Our votes will be counted AFTER Griffin has been to Court
The BNP members' EGM has been delayed until the 30/ 31 Jan, i.e. a couple of days after the court hearing on the 28th, so he will not have BNP constitutional backing when he is due to formally surrender to demands for black membership.
Nick Griffin is preparing to commit the party to a change without having resorted to a membership vote, as the party's Constitution requires. How can it be lawful to change the party's Constitution in a way that is UNLAWFUL? Any such unlawful change, if put to a Judge, would be ruled unlawful. That would leave Griffin and the party in a double-fix. Any member or members have the right to challenge a change to the Constitution if implemented in a way that was contrary to the Constitution.
When Griffin attends the EGM he will say something along the following lines: "We couldn't organise the EGM for before the Court hearing due to administrative problems. I had to go to Court on the date fixed for the hearing and I felt obliged to commit the party to accepting this change or face a huge cash fine. Sorry folks, but you are going to have to accept this and vote to support it. You are going to have to back me up. You surely wouldn't leave your leader in an embarrassing situation. Sorry, but it's a done deal....."
In other words he will demand that the membership fall in and support him, otherwise he will appear to be discredited and a liar, as he has already publicly committed the party to irreversible changes in membership policy.
The reason he is pulling this trick is because he feels that while he might get a simple majority (50 per cent plus) for his motion to make the BNP multi-racial, he fears that he might not get the necessary 66 per cent plus of the vote (a so-called "two-thirds majority") which is required for a Constitutional change to be carried. Thus he is relying on a fait accompli to stampede the membership, who have only the vaguest idea of these constitutional requirements.
I was informed that two blacks at the bar in the pub, that Croydon BNP always use for functions in South Croydon, poked their heads round the door and invited themselves into the Croydon BNP meeting on December 16th. One of the blacks said his father was one of the first black policemen in Britain, so I don't think it would be 'paranoid' of me to say this was a State sponsored intrusion.The young chairman did not have presence of mind to stop them, as Nick Griffin has not yet formally complied with the 1976 Race Act . Guest speakers Richard Edmonds and Richard Barnbrook and the rest of the meeting just carried on as if nothing had happened.
I have subsequently heard that there were several other blacks at the bar in the Croydon incident, apparently acting as back-up, so it would appear that a degree of coercion was involved and that the fairly small number of members present felt too intimidated to act. Clearly Griffin's reluctance to make any real attempt to resist the legal action by the Equality Commission is sending all the wrong signals to our adversaries and they regard the lack of resistance to coercion as extreme weakness.
I would be grateful if all recipients forward this message to all useful contacts as soon as possible.
NWN supports this post circulating in opposing Griffins multi-racial plans for the BNP.