well-documented. A significant number of BNP officials and senior members have experienced the viciousness, disloyalty and contempt from Nick Griffin and who have since either been expelled, forced to resign or have become so disillusioned that they have either refused to renew their subscriptions or have drifted into a state of apathy and non-activism within the party.

Loyalty is not just bottom-up from the grassroots. It needs to be top-down. It is a mutual contract of service and reward for effort and sacrifice made by the grassroots members in return for seeing the party successful and for its fee-paying and hard-working activists to be treated with respect and honour. Griffin has never honoured his members, whom he sees as little more than a milking-cow for their money to be siphoned off. How much of that money is actually diverted from the needs of the party is unknown but considering that the BNP is supposed to be about winning elections and “making a difference” and a party built up as a campaigning organisation it comes as a surprise to realise that less than 6% of the total income of the BNP is actually spent on campaigning.

The accounts from those who have been mistreated by Nick Griffin, both ex-and non-BNP members, are legion. Both from the time when Griffin helped to run the National Front to his time when he schemed his way into the BNP leadership, Griffin has used people as fodder. His contempt for anyone who disagrees with him or dares to challenge him is well-known.Yet for those sychophants who bow to his every wish and conspire with him to get what he wants, these individuals are kept close to his Inner Circle, some of whom are non-party members or have a history of extremism, terrorist activities or even anti-racistnationalist views. These individuals, whether incompetent or not, are used by Griffin to maintain his rule and they, like the rest of the membership, expendable if they were to clash with Griffin’s ego. Meanwhile,, although those who have something on Griffin, such as Collett and Lecomber, are able to maintain that relationship with him.

I was for several years mesmerised by the skilful, articulate and charismatic leadership of Nick Griffin. His Chairmanship seemed to bring in a modernity and reform of the BNP that I felt was necessary to make it electable. Like others, I ignored the early concerns of financial mismanagement and believed Griffin’s hype against the Edwards’ and Mike Newland’s expulsion from the party, brought about by their principled stand against what they saw was financial negligence – and worse. Like others, I was prepared to believe him for the future of the BNP, and in so doing let down principled comrades who were not prepared to put up with financial skulduggery. To the brave and principled stand of the Edwards’ and Mike Newland I salute you and offer my apologies for my failure to offer you support at that crucial time. Their experience was merely the beginning for a list of individuals who were axed or sidelined by Griffin in his pursuit of power and money within the party which he had schemed to take over.

My own experience of Nick Griffin’s unbridled thirst for power and money crystallised in July 2007 when Nick Griffin he viciously stabbed my Vice-President, Tim Hawke and myselfe (the President) of the independent trade union Solidarity) in the back, in what was a wholesale takeover by Nick Griffin on behalf of his former National Front colleague, Patrick Harrington. Harrington had recently, who had to been suspended from the union on account of union disciplinary allegations. This matter has been fully documented on this blog and elsewhere, but my first experience prior to that was when I had initiated an employment tribunal case against HM Prison Services on 14 September 2005.

This case was launched against the Prison Service as a result of that particular institution discriminating against me as a member of the white ethnic community since I was a member of a white nationalist organisation, namely the British National Party. Although the Prison Service had made its anti-white racist policy operational under a Policy Directive in 2002, that is to bar all members of white nationalist organisations from applying for employment within the Prison Service, I had chosen to seek employment with that institution.

I also felt that BNP members should not be institutionally discriminated against by a State agency who were denying white members of white nationalist political organisations the opportunity of employment. Such an injustice bore all the hallmarks of a Stalinist state. Though members of white nationalist organisations were in effect barred from employment within the Service, non-white members of Black Ethnic Minority organisations, such as the terrorist-linked Sikh Federation and the anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam, remained eligible to apply for employment within the Prison Service.

Together with the unrivalled legal services of Lee Barnes I initiated a case of Indirect Racial Discrimination against HM Prison Service, a case which lasted nearly three years and saw various Hearings, including an Appeal Hearing where HM Prison Service attempted to block the case after the original Employment Tribunal in Leicester agreed that the case ought to be heard.

The Prison Service employed every legal tactic they could to prevent the case from being heard, even employing a leading QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers to represent themselves. Prison Service.

The level of Institutionalised Racism was brought home when the final Hearing in October 2007 was suddenly cancelled for no apparent reason on the Friday afternoon before the Hearing on the following Monday.

It seemed reasonable to infer that the State had panicked and stitched us up, using the Employment Tribunal Service to cancel the original Panel who had been unbiased and drafting in a new Panel that appeared to be bent, consisting of an Asian Muslim, an Asian Sikh and a token white (obviously pathetically liberal and quisling).

The bent decision by this bent Panel was obvious after the two-day Hearing in February 2008, a Hearing that was marked only by the professional representation from Lee Barnes who ripped into the half-dozen witnesses of the Prison Service and surgically tore to shreds the legal arguments of HM Prison Service as represented by a QC and a Treasury Solicitors Legal Team. Despite this massive defence put up by the Prison Service’s legal team the fantastic hard work of Lee Barnes (who had worked extremely hard on the case and seen through several Hearings) we werewas unable to win through in the end, and my opinion is that this was almost certainly because of the bent tribunal.

Despite the evidence that we submitted to the Tribunal of two false claims that I had submitted in 2007 for employment within the HM Prison Service (as ethnic minority ‘applicants’ posing aswho were members of organisations similar to the BNP), the bent judgment was against us. This shows the bent and corrupt nature of our so-called democratic state in whichwhere it is claimed that we enjoy free speech, civil and political rights and justice. This case knocks the head off that wild claim for good. We now have a society where Institutionalised Racism exists. This racism, that is against whites and the white community, and the political representatives of the white community. It is now legally acceptable to discriminate against whites, white applicants and the white community for jobs, thus leaving whites as second-class citizens below members of foreign ethnic minorities who are given preference above white applicants.

This case is important not just for the exposure of the British State as an Institutionalised Racist State, at war with its own indigenous citizens, but also in revealing the anti-nationalist credentials of the leader of Britain’s most important nationalist political party.

In July 2006, when the case was first heard at the Employment Tribunals in Leicester, Lee Barnes’ successful challenge saw the case scrape through the tribunals and was scheduled to be listed for a full hearing. This was on the proviso that I pay a £500 deposit for the case to go ahead and a fee of £1000 costs to date for the HM Prison Service.

Lee Barnes suggested that I contact Nick Griffin as the case clearly involved the BNP as the HM Prison Service had since 2002 instigated an anti-BNP policy and it was essential to challenge this policy. It was also essential to defeat this discriminatory policy so as to ensure a political strategic goal of encouraging more professional and middle-class people to join the BNP, since if such people felt that their career and employment prospects were barred by their BNP membership the work of the BNP and of British Nationalism would be made much more difficult. Furthermore, Nick Griffin himself had challenged the anti-BNP policy of the Prison Service when it was created, and had published material about it in and had also written directly to HM Prison Service seeking information and asking questions of the policy.

The case needed £1500 to proceed. Without it my access to employment justice was barred and the challenge to this piece of anti-BNP and anti-white policy would be effectively stalled.

I subsequently wrote to Nick Griffin and on 18 July 2006 I received confirmation of my request.



Re: Employment Tribunal Case - Potter v HM Prison Service (No 1901930/2005)
Tuesday, 18 July, 2006 8:55 AM
From:
"BNP Chairman"
To:
"Clive Potter" < >
Cc:
"lj barnes" , "National Treasurer"
Dear Clive

Yes, I think this is very important. Despite the fact that we're as tight
financially this summer as ever, a Trafalgar Club cheque for £1,500 is in
the post. That, however, is all the can possibly be afforded at present and
for some time to come, and must not be taken as an indication that future
financial support will be available, though obviously I hope that, should it
prove necessary and likely to be worthwhile, we will be able to help
further.

Should you in due course be successful and in a position to recover your
costs, we would of course expect the return of this money. Should you lose,
it will be written off.

Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any queries or concerms.
Good luck with the continued case.

Yours sincerely

Nick Griffin

PS What news on the Christian Council set-up operation?

I subsequently received a cheque from The Trafalgar Club dated 17 July 2006 via Nick Griffin. The co-signatory is unclear but could be Nick Griffin’s father, Edgar Griffin, whom we know as the figure operating the Trafalgar Club accounts.





Unfortunately, this cheque immediately bounced - although some who have had the hindsight of experience with Griffin would say that this was unsurprising.

The cheque above has been stamped “Refer to Drawer Please Represent”, whilst the image of the letter from First Direct dated 31 July clearly shows that this cheque for £1500 had bounced.






What is surprising and of great concern, however, was how the Trafalgar Club funds had suddenly been left with no money. We are fully aware that this Fund is in receipt of substantial donations and a recent TC Dinner would have swollen the funds to quite a large extent.

Where had this money disappeared to? Why were there no funds available to meet the cheque for £1500 which was not in itself a large amount but which was vital if this important legal case was to proceed?.

Only Nick Griffin and his Masonic accountant father, Edgar Griffin, can answer this question. But the fact is that with regards to my own circumstances I could no longer proceed with the case. and Lee Barnes had spent considerable time and effort in working on this case already and we had made a great political and personal investment concerning it.

By the time I received the letter from the bank I had already paid the Employment Tribunal as I obviously expected the cheque to be honoured, plus the fact that the closing date for the submission of the deposit was a tight legal deadline that had to be met.

I therefore found myself seriously out-of-pocket with a £1500 debt that I could ill-afford, let down by my very own Chairman of a political party whose values and principles I had staked my claim on.

Nick Griffin made no apology and made no compensatory action to ensure that the money would be refunded to me. I had initially waited some weeks prior to receiving the cheque from Griffin which placed huge pressures on me as I had to have the deposit/damages presented at the Tribunal within a restricted time-frame. Now I faced considerable financial problems as placed on me by the stupidity and selfishness of the very man whom I had placed my trust in and whose banner I had rallied round to support in this tribunal claim.

It was left to the usual ordinary and decent BNP member to come forward to save the day, offering me the damages as a one-off payment and payment of the £500 deposit that was agreed that I would pay off over time. Without this act of generosity by an unnamed BNP member it is clear that the claim would not have had a had chance of success.

I took this case on not merely because it was a personal claim of racial discrimination and injustice that I needed to tackle head-on, but a case that was central to the rights of BNP members who live and work in a modern liberal western democracy and their right to join a legal political party of their choice without intimidation or restriction. It was also about how a British nationalist party could determine how it operated within the legal sphere and how it could break out of the bondage that the liberal-Left State had tried to impose upon it so that it could function less effectively within a so-called democracy.

The following year, in July 2007, I was expelled from the BNP in an act of pique by Nick Griffin after I opposed his bullying and unwarranted interference in the independent nationalist trade union Solidarity, a nationalist body that I had founded on the instructions and ideas of Lee Barnes. Griffin supported his old-time comrade, Patrick Harrington (who was not even a member of the BNP but a member of a rival party, The National Liberal Party, which later helped to defeat a BNP candidate in a council by-election earlier this year), over those of his own members, Tim Hawke and myself, and purged me from the party (Tim Hawke had earlier resigned). I am still awaiting an Appeal Tribunal to hear my case on this matter. Despite this act of treachery and disloyalty from Griffin I persisted with the tribunal claim as the rights of BNP members meant more to me than the vanity and stupidity of just one bitter man. The values of democracy and free speech were imperative and the cause of white nationalism needed to be driven through by way of legal argument and example. Griffin never showed any interest or gave any kind of support to this case prior to my expulsion in any case.

It has been reported that other BNP members have similarly been placeds in dire situations by the failure of the BNP to act on its promises, or who have failed to have their money owed to them for services to the party returned. This serial failure is due to one thing and one thing only. The failure of the Chairman Nick Griffin to honour his pledges and to respect not only his members and colleagues, but also to even remotely honour his debt to them. We are not always referring to a financial debt necessarily as countless self-sacrificing BNP members whose time and loyalty have been given to the service of the BNP and for the cause of British Nationalism have repeatedly been ignored or treated with contempt or utter disloyalty by Griffin. Nick Griffin is, in essence, a serial traitor both to his own members and to the cause upon which he was elected leader to serve.

But the Griffin Problem did not end there. The case was finally heard in a two-day hearing at Leicester Tribunals Office on 25/26 February, fought by my unpaid and volunteer legal representative Lee Barnes. Lee has details of the Skeleton Argument on his blog spot dated 7 May 2008 (http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2008/05/clive-potter-case-legal-skeleton.html).

The Final Hearing was the Final Submissions and Judgment and on this occasion attended by myself only and the Treasury Solicitors Legal Team. The not unexpected judgment from the bent Panel was communicated to Lee Barnes on that same day.

As the Legal Unit Director, Lee Barnes communicated the judgment to Nick Griffin but I was not aware that he had done so. However, it was only whilst trawling through the far Left anti-BNP blog of Lancaster Unity that I noticed that someone had made a reference to me and my recently concluded tribunal case, which had remained confidential.


From the blog of Lancaster Unity
May 10, 2008
Councillor in challenge to BNP leadership

Posted by Antifascist 25 Comment (s)

Anonymous said...
Does anyone know what happened with the case that Clive Potter (ex-Solidarity, ex-BNP) took against the Prison Service for racial discrimination? Lee Barnes was curiously still representing him even though Potter has earned the hatred of both the BNP and Squalidarity leadership. What was Barnes up to and how did he get on?
10:52 AM, May 12, 2008



Anonymous said...
Lee Barnes was curiously still representing him even though Potter has earned the hatred of both the BNP and Squalidarity leadership.

What has Clive Potter done to piss off the BNP? I thought Potter was another diehard BNP fanatic trying to prove a pointless point through pointless and frivolous legal action.
11:25 AM, May 12, 2008
Anonymous said...
I think he and Barnes lost the case recently (shock,gasp!) but I haven't heard anything more.

Potter fell out with Griffin by trying to suspend Harrington from the Union. Harrington and Griffin rounded on him. Griffin and Harrington go back a long way.
4:18 PM, May 12, 2008
Anonymous said...
Current gossip says that Potter had costs of over £80,000 awarded against him. Maybe Lee B was playing doublecross for Nick G? On the other hand he could just be crap! Can't see Solidarity or the BNP running appeals!
6:55 PM, May 13, 2008


Clearly someone knew of the case and the fact that it had been heard and lost within the two-days that had elapsed between its conclusion on 9 May and the first posting above on the morning of 12 May.

We assumed that it was the work of Searchlight who we know have assisted HM Prison Service and have co-operated in “Operation Wedge”, an “anti-racist” initiative (see the article on this blog for 30 July).

However, information later materialised that shed new and disturbing light on the origins of this information. Since the information pertaining to the Tribunal case was kept quiet since it was a blow against both the BNP and me, the fact that information had somehow leaked out and had been published, albeit on a blogposting, was unwelcoming. The original posting looks contrived, almost as if it was written with a view to expecting further revelations. Indeed, the anonymous poster soon supplied the far-Left blog with the required information exposing the loss of the case whilst deriding the work of my legal representative, Lee Barnes. The fact that the poster repeatedly made reference to my role within the Solidarity trade union and my problems within that organisation made me very suspicious as to the source.

Four days after the Hearing the poster seemed to know exactly the amount of the costs that had been awarded against me in fighting this claim, £80,000. It seemed that someone had access to confidential information and since I not passed it to anyone I was concerned as to the source and how and why they would post this incriminating material on a far-Left blog.

On 14 May the following article appeared on the Northwest Nationalists blog:


Wednesday, 14 May, 2008

"Lee Barnes, does it again!


Word is just reaching us that, Lee Barnes, has cost another BNP member, now ex BNP member £80,000 with his dodgy legal advice. When will people realise this cretin is an insane wann-a-be with an Internet purchased diploma who doesn't have a clue what he's going on about.

More as we get it
Posted by Tartarus at 2:46 PM 2 comments"



Again, the information provides the identical amount of £80,000 for the costs incurred in the 3-year case as well as using it to attack Lee Barnes. I appreciate that Mr Barnes is a maverick and has upset a number of nationalists but I cannot comment on such matters. However, the fact is that his unpaid legal assistance was crucial to the case and ensured that I had a solid case that in practice fundamentally defeated the HM Prison Service’s legal team.

When I contacted Northwest Nationalists as to the source of the information on the grounds that it was essential to identify the source of this anti-nationalist poison it was discovered that Patrick Harrington was behind it!

RE: URGENT! POSTING ON NWN
Thursday, 15 May, 2008 12:16 AM
From:
"Terry Allen" <>
Add sender to Contacts
To:

Hello Clive,

tartarus got the info from harrington himself, saying that "Harrington has a big gob".

Pete



That would explain the anti-Lee Barnes bias as Harrington never hid his dislike of Lee Barnes when I worked with him on the Solidarity union, even though it was Lee Barnes himself who recommended Harrington in the first place since it was claimed that Harrington had experienced discrimination by leftist trade unions in the past. Harrington was angry that Lee Barnes had attended the first Solidarity AGM in February 2007 and had spoken out against various proposals that he had put forward. Harrington later demanded whether Barnes was actually a paid-up member of Solidarity. Later Harrington attacked him in emails pointing out that Barnes’ affiliation with the BNP had been exposed some time ago and was damaging to Solidarity. He did not want Barnes to be a member of Solidarity’s Executive either and ensured that Barnes role within the Solidarity Executive was sidelined as he was responsible for the AGM’s agenda at the time. Harrington disliked Solidarity’s close association with the BNP and said that it was the “kiss of death”. Yet in early 2007 it was Harrington himself who schemed with Griffin to ensure that he was awarded with a new laptop PC paid for by the Union’s members along with a proposal for a monthly payment of £175 that would include the commissioning of “intellectual” articles in the BNP’s publications. In July 2007 it was Harrington who hijacked the Union alongside Griffin, turning an formerly independent nationalist trade union into a BNP front organisation under the centralised control of Griffin himself.

To use the case as a sounding board to attack another nationalist who had worked tirelessly on a legal case to benefit BNP members and nationalists is disgraceful. To suggest that Barnes was somehow engaged in a deceitful game of “double cross” with Nick Griffin is disgusting and cheap and an insult against Barnes’ integrity. To use this as an excuse to publicly rubbish someone who gave a considerable amount of entirely unpaid legal expertise unpaid is the act of a jealous desperados who are themselves failures and who haves failed to attain a legal qualifications ofn their own accord.

Why Patrick Harrington chose to use this failed case as an excuse to try and expose my own loss in this legal claim and the award of costs against me, whilst at the same time denigrating another nationalist for their legal work, is beyond me. Clearly Harrington is sore regarding Solidarity and the suspension (and later expulsion) by the Solidarity Executive to discipline him back in June 2007.

More importantly, But it is the fact that the only source where Harrington could have obtained the ammunition that he used to attack Lee Barnes and myself was from Nick Griffin himself. Lee Barnes had passed the information regarding the Tribunal judgment and the awarded costs to Nick Griffin as the case involved issues relating to the BNP. It would seem that Griffin, in an act of calculated callousness and betrayal, then communicated that information to his former serving NF comrade Harrington, knowing that he would use it as Harrington is a known prolific blogger and poster on the internet.

Clearly, Griffin knew full well what he was doing. He wanted to embarrass me and to humiliate me by exposing the fact that I had lost an important tribunal case and in the process was awarded costs of some £80,000 against me. The fact that I was representing the BNP and its members (even though I was no longer a member) did not seem to enter into Griffin’s sick mind. As far as he was concerned I was “vermin” and had to have ever dared stand up against his dictatorial and bullying stance. To Griffin it was fitting that I had lost and had lost financially. He had already ensured that the case nearly failed at the beginning and saw to it that “his” money would not be used in this case that had been fought on behalf of the BNP and BNP members. The fact that I am seeking bankruptcy proceedings due to my pursuit of this case on behalf of the BNP and its members does not concern Nick Griffin in the slightest. That shows the level of contempt and political sickness within that individual.

Similarly, Griffin did not care whether his own legal advisor, Lee Barnes, was rubbished as he surely knew because Harrington had always despised Barnes.

Griffin has no friends, only enemies. He trusts no-one and uses colleagues as consumables that can be bought and disposed of when used. No-one is immune to his sociopathic tendencies and his position at the head of a political party is the most ill-fitting of places where such individuals ought to be placed.

Nick Griffin is an enemy of ordinary BNP members and of British nationalism. He simply cannot be trusted to deliver BNP members either success or values. His contempt for BNP members and for the cause of British nationalism is clear. His callous and deviously-contrived actions in attempting to sabotage an important legal case being fought on behalf of the BNP and its members is tantamount to a traitorous act. Griffin should be charged for bringing the party into disrepute, not just for these acts but for a whole host of misconduct. But the supine members of the Advisory Council were always too weak and spineless to challenge him in a united and concerted way. Now they have lost their chance.

Griffin’s misconduct in passing confidential information to a third party, knowing that that individual would use it to smear one of his very own trusted legal confidents, as well as humiliating a former member who was acting in the interests of his very own party and its members, clearly show that at the very heart of the BNP lies a great sickness. There is a cancer within the BNP and its poisonous personality is rotting the very heart and soul of the partyBNP. With the slow death of the BNP will also be the slow death of Britain as the last remaining vehicle of political and civil opposition to the EU monster and the left-Liberal Plan to destroy the foundations and principles that it was built upon.Britain in partnership with the Corporations will soon disappear.

Is that what you want to happen?

There is still time to change the BNP.

The only obstacle to change is Nick Griffin.

It is up to you and all BNP members whether you wish to continue down this road to oblivion.

65 comments:

NorthWestNationalists said...

Isn't the sending of bouncing cheques a criminal offence ?

Anonymous said...

No wonder Griffin is/was a bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

It was obvious in 2000 that the BNP was on the road to oblivion as a political force run by Griffin.

As a political force that is not as an entertainment club for 'nationslists'.

The incredible thing is how so many people have clung on while the Griffin gang laughed derisively at them. Griffin himself must have been amazed.

I should think Stalin must have felt much the same. There was a set of 78 gramophone records of one of Stalin's speeches. The last 20 or so were applause. Now there is a Russian movement to make him a saint.

Not that I wish to give Nick ideas......

Anonymous said...

He might have been bankrupt in the past, but he sure as heck isn't now.

Anonymous said...

None of these people can really say they didn't know. There has never been any shortage of decent people pointing to the truth about Gri££in.

No sympathy, sorry.

Anonymous said...

Clive, that cheque didn’t bounce, Griffin cancelled it. He’s done it many, many, many times before.

The Trafalgar Club brings in more than £80,000 a year, and legally its all Griffins

C U Jimmy said...

Roll up roll up - vote for Griffins pension at the EGM this Sunday you suckers, errm I mean Griffin supporters !

Anonymous said...

When will people learn that Griffin is only interested in dopey ass lickers. If you have a brain and the ability to think for yourself, your lifespan in the BNP once promoted to any position, is 5yrs tops under Griffin, and if itsd to do with money, 3 to 4yrs.

Anonymous said...

"Roll up roll up - vote for Griffins pension at the EGM this Sunday you suckers, errm I mean Griffin supporters !

14 August 2008 21:45"

Well said, Jimmy, that's what this EGM is all about. While people fret about 4yrs, Griffin is securing the end of the rainbow.

Nemesis said...

"Clive, that cheque didn’t bounce, Griffin cancelled it. He’s done it many, many, many times before.

The Trafalgar Club brings in more than £80,000 a year, and legally its all Griffins"

In that case the it stinks even more than it does.

If anyone in the BNP still thinks that (a) Nick Griffin is a decent and honourable man, and (b) has the best interests of the British people, the BNP and of British nationalism at heart, then think again.

In fact, think very hard.

I and many other people have already been used, abused or just simply conned.

If you have any sense of intelligence and common sense please take our experiences and use them. Learn from them. And act.

You have your chance (probably last chance) at the EGM on Sunday.

After that go back to your branches and units and prepare to oust Griffin.

It'll be a long fight but it's necessary.

Have you got the guts and common sense to do it?

Anonymous said...

Fleeced by one of the the greatest con artist ever .THE GREAT
con man has only made it when he has been on 60 minutes but griffo aint got their yet but he will.


.Con Men Profits Expanded by Using Sparks' 10 Rules of the Project Manager
--Taken from the Office Politics Playbook, these Rules Could start You on a New, Profitable Career as a Con Man, should You make this Choice Your Career Direction

It's said that people will believe anything if you whisper it.

This is one of the secrets known and used by con men, though only to be employed under certain, limited circumstances. They also know that more often, a loud, obnoxious stance--like the wheel crying out for grease--is the preferable course of action. And,what's the best, short-cut way to learn these traits? Try Sparks' 10 Rules of the Project Manager. Through these you will learn, and learn fast. Translated, these follow, below:

1) Strive to look tremendously important.
Don't conversationally engage; instruct in a fatherly way. Don't walk; strut. Let it be known in subtle ways that you appreciate praise, but will not tolerate criticism. And, most importantly, follow this sacrosanct Law of Bureaucracy: Never be the first to do anything. You must preserve a father-figure image, observing, waiting patiently for a brilliant idea to emerge from one of your underlings.

2) Attempt to be seen with important people. You must be totally V.I.P.-aware.
When the CEO of your company gives a speech, position yourself behind him to take best advantage of all camera angles. Glad hand your way into meetings with top executives. Grab that press release from the hands of your Publicity Director, and give that good-news press announcement yourself, with the smiling face of the company president at your side.

3) Always speak with finality. Exude complete authority. However, play it safe: only expound on the obvious and proven facts. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

4) Ask irrelevant questions and lean back with a satisfied, cat-that-ate-the-canary grin as your opponent tries to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Then, quickly change the subject.

5) Listen intently while others are arguing a problem, then pounce on a trite statement and snow them with it. Drown them in useless trivia. But, never speak until the meeting is half over. This makes your restraint appear wise, leader-like.

6) If an opponent asks you a pertinent question, look at him as though he's lost his mind. When he looks down in timid retreat, paraphrase the question and bury him with it. Adhere to the Nursing Monther Principle: Do not nurse a kid who wears braces.

7) Always keep your office door closed. This puts your visitors on the defensive. Makes it appear as if you are always in an important conference. Most people manage by the book, even if they don't know who wrote the book, or even which book it is.

8) Give all orders verbally. Never write anything down that might go into a Pearl Harbor file, to be used against you. When backed into a corner and forced to put something in writing, do it as a technical writer would: write words that no one wants to read. When forced to initiate something, read things that don't matter, then write memos saying they do matter, for points that don't matter, to get a project going for something that is totally unrelated.

9) Always take credit for anything good that happens whether you had anything to do with it or not. A "piece of cake" is any unit of work, regardless of scope, for which someone else is totally responsible.

10) Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. Cultivate the art of intimidation. Learn it well. Use it regularly. It will keep your employees on their toes. And, the possibility always exists that one of them will come up with a brilliant idea that you can adopt--step in, steal, claim credit for.

Some will say, if 2 wrongs don't make a right, try 3. Others will say, if you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried. Through all of this an important mathematical equation holds true: Incompetence + incompetence = incompetence.

griffins book under the bed

keith axon

Anonymous said...

Clive,

I agree with a lot of what you say, and you are quite obviously a good nationalist who has suffered a lot for the Cause. Griffin is scum pure and simple.

However, that utter vermin Lee Barnes is one of Griffin's biggest supporters. He has lashed out at anyone who has dared to criticise Griffin and is a big part of the reason that Griffin is where he is today. I have no respect or sympathy for Lee Barnes whatsoever as Lee Barnes is a Griffin gimp.

Lee Barnes may have given you time and effort yet all this is undone (and more) by his gimpish devotion to Gri$$in.

Respect to you, however.

Clive Potter said...

Some Griffinite on Stormfront who goes by the name of "Odin's Daughter" is trying to say that the bounced cheque sent by Griffin to Potter was all hunky-dory...

"Re: A STAB IN THE BACK: HOW NICK GRIFFIN BETRAYED A BNP MEMBER

It doesn't necessarily mean that the cheque bounced, or was a bad cheque. It could be something as innocent as the fact that the issuing bank's computer decided to try and pay it before crediting any cheques due to go in."


"Odin's Daughter" has got the complete wrong end of the stick here, obviously trying to cover up the dirt that her idol has created.

The fact is that the issue is NOT about the Bank's terminology or what the Bank's stamp says, but rather WHY the cheque BOUNCED in the first place and WHY it wasn't re-issued by Griffin once this was known.

Secondly, why were there NO funds in the Trafalagar Club account to meet this cheque?

As made clear in the article, Griffin NEVER attempted to rectify the situation.

As for the blind ramblings of "Odin's Daughter" I did NOT go straight to NW Nationalists (wrongly and idiotically referred to as a "Red" blog by the Griffin sycophant "Odin's Daughter" ). A cursory look at the cheque shows that it was written in July 2006, obviously over TWO years ago.

The fact is that I maintained confidentiality until now, even when I had been expelled from the BNP by Griffin himself over the Solidarity takeover sham.

I consider the time to reveal the truth and hard - if unwelcoming to some - facts is now.

If people like "Odin's Daughter" on Stormfront STILL do not get it, then what hope is there for us and the BNP?

NorthWestNationalists said...

Odins daughter/odinsgal is well known to us at NWN Clive.

She is as nutty as a fruitcake.

She somehow manages to be a mod on some C18 chatroom BUT also supports Griffin.How is that possible ?

She also supports the CUNT duo who also support Griffin.

Whatever we say on here, she will take up an opposite argument.

How many times she has had to 'bare her arse in public' by saying we only publish lies here at NWN, but then we get proved right, yet again, you would have thought she would have learned her lesson by now.

She has tied her star to Griffin so let her crash with him.

Final Conflict said...

It is decent nationalists like Clive that have been shafted, whilst those content to toe the line for an income get the "rewards".

Shameful!

Anonymous said...

Hi NWN,

I commented that burgers at the RWB are being sold for £2 for 2oz but it has not been published on your site!

It is true as I have a contact who has been helping the set up of marquees and he told me 15 mins before posting.

NorthWestNationalists said...

Maybe they are M&S burgers ! ;-)

Anonymous said...

The signatures on the Trafalgar Club cheques prove it's a family concern, and not a BNP one. I have seen TC cheques before, signed by Griffin, and his mother, Jean Thomas.

If the TC were a BNP concern it would fall under the BNP treasury department, and there are 4 signatories for the BNP account. It would be against electoral law for a party to have an account signed off just by the chairman and its family. It would come under the heading of fraud.

The current BNP signatories
1. Nick Griffin
2. Simon Darby
3. John Walker(now, Jennifer Noble?)
4. David Hannam

The TC cheques are proof positive that it's a 100% pure unadulterated scam being performed on all those who donate to it. It doesn't go to the BNP at all, it all goes to the Griffins.

It really is time the membership woke up, and stopped treating those who speak the truth as reds. Branding everyone and anyone a red is what Griffin trains you all to do. Wake up.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe they are M&S burgers ! ;-)

15 August 2008 01:25"

A 2oz burger is half the size of a quarter pounder. This type of burger is available in packs of 50 from very cheap shops like Iceland/Farmfoods etc
Either way, Griffin should put his money where his mouth is and serve BRITISH ORGANIC BEEF. The man is a lying cunt, and I apologise for my language, but there really isn't any other word to describe him. He's the most hated political leader of a small group in the history of mankind.

Anonymous said...

"The TC cheques are proof positive that it's a 100% pure unadulterated scam being performed on all those who donate to it. It doesn't go to the BNP at all, it all goes to the Griffins."

I keep telling people that the advertising of the TC is fraud. No one listens, no one cares.

Anonymous said...

It's not that no-one cares, but that just about everyone who knows the truth is OUT.

With one or two notable exceptions, the only ones left IN are crooks and morons.

There is now no way that control of the BNP can be regained. It's a state operation through and through.

Anonymous said...

The published accounts a couple of years ago said that the BNP Treasurer had no access to the Trafalgar Club records.

So whose fund is it?

Anonymous said...

The reason so many people don't care how the BNP is run is two-fold.

1. They just want entertainments like papers and meetings.

2. They argue who cares how it's run if it saves the country. Sort of sound argument if it were true.

But does anyone still believe a party run like the BNP is going to do any such thing?

Let's hear from the Griffin mugs how things are going to work to achieve it. 1000 councillors by etc?

Mr Potter said...

"I keep telling people that the advertising of the TC is fraud. No one listens, no one cares."

No, quite the opposite Anonymous.

All information that has been sent and which can be verified and checked (and are not purely mischievous claims and unfounded allegations sent in for whatever raeson)is being considered. All of it is welcome.

There is a time and a place when such information as you and others have supplied will be used.

On the contray Anon people ARE listening and DO care.

This information will be considered along with other items and if substantiated will no doubt be used to devasting effect at the right moment.

Thanks Anon and Others for all information.

Anonymous said...

Its true. The way Griffin advertises the TC is fraud. But, the Electoral Commission doesn't give a shit. Proving once more that the BNP is a state run safety valve of huge proportions.

Anonymous said...

I have copied this from the BNP site for future reference.

"The Trafalgar Club

We the British people have never had such an opportunity to make a difference to the future of our country!

All over the UK we have members working in their local communities using “people power” to get the message out. In order to get the message across to the whole country we need your help by joining the Trafalgar Club.

The Trafalgar Club is an elite fund-raising group. Trafalgar Club members pledge a minimum subscription of £15 per month, in return for which they;

receive regular special internal bulletins,
are invited to attend the annual Trafalgar Club dinner free of charge hosted by the party Chairman
receive a Trafalgar Club tie (or a personalised organiser file in the case of ladies). The tie carries the first two ‘words’ of Nelson’s semaphore signal before the Battle of Trafalgar: “England Expects.” (Available in first year of membership only.)
Contributing this way to the British National Party is a good investment for your future. You do not need to be a member of the British National Party to join the Trafalgar Club. The Government currently bans many civil servants from joining the BNP so the Trafalgar Club is a great way of demonstrating your patriotism and making sure you keep your job without being fired by New Labour’s fascists.

After many years of running on shoe-string budgets, the BNP has learned how to stretch a pound as far as it will go! We know how to combine volunteerism and money to get results that astonish the other political parties. We have only a tiny fraction of the income of the other established parties who are bought and paid for by vested interests. Yet, look at the impact we have made with the money we do have!

Your contribution will help us achieve;

Better administration as we continue to grow
Legal advice including taking actions against our opponents who we believe have committed electoral fraud
Digital duplicators for key branches
Improved security for our newly elected councillors and key personnel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Trafalgar Club?

On 21st October 1805, one of the most decisive battles in British history took place off Cape Trafalgar on the southern Spanish coast. It ended Napoleon’s dream of conquering all of Europe and his fleet was utterly decimated. Not a single British ship was lost in the battle but losses of crew were heavy including the death of Britain’s most famous Admiral, Horatio Nelson.

A son of Norfolk he rose from humble origins, (his father was a clergyman) through the ranks to become the archetypal Hero. Along with Horatio Nelson over 1600 British sailors met their end in this most famous sea-battle. They gave their lives so that others may live and Britain could thrive and prosper. Their sacrifice made the difference!

Trafalgar Club members are not asked to give their lives, just the very small sum of £3.46 per week. It is equivalent to just a little more than a pint of real ale, less than a week’s supply of “The Times” or the “Daily” and “Sunday Telegraph”.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Trafalgar subscriptions.

We now have an online facility for accepting subscriptions through Trafalgar Club. The online subscriptions are handled by Paypal. You can be confident that any transactions are conducted using military grade encryption.

Trafalgar Club:

Trafalgar Club £15.00 per Month





Trafalgar Club £20.00 per Month




Trafalgar Club £25.00 per Month




Trafalgar Club £30.00 per Month




Trafalgar Club £35.00 per Month




Trafalgar Club £40.00 per Month




Trafalgar Club £180.00 per Year






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe by Post:

Is your country worth £3.46 a week? Are the futures of your sons and daughters worth the cost of a few chocolate bars? Join the Trafalgar Club today! Alternatively to join the Trafalgar club ring 0845 476 4162, or write to;

The Secretary
PO Box 293
CARDIFF
CF24 ONP

Email: trafalgar@bnp.org.uk and request a Trafalgar Club card be sent to your address. Cheques should be made payable to “Trafalgar Club” or “180 Club” and postal orders are acceptable to either. The Trafalgar Club is perfect for patriotic Britons who support the cause of British survival but nevertheless cannot join the party and become active.

IMPORTANT:

Please note Electoral Legislation makes it illegal for any party in the UK to accept anonymous payments of more than £200, or to accept payments totalling more than £200 a year from anyone who is not on the electoral register in the UK. Any ‘unacceptable’ gifts will have to be returned to the donors if we can identify them, or handed over to the Government if we can’t!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your contribution.

Your contribution is very much appreciated to help bring about change in Britain. Now please choose the appropriate amount below corresponding to how much you would like to pay to the Trafalgar Club on a monthly basis. Alternatively, you can decide to pay for the yearly subscription in one lump sum. The yearly subscription is £180 which works out at less than £4 per week, in reality a pathetically tiny amount of money! Our enemies spend millions of pounds every day to create new soap operas, documentaries, radio programmes and countless advertisements, each of which are deliberately created to undermine the notion of patriotism, pride in one’s family, community and country."

http://www.bnp.org.uk/trafalgar-club/

Anonymous said...

"Your contribution will help us achieve;

Better administration as we continue to grow
Legal advice including taking actions against our opponents who we believe have committed electoral fraud
Digital duplicators for key branches
Improved security for our newly elected councillors and key personnel"

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, did you read that, Clive? "Legal advice including taking actions against our opponents who we believe have committed electoral fraud"

Anonymous said...

"By the time I received the letter from the bank I had already paid the Employment Tribunal as I obviously expected the cheque to be honoured, plus the fact that the closing date for the submission of the deposit was a tight legal deadline that had to be met.

I therefore found myself seriously out-of-pocket with a £1500 debt that I could ill-afford, let down by my very own Chairman of a political party whose values and principles I had staked my claim on.

Nick Griffin made no apology and made no compensatory action to ensure that the money would be refunded to me. I had initially waited some weeks prior to receiving the cheque from Griffin which placed huge pressures on me as I had to have the deposit/damages presented at the Tribunal within a restricted time-frame."

Stand in line, Clive.
Did you also know that businesses are lining up to take the BNP to the cleaners for non payment of debts? The obstacles, are the BNP is registered to a PO Box, it has no fixed headquarters, and those businesses end up whistling for their money. Griffin knows exactly what I think of him, and he knows its only a matter of time...

If I'd have known then, what I know now, I'd have punched the bastards lites out, and then some. The lies and smears put out on me left me depressed for months. Fuck Griffin, he's getting his sooner than he thinks.

Regards

Sharon Ebanks

Final Conflict said...

That TC write-up makes it clear that the TC is advertised as a section of the BNP with the money going to the BNP.

from what ex-BNP organisers have said, it's clear that the TC is NOT a part of the BNP and its monies are outwith the control of the BNP.

That is fraud, gaining money under false pretences and one might even say not the behaviour of White people!

But then neither is pederasty, downloading animal porn, etc. etc.

Does the BNP's pet Reverend know?

Anonymous said...

I am giving serious consideration to joining the Travalgar Club & also providing the nice people who run it with details of my credit card...

Anonymous said...

I am giving serious consideration to joining the Travalgar Club & also providing the nice people who run it with details of my credit card...

15 August 2008 17:20


Lol, do you remember the time people were joining the BNP using their debit cards, and the BNP continued to debit, and debit, and debit the same cards.................

NorthWestNationalists said...

All those attending the EGM take great care, and be on your best behaviour.

Take along your cameras.

But most of all, vote against the Griffin motions and especially the one for 'Griffins pension plan'.

Griffin should receive from the BNP, the very same that he gave to John Tyndall !

Anonymous said...

Sharon must bear in mind that a pack of lies has been the lot of nationalists for many years. She ain't alone in the universe.

Of course, it came mainly from the left. We never expected the BNP's leadership to start imitating the techniques used by Searchlight. Word is getting round though. Inevitable over time.

Anonymous said...

"Sharon must bear in mind that a pack of lies has been the lot of nationalists for many years. She ain't alone in the universe.

Of course, it came mainly from the left. We never expected the BNP's leadership to start imitating the techniques used by Searchlight. Word is getting round though. Inevitable over time.

15 August 2008 18:38"

I don't give a shit about nationalist politics anymore, I've seen it in all its disgusting glory, and you can keep it. I did care about the Kingstanding community though, and worked bloody hard.

I'm just hanging around waiting for Griffin to fall, and he will, but it will be the money, and British law that nails his coffin shut. He thinks people on the outside don't know what's going on, he needs to think again, and he can start by answering the following

Mr Griffin, you one eyed thieving conning shyster. Can you please tell the membership why your bosom buddy, Tony Lecomber, dines with Richard Barnbrook in London once a week? Have you asked Tony to blow up GLA members this time?

Yeah, you're wondering how I know that, ain't you, you cunt :) Be seeing you, Nicky boy.

Regards

SE

Anonymous said...

"But most of all, vote against the Griffin motions and especially the one for 'Griffins pension plan'."

The BNP members should demand to see the TC accounts, and then start fundraising to put Griffin in court.

Regards

SE

Tommy Williams cat said...

Looks like that blethering idiot from the CUNTs site Tommy Williams has played a blinder for his master Nick Griffin.

His post about a bomb will have frightened off many families from the RWB now.

Therefore losing Herr Griffin- codpiece a lot of money.

This is what happens when you boot out intellectuals and allow numbsculls to have a voice Nick !

NorthWestNationalists said...

It's a very intersting fact that Griffins and Harringtons pal, Rabbi Meyer Schiller is/was a member of the Trafalgar club circa 2000.

In fact, Rabbi Schiller was a member very soon after Herr Griffin scammed his way to the top of the BNP.

Maybe the good rabbi gave Griffin tips on how to scam the goyim/gentiles.

Anonymous said...

Hang on !

The leader of the BNP 'bouncing cheques' and the press/mass media are not interested ?

To what can we conclude ?

Dave Howard's pants said...

"Looks like that blethering idiot from the CUNTs site Tommy Williams has played a blinder for his master Nick Griffin.

His post about a bomb will have frightened off many families from the RWB now."

Where did he make that statement?

isn't that illegal?

What a prat!

seventh victim said...

isn't that illegal?


I can only imagine it would be considered as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace- of course if Williams isn't arrested that would prove that he is state- according to the logic of Yorkshire bus drivers.

Simon Smith said...

It's just a thought but , I believe the artillery should be directed at Darby/Griffin and nobody else.

The people playing the "supporting roles" may in time "wake" "up"....We perhaps ought to have a more charitable disposition towards them... they may in time turn on the Chaircrook...

Anonymous said...

All Griffins accomplices need to be made aware that this is no game.

Griffin has paid off some wankers.

But who gets the real dosh ?

Griffin has fecked you all over.

Vote against Griffins pension plan.

Anonymous said...

Treacy has always been a gobshite.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Treacy has always been a gobshite.

16 August 2008 06:04"

Is he still in the BNP? He's like a frikin yo yo

Anonymous said...

Over the next 2 years, the opportunities for nationalism will never be so great, and what is Griffin doing? He's booting out the foot soldiers, and workers.

He must be STATE, and it's time to kick him out before it's to late.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HBo2xQIWHiM

Anonymous said...

EGM time is getting closer....

Be Strong said...

Fingers crossed!

"Eventually the ants will consume the elephant"

Anonymous said...

A brilliantly written piece by someone who I know to be a decent, honest nationalist whose only crime was to spend an incredible amount of time, effort and money on a cause for which he believed in. The bouncing of this cheque and its never being reissued, together with the appalling subsequent treatment of Potter and many other long serving nationalists, should surely show whose side Gri££in is on. We now know this, but what can we do about it? If Gri££in has now weedled his way into power for another heaven-knows-how-many years, we are going to lose every decent nationalist we have. The party is already no longer what it was. Thanks for such an enlightening and well written article Clive. Gri££in has surely killed the BNP as we once knew it. Our only chance of success is gone, thanks to our 'leader' who clearly couldn't give a toss about those who have supported him for so many years.

Anonymous said...

As I understand it Clive Potter objects to the fact that this matter has been made public. Surely, however, Nationalists have a right to know about it. He took an ill-advised case and managed only to establish an adverse precedent and land himself with large costs. Although a former member of the Solidarity Union he at no time sought their advice and guidance prefering to rely on that offered by Lee Barnes. He has made a bad situation worse.

From the start using the idea of 'indirect racial discrimination' was flawed. Had he remained loyal to Solidarity and enlisted their assistance things might have been very different for him. Even had he lost Solidarity members would have helped raise money for him. As a traitor who pursued his own course he can expect no such help. He has no-one to blame except himself.

As to Lee Barnes, leaving aside the paranoia about Harrington, he may well give his services free and that is commendable. The important thing is to win, however. We can't afford to lose cases like this. Gifted amateurs don't generally beat barristers with years of specialist experience. That's just a fact.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that if Clive Potter had won this case he would not have been so coy. He was clearly pursuing a factional agenda by keeping Solidarity out of the loop. He was hoping to claim all the credit when he won. Sadly for both him and any Nationalist who wants to work for the Prison Service he cocked it up.

Worse still, he understood that a defeat would set back the Nationalist cause generally:-

essential to defeat this discriminatory policy so as to ensure a political strategic goal of encouraging more professional and middle-class people to join the BNP, since if such people felt that their career and employment prospects were barred by their BNP membership the work of the BNP and of British Nationalism would be made much more difficult.

Solidarity is currently fighting (with Civil Liberty) cases aimed at protecting the rights of Nationalists to belong to a Union of their choice, work as Teachers etc. Mavericks taking their own ill-advised course don't help. At some point Solidarity will have to try to challenge the Prison Service ban but the precedent established by Potter makes that much more difficult. To whine in a paranoid fashion about people making this issue public is pathetic. We need to analyse what has happened here and why he failed and setback the cause so badly.

Might the time and energy Potter has spent in making vexatious complaints regarding Solidarity have been better used preparing his case?

Lee Barnes does some good work. Solidarity, however, has taken the view that a legal team including qualified solicitors is needed to handle complex questions of law in employment and human rights cases. The purpose of Solidarity is to provide the best possible advice and guidance to members. That means Solidarity prefer to rely on advice from professionals who are specialists in the area concerned.

Clive Potter said...

It seems rather strange that these two posts have suddenly materialised, some 8 days after the article was first published on North West Nationalists. The only individual known who would make such an issue about the subject discussed in the article, and who also raises the subject of the formerly independent nationalist trade union (now a Griffin-run BNP front), Solidarity, is Pat Harrington. Harrington is a prolific poster and a cyber-warrior who appears to obsessively check the internet for any mention of his name or his political associations, and steadfastly posts in favour of both himself and of his master, Nick Griffin.

Of course, he is too gutless to write under his name as is usual, preferring to hide under anonymity. How very brave of you Mr Harrington! Clearly he does not have the courage of his beliefs and his opinions to submit himself to scrutiny.

I once had respect for Pat Harrington, a man whom had stood up against the communists who tried to prevent him for his further education whilst at a London college.

But my personal experience of Harrington when I worked with him in Solidarity was not only deeply disappointing but deeply disturbing. The hijacking of Solidarity was entirely down to his failure to work as a team member, whilst his incompetence as an administrator saw that tasks had to be farmed out to others on the Solidarity team whilst contributing to his suspension as a Union official. His arrogance at refusing to submit himself to disciplinary action led to him conspiring with Griffin to hijack the Union. Now Solidarity is rightly regarded as a political body, an extension of the BNP, and will never grow out of its BNP ghetto and be recognised as a truly independent mass nationalist trade union, an ambition and goal that was desired by the originators of Solidarity.

Lee Barnes himself, whom Harrington criticises, realised his error in recommending Patrick Harrington to be a part of the Solidarity Executive. He admits that it was a big mistake and led directly to the debacle that we have witnessed with Solidarity. Harrington was recognised as a ‘super-predator’ who possessed that same ‘political DNA’ as Griffin and many of the former leaders of the NF; many of them had been tainted with extremism and all had developed a personality where scheming, conspiring and factionalism were endemic to them all. Now we see how this is true whenever we examine the histories of the BNP and of Solidarity.

The first ‘anonymous’ poster says that,

“As I understand it Clive Potter objects to the fact that this matter has been made public. Surely, however, Nationalists have a right to know about it.”

Not so Mr Harrington. If you read the article (this time without reading it through your own political prejudices and self-righteous indignation) you will realise that I object strongly to the fact that your master, Nick Griffin, and yourself decided to stab me in the back once I had lost the case. You and your master were apparently elated that a nationalist had lost the case and you were both crowing how Lee Barnes had seemingly failed.

Several questions arise from this observation Mr Harrington. Firstly, why were you and Griffin pleased that an important nationalist case had been lost? One would have thought that the BNP leader and the wannabee General Secretary of a trade union would be unhappy at the loss of an important case? But no, you are all crowing about it. What does that tell people? That you and Griffin have another agenda that could be distinctly anti-nationalist? Are you and Griffin cuckoos in the nationalist nest? Rather odd behaviour wouldn’t you say?

Secondly, why did you and Griffin feel it right to do the dirty on a nationalist who fought to defend the rights of BNP members, and decided to post incriminatory and hostile material attacking him and his BNP legal advisor, Lee Barnes? These are neither the attitude or the action of a responsible nationalist nor of a ‘leader’ of a trades union. Why the bitter and venomous attacks on individuals self-sacrificing for the cause of nationalism, for BNP members and for the rights of British workers – the very constituency that YOU are supposed to be defending?

You ought to hang your head in shame. You are a disgrace to nationalism, although that is something of a contradiction considering the history as shown by your Third Way National Liberal Party, supporting non-British Black Ethnic Minority candidates over white indigenous BNP candidates. What games are you playing at? And why does your master, Herr Griffin, support you even though you are working in a hostile fashion against the BNP? I think we should be told.

Furthermore, the case was confidential and it is up to Lee Barnes and myself to publicise if as and when WE decide, not you or your master Griffin. In fact, Lee Barnes did do a detailed skeleton argument on his blog, which was linked to on the article itself.

No, what I strongly objected to was yours and Griffin’s malicious and vindictive character assassination and public rubbishing of me and my legal advisor. And considering Lee Barnes is or was a confidante and legal advisor to Nick Griffin himself I am disgusted at the way Griffin has sought to use my case to try and damage him, because the only way that the lost case could be publicly ‘sold’ was by painting Lee Barnes as a rubbishy and failed legal advisor.

Just to inform you Harrington the legal issue is by no means finished. It should also be obvious to you that the establishment stitched us up good and proper. That could not be accounted for in any calculation. Instead of sitting there on your arse typing away on your PC behind the anonymity of your keyboard perhaps you should do something proactive and actually support those individuals who are trying to make a difference and defend British workers and white nationalists in this country, instead of carping and attacking like a spiteful woman.

The case has not changed anything. You should know that. Clearly your legal expertise does not extend to realising that it remains status quo as far the ban on white nationalists being employees of HM Prisons. The ban has been in force since 2002. It remains in force. It will remain in force until this discriminatory ban is successfully challenged. Is this something that you or your ‘independent’ trade union will undertake, or will you be washing your hands of anything that is costly, complex and time-consuming like this issue? Considering the fact that you often go for quick publicity-seeking issues and cases maybe you will be leaving this to those individuals who are prepared to play the long game and dedicate their time and energies to? After all, costs of several thousands of pounds from a case that was launched to help the interests of white nationalists and the nationalist cause is not something that YOU or your ‘independent’ trade union would dare to countenance, would it?

Mr ‘Anonymous’ then patronisingly claims

“Although a former member of the Solidarity Union he at no time sought their advice and guidance prefering to rely on that offered by Lee Barnes. He has made a bad situation worse.”

Excuse me Mr Harrington. The case began in 2005, BEFORE the launch of Solidarity (which I, incidentally, founded - on the instructions of one Lee Barnes, the man whom you seem to despise, although it was he (much to his later regret) recommended YOU to serve on the fledgling board of Solidarity (and who then repaid the favour by trying to prevent Mr Barnes from serving on the same Board of the Union that HE began- and then brutally stabbing me in the back as Founder and President of the same Union when you were too weak and cowardly to face allegations of misconduct against you, and hijacked the Union for yours and your masters own ends). That my friend, is NOT nationalism and is NOT the behaviour of any decent and moral person who claims to be a nationalist. In any case the case against HM Prison Service was later incorporated into the Solidarity remit – in case you have already forgotten Mr Selective Memory Man.

Lee Barnes provided an excellent and professional service and his legal expertise was second-to-none. He ran rings around the top lawyers present, who were all paid for by Government. We only lost because of the bias and prejudice of the Tribunal Service. It was literally a David and Goliath battle. You may be jealous because Lee has outstanding legal expertise and has a law degree, whereas you have not. If you wish to emulate him then perhaps you should apply yourself and study hard for a degree like Lee did.

Then you come out with nonsense like this below…

“From the start using the idea of 'indirect racial discrimination' was flawed. Had he remained loyal to Solidarity and enlisted their assistance things might have been very different for him.”

Don’t you remember Mr Harrington it was YOU who was disloyal and unconstitutional and hijacked the Union? Besides you are talking out of your arse as your legal understanding of the whole case is utterly flawed and the opinion of someone who is legally ignorant. The whole case was predicated on the Redfearn v SERCO dicta which we used to great effect to turn the law against the Prison Service. Clearly, your legal analysis is deeply flawed and errorneous. Besides, there was NOTHING that you or your BNP front union could do that was anything different. I wouldn’t trust you to advise me or to provide any assistance whatsoever. Who would pay for the legal costs and advice? Would Solidarity be prepared to fund all those professional fees? I think not.

Mr Anon then further patronisingly comes out with this gem of wisdom,

“As to Lee Barnes, leaving aside the paranoia about Harrington, he may well give his services free and that is commendable. The important thing is to win, however. We can't afford to lose cases like this. Gifted amateurs don't generally beat barristers with years of specialist experience. That's just a fact”.

Not paranoia about Harrington my friend, just plain experience from Lee Barnes, a man who doesn’t take fools and sharks like you lightly, and who has the honesty and integrity (please refer to dictionary for definition of these terms) to admit when he got it wrong.

Yes, it is essential that we win. But if we don’t confront and try to right wrongs where does that get us? Just sit on our arses and promote ourselves with pathetic press releases and grandioise statements like being a ‘fighting union’, when the reverse is actually the case?

You know full well that this statement of yours is patronising and totally unhelpful. No credit is given whatsoever to us whatsover. ‘Gifted amateurs’ DO beat barristers Mr Harrington and I have witnessed Barnes beat barristers and confound even judges, and even in cases where he has lost he has surprised and shaken the very best of barristers. Can you say that about yourself? No. So stop spouting such bitter and twisted sentiments about him.

In a second posting the same individual makes the following pathetic statements,

“I am sure that if Clive Potter had won this case he would not have been so coy. He was clearly pursuing a factional agenda by keeping Solidarity out of the loop. He was hoping to claim all the credit when he won. Sadly for both him and any Nationalist who wants to work for the Prison Service he cocked it up.”

Yes, of course, I would have publicised the victory if I had won – it would have been a victory for nationalism and for the British worker!

I was writing up the case in any case to demonstrate how the establishment stitches up nationalists who oppose the System and who try to get justice for the indigenous peoples of these islands. To say it was being ‘factional’ is absolutely pathetic. This attitude of mind could only come from a mind so petty and so obsessed with self-righteous and self-promotional ego imbibed with years of factionalism in the NF that it has become steadily poisoned and corrupted through the years.

You are really pathetic and you have sunk to such low depths that words really do fail me.

As explained earlier the case had nothing to do with Solidarity in the first place, which was not even a thought in Barne’s head then. Why should I or Lee Barnes claim credit for the 3 years of hard work and thousands of pounds cost that have resulted. Why should anyone in their right mind then give YOU any sort of credit or accolade to share when you did nothing in the first place, apart from sit on the sidelines and whinge? Do shut up man, get real.

In any case, as explained previously the situation within HM Prison Service has not changed and it will not change unless nationalists decide to get off their arses and confront the system which is what Barnes and I did. BEFORE YOU PONTIFICATE FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR CHAIR IN FRONT OF YOUR KEYBOARDS ABOUT WHAT REAL NATIONALISTS SHOULD AND SHOULDN’T DO AND WHERE THEY MAY HAVE GONE WRONG, WHY DON’T YOU GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR A CHANGE?

“At some point Solidarity will have to try to challenge the Prison Service ban but the precedent established by Potter makes that much more difficult”

Absolute rubbish. Solidarity is too weak and ill-equipped to do anything about anything, especially under a lack-lustre do-nothing President and General Secretary like it has at the moment.

There is no precedent set. The status quo within the HMP recruitment policy is still in place. We have decided not to appeal due to the costs factor. Why don’t you and your ‘union’ provide the funds for us to appeal?

“To whine in a paranoid fashion about people making this issue public is pathetic. We need to analyse what has happened here and why he failed and setback the cause so badly. “

Another pathetic and patronising statement from Mr ‘Anon’. I was not ‘whining’ about the issue being made public. Don’t try and twist the facts Mr ‘Anon’, you know what you’re trying to do. You cannot hide or disguise the obvious fact here. You and your master, Nick Griffin, tried to expose me and Lee Barnes as idiots and mocked us for daring to stand up for nationalists. Your friend and master Griffin also bounced a cheque to pay for my initial costs and deposit, which he never tried to replace. The case would never have gone ahead had it not been for a generous member. That, my friend, smacks of deliberate intention to SABOTAGE the case. In any case, if the case was doomed from failure to begin with as you spitefully seem to suggest, then why did Griffin agree to fund it in the first place?

“Might the time and energy Potter has spent in making vexatious complaints regarding Solidarity have been better used preparing his case”

No. Time has been spent on BOTH issues. Besides, the time spent on Solidarity was purposeful and necessary as Solidarity was hijacked by Harrington and his master, Nick Griffin.

“Worse still, he understood that a defeat would set back the Nationalist cause generally:-“

No. The issue needed to be confronted for the interests of nationalists and BNP members. In any case, why did Griffin say it was a well-worth case and deserved the support of the BNP and agreed to fund the case. Such statements from the likes of yourself are all too obvious as being hate-filled directed against someone whom you fell out with earlier.

“Lee Barnes does some good work. Solidarity, however, has taken the view that a legal team including qualified solicitors is needed to handle complex questions of law in employment and human rights cases. The purpose of Solidarity is to provide the best possible advice and guidance to members. That means Solidarity prefer to rely on advice from professionals who are specialists in the area concerned”.

How refreshingly nice of you to praise Lee Barnes for his legal work. Lee has actually spearheaded much of British nationalism’s legal work on employment discrimination and human rights, and he isn’t even a practising lawyer! Before you spout such trite and patronising statements you would do well to find out things first. Lee may not be a practising lawyer but he is as well-informed and even better qualified than many of them on the circuit. The BNP simply fails to pay him a salary to be able to do that, instead pissing it on Griffin-inspired business failures and endemic corruption.

In any case Mr ‘Anon’ I don’t give a damn about what you or your ‘union’ thinks and whether it ‘prefers’ the ‘advice’ of ‘professionals’. If you want to pay good money for that, then that’s fine. Don’t forget though that you can sometimes pay good money for tatty solicitors who are a waste of time and know little. Lee was good enough to do this case free for no money, a case that cost him dozens and dozens of man-hours. His speciality is indeed employment law and the sphere of human rights. But you, Mr ‘Anon’ can do whatever you decide in your ‘union’ – but DON’T try patronising us or trying to pontificate on our case.

Clive Potter said...

It seems rather strange that these two posts have suddenly materialised, some 8 days after the article was first published on North West Nationalists. The only individual known who would make such an issue about the subject discussed in the article, and who also raises the subject of the formerly independent nationalist trade union (now a Griffin-run BNP front), Solidarity, is Pat Harrington. Harrington is a prolific poster and a cyber-warrior who appears to obsessively check the internet for any mention of his name or his political associations, and steadfastly posts in favour of both himself and of his master, Nick Griffin.

Of course, he is too gutless to write under his name as is usual, preferring to hide under anonymity. How very brave of you Mr Harrington! Clearly he does not have the courage of his beliefs and his opinions to submit himself to scrutiny.

I once had respect for Pat Harrington, a man whom had stood up against the communists who tried to prevent him for his further education whilst at a London college.

But my personal experience of Harrington when I worked with him in Solidarity was not only deeply disappointing but deeply disturbing. The hijacking of Solidarity was entirely down to his failure to work as a team member, whilst his incompetence as an administrator saw that tasks had to be farmed out to others on the Solidarity team whilst contributing to his suspension as a Union official. His arrogance at refusing to submit himself to disciplinary action led to him conspiring with Griffin to hijack the Union. Now Solidarity is rightly regarded as a political body, an extension of the BNP, and will never grow out of its BNP ghetto and be recognised as a truly independent mass nationalist trade union, an ambition and goal that was desired by the originators of Solidarity.

Lee Barnes himself, whom Harrington criticises, realised his error in recommending Patrick Harrington to be a part of the Solidarity Executive. He admits that it was a big mistake and led directly to the debacle that we have witnessed with Solidarity. Harrington was recognised as a ‘super-predator’ who possessed that same ‘political DNA’ as Griffin and many of the former leaders of the NF; many of them had been tainted with extremism and all had developed a personality where scheming, conspiring and factionalism were endemic to them all. Now we see how this is true whenever we examine the histories of the BNP and of Solidarity.

The first ‘anonymous’ poster says that,

“As I understand it Clive Potter objects to the fact that this matter has been made public. Surely, however, Nationalists have a right to know about it.”

Not so Mr Harrington. If you read the article (this time without reading it through your own political prejudices and self-righteous indignation) you will realise that I object strongly to the fact that your master, Nick Griffin, and yourself decided to stab me in the back once I had lost the case. You and your master were apparently elated that a nationalist had lost the case and you were both crowing how Lee Barnes had seemingly failed.

Several questions arise from this observation Mr Harrington. Firstly, why were you and Griffin pleased that an important nationalist case had been lost? One would have thought that the BNP leader and the wannabee General Secretary of a trade union would be unhappy at the loss of an important case? But no, you are all crowing about it. What does that tell people? That you and Griffin have another agenda that could be distinctly anti-nationalist? Are you and Griffin cuckoos in the nationalist nest? Rather odd behaviour wouldn’t you say?

Secondly, why did you and Griffin feel it right to do the dirty on a nationalist who fought to defend the rights of BNP members, and decided to post incriminatory and hostile material attacking him and his BNP legal advisor, Lee Barnes? These are neither the attitude or the action of a responsible nationalist nor of a ‘leader’ of a trades union. Why the bitter and venomous attacks on individuals self-sacrificing for the cause of nationalism, for BNP members and for the rights of British workers – the very constituency that YOU are supposed to be defending?

You ought to hang your head in shame. You are a disgrace to nationalism, although that is something of a contradiction considering the history as shown by your Third Way National Liberal Party, supporting non-British Black Ethnic Minority candidates over white indigenous BNP candidates. What games are you playing at? And why does your master, Herr Griffin, support you even though you are working in a hostile fashion against the BNP? I think we should be told.

Furthermore, the case was confidential and it is up to Lee Barnes and myself to publicise if as and when WE decide, not you or your master Griffin. In fact, Lee Barnes did do a detailed skeleton argument on his blog, which was linked to on the article itself.

No, what I strongly objected to was yours and Griffin’s malicious and vindictive character assassination and public rubbishing of me and my legal advisor. And considering Lee Barnes is or was a confidante and legal advisor to Nick Griffin himself I am disgusted at the way Griffin has sought to use my case to try and damage him, because the only way that the lost case could be publicly ‘sold’ was by painting Lee Barnes as a rubbishy and failed legal advisor.

Just to inform you Harrington the legal issue is by no means finished. It should also be obvious to you that the establishment stitched us up good and proper. That could not be accounted for in any calculation. Instead of sitting there on your arse typing away on your PC behind the anonymity of your keyboard perhaps you should do something proactive and actually support those individuals who are trying to make a difference and defend British workers and white nationalists in this country, instead of carping and attacking like a spiteful woman.

The case has not changed anything. You should know that. Clearly your legal expertise does not extend to realising that it remains status quo as far the ban on white nationalists being employees of HM Prisons. The ban has been in force since 2002. It remains in force. It will remain in force until this discriminatory ban is successfully challenged. Is this something that you or your ‘independent’ trade union will undertake, or will you be washing your hands of anything that is costly, complex and time-consuming like this issue? Considering the fact that you often go for quick publicity-seeking issues and cases maybe you will be leaving this to those individuals who are prepared to play the long game and dedicate their time and energies to? After all, costs of several thousands of pounds from a case that was launched to help the interests of white nationalists and the nationalist cause is not something that YOU or your ‘independent’ trade union would dare to countenance, would it?

Mr ‘Anonymous’ then patronisingly claims

“Although a former member of the Solidarity Union he at no time sought their advice and guidance prefering to rely on that offered by Lee Barnes. He has made a bad situation worse.”

Excuse me Mr Harrington. The case began in 2005, BEFORE the launch of Solidarity (which I, incidentally, founded - on the instructions of one Lee Barnes, the man whom you seem to despise, although it was he (much to his later regret) recommended YOU to serve on the fledgling board of Solidarity (and who then repaid the favour by trying to prevent Mr Barnes from serving on the same Board of the Union that HE began- and then brutally stabbing me in the back as Founder and President of the same Union when you were too weak and cowardly to face allegations of misconduct against you, and hijacked the Union for yours and your masters own ends). That my friend, is NOT nationalism and is NOT the behaviour of any decent and moral person who claims to be a nationalist. In any case the case against HM Prison Service was later incorporated into the Solidarity remit – in case you have already forgotten Mr Selective Memory Man.

Lee Barnes provided an excellent and professional service and his legal expertise was second-to-none. He ran rings around the top lawyers present, who were all paid for by Government. We only lost because of the bias and prejudice of the Tribunal Service. It was literally a David and Goliath battle. You may be jealous because Lee has outstanding legal expertise and has a law degree, whereas you have not. If you wish to emulate him then perhaps you should apply yourself and study hard for a degree like Lee did.

Then you come out with nonsense like this below…

“From the start using the idea of 'indirect racial discrimination' was flawed. Had he remained loyal to Solidarity and enlisted their assistance things might have been very different for him.”

Don’t you remember Mr Harrington it was YOU who was disloyal and unconstitutional and hijacked the Union? Besides you are talking out of your arse as your legal understanding of the whole case is utterly flawed and the opinion of someone who is legally ignorant. The whole case was predicated on the Redfearn v SERCO dicta which we used to great effect to turn the law against the Prison Service. Clearly, your legal analysis is deeply flawed and errorneous. Besides, there was NOTHING that you or your BNP front union could do that was anything different. I wouldn’t trust you to advise me or to provide any assistance whatsoever. Who would pay for the legal costs and advice? Would Solidarity be prepared to fund all those professional fees? I think not.

Mr Anon then further patronisingly comes out with this gem of wisdom,

“As to Lee Barnes, leaving aside the paranoia about Harrington, he may well give his services free and that is commendable. The important thing is to win, however. We can't afford to lose cases like this. Gifted amateurs don't generally beat barristers with years of specialist experience. That's just a fact”.

Not paranoia about Harrington my friend, just plain experience from Lee Barnes, a man who doesn’t take fools and sharks like you lightly, and who has the honesty and integrity (please refer to dictionary for definition of these terms) to admit when he got it wrong.

Yes, it is essential that we win. But if we don’t confront and try to right wrongs where does that get us? Just sit on our arses and promote ourselves with pathetic press releases and grandioise statements like being a ‘fighting union’, when the reverse is actually the case?

You know full well that this statement of yours is patronising and totally unhelpful. No credit is given whatsoever to us whatsover. ‘Gifted amateurs’ DO beat barristers Mr Harrington and I have witnessed Barnes beat barristers and confound even judges, and even in cases where he has lost he has surprised and shaken the very best of barristers. Can you say that about yourself? No. So stop spouting such bitter and twisted sentiments about him.

In a second posting the same individual makes the following pathetic statements,

“I am sure that if Clive Potter had won this case he would not have been so coy. He was clearly pursuing a factional agenda by keeping Solidarity out of the loop. He was hoping to claim all the credit when he won. Sadly for both him and any Nationalist who wants to work for the Prison Service he cocked it up.”

Yes, of course, I would have publicised the victory if I had won – it would have been a victory for nationalism and for the British worker!

I was writing up the case in any case to demonstrate how the establishment stitches up nationalists who oppose the System and who try to get justice for the indigenous peoples of these islands. To say it was being ‘factional’ is absolutely pathetic. This attitude of mind could only come from a mind so petty and so obsessed with self-righteous and self-promotional ego imbibed with years of factionalism in the NF that it has become steadily poisoned and corrupted through the years.

You are really pathetic and you have sunk to such low depths that words really do fail me.

As explained earlier the case had nothing to do with Solidarity in the first place, which was not even a thought in Barne’s head then. Why should I or Lee Barnes claim credit for the 3 years of hard work and thousands of pounds cost that have resulted. Why should anyone in their right mind then give YOU any sort of credit or accolade to share when you did nothing in the first place, apart from sit on the sidelines and whinge? Do shut up man, get real.

In any case, as explained previously the situation within HM Prison Service has not changed and it will not change unless nationalists decide to get off their arses and confront the system which is what Barnes and I did. BEFORE YOU PONTIFICATE FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR CHAIR IN FRONT OF YOUR KEYBOARDS ABOUT WHAT REAL NATIONALISTS SHOULD AND SHOULDN’T DO AND WHERE THEY MAY HAVE GONE WRONG, WHY DON’T YOU GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR A CHANGE?

“At some point Solidarity will have to try to challenge the Prison Service ban but the precedent established by Potter makes that much more difficult”

Absolute rubbish. Solidarity is too weak and ill-equipped to do anything about anything, especially under a lack-lustre do-nothing President and General Secretary like it has at the moment.

There is no precedent set. The status quo within the HMP recruitment policy is still in place. We have decided not to appeal due to the costs factor. Why don’t you and your ‘union’ provide the funds for us to appeal?

“To whine in a paranoid fashion about people making this issue public is pathetic. We need to analyse what has happened here and why he failed and setback the cause so badly. “

Another pathetic and patronising statement from Mr ‘Anon’. I was not ‘whining’ about the issue being made public. Don’t try and twist the facts Mr ‘Anon’, you know what you’re trying to do. You cannot hide or disguise the obvious fact here. You and your master, Nick Griffin, tried to expose me and Lee Barnes as idiots and mocked us for daring to stand up for nationalists. Your friend and master Griffin also bounced a cheque to pay for my initial costs and deposit, which he never tried to replace. The case would never have gone ahead had it not been for a generous member. That, my friend, smacks of deliberate intention to SABOTAGE the case. In any case, if the case was doomed from failure to begin with as you spitefully seem to suggest, then why did Griffin agree to fund it in the first place?

“Might the time and energy Potter has spent in making vexatious complaints regarding Solidarity have been better used preparing his case”

No. Time has been spent on BOTH issues. Besides, the time spent on Solidarity was purposeful and necessary as Solidarity was hijacked by Harrington and his master, Nick Griffin.

“Worse still, he understood that a defeat would set back the Nationalist cause generally:-“

No. The issue needed to be confronted for the interests of nationalists and BNP members. In any case, why did Griffin say it was a well-worth case and deserved the support of the BNP and agreed to fund the case. Such statements from the likes of yourself are all too obvious as being hate-filled directed against someone whom you fell out with earlier.

“Lee Barnes does some good work. Solidarity, however, has taken the view that a legal team including qualified solicitors is needed to handle complex questions of law in employment and human rights cases. The purpose of Solidarity is to provide the best possible advice and guidance to members. That means Solidarity prefer to rely on advice from professionals who are specialists in the area concerned”.

How refreshingly nice of you to praise Lee Barnes for his legal work. Lee has actually spearheaded much of British nationalism’s legal work on employment discrimination and human rights, and he isn’t even a practising lawyer! Before you spout such trite and patronising statements you would do well to find out things first. Lee may not be a practising lawyer but he is as well-informed and even better qualified than many of them on the circuit. The BNP simply fails to pay him a salary to be able to do that, instead pissing it on Griffin-inspired business failures and endemic corruption.

In any case Mr ‘Anon’ I don’t give a damn about what you or your ‘union’ thinks and whether it ‘prefers’ the ‘advice’ of ‘professionals’. If you want to pay good money for that, then that’s fine. Don’t forget though that you can sometimes pay good money for tatty solicitors who are a waste of time and know little. Lee was good enough to do this case free for no money, a case that cost him dozens and dozens of man-hours. His speciality is indeed employment law and the sphere of human rights. But you, Mr ‘Anon’ can do whatever you decide in your ‘union’ – but DON’T try patronising us or trying to pontificate on our case.

Anonymous said...

Clive is a very angry, bitter man. That much is clear from his posts. Leaving aside his intemperate language and anger let's address the issue at hand.

Clive brought a case against the Prison Service relying only on the advice of Lee Barnes. Clive lost and is faced with £80,000 costs and can't afford an appeal. He thought Nick Griffin was backing him but (according to Clive) he bounced a cheque on him and has since then shown little interest. Clive accepts that even when President of Solidarity he never asked the Union for help. A sorry tale indeed!

Clive and Lee decided to use an argument of indirect racial discimination. Their argument was basically that white people were indirectly being discriminated against by denying BNP members Prison Service jobs as this affected the white community disproportionately as the BNP was a white group. Had Clive acted as a team member and asked others in Solidarity what they thought of this the funadamental problem would have been pointed out to him. All the Prison Service had to do was provide evidence of a ban on groups with a different ethnic composition. Shock, horror, gasp -that is precisely what they did.

Clive has only started talking about this case because others have first. He had sought to hide what had happened. It is an important case in that it creates an adverse precedent and because it shows the folly of ill-considered, poorly advised, maverick and indisciplined action.

Clive can expect no help from Solidarity. He never involved the Union in decisions or sought advice from it. He has only himself, Lee Barnes and (perhaps) Nick Griffin to blame for the mess he is now in. Solidarity was never involved. We will not fund a doomed appeal. We will not raise funds for him. He has attacked, betrayed and villified our Brotherhood and we turn our backs on him. We will deal with the Prison Service ban separately (although Clive has only made our task more difficult). Clive will have much time to consider the consequences of his foolish actions.

Clive Potter said...

Yet again Pat Harrington refuses to place his post under his own name.

Let me now once again respond to further failures of misunderstandings, refusals to face facts and to squash attempts at revisionism by the 'anon' author of the above post.

"Clive brought a case against the Prison Service relying only on the advice of Lee Barnes. Clive lost and is faced with £80,000 costs and can't afford an appeal. He thought Nick Griffin was backing him but (according to Clive) he bounced a cheque on him and has since then shown little interest. Clive accepts that even when President of Solidarity he never asked the Union for help. A sorry tale indeed!"

Correct in that I brought a case against HM Prison Service for discrimination and used the advice of Lee Barnes.

Why?

Because Lee is bloody good, that's why.His track record and his legal skills are excellent. He uncovered case law after case law, hidden legislation, legal arguments and evidence after evidence in our work on this case. He has pulled material out for cases time after time when professional solicitors have failed to do so on other cases that he has been involved with. On the Redfearn case Lee would have made a stronger case had he been employed on it. If there was any legal advisor/solicitor I would want to represent me, especially a case involving a political dimension, it would be Lee John Barnes every time. I have absolutely no regrets and would take the case again with him with no compulsion.

Furthermore, it was NOT "according to" me that Nick Griffin bounced the cheque and then failed to make arrangements to fund the case.THAT is evidentially clear. Can you not READ the evidence before your eyes - you know - the image of the bounced cheque and the bank letter as presented in the article above?
For Christ sake man can you not accept the evidence before you eyes? Or is that evidence a bit too inconvenient for you... or as Al Gore would say - "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Again, you have failed to read my comments when you ignorantly claim that even "as President of Solidarity)" I did not "ask the Union for help".

I repeat again for your benefit as you may be suffering from Selective Memory Syndrome, or even Selective Fact Syndrome...

THE CASE WAS INITIATED IN 2005, THAT WAS BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF SOLIDARITY. IN ANY CASE THE UNION HAD NO FUNDS TO HELP ITSELF LET ALONE ANY MEMBER SO WHERE DO YOU SUPPOSE THE UNION WOULD ACQUIRE THE FUNDS TO AFFORD TO SUBSIDISE MY CLAIM?

Again, I repeat myself and say yet again that the case was being used as part of Solidarity's remit but then you and your master, Nick Griffin, hijacked the Union, so the remit obviously disappeared.

"Clive and Lee decided to use an argument of indirect racial discimination. Their argument was basically that white people were indirectly being discriminated against by denying BNP members Prison Service jobs as this affected the white community disproportionately as the BNP was a white group. Had Clive acted as a team member and asked others in Solidarity what they thought of this the funadamental problem would have been pointed out to him. All the Prison Service had to do was provide evidence of a ban on groups with a different ethnic composition. Shock, horror, gasp -that is precisely what they did."

Patrick Harrington talks about "team membership". That's a bit rich coming from someone who was NEVER a team player and then hijacks the very organisation from its founder and the individual (Lee Barnes) who reccomended him in the first place!

I think that's called rank hypocrisy. But never mind let's deal with the idiotic and patronisng rubbish from someone who clearly knows sweet FA about the law, and even less about this particularly case.

Mr Harrington, you know FA about the HM Prison case so please stop trying to tell me or Lee about what we should have done. Clearly, as you seem to know it all why don't you put your money where your mouth is and get off your keyboards and start working on your OWN legal arguments and start a claim against the Prison Service?


For your information Mr Harrington HM Prison Service NEVER did provide evidence of a ban on other ethnic groups. That's the whole point. We gave clear evidence that there WAS a racial diffrentiation in recruitment and employment and that members of, for example, Sikhs and Muslims, could be members of extremist groups (or groups like the BNP and still be employed by HMP. We showed clear evidence of a racial ban on white people. But Mr Harrington, as I have stated before we were stitched up by the establishment.

In future perhaps you should ensure that you have the facts before you start debating, especially in public.

"Clive has only started talking about this case because others have first. He had sought to hide what had happened. It is an important case in that it creates an adverse precedent and because it shows the folly of ill-considered, poorly advised, maverick and indisciplined action."

Lee had already published the skeleton argument on his blog site earlier this year. I was already preparing an article on the case but within days of the Final Hearing and Judgment a certain Patrick Harrington had received information from his buddy Nick Griffin about the case and had passed it on to the far Left Lancaster Unity and also to this nationalists blog site. THAT is why I have seemingly decided to speak about the issue. You seem to have conveniently forgotten your own role in the matter and how it was released into the public domain. Why did you do that? It was rather spiteful and maliciousness don't you think, and for a so-called patriot as well as a General Secretary of a trade union to do that is considered utterly unprofessional and immoral.And for Nick Griffin to renege on a confidential discussion that he had with Mr Barnes and to deliberately speak of it to you with the knowing that you would gloat over it and then put it out into the public domain - not to inform mind you as you disingeniously suggest above - but to condemn, ridicule,patronise and gain a sense of superiority... that, is utterly despicable and shows Nick Griffin to be a man of dishonourable intentions. Griffin is no leader of men and neither are you.


So Pat, what do you and your Union intend to do about cases like this? Isn't this what Solidarity was created for in the first place? I doubt very much that you and your BNP front-style trade union would ever dare go up against the establishment with a complex case like this.

For your information the situation is still status quo and nothing has changed regarding the ban. If you care to bother to familarise yourself with the full details of the case and particularly of the SERCO dicta you will be able to see that we had bloody good grounds for our case and the legal argument was top form.

"Clive can expect no help from Solidarity. He never involved the Union in decisions or sought advice from it. He has only himself, Lee Barnes and (perhaps) Nick Griffin to blame for the mess he is now in. Solidarity was never involved. We will not fund a doomed appeal. We will not raise funds for him. He has attacked, betrayed and villified our Brotherhood and we turn our backs on him. We will deal with the Prison Service ban separately (although Clive has only made our task more difficult). Clive will have much time to consider the consequences of his foolish actions."

Why don't you get it in your head - I DON'T WANT YOUR - OR SOLIDARITY'S - HELP. GET IT? Why should I ASK for help from an organisation that has been hijacked and remains unconstitutional? If you think I would ever crawl cap in hand to Solidarity for "help" then you'll be waiting until hell freezes over. Solidarity has limited financial resources and no legal capabilities to enable it to offer its members the level of service that would be expected from other unions. This was a highly complex case that is quite obviously beyond the resources, skills and capabilities of a group like Solidarity.

I would rather not have any dealings with your BNP front (aka Solidarity) as I would only ever deal with a constitutional organisation that was independent and I would only ever deal with honourable men and women. So plesae don't give me those sickly sweet pretence words of succour in even suggesting that I would ever want the help of you and your tinpot union. My case would almost certainly would have been screwed up from day one had I ever countenanced your help.

As to your "Brotherhood" don't make me laugh. You know nothing about brotherhood or of comradeship. I have never attacked Solidarity, unlike you who destroyed its constitutional legitimacy for the sake of personal pride and vanity, but I have certainly criticised you and the bunch of mugs who have dared to breach the constitution by voting at an illegal 'EGM' and to follow you because some idiot called Nick Griffin tells them to.

If there is anyone who has betrayed Solidarity - or the "brotherhood" as you call it - then that person is YOU - who rode rough-shoud over the constitution and tied it unequivocably to the mast of one Nick Griffin.

Anonymous said...

Was it something I said? Clive is getting a little hot and bothered. He seems to be losing a grip on the facts.

His case did start in 2005 but it was ongoing when he was President of Solidarity. He never asked for Union help.

Clive says:-
"This was a highly complex case that is quite obviously beyond the resources, skills and capabilities of a group like Solidarity."

Yes two individuals with no money can achieve so much more than an organisation! Or not as the case seems to be.

While we are talking about skills and capabilities could Clive tell us how many people he has represented at Tribunals, grievance and disciplinary hearings. Could he, or the very quiet Lee, tell us how many cases Lee has won and what that represents as a percentage of cases taken?

These are legitimate questions I think as Clive has claimed that the Solidarity President, Adam Walker, does nothing. Further he claims that Lee Barnes is some kind of modern-day Perry Mason. Let's see the proof Clive! The work of Adam Walker and Pat Harrington is a matter of record. What have you done? How many cases has Lee won?

Solidarity is a brotherhood and we look after our own. Traitors like you we despise. You have used every forum to attack us but you have failed. You will never overcome us because we stand as one. Ask your new friends to raise money for you and test their loyalty! See how much you get.

Anonymous said...

Clive Potter keeps saying Pat Harrington was expelled from Solidarity. Yet there he sits as General Secretary. The members don't want Clive. His record in Solidarity is poor. He didn't represent anyone and continually came up with reasons not to do things. No wonder that under his 'leadership' we had only 42 members. We were all glad to see the back of him, frankly. Now he has lost an important employment case. Worse still it appears that it may in part have been due to the time and effort he put into making complaints about our Union. This important case should have been his absolute priority. Worse still he relied on Lee Barnes alone for advice and excluded everyone else. No good crying now Potter! You and you alone are to blame for this abject failure.

Anonymous said...

Clive Potter is quite wrong when he says that Solidarity is either unprepared or unwilling to challenge establishment injustices. Members know that it is running cases to defend their interests on a daily basis. This despite the fact that Potter and his small band of cronies have done everything in their power to sabotage this good work. They have acted as informants and complainants to State agencies, sought to freeze bank accounts and vilified the Union publicly. This kind of treachery has been their stock in trade and we see them for what they are.

I feel both Potter and Barnes should apologise to members of Solidarity and Nationalists not for their abject failure but their failure to consult with and consider the views of others. Rather than gathering as many minds to this work as possible they pursued a factional agenda of self-agrandisement. Pride came before their fall. Their maverick actions in this important case have led to disaster. What do we find, however, no contrition but denial and arrogance? Are they under some illusion that they will not be held to account for their actions and mistakes? When I read the pompous postings of Clive Potter with his use of 'Lee John Barnes' in full to add gravitas I just shake my head. There are more out than in as my granny used to say. As for Lee Barnes does he think that his association with Griffin is some kind of Talisman? If so he is sadly mistaken.

Clive Potter said...

Hi Pat!

Still obsessing over internet posts mentioning your name or that of Solidarity, eh?

Saddo.

I don't wish to entertain further correspondence with a loser as yourself as some of us actually work for a living, and we don't have time to waste surfing the internet unlike others whom I could mention. Clearly, the role of General Secretary of a "trade union" is spent working for all your members, eh?

You clearly don't have the balls to identify yourself so I won't bother corresponding with a faceless coward, Patrick Harrington.

And, yes, it was something you said that has made me angry. Anyone with self-respect would in fact get rather annoyed by a coward who maliciously abuses them. You clearly consider yourself to be somewhat "cool" (actually pseudo-cool) and too "logical" to entertain human emotions as anger, etc. Well, you may be an automaton and you are faceless but cool you most certainly are not.

Anyone who refuses to face their opponents and instead resorts to faceless anonymous exchanges or engages in petty and infantile acts instead of facing their detractors/accusers/opponents in face-to-face confrontation, is not only cowardly but does so from a position of emotion as that person is obviously so angry and vengeful that they need to exteriorise that anger but are too cowardly to do it in a face-to-face encounter. Such passive aggression is a mark of an angry individual who finds it difficult to have confrontations or to deal with situations.

I am indeed rather angry with you for failing to admit your responsibility in gloating over me and Lee Barnes for work that we did on behalf of BNP members, white nationalists and British workers, as well as in passing confidential information to third parties with the express intention of damaging them. Furthermore, you failed to apologise for this act of mendacity, duplictness and treachery.

You are obviously trying hard to stick to your perverse agenda Patrick as you keep repeating your bull-shit.

As you well know, I started the case against HM Prison Service before Solidarity was founded (Which I in fact founded)and later passed the case on to the remit of Solidarity so as to provide promotion for the embryonic Union. Once you hijacked the Union and turned into a front for Griffin of course I did not want that tainted body to have anything to do with my case.

For your information my job within the Union was as President, guiding the Union and organising. In time my intention would have worked more on the representation side, of which I have had experience whilst a union steward in the past.

Your side-swipe at Lee is not appreciated and speaks volumes more about your petty jealousies and failed career than anything about Lee's legal and political excellence. In fact, why don't YOU ask him. I'm sure that Lee will respond to you in the most appropriate way to your knocking of him, maybe in a way similar to how Ian Stuart allegedly dealt with you when you two had a bust up over the nationalist music scene at the time.

As for Brotherhood don't make me laugh. You know nothing about the concepts of either brotherhood, loyalty, honour or comradeship. As for 'solidarity' that's a real joke. You stabbed your two colleagues Tim Hawke and myself because you believed that you were somehow bigger than the whole Union, and sacrificed it all for the sake of your pride and vanity. Well, they say pride comes before a fall...

Oh, and if you talk about traitors every decent nationalist in this country who knows anything and who is still not under the poisonous influence of Griffin knows that Solidarity as a decent and legitimate trade union is dead, and that you and your cronies betrayed it, its principles and its constitution.

Decent and switched-on nationalists know full well that you and your Third Way grouplet, the National Liberal Party, are traitors to the nationalist cause, enemies of the BNP and of white nationalists, by opposing a BNP candidate in that Essex election. Clearly, Nick Griffin is a traitor for allowing you to do that and in continuing his support for you and your traitorous grouplet. Well, people are wising up to the anti-nationalist dealings of Griffin and in time that man will fall.

I rarely visit forums and don't go about attacking you or Solidarity,I have far less free time than you it seems to waste my time on childish nonsense.

Your other pathetic and puerile post Mr Harrington yet again written anonymously can be answered succinctly.

Why do you always write in the third person supporting yourself or justifying your own conduct? Are you schizoid or something? Or a multiple personality? We all know that it's you posting this stuff about Solidarity, so why on earth do you persist in continuing to post under 'anonymous'?

It is YOU who always claims that the members/Union don't want me. Your claims are lies and perverse. When you claim "we", what you really mean is "I". You don't speak for the members or for the majority, even though you may consider them your own personal property.

Your idiotic statement suggesting that I had lost the HMP case on account of having spent all the time on making complaints against the (hijacked) Solidarity Executive is completely false. I never said that! Where on earth did you get that from?

Making things up as you go along Harrington, or are you enjoying yet another fantasy moment?

Anonymous said...

No answer from Clive as to how many cases Lee Barnes as won. Instead he seems to be promising that the great Lawyer will attack Pat because he doesn't like the question. Has Lee Barnes appointed him his personal spokesman? Why doesn't he speak himself? I'm sure Pat and the rest of Solidarity are very scared (not!).

Potter does not directly answer the question as to how many people he represented when a Solidarity official but reading between the lines it is clearly zero.

Potter says he has no time to engage in debate. Why then write such contentious articles. To walk away rather than face criticism and analysis is very much par for the course with him.

Pat Harrington does speak for members unlike Potter he was elected by them! They have backed him at every general meeting the Union has held. Mr Potter is no longer a member of Solidarity so all I can say is 'good riddance to bad rubbish' as far as that goes.

To assume that every posting in support of Solidarity comes from Pat Harrington is delusional. Solidarity has an Executive of seven and over 300 members.

One last point: what kind of clowns start a case where they can't afford or mount an appeal if they lose at stage one?

Clive Potter said...

Patrick Harrington obviously has to divert attention from the real business of the article above - his and Nick Griffin's outright treachery at stabbing nationalists in the back and then dumping them casually with not a thought, only to throw them to the lions of the far-Left. Let's stick to the real facts Patrick and not try and hide from YOUR role in this state of affairs.

Harrington complains that

"This despite the fact that Potter and his small band of cronies have done everything in their power to sabotage this good work. They have acted as informants and complainants to State agencies, sought to freeze bank accounts and vilified the Union publicly. This kind of treachery has been their stock in trade and we see them for what they are."

Patrick Harrington is only interested in running cases to help union members as it give shim a sense of kudos, kind of modern-day St George riding on his donkey to help those less than he. The other reason is simply that in order for a union to acquite 'Independent' status as a trade union it has to show evidence of actual case work. So Mr Harrington's claims are not entirely altruistic after all.

In any case, myself and my "bunch of cronies" as Mr Harrington puts it have made submissions to the Certification Office (the body responsible for trade unions) because Pat Harrington and Nick Griffin unlawfully seized control of Solidarity through a coup d'etat.

No one is above the law or an organisation's constitution of which they are a member - including Patrick Harrington and even the dictator Nick Griffin of the BNP. You, Patrick Harrington, will be answerable to the Union's Rule book and the law.

If you know so much about the HM Prison Service case that you can arrogantly tell us where we went wrong (sic!) then that suggests that you have had access to HM Prison or Searchlight briefings on the matter as the material has not been made public.

"I feel both Potter and Barnes should apologise to members of Solidarity and Nationalists not for their abject failure but their failure to consult with and consider the views of others".

Do you really Pat Harrington?

Consult with YOU? Don't make me laugh you pompous bag of wind and verbal pompousity.

Apologise to you and your rogue organisation?
I think you getting far. far above your station. A so-called "General Secretary" of a tinpot "trade union" and you're lording it around the stage thinking you're somebody.

Get yourself a life you sad inadequate individual.

"When I read the pompous postings of Clive Potter with his use of 'Lee John Barnes' in full to add gravitas I just shake my head."

Really Mr Harrington? ha ha ha!

You know, when I read your utterly trite, pompous and arrogant garbage on the net I just shake my curled fist up and down in your general direction and go,

"WANKER".

Anonymous said...

I think it is very disappointing that Clive is blind to the good work Solidarity is doing under very difficult circumstances. It is odd that he has spent so much time in negative attacks on the Union. That time would certainly be better spent reflecting on why ordinary members of Solidarity regard him with disdain.It would also benefit him to set aside his arrogance and bluster and accept that he has made important mistakes that have disadvantaged the Nationalist cause.

Anonymous said...

Clive is wrong to make petty personal attacks on our General Secretary. It is very childish. Solidarity is run by a team. That team is working hard to defend and extend the rights of many Nationalists in the workplace. It is under unprecedented attack and Clive Potter is being used as a weapon in the hands of our enemies. This is something which he should ponder. If you are benefiting the enemy and collaborating with them aren't you just as bad as they? What exactly is the difference between you and them in reality?

Anonymous said...

As you well know, I started the case against HM Prison Service before Solidarity was founded (Which I in fact founded)and later passed the case on to the remit of Solidarity so as to provide promotion for the embryonic Union

The fact that the case started before Solidarity was formed would not have prevented him seeking advice after it was formed as the case was still ongoing. Solidarity had no involvement in the case as Clive well knows. It was never approached for help, advice or guidance. The case was ill-prepared, poorly funded and fundamentally flawed. Clive should learn from his mistakes instead of seeking to blame others.

Anonymous said...

The BNP website carries a report on events at the General Teaching Council. There are similarities with the Prison Service case in some ways. They are both part of an agenda to exclude Nationalists from certain professions. Adam Walker (a BNP activist) faces an inquisition because he is said to have expressed intolerant views on race and religion and made personal use of a school laptop. The National Union of Teachers is saying that all members of the BNP should be barred from teaching.

Here is Clive's opportunity to show his true colours. Why doesn't he drop his vexatious complaints against Solidarity and allow it to concentrate on fighting this kind of case (for which it was formed)? He could get his stooges to do the same. I don't suppose he will as he seems to be motivated by spite and personal hatred. He has lost sight of the bigger picture and is now damaging and working against the very values he used to uphold.

On another point I note that Solidarity has challenged the bent panel legally. In particular they say Judy Moorhouse (a right NUT leftie!) must stand down. Instead of just moaning about biased tribunals they actually try to challenge them! Lee Barnes and Clive take note.

I think that you at NWN should recognise the good work Solidarity is doing. It isn't affiliated to a particular Party or faction. It accepts all as members and has never commented on the internal affairs of others (though others have chosen to make ill-informed comments on the internal politics of the Union!). I have to wonder why anyone would try to sabotage or detract from the hard work Solidarity is doing to defend rights and represent people with workplace problems.

Anonymous said...

For Clive to call Solidarity a "rogue organisation" and a "tinpot Union" is very revealing. It chimes well with the propaganda of Searchlight, UAF and the rest.

Perhaps he should consider re-applying to Unison now? He is certainly doing their work and the work of the other TUC affiliates at present in attacking Solidarity. Perhaps they will appreciate this and return the favour?

PICTURED: American-Israeli teenager, 19, arrested for making hoax bomb threats against Jewish community centers in the US The unnamed te...