Is this why Griffin 'caved in' so quickly to the Racial Equality Council ?
"Reverting to Gri££in's decision, I am of the opinion that the "challenge" presented to the BNP by the Equalities Commission was a put up job. Gri££in had long since indicated in media interviews that he accepts the imposition of the multi-racial society on Britain as an unalterable 'fait accompli'; and also accepted that that this would lead to miscegenation ("we can put up with a little salt in the soup").
The elements in the Establishment who have been patronising him, especially via media publicity, felt the time had come to nudge him and the BNP further along the path of being a multi-racial pro-Jewish party and so wanted the more than just symbolic change to the party constitution restricting membership to White British and kindred European people.
The establishment's 'stick-and-carrot' donkey-riders knew that Gri££in could not announce such a development himself of his own initiative. That would make his position as leader of the party vulnerable. Too much had been invested in him for him suddently to be kicked off his perch.
Thus the threat of civil litigation was floated by the Equalities Commission so as to give Gri££in to put up a show of resistance to the idea, before surrendering almost days later on account of "legal costs".
The Establishment got what it wanted and Gri££in's blushes were spared. As a special bonus for him, he would not have to spend any of his Euro-dosh on fighting to uphold the cause of British racial survival.
The time, surely, as come to re-name the BNP? I think the following may fit the bill:
"The Pro-Jewish Multi-Racial Nick Gri££in Enrichment Party". "
===============================================================
Dear All,
Firstly, may I ask that readers forward to their lists, or post with any forums or blogs with which they support, this bulletin and the bulletin I issued yesterday on the subject of Nick Gri££in's surrender to the Equalities Commission. I have never before issued bulletins on two consecutive days, but the issue at hand is crucial.
A veteran nationalist who I have known for 47 years has responded to my ELC "Small Circulation Bulletin" of yesterday headed "Gri££in responds to the Establishment's 'Stick and Carrot' management" by e-mailing me as follows:
From: [deleted]
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Gri££in
Martin,
I didn't know that he had "done a deal" but I wondered how he was going to handle it.
In my view no court in the country would defend a situation where a political party had to recruit people who were opposed to or did not support that party's stated policies.
I suppose that if there were Jews, or Blacks who claimed to believe in the BNP's racial policies, (if it still has them,) then they could join but only if they publicly advocated repatriation and undertook, as a condition of membership, to be the first to volunteer for it.
Be interesting to see who would want to join under those terms but it would be in line with that party's stated policies, especially if that fact was widely advertised to the membership and general public, wouldn't it? Or is this just me being too clever by half?
D.
-------
My thoughts exactly. When I was approached by at the end of June by a Surrey BNP branch organiser for my views about this threat of litigation against the BNP by the Equality Board, I responded with an e-mail which I run out below as "Appendix". Beyond that, in the light of latest information, I observe:
1) The Nationalist Movement Was Established To Fight, Not to Surrender:
The Nationalist movement was set up to fight against the political and legal impositions of the multi-racialists, not to surrender to them at the first challenge.
The first prosecution against Nationalists under the first (1967) version of the Race Relations Act was DEFEATED because those involved in the production and distribution of 'Sussex News' had the courage to stand and fight and were willing to mobilise themselves and the movement to find the funds to pay for a first class lawyer.
The lady Suffragettes of the late 19th century, in their ultimately successful battle for 'Votes for Women", showed much greater courage, in the face of much greater adversity, than Gri££in is showing. You can't win battles if you don't fight them.
2) The Equality Board's Proposed Legal Action Is Far From Certain Of Success:
The proposed litigation against the BNP by the Equalities Commission is far from certain of victory.
At the core of this matter is the suggestion that a political party may not have a policy which opposes multi-racialism, may not organise itself to advance that policy and to protect its security but on the contrary, must admit persons of other races, who have an obvious vested interest in opposing the policy and who, if allowed to join in great enough numbers, would have the power not only to revoke the founding fundamental belief which brought the party into existence but also to inflict other malicious mischief designed to disintegrate the party and thereby prevent its original members from being able to organise to advance their point of view through a political party.
I do not believe that the courts would hold that a political party must regulate its membership in such a way as to facilitate the admission of persons whose likely intention was to extinguish the party's core beliefs which are not in themselves illegal.
Such a proposition is a clear subversion of democracy. The purpose of a democracy is to allow contending ideas advanced by contending parties to place their ideological wares before the electorate. There is no racial discrimination at the ballot box. Nobody is forced to join any political party. Everybody is free to set up their own political party to advance the views which they hold to be correct.
Thus nobody faces exclusion from the democratic process or political life if they belong to a category of person which is excluded by any particular party. They can join an established party which does not exclude them or, if none of those appeal, they can form their own party. In a sense, the whole of politics is about "discrimination".
3) For Gri££in, It's Not About Principle, but about MONEY
The real reason why Gri££in has decided to surrender is because it would need the BNP to mobilise its finances to fight a great and historic legal battle, in the same way that the National Front did in 1967 to pay for the successful defence of the 'Sussex News' defendants. The NF's founding chairman A.K. Chesterton MC, in addition to appealing to NF members and readers of his magazine 'Candour' for funds, dug deeply into his own pockets.
Part of any funds mobilisation that the BNP would be required to make would necessarily involve Gri££in in showing a lead, as Chesterton did, by devoting some of his very large personal income as a member of the European Parliament (and a part of Andrew Brons' MEP income too!) to that fight.
Perhaps he and Brons could use part of their MEP "expenses" -- as distinct from their salaries -- as well. (They might even try putting down the entire cost of instructing lawyers to fight the case on to their "expenses" as a necessary expenditure. It's worth a punt!)
But Gri££in won't hear of any scheme which would involve HIM in having to dig deep into HIS now lavish income because ultimately he's in politics for THE MONEY, not for any Cause.
He has changed his ideological position and his organisational adherence far too frequently over the years for him to claim that he has any fundamental ideological principle. His record shows that the only "cause" to which he has devoted himself is his own personal career and private enrichment.
Evidence of his cynical greed was seen in a bulletin he issued to his members on 2nd September with appeals for cash (repeated with hyperlinks in every paragraph!) to help fund the battle against the Equalities Commission when he had already made up his mind to surrender to its demands!
A subscriber to that bulletin kindly clicked on the hyperlink marked "Send this to a friend", and so I got it. (Thanks, friend, whoever you are!)
See:
> From: Chairman Nick Griffin M.E.P
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:31 AM
> Subject: Equalities Commission Showdown Starts Today!
Anybody who would like the text of this cynical confidence trickster's appeal has only to e-mail me and request the same.
Gri££in himself dug the hole into which the BNP has been pushed by the Equalities Commission.
Don't forget, when on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme in September 2003 Gri££in said:.......
* The repatriation of Coloured Immigrants was "unfeasible and inhumane";
* Certain ethnic aliens -- West Indians, Africans and Indians (as long as they were Hindu or Sikh -- but not Muslim) would be welcome to stay;
* "We can put up with a little salt in the soup"
.........he abandoned the fight to restore "Britain for the British".
I cited the exact details of this BBC interview in ELC a few years ago. But the BNP membership snored on.
Then he promoted half-Turks, in Greenwich and in Yorkshire, to stand as candidates. I drew attention to this in ELC. But the membership snored on.
Then, of course, he exulted when the Richardson Jews became BNP councillors. I commented on this in ELC. But the membership snored on.
Why did these alien anti-British nationalist lawyers of the Equalities Commission think that the BNP will buckle under their threatened legal action?
Because of the progressively multi-racial dance being led by Gri££in, because they rightly surmised that he is money-mad and wwould not be prepared to expend his Euro-cash on fighting to keep the BNP a white Britons' party -- or Britain a white peoples' country.
So the Equalities Commission knew that they were pushing on an open door. Gri££in only put his shoulder against it for a few moments for display purposes so as to con his stupid-dolt-ignoramus and/or cowardly followers to cough up a bit more cash.
This legal action could have had one good effect. It could have prompted the those among the BNP membership who are not totally brain-dead and/or minus a spine to ask themselves -- and to decide:
"Are we a party of White Britons or are we merely a multi-racial Populist party whose sole purpose is providing cash for the con-man Nick Griffin and his coterie of hangers-on?"
As ever: regards to my friends -- and a murrain on my enemies.
Martin Webster.
P.S.: I have also had a reaction from the author and businessman Ian Henshall whose "Crisis Newsletter" prompted by bulletin of yesterday:
From: Ian Henshall
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Gri££in responds to Stick & Carrot management
Dear Mr Webster,
I didn't take you off my list, I just don't send much out nowadays. I have no problem with you criticising me, I got some useful information from your newsletter, the link to the Telegraph about Israel's office in the BBC was extremely interesting.
I have no idea what your overall political perspective is nowadays, but on the Israel question, where you took issue, I am in the camp that says that although the government of Israel uses its influence highly effectively in many ways and often emotionally blackmails Jewish people into helping them, ultimately they act in the service of Washington and London.
I would concede that I cannot prove this as all important decisions within the elite are taken in secret, so I assume we will never agree.
Ian Henshall
--------
Let's hope Mr. Henshall gets back to more frequent bulletins (in which there was always much useful information) so that however much we may disagree on certain points, there is a mutually useful exchange of facts.
====================
Appendix:
From: Martin Webster
To: [deleted]
Cc: [deleted]
Bcc: [deleted]
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:07 PM
Subject: Law case for force BNP to take Black/Asian members
Dear P,
I don't see how the Race Act can compel people who have formed a club to serve the interests of a particular category of people, and whose membership has been restricted to that particular category of people, to accept into membership other categories of people who cannot, by definition, share the same interests or objectives as the founding membership for whom the club was set up in the first place. That would seem to be to conflict with a "right of association".
As you suggest, will they force the "Ulster 'Kick the Pope!' Flute-Playing Brotherhood" to admit into membership Roman Catholics, even those who proclaim membership of "Opus Dei" or "Friends of the Inquisition"?
I seem to remember that attempts by white police officers to join the "Black Police Association" were rejected by the leadership and membership of the association. Further, I recollect that the top cops of Scotland Yard and the Home Office let it be known that it would be a very bad career move for any white police officers to follow up the idea of forming a White Police Association. So this whole area (as you know) is a confusion of humbug, hypocrisy, inverted-racialism and political intimidation.
How would the "Black Police Association", "the Southall Indian Workers' Association" and myriad other such associations fare if political parties formed by people who belong to the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles ("the ethnic British") for the purpose of serving the interests of the ethnic British were compelled to accept into membership persons from other ethnic groups? The law would have to apply to all unincorporated associations, unless by act of Parliament, political parties contesting for public office were specifically brought into the remit of race relations legislation.
If Parliament passed such a law it would in effect be the state announcing that citizens can only form a political parties if those parties have policies are in accordance with the political objectives of the parties currently in parliament. That would seem to be to be a fundamental contradiction of democracy and of human rights which I don't think would be upheld in the higher British courts and/or such European or international courts to which we have access.
I think this proposal has been dreamed up not such much because its proponents have any realistic hope of getting their case accepted ultimately, but because they know that such a case would have to be fought up through various levels of the High Court, perhaps to the House of Lords, and perhaps onwards to the European Court of Human Rights or wherever else. This would cost a lot of cash and, thus, absorb the cash money Gri££in hopes to conjure out of the European Parliament. That, I think, is the name of the game. The Equalities Commission has access to endless state and cash.
I would have thought that compliance with the aims and objectives of a party would be a party's best defence in the event that it was found to be unlawful (or at some later date, legislated to be unlawful) to restrict the membership of political parties on ethnic grounds.
If at an AGM the membership were to amend the party's constitution along the following lines (I am not a lawyer, so I do not have an exact wording worked out) then the following might prove to be the party's best defence. I find it hard to believe that the courts and/or parliament would feel they had the power to prescribe political parties' policies or aims and objectives. That would be contradictory to the purpose of multi-party democracies.:
"Persons whose ancestry is not wholly of the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles or of kindred European ethnic origin may secure membership of the party providing:
"(a) they sign an undertaking that they will within 12 months of joining the party voluntarily remove themselves from the United Kingdom on a permanent basis and resettle themselves in the homeland of their ethnic forebears or, in the event of their ethnic forbears being of differing, mixed or confused ethnic ancestry, to any other state of their choice that will receive them as a resident;
"(b) renounce all claims on the British exchequer other than such contributory pension rights as they may have accrued;
"Full compliance with these terms shall be a necessary condition of membership of the party. Such persons as comply with these terms shall upon their departure from the United Kingdom be granted 'Associate Member' status within the party. Such persons as fail to comply with these terms, for no matter what reason, shall be removed from membership of the party and all rights which pertain thereto and no further application for membership of the party from them will be entertained under any circumstances."
"Reverting to Gri££in's decision, I am of the opinion that the "challenge" presented to the BNP by the Equalities Commission was a put up job. Gri££in had long since indicated in media interviews that he accepts the imposition of the multi-racial society on Britain as an unalterable 'fait accompli'; and also accepted that that this would lead to miscegenation ("we can put up with a little salt in the soup").
The elements in the Establishment who have been patronising him, especially via media publicity, felt the time had come to nudge him and the BNP further along the path of being a multi-racial pro-Jewish party and so wanted the more than just symbolic change to the party constitution restricting membership to White British and kindred European people.
The establishment's 'stick-and-carrot' donkey-riders knew that Gri££in could not announce such a development himself of his own initiative. That would make his position as leader of the party vulnerable. Too much had been invested in him for him suddently to be kicked off his perch.
Thus the threat of civil litigation was floated by the Equalities Commission so as to give Gri££in to put up a show of resistance to the idea, before surrendering almost days later on account of "legal costs".
The Establishment got what it wanted and Gri££in's blushes were spared. As a special bonus for him, he would not have to spend any of his Euro-dosh on fighting to uphold the cause of British racial survival.
The time, surely, as come to re-name the BNP? I think the following may fit the bill:
"The Pro-Jewish Multi-Racial Nick Gri££in Enrichment Party". "
===============================================================
Dear All,
Firstly, may I ask that readers forward to their lists, or post with any forums or blogs with which they support, this bulletin and the bulletin I issued yesterday on the subject of Nick Gri££in's surrender to the Equalities Commission. I have never before issued bulletins on two consecutive days, but the issue at hand is crucial.
A veteran nationalist who I have known for 47 years has responded to my ELC "Small Circulation Bulletin" of yesterday headed "Gri££in responds to the Establishment's 'Stick and Carrot' management" by e-mailing me as follows:
From: [deleted]
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Gri££in
Martin,
I didn't know that he had "done a deal" but I wondered how he was going to handle it.
In my view no court in the country would defend a situation where a political party had to recruit people who were opposed to or did not support that party's stated policies.
I suppose that if there were Jews, or Blacks who claimed to believe in the BNP's racial policies, (if it still has them,) then they could join but only if they publicly advocated repatriation and undertook, as a condition of membership, to be the first to volunteer for it.
Be interesting to see who would want to join under those terms but it would be in line with that party's stated policies, especially if that fact was widely advertised to the membership and general public, wouldn't it? Or is this just me being too clever by half?
D.
-------
My thoughts exactly. When I was approached by at the end of June by a Surrey BNP branch organiser for my views about this threat of litigation against the BNP by the Equality Board, I responded with an e-mail which I run out below as "Appendix". Beyond that, in the light of latest information, I observe:
1) The Nationalist Movement Was Established To Fight, Not to Surrender:
The Nationalist movement was set up to fight against the political and legal impositions of the multi-racialists, not to surrender to them at the first challenge.
The first prosecution against Nationalists under the first (1967) version of the Race Relations Act was DEFEATED because those involved in the production and distribution of 'Sussex News' had the courage to stand and fight and were willing to mobilise themselves and the movement to find the funds to pay for a first class lawyer.
The lady Suffragettes of the late 19th century, in their ultimately successful battle for 'Votes for Women", showed much greater courage, in the face of much greater adversity, than Gri££in is showing. You can't win battles if you don't fight them.
2) The Equality Board's Proposed Legal Action Is Far From Certain Of Success:
The proposed litigation against the BNP by the Equalities Commission is far from certain of victory.
At the core of this matter is the suggestion that a political party may not have a policy which opposes multi-racialism, may not organise itself to advance that policy and to protect its security but on the contrary, must admit persons of other races, who have an obvious vested interest in opposing the policy and who, if allowed to join in great enough numbers, would have the power not only to revoke the founding fundamental belief which brought the party into existence but also to inflict other malicious mischief designed to disintegrate the party and thereby prevent its original members from being able to organise to advance their point of view through a political party.
I do not believe that the courts would hold that a political party must regulate its membership in such a way as to facilitate the admission of persons whose likely intention was to extinguish the party's core beliefs which are not in themselves illegal.
Such a proposition is a clear subversion of democracy. The purpose of a democracy is to allow contending ideas advanced by contending parties to place their ideological wares before the electorate. There is no racial discrimination at the ballot box. Nobody is forced to join any political party. Everybody is free to set up their own political party to advance the views which they hold to be correct.
Thus nobody faces exclusion from the democratic process or political life if they belong to a category of person which is excluded by any particular party. They can join an established party which does not exclude them or, if none of those appeal, they can form their own party. In a sense, the whole of politics is about "discrimination".
3) For Gri££in, It's Not About Principle, but about MONEY
The real reason why Gri££in has decided to surrender is because it would need the BNP to mobilise its finances to fight a great and historic legal battle, in the same way that the National Front did in 1967 to pay for the successful defence of the 'Sussex News' defendants. The NF's founding chairman A.K. Chesterton MC, in addition to appealing to NF members and readers of his magazine 'Candour' for funds, dug deeply into his own pockets.
Part of any funds mobilisation that the BNP would be required to make would necessarily involve Gri££in in showing a lead, as Chesterton did, by devoting some of his very large personal income as a member of the European Parliament (and a part of Andrew Brons' MEP income too!) to that fight.
Perhaps he and Brons could use part of their MEP "expenses" -- as distinct from their salaries -- as well. (They might even try putting down the entire cost of instructing lawyers to fight the case on to their "expenses" as a necessary expenditure. It's worth a punt!)
But Gri££in won't hear of any scheme which would involve HIM in having to dig deep into HIS now lavish income because ultimately he's in politics for THE MONEY, not for any Cause.
He has changed his ideological position and his organisational adherence far too frequently over the years for him to claim that he has any fundamental ideological principle. His record shows that the only "cause" to which he has devoted himself is his own personal career and private enrichment.
Evidence of his cynical greed was seen in a bulletin he issued to his members on 2nd September with appeals for cash (repeated with hyperlinks in every paragraph!) to help fund the battle against the Equalities Commission when he had already made up his mind to surrender to its demands!
A subscriber to that bulletin kindly clicked on the hyperlink marked "Send this to a friend", and so I got it. (Thanks, friend, whoever you are!)
See:
> From: Chairman Nick Griffin M.E.P
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:31 AM
> Subject: Equalities Commission Showdown Starts Today!
Anybody who would like the text of this cynical confidence trickster's appeal has only to e-mail me and request the same.
Gri££in himself dug the hole into which the BNP has been pushed by the Equalities Commission.
Don't forget, when on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme in September 2003 Gri££in said:.......
* The repatriation of Coloured Immigrants was "unfeasible and inhumane";
* Certain ethnic aliens -- West Indians, Africans and Indians (as long as they were Hindu or Sikh -- but not Muslim) would be welcome to stay;
* "We can put up with a little salt in the soup"
.........he abandoned the fight to restore "Britain for the British".
I cited the exact details of this BBC interview in ELC a few years ago. But the BNP membership snored on.
Then he promoted half-Turks, in Greenwich and in Yorkshire, to stand as candidates. I drew attention to this in ELC. But the membership snored on.
Then, of course, he exulted when the Richardson Jews became BNP councillors. I commented on this in ELC. But the membership snored on.
Why did these alien anti-British nationalist lawyers of the Equalities Commission think that the BNP will buckle under their threatened legal action?
Because of the progressively multi-racial dance being led by Gri££in, because they rightly surmised that he is money-mad and wwould not be prepared to expend his Euro-cash on fighting to keep the BNP a white Britons' party -- or Britain a white peoples' country.
So the Equalities Commission knew that they were pushing on an open door. Gri££in only put his shoulder against it for a few moments for display purposes so as to con his stupid-dolt-ignoramus and/or cowardly followers to cough up a bit more cash.
This legal action could have had one good effect. It could have prompted the those among the BNP membership who are not totally brain-dead and/or minus a spine to ask themselves -- and to decide:
"Are we a party of White Britons or are we merely a multi-racial Populist party whose sole purpose is providing cash for the con-man Nick Griffin and his coterie of hangers-on?"
As ever: regards to my friends -- and a murrain on my enemies.
Martin Webster.
P.S.: I have also had a reaction from the author and businessman Ian Henshall whose "Crisis Newsletter" prompted by bulletin of yesterday:
From: Ian Henshall
To: Martin Webster
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Gri££in responds to Stick & Carrot management
Dear Mr Webster,
I didn't take you off my list, I just don't send much out nowadays. I have no problem with you criticising me, I got some useful information from your newsletter, the link to the Telegraph about Israel's office in the BBC was extremely interesting.
I have no idea what your overall political perspective is nowadays, but on the Israel question, where you took issue, I am in the camp that says that although the government of Israel uses its influence highly effectively in many ways and often emotionally blackmails Jewish people into helping them, ultimately they act in the service of Washington and London.
I would concede that I cannot prove this as all important decisions within the elite are taken in secret, so I assume we will never agree.
Ian Henshall
--------
Let's hope Mr. Henshall gets back to more frequent bulletins (in which there was always much useful information) so that however much we may disagree on certain points, there is a mutually useful exchange of facts.
====================
Appendix:
From: Martin Webster
To: [deleted]
Cc: [deleted]
Bcc: [deleted]
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:07 PM
Subject: Law case for force BNP to take Black/Asian members
Dear P,
I don't see how the Race Act can compel people who have formed a club to serve the interests of a particular category of people, and whose membership has been restricted to that particular category of people, to accept into membership other categories of people who cannot, by definition, share the same interests or objectives as the founding membership for whom the club was set up in the first place. That would seem to be to conflict with a "right of association".
As you suggest, will they force the "Ulster 'Kick the Pope!' Flute-Playing Brotherhood" to admit into membership Roman Catholics, even those who proclaim membership of "Opus Dei" or "Friends of the Inquisition"?
I seem to remember that attempts by white police officers to join the "Black Police Association" were rejected by the leadership and membership of the association. Further, I recollect that the top cops of Scotland Yard and the Home Office let it be known that it would be a very bad career move for any white police officers to follow up the idea of forming a White Police Association. So this whole area (as you know) is a confusion of humbug, hypocrisy, inverted-racialism and political intimidation.
How would the "Black Police Association", "the Southall Indian Workers' Association" and myriad other such associations fare if political parties formed by people who belong to the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles ("the ethnic British") for the purpose of serving the interests of the ethnic British were compelled to accept into membership persons from other ethnic groups? The law would have to apply to all unincorporated associations, unless by act of Parliament, political parties contesting for public office were specifically brought into the remit of race relations legislation.
If Parliament passed such a law it would in effect be the state announcing that citizens can only form a political parties if those parties have policies are in accordance with the political objectives of the parties currently in parliament. That would seem to be to be a fundamental contradiction of democracy and of human rights which I don't think would be upheld in the higher British courts and/or such European or international courts to which we have access.
I think this proposal has been dreamed up not such much because its proponents have any realistic hope of getting their case accepted ultimately, but because they know that such a case would have to be fought up through various levels of the High Court, perhaps to the House of Lords, and perhaps onwards to the European Court of Human Rights or wherever else. This would cost a lot of cash and, thus, absorb the cash money Gri££in hopes to conjure out of the European Parliament. That, I think, is the name of the game. The Equalities Commission has access to endless state and cash.
I would have thought that compliance with the aims and objectives of a party would be a party's best defence in the event that it was found to be unlawful (or at some later date, legislated to be unlawful) to restrict the membership of political parties on ethnic grounds.
If at an AGM the membership were to amend the party's constitution along the following lines (I am not a lawyer, so I do not have an exact wording worked out) then the following might prove to be the party's best defence. I find it hard to believe that the courts and/or parliament would feel they had the power to prescribe political parties' policies or aims and objectives. That would be contradictory to the purpose of multi-party democracies.:
"Persons whose ancestry is not wholly of the indigenous ethnic stock of the British Isles or of kindred European ethnic origin may secure membership of the party providing:
"(a) they sign an undertaking that they will within 12 months of joining the party voluntarily remove themselves from the United Kingdom on a permanent basis and resettle themselves in the homeland of their ethnic forebears or, in the event of their ethnic forbears being of differing, mixed or confused ethnic ancestry, to any other state of their choice that will receive them as a resident;
"(b) renounce all claims on the British exchequer other than such contributory pension rights as they may have accrued;
"Full compliance with these terms shall be a necessary condition of membership of the party. Such persons as comply with these terms shall upon their departure from the United Kingdom be granted 'Associate Member' status within the party. Such persons as fail to comply with these terms, for no matter what reason, shall be removed from membership of the party and all rights which pertain thereto and no further application for membership of the party from them will be entertained under any circumstances."
10 comments:
Sounds about right.
British National Ponzi??
There was recently a case taken to the ecj whereby a union was declared to have the right to exclude people whos ideology was not compatible with union dogma,in a word communism,so the same must apply to this present case of an indigenous British party,and it should be fought.I take no side with either pro or con griffin,but i do think that our principle cause is being overshadowed by childish bickering,our cause is the freedom of the indigenous British people to live in thier own way unmolested by the third worlds parasitic scum.
gri££in it is time for you to go,
take with you all your arsehole creeper's & conmen. fuck off back to wales you zoinist scum.
anyone who still support's gri££in is a complete moron or conman. join the national front the bnp is dead. rip.
The Rossendale BNP Organiser is a con-man.
He 'did a runner' with a BNP friend from a David Irving meeting last weekend, to get off paying the £20 entrance fee.
But not before they had eaten at the buffet !
Gif££ and SIX Job Darby have raided THOUSANDS from all BNP Branch and group accounts without permission from organisers. Fraud Squad should be called in.
plus gri££o has watered down on the queers too.
gri££in has not waterd down on queer's he is bi-sexual. gri££IN ruined the nf by haveing a affair with martin webster. which forced the great john tindell to resign from the nf. gri££in the party wrecker.
What with a known paedo (kiddyfidler Collet) in the higher echelons of the BNP and If allegations of Gri££in and Nancy boy Webster were bum chums were true then perhaps BNP should stand for Bumming Noncing Perverts.
What a sad day for nationalism. I fear all is lost.
Post a Comment