Is Andrew Brons aware of all the corruptness at the top in the BNP ?


If he isn't, he must be the dimmest person in the UK !


Here is an e-mail that proffers one view on Mr.Brons.



Simon:

Thanks for your very prompt response to my e-mail/circular of this morning.

Two days ago I was approached by a dedicated BNP member (who I first met when we were both in the National Front in the 1970s/1980s).

He asked for an explanation about how the ‘skimming’ of, firstly, the Collett / Gri££in “print farming” set-up and, secondly, the Downson / Gri££in arrangement. He also asked if somehow Andrew Brons was the man to assume a leadership role and sort the situation out.

As this BNP member has been a friend for nearly 40 years, I took some trouble to respond to his requests for information. My effort is run out below. If you or anybody else wishes to onwardly-circulate this information, you / they have my permission to do so.

Regards,

Martin.

=================================================================================================

From: Martin Webster
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:22:45 +0100
To: [A former BNP local official living in Bucks]
Subject: Skimming & print farming; Brons

Dear [deleted]:

The information given by Lee Barnes conforms with information I have been given from numerous other sources over a period of several years.

The ‘skim’ system began when Gri££in gave his young pal Mark Collett the work not only to do the digital graphical origination (i.e.: the typesetting, design and layouts ready for the printer to make his litho plate) of the party’s various leaflets, papers, magazines and booklets, for which the party paid him a fee, but also to set up his own independent graphical origination / printing / publishing enterprise called, I think, “Vanguard Productions”.

Collett could have been kept ‘in house’, that is, he could have been retained as an employee of the party to do its graphical origination work, and paid a suitable salary for that work. By allowing Collett to set up his own independent firm, he could start invoicing the party for his work as if he were just another commercial service provider.

Vanguard Productions (Collett) then was allowed to expand its range of activities by being given permission to become “on paper” the party’s printer in addition to being its source of graphical origination services. Collett obviously did not have a factory filled with printing equipment and skilled printers to do the actual printing, so in effect he was given permission to sub-contract the printing work to genuine printers.

The point is that the order to the genuine printers who did the work did not come from the party — it came from Vanguard Productions (i.e. Collett). The printing, once done, would be delivered by the actual printers to any address or addresses which Collett instructed, but the printers’ invoices would be addressed to Vanguard Productions.

Vanguard Productions would then send its own invoice for the printing to the BNP with a mark-up.

This kind of operation is known in the printing trade as “print farming”. It is perfectly legal — providing all the people involved who are entitled to know what is going on do indeed know what is going on. Genuine printers generally don’t like working for “print farmers” as they have a notorious habit of securing payment from end-user clients, but then delaying or ducking paying the actual printers. Print farmers have a reputation for being serial bankrupts.

In the case of a political party existing on the generosity of subscription and donation paying members, to allow such a “print farming” set-up is wholly unnecessary as it self-evidently adds to the final cost to the membership of the printed product!

You will know that things were not organised in that way by the pre-1983 National Front. The small profit which the party added to the production cost of, say, its election leaflets simply covered essential administrative expenses so that the party did not make a loss on an election operation. Local organisers were fully appraised of all elements which made up the final cost to their branches. But then, before I got the heave-ho in December 1983, I was earning a wage of about £40 a week, so paying individuals was never an NF priority. The NF members and branches “got a bang for their buck”!

Why should head office ‘insiders’ set up within the party a trading monopoly — and, what is more, a secret trading monopoly known only to the ‘insiders’? There can only be one answer to that question: to allow the head office ‘insiders’ to make for themselves a profit on the necessary printing activities of the party in addition to whatever above-board salaries they earn.

In the insurance and other financial service industries, the technique of involving a product in a chain of unnecessary transactions, each with their own separate invoice including a ‘mark-up’, whereby lots of insiders get a ‘skim’ of the final price paid by the unfortunate end-user, is known as “churning”.

So Collett would be allowed to put on his invoices to the party a significant mark-up on the printers’ invoices to him, and the party would pay Collett’s invoices promptly, so that he could pay the printers promptly, on the understanding that Gri££in would get from Collett a ‘kick-back’ or ‘skim’ of the mark-up.

Now all this worked very well until Gri££in came in contact with Jim Dowson. As you know, Dowson runs a business services company whereby for a fee his firm will take over all the administrative work of other businesses: invoicing, statements, accountancy, debt-chasing, data management, advertising promotions via postal and e-mail lists etc. In addition to that, because he is active in the anti-abortion movement in Ireland, he has developed a variety of hard-sell fund-raising techniques using postal and e-mail address data.

Our friend “E.N. Ronn” has calculated that the BNP raised nearly £1 million in 2009, and that about £300,000 of this was paid to Dowson’s enterprise in fees for the various services he provided. Less than 10 per cent of the total turnover that year was spent on political campaigning!

The skim here is that Gri££in allows Dowson to put in huge fees for his services, and Gri££in authorises prompt payment — on the understanding that Gri££in will get an agreed ‘kick-back’. It is to cement this agreement that Gri££in insisted that one of his daughters (the one he wants to take over the party when he retires!) be appointed a director of Dowson’s firm and base herself at Dowson’s office in Belfast, so as to keep an eye on what Dowson was up to and look after her father’s interests.

The Gri££in / Collett arrangement exploded last March / April when Gri££in and Dowson got greedy and decided to outsource to Dowson nearly ALL the party’s various administrative functions, in particular, the PRINTING operation! They drooled over the huge cost of the party general election printing requirements. In a trice, Collett was out in the cold.

That is the reason why Collett made that notorious phone call to David Hannam in which he is said to have made threats against his former patron, Gri££in and also Dowson. Gri££in lodged a complaint with Humberside Police, backing up his allegation with a tape of the Collett / Hannam conversation.

The Police quickly realised that the tape was not the original complete version, but an edited version. (This was the version played to a select group of dunderhead officials in a private room during a conference of BNP officials. The dunderheads emerged from the private room to proclaimed to the conference that the tape verified Gri££in’s allegations against Collett.)

The Police requested Gri££in provide the original complete tape. He was unable to do this as the complete tape would provide the Police with evidence to consider prosecutions against him! So the Police released Collett without any charge. Tony Hancock believes that Gri££in has paid Collett off to keep him silent. Both could expect legal trouble if the truth about their former arrangement came out.

The media have allowed this Gri££in / Collett matter to drop. Why? They didn’t let MPs involved in bogus expenses claims off so lightly.

Gri££in really did think he was in with a chance of winning a Dagenham and that Barking BNP would not only retain all their seats on the Borough Council but also add to them to become the governing party. He believed the BNP would see an even bigger splurge of media publicity than was seen after the EU elections of last year, which prompted an unprecedented surge of income. This was Hubris. As you know, Nemesis always follows Hubris.

The perceived failure of the BNP in the general election and council elections, became all mixed up with the stench of financial corruption and a growing welter of factional divisions. The party has huge debts, not least in the area of legal actions. Only ONE of these (the EHRC’s action) can be said to be ‘state’ sponsored. There are big bills for a variety of other cases brought on solely by Gri££in’s stupidity and arrogance. In addition to these legal bills, there are all sorts of other debts. Gri££in has admitted to £500,000 worth of debts. I think this may be a significant underestimate.

In this atmosphere, it is hardly to be wondered at that the donations machine operated by Dowson has run out of steam. “Donation fatigue” has merged into widespread disillusionment. Unless some ‘Sugar Daddy’ comes along, then I think it is going to be all these mounting debts plus the party’s failure to present proper accounts to the Electoral Commission (and, for all I know, to the taxation and PAYE authorities ) that will subject the party to a slow strangulation.

If the party goes bankrupt, then its individual members could face a “joint and several” liability before the courts.

As to Brons, he was a lecturer in Law. If he didn’t have some suspicion that all was not right with Gri££in and his inner circle before he got elected with Gri££in to the EU Parliament (and he should have had!) then having been brought in close proximity to Gri££in after getting elected and having some of his EU funds mixed up with Gri££in’s to pay for support staff, then he should have been smelling stinking fish for quite some months. But he has kept his trap shut, other than to say that he will not stand again at the next EU election.

As to my opinion of Brons, I expressed this fully in an e-mail sent on 27th April this year to a Yorkshire BNP member who had earlier claimed to me that he had some contact with Brons and who had suggested that Brons might be the man to lead the BNP. Below is a shortened version of my reply to him:


“.....some months ago you sought to sell the virtues you think are possessed by this man [Andrew Brons]. Your text even hinted that Brons would be a fit and proper person to rescue the reputation of the BNP if as and when Gri££in departed from it. Both were elected as members of the European Parliament in June last year.

....[snip]....

“I have had direct personal experience of Brons’ probity in office when in 1983, as Chairman of the National Front, he encouraged, facilitated and, finally, openly joined Gri££in, Joe Pearce, Ian Anderson and sundry others then on the NF National Directorate to act in flagrant disregard of the party’s constitution in order to mount an unlawful ‘coup’ which removed me from the party I had served faithfully, for pocket-money wages, since 1969.

“I was out of the door with one week’s wages in my pocket (after 14 years service!) and robbed of £1,250 of private funds (the only cash I had in the world) which I had lodged with the party for safe-keeping (!!!) whilst I was fighting a libel action launched by Peter Hain, then head of Anti Nazi League.

“These people even reneged on a Directorate decision to pay the £850 fine I had incurred as a result of being arrested for heckling Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw over the arrest and imprisonment of Young National Front leader Joe Pearce.

“So you see the financial corruption discussed in the below Searchlight article did not begin with last year’s translation of Gri££in and Brons to the EU parliament. Their behaviour patterns were well-established 26 years earlier.

“My companion, Mike, was likewise summarily dismissed. He, it may be noted, had been urged by Brons, whilst on a weekend social visit to Brons’ home a few years earlier, to give up his career with the civil service and join the party’s full-time staff to earn pittance wages, which he did willingly because he thought highly of Brons. Since that betrayal he has had nothing further to do with the nationalist cause. Forget the treatment accorded to me; the treatment of Mike is all the clue you need as to Brons’ shabby character.

“Brons, Gri££in, Pearce, Anderson & Co’s conduct in December 1983 was denounced by a High Court judge Mr. Justice Scott (now a Lord Justice of Appeal) as ‘contrary to the party’s constitution and unlawful. It was certainly disgraceful behaviour’. He awarded me a range of injunctions and Costs ..... but that verdict, due to the slowness of High Court litigation, came months too late to do me or the NF any good.

“In the face of such an admonition from a High Court judge, the chairman of any other association – from political party to bowls club – would have resigned his post in shame, but not Brons (who had a day job as a college law lecturer!).

“Brons did resign a year or so later, but not on a point of honour or principle, but simply because he could detect that the ship of which he was captain was sinking. Yes, ‘Captain’ Brons was the first, not the last, of that horrid crew to abandon ship.

....[snip]....

“From these facts it can been seen that Brons behaved improperly to the point of dishonesty as NF Chairman in the period immediately before I was ousted from the party. Thereafter, when it became evident to him that he had helped the loonies take over the asylum, instead of doing his duty by making an effort to restore order and constitutional conduct, he abandoned the party to its fate and slunk away in the manner of a coward.

“The final collapse of the authentic NF can only be laid at the door of one man: Andrew Brons, the man who you have suggested is capable of rescuing the BNP from the financial squalor into which it is being pulled by Gri££in.

....[snip]....

“That man is no more capable to saving the the BNP from Gri££in and his current cronies than he was capable of saving the NF from Gri££in and his then cronies in 1983. He’ll go with the flow and then when things go bad he’ll tip-toe as fast as he can out of the back door.

“I’m sorry if you find my account disillusioning, but you have a whole lot more disillusionment to come. The sooner you ‘get real’, the less pain you will feel.”


I hope all the above covers the areas of information of concern to you.

Regards,

Martin.

The Leeds Trial, Collett Con and A Falling Out Amongst Thieves.

One of the truly tragic examples of how Griffin protects himself, and screws decent nationalists over, is what happened at the Leeds Trial of Mark Collett and Nick Griffin.

Now anyone who knows Collett knows he is an arrogant prick.

During the Leeds Trial Collett went out for a drink with the security team that was led by Warren Bennett, a truly dedicated British Nationalist and professional security officer.

The times when I had spoken to Warren about security issues were many, and each time his main emphasis was on protecting Griffin and protecting his lads in the security team.

Warren was always a true professional.

During this drink with the security lads Collett got drunk and started to throw his weight around.

As a result of him giving one of the security lads a bit of lip, he got a little slap for his trouble.

Instead of just shutting up and keeping quiet, Collett allegedly tried to pull a knife on the security lad.

This of course was a very, very silly thing to do.

After being disarmed, Collett then started to shout out to the security team ’You better all back off as if you don’t I will go Queens Evidence against Griffin. “

Collett was removed from the pub and taken back to his hotel.

I was then invited by Warren Bennett for a conference with him and a witness about what had happened.

Now Warren was worried about two things, first the fact that Collett was a total liability for the party and his security team and secondly about Colletts threat to go Queens Evidence.

Warren told me that his security team had decided not to offer Collett any more protection.

Griffin though had made it plain to me that if the security team would not guard Collett as well as him then in his own words ’they can all fuck off’.

On the issue of Collett saying he would go Queens Evidence - Griffin said nothing.

Nothing at all.

It was as if the fact Mark Collett had said this did not register in his mind.

Instead the security team went on strike and were all expelled by Griffin or resigned from the party.

But later events revealed why Griffin was so determined to protect Collett.

I believe that Collett and Griffin had both been involved in the ’leaflet scam’ that had been going on for years in the party.

I suspect that Collett was giving Nick Griffin a nice little slice of the cut from the scam.

This can be easily proved by checking the bank accounts of collett and seeing if he made any regular large cash withdrawals.

If he did so, then they went to Griffin.

It was this threat, to go Queens Evidence and reveal their actions and cons together, that so terrified Griffin.

Griffin in the end sacked the entire security team to save his own neck.

He protected Collett, a man who had threatened to betray him, rather than stand up for the security men who put their lives on the line for him.

This whole episode makes sense only if you analyse later events in the party.

When Griffin revealed at the meeting just before the General Election that he had just discovered that Collett had been stealing from the party, this was a lie.

He had known long before that as Jenny Noble, the Party Treasurer, had informed him of Colletts theft from the party over a year before - and Griffin had done nothing.

Sorry I am wrong.

Griffin did do something - he immediately sacked Jenny Noble as Party Treasurer.

I knew Jenny Noble very well, and no-one in the party idolised Nick Griffin more than her.

Jenny Nobles integrity, her honesty, her committment to the BNP and her loyalty to Griffin was second to none.

Yet as soon as she did her job as Party Treasurer, which was to tell him she had discovered that Collett had been over charging the party for at least £40,000 per year for leaflets, Griffin removed her from her position.

Now that may also have been due to the fact that Jenny also discovered that Griffin was using the Trafalgar Club as a private slush fund, but the main reason was her discovery of Colletts scam.

But instead of thanking her and going to the police, Griffin sacked her to shut her up.

Now why would Griffin sack Warren Bennett and Jenny Noble to protect Collett ?

Why would Griffin allow Collett to carry on using the scam even though he had been made aware it was happening by Jenny Noble ?

Simple.

Griffin had been involved in it all along.

For years Griffin and Collett were almost a couple, in a strange almost Greek homo-erotic ’older man, younger boy’ type of way.

In many ways their relationship resembled the supposed homosexual relationship Griffin had been involved in with Webster years before, where the older Nationalist Martin Webster supposedly introduced the young Griffin to the inner sanctum of Nationalism in exchange for a little bit of gay hanky panky on the side.

Collett was like a little puppy forever yapping around his masters feet.

It was obvious that they had been involved in this scam for years together, and when Collett threatened to expose Griffin and the con during the Leeds Trial then because he was as deep in the shite as Collett then Griffin had to protect Collett at all costs - which is the exact same situation we see today with Jim Dowson.

The fall out with Collett was, I believe, due to Nick telling Mark Collett ’Mark you are going to stop the scam now. I wont reveal what you did in the past as to do so will destroy my reputation as well. But I am now involved in a real money making scam with Jim Dowson and the chump change we used to make together is now meaningless. “

Dowson came along and opened Griffins eyes up to a whole new world of scams to rob the BNP membership.

What he and Collett had been doing with their little leaflet scam was pathetic in comparison to the money Griffin and Dowson could make.

So out went Collett, kicking and screaming about corruption in the party - but unable to reveal what he knew as he would incriminate himself at the same time as he incriminated Griffin.

Today the BNP is in a worse situation than with Collett.

Collett was a small scale crook, whilst Dowson is a major thief.

Griffin has swopped the petty Mark Collett ‘BNP leaflet scam’ for a multi-million pound scam with Jim Dowson.

Griffin has to go and Dowson also.

Any man who will betray the very security team who would have given their lives to save him is not fit to be involved in British Nationalism.


http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2010/08/leeds-trial-collett-con-and-falling-out.html

Your forum realnationalistsonline.myfreeforum.org has been suspended

Monday, 16 August, 2010 10:17

From: "MyFreeForum.org Administration"

Add sender to ContactsTo: xxxxxxx.hotmail.com

Your forum has been suspended from our system for a breach in our terms and conditions:

Terms and Conditions

If the breach is minor and we believe that you are intending to run a decent forum, then you can discuss the matter in the following forum:

Terms and conditions forum


"So the forum provider with the big stick has answered...."



MyFreeform. Org admin;

Quote:

“Well that post does confirm a stereotype.

Hate sites are barred. Topic closed.”

====================================

As I suspected we must look elsewhere.

NWN: Another example of a shortage of free speech in the UK. New forum will be up and running asap.

PLEASE NOTE: New temporary forum at left hand links column...
This time hosted in the US and not the UK!

Nicks BNP closing down sale !

We had a great laugh at this one that we nicked from the GRIFFINWATCH blogsite. With all the problems in the BNP at the moment, Crook Griffin said at the AC meeting today, that the BNP problems were "the BNP growing too fast !". The guy must be on drugs or something. Were the books on show at the AC meeting ? And what about the Trafalgar Clubs books ?

http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/2010/08/crazy-closing-down-sale.html

'

Click the poster to enlarge.

Eddy Butler fails to get enough nominations

THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE STATEMENT

As we expected, we were unable to obtain the required number of signatures for there to be a leadership contest this year.
Without wishing to seem to be a bad loser, there are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly Nick Griffin increased the bar from 5% to 20% of the members with twenty four months continuous membership. This meant we had to obtain the ridiculously high number of 840 signatures. This is an impossibly high total to obtain which is why he made it that high!

To obscure matters further he introduced an unconstitutional nomination process with his own form sent to potential nominees. As party’s membership database is incompetently run many eligible nominees did not obtain their form.

Griffin then invented a whole set of new rules and anyone who ‘broke’ those rules was liable to suspension. This threat was carried out in many instances. This was a clear act of political intimidation.

Lastly Griffin persuaded two stooges to also stand to further complicate matters.

Nevertheless we obtained around 500 nomination signatures – mainly from activists and officers around the country - on our own constitutional forms. This was done without access ti membership lists. Many excellent members assisted with this valiant effort. As we have no faith in the party’s internal processes and because we do not wish to compromise anyone, these have not been handed in

There will be a very large overlap between those who signed my forms and those who also used the unconstitutional Griffin nomination form.

Also I know that many people mistakenly ‘nominated’ Griffin on the unconstitutional form, regretted it, then nominated me on the constitutional form.

Nevertheless the official result was:

Griffin 971
Butler 214
Barnbrook 23
Adams 4
Spoilt 7

Griffin’s scheme was to create chaos like this. This is what he has been plotting these past weeks.

We would have the option of taking this disgraceful matter to court. However we will not do this as it would be very costly for us and for the party. Griffin always passes his costs on to the party.

The party is literally fighting for its survival due to the financial incompetence of Griffin and his failed regime.

THE BATTLE GOES ON

Rather than get embroiled in legal action we will continue our battle to save our party from destruction at Griffin’s hands through other means.

As we have said this stage is the end of the beginning. We have hardly started yet!

We urge everyone to stay in the party. If you are able to square it with your conscience, also stay in post.

We must stay in contact stay united. We will win – it is certain. We must be there to pick up the pieces when Griffin runs our precious party off the cliff. This is imminent. Stay together. The nomination process was just the first phase.


http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/08/leadership-challenge-statement.html

'

NWN: Why is Butler now crying over the raising of nominations from 5% to 20% ?

.

It's not that long ago that Mr.Butler was ecstatic over this increase . Butler opined at the time, that it would keep out "joke" candidates like Chris Jackson and Colin Auty.

.

This election has just shown once again, the corruptness of 'Crook' Griffin . We at NWN don't think the BNP will now last 12 months.

,

Don't forget Butler wrote this two years ago;

http://northwestnationalists.blogspot.com/2008/05/eddy-butler-joke-bnp-official-attacks.html

.

My Resignation Letter From the BNP

Formal Resignation Letter.

10th August 2010.


Just over a month ago I won a court case for the BNP against Greenwich Council that not only changed the entire basis of electoral law in England, it also saved the party around ten to fifteen thousand pounds in legal costs and damages.

The legal arguments I drafted up and sent to the court ensured that the BNP won the court case.

For those idiots who will seek to attack me on the grounds of me being a red / traitor / unqualified crank (tick the usual pejorative as applicable) I mention this legal case I won for the party so as to ensure that decent people, and not the idiot sock puppets we see on the VNN Forum and Green Arrow site who are the vermin in the gutter of British Nationalism, understand that until yesterday when news of the mass suspension of party activists and organisers was announced I was still a loyal officer and supporter of the party.

I have pleaded with people to put the interests of the party first and before their own personal animosities and feuds.

As this has been ignored I have no choice but to take this action.

Over the last few years since the arrival of Jim Dowson into the party, Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson have repeatedly chosen to break the most obvious of laws including such debacles as ;

1) The Marmite Case

2) The unlawful use of stock images from a photoshop company during the European Elections

3) The EHRC court cases

4) The unlawful sacking of Michaele Mackenzie

5) The illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and many others


All of these were done under the orders of both Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.

Regardless of how much income the party has had over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been squandered on avoidable court cases.

Whilst party income has undoubtedly rose since Jim Dowson became involved with the BNP, so has the vast amount of money paid out by the BNP in legal costs incurred by the BNP.

Legal issues that were once dealt with internally within the party have been ’outsourced’ from the party to individuals paid by Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin, resulting in the parties internal legal affairs no longer being scrutinised or run by the BNP Legal Unit.

This ‘outsourcing’ of legal issues and cases, such as the drafting up of the new BNP constitution and dealing with the Marmite Case, have resulted in the party wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on fighting legal cases that could have been avoided, had the party debated and addressed those legal issues internally.

What was particularly galling for me was the Michaela Mackenzie case.

I informed Nick Griffin on the day he sacked her that what he was doing was unlawful.

Not only did he ignore my advice, he later went to an Employment Tribunal and called me a ‘crank’ as a way to ‘explain’ why my advice to him was ignored.

The actions of Nick Griffin in this case alone has cost the party over twenty five thousand pounds, and as of Friday last week the money owed to Michaele Mackenzie has still not been paid.

This means the party will now be dragged back into court and probably bankrupted as a result.

As far as I am aware the party is now technically insolvent.

Outstanding court costs, wages bills, election expenses and also forthcoming legal cases against the party mean the BNP is now technically bankrupt.

As far as I am aware donations to the party have flowed to a trickle as well as party renewals and new inquiries.

This means the party should be avoiding creating new legal cases and liabilities, not rushing into them as though the party is awash with money to fight such legal cases.

Bankruptcy of the party will have very serious implications for the BNP membership.

If the party is made bankrupt then the BNP membership as a whole will be directly financially liable for its outstanding debts as an unincorporated association and not Nick Griffin or Jim Dowson.

This is because Nick Griffin has no assets and Jim Dowsons financial assets are probably hidden away in some Spanish or Swiss bank account outside the UK.

In relation to the illegal suspension of Peter Mullins and others, I spent months trying to get Nick to see sense on this issue.

It was only after months of arguments that Nick Griffin was forced to relent, drop their suspensions and re-admit them.

During this time I was threatened by Jim Dowson with violence for putting the parties legal interests first as he was the person pushing Nick Griffin to expel Peter Mullins and others.

I am not the only BNP member or BNP officer to have been threatened with violence by Jim Dowson.

It appears that when Jim Dowson doesn’t get what he wants he likes to threaten people with his connections to loyalist killers and terrorists in Northern Ireland in order to intimidate people into doing his bidding.

My complaints to Nick Griffin about Jim Dowsons threats of violence directed at me and other party members have been ignored.

All I can say is that Peter Mullins is a decent, honourable man whilst Jim Dowson is a convicted criminal, with links to Loyalist terrorism and terrorists with a string of failed companies to his name who bought his ’reverend’ title off of the internet.

These facts are easily ascertained off the internet, as the media have undertaken investigations into Jim Dowson and published this information widely.

Unfortunately, as the Peter Mullins case revealed, Nick Griffin thinks the law as regards the unlawful expulsion of members does not apply to him, even though he was shown by the courts during the John Tyndall case that the law does apply to the BNP.

The decision yesterday to unlawfully suspend dozens of activists simply for them standing against Nick Griffin in the leadership contest is the action of utterly irresponsible incompetents.

Nick Griffin knew before the leadership challenge even began that he could not be removed as leader of the party.

The BNP constitution was re-written specifically to ensure that no-one can ever remove Nick Griffin from his role as chairman.

Therefore to suspend the people who supported the leadership challenge is both unlawful and tactically inept.

The people who supported Eddy Butler would have been facing the choice of either knuckling down or resigning from the party.

Instead they have been unlawfully suspended and therefore can now launch new legal actions against the party.

The law is clear.

BNP members have a constitutionally protected right to stand for party leadership.

To suspend them for doing so is unlawful.

The way they have been suspended is also unlawful.

I have no doubt that they will now unite to form a class action against the party thereby incurring more legal costs and damages against an already virtually bankrupt party whose debts far outweigh its income.

The tragedy is that Andrew Brons has been dragged into this idiotic affair, for he will have no choice but to do as Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson say and declare that the leadership challengers did not get enough nominations and so cannot stand against Nick Griffin for a leadership election.

But what has most sickened me over recent weeks is the way that the serious allegations of sexual assault from the BNP member Shelley Rose have been ignored by Nick Griffin.

I have never met Shelley Rose, nor have I ever spoken to her.

I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegations she has made.

As soon as I saw the Youtube video of her allegations I sent an e mail to Nick Griffin, and spoke to him on the phone, asking that in order to ensure the party and its public image is protected that both Shelley Rose and Jim Dowson be suspended as members and as party officers and that a full and transparent investigation is initiated.

The BNP cannot ever be seen as a party that protects perverts or a party that refuses to address allegations of such a serious nature from a female member.

Any allegations of sexual assault by any female BNP member against any male BNP member must be treated with the utmost seriousness and an full investigation begun.

Failure to do that allows the media to attack and undermine the party and its public image.

Jim Dowson is not a member of the BNP, so therefore in order to demonstrate that the party was taking these allegations seriously then he should have been immediately suspended as a party officer and from all party offices until the investigation and disciplinary procedures into the allegations were finished.

If Shelley Rose was found to have lied then she should have been expelled.

If Jim Dowson was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute, Gross Misconduct and sexual assault then he should have been dismissed and sacked from all party offices he holds.

Instead what has happened is that Shelley Rose has been suspended, no investigation has been initiated and no sanction applied against Jim Dowson.

Instead of having a transparent investigation into the allegations, the internet attack dogs on sites like the Green Arrow website and the VNN Forum have been set upon Shelley Rose and abused her name and reputation.

They have slandered, threatened and vilified her and by so doing have disgraced not just the BNP but British Nationalism as a political movement.

This is intolerable.

The BNP cannot be seen as a political party that punishes the victim of a sexual assault whilst protecting the perpetrator of the crime.

All such allegations have to be treated with the utmost seriousness.

All such allegations must be investigated.

The issue is simple enough to understand.

Any married BNP party officer in a senior position who spends the night in a hotel room with a BNP female member other than his wife must be sacked.

This must be done for one simple reason.

A party officer lured into a secret affair opens himself up to being blackmailed or manipulated.

Such a scenario creates a fundamental conflict of interest between their personal life, their professional duties and their political responsibilities that is simply unacceptable.

A party officer who is in charge of the BNP finances via its income, who controls the BNP membership lists and who has such influence over the chairman of the party must be entirely above reproach at all times.

If it had been someone working for MI5 who had lured Jim Dowson into a sexual assignation in a London hotel room and then filmed him with hidden cameras and used that film to blackmail him, then MI5 would now be in control of the BNP’s finances and income and have access to all our membership data bases and be able to virtually control the party.

And we would never know about it.

Any married man foolish enough to have been discovered having stayed the night in a hotel room with a young woman other than his wife, and especially a ’reverend’, is an individual who may also have done so in the past and therefore is not suitable to be in that position.

In the world of business, and in the education system and police, any senior manager who has an affair with a junior member of his staff that threatens the good name of the organisation is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed.

Whilst it may be acceptable for the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour to act in such a manner it is not acceptable for senior officers of the BNP to do so, especially senior officers in charge of BNP finances and income and the membership data base.

But it appears that Jim Dowson is an ’untouchable’ in the party and that whilst Nick Griffin is prepared to sacrifice dozens of loyal members with decades of party loyalty, he will not deal with Jim Dowson.

It therefore appears that Nick Griffin no longer wishes to receive any counsel from anyone who wishes to put the legal interests of the BNP, its members, our public image and our future electoral expansion before the interests of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson.

I cannot remain as the Legal Officer of a party that acts unlawfully towards its own members, that rewards years of party loyalty with unlawful suspensions and expulsions, that covers up serious allegations of sexual abuse by senior officers, that expels long standing members who ask for financial transparency within the party and that refuses to act to protect its own officers when they are threatened with violence by other senior officers.

Such a political party cannot be trusted with political power in our society.

If I stay on within such a party then it will appear as though I am supporting and condoning such actions.

Unless the BNP begins ;

1) An immediate fully transparent investigation into the ongoing allegations of financial mismanagement within the party which allows BNP members and officers to ascertain exactly what the party finances are, where party assets have gone and what the background behind the legal costs of recent legal cases have been. This is required in order to ensure that internal party mechanisms are in place to protect the party from such legal liabilities and allegations of financial impropriety in the future.

2) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the threats of violence made against any party members and officers by Jim Dowson.

3) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into the allegations made by the BNP member Shelly Rose against Jim Dowson.

4) An immediate and fully transparent investigation into who authorised the unlawful suspensions of BNP party members Peter Mullins and others and also whether the present suspensions of members and organisers suspended for being involved in the leadership challenge are also legal. As part of the inquiry it must establish whether an independent body within the party should be established that vets and checks any orders for the suspension of members and officers of the party issued by the chairman or other officers are legal before the suspensions or expulsions are authorised and issued. This is required to protect the party from potential legal liabilities.

5) The establishment of an internal ‘BNP Reconciliation Committee’ which allows all BNP members and officers to air their grievances and discuss issues of concern to officers and the membership without fear of suspension and expulsion so as to allow us to move forward as a united party.

6) An immediate party inquiry into how the party can establish an internal mechanism for protecting the employment rights of party officers from arbitrary dismissal so as to ensure no more legal cases and legal costs are imposed against the party.

7) An immediate party inquiry into establishing an internal party mechanism that requires the chairman of the party to discuss and debate with senior officials of the party any financial or business actions that may impinge or impact upon the party directly or accrue legal or financial liabilities for the party before those decisions are taken.

8) Jim Dowson now controls the BNP membership database, the BNP donor database, the BNP treasury department, the BNP subscriptions operation, the BNP media & communications operation and the BNP website. This is completely unacceptable and legally questionable. There is no power in the constitution for the chairman to devolve such internal party offices or party operations to an individual who is not a party member. The BNP constitution does not give the chairman the power to allow a non-member of the party to hold, have access too or have power directly over BNP party finances or confidential information relating to party members. Nor does the chairman have any power to move party assets owned by the party outside the party and especially into the hands of an individual who is not a member of the party. Therefore all financial assets owned by the party and under the control of Jim Dowson must be declared and returned to the party. No officer of the party, either member of non-member, should be ever again be allowed to have such internal control and influence over such a vast amount of essential internal BNP operations now or in the future. Such over centralisation of power around Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson means the party is now vulnerable.

If party assets have been moved out of the party and into companies owned by Jim Dowson by Nick Griffin then this is potentially defined as "Fraud by abuse of position" and is defined by Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. This is such a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person such as BNP members, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

In such cases of potential fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another. The fact that such issues may have potentially arisen means the party is at serious risk of investigation and prosecution.


I do not believe the list of assurances that I believe the party requires in order to allow it to move forward as a united organisation will be given by Nick Griffin.

In all good conscience I can therefore no longer remain as an officer of the party.

If I stay on as an officer of the party then I will be seen as condoning the above issues and problems.

I am not prepared to do that.

I hereby quit my role as BNP Legal Adviser with immediate effect.


L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)"


http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-resignation-letter-from-bnp.html

'

Note: Seems this post has now disappeared from Barnes blog.

Why has Barnes now 'jumped ship' ?

Did he ever complain when the hundreds of other former BNP members were arbitrarily sacked by crook Griffin in the past ?

He only makes mention of when John Tyndall took Griffin to Court and won, for unfair expulsion.

Also, Barnes has himself been involved with the 'VNN rubbish' when the Griffinites were attacking others, and using his own blog to attack and 'out' nationalists who Griffin had fallen out with.This blog has been unfairly attacked by Barnes in the past, for one.

Barnes is of course right in his condemnations above. But it looks like he is now angry because he has had his nose 'pushed out' of BNP legal business by Dowsons legal people/person.

Why was he not angry in the past when others were expelled or when others were smeared ? Mr.Barnes seems to be coming across just a tad hypocritical here.

Or is it a case that Barnes thinks he might be deemed culpable of some of the 'crimes' that Griffin has committed, when the small avalanche of Court proceedings hit the BNP later this year ? Mr.Barnes is/was considered the BNP Legal Officer you see, and might be seen as a part of the financial skullduggery department that has reigned over the BNP since 1999.

Even more BNP suspensions ?

There is much rumour about a large number of BNP activists being suspended from all round the Country. There is even a large list doing the rounds showing a number of suspended people.

There looks to be well over 20 names on a list circulating that have been suspended. Well none of them will receive a proper tribunal. Griffin doesn't do that sort of thing !

'

The above picture is BNP chief 'thrower outer', Clive Jefferson, with a few stormtroopers descending on the home of long time BNP activist Bob Gertner, who has been suspended.

'

NWN has been campaigning for over 10 years to get rid of Nick Griffin from the BNP. The rate of expulsions by Griffin mean that quite soon there will only be about six members left in the BNP, and all of them will be the 'Griffin coterie'. All that's left of the party.

.

Griffin is 'pulling the plug' on the BNP. There will be nothing left for sure !

But that is what the State ordered him to do in 1997 - destroy the BNP !

Mark Collett expelled from BNP !

Can't Griffin get on with anyone ?

Has he no friends at all ?

It seems that everyone who gets close to Griffin ends up hating him.

For years it seemed that 'wonder boy Collett' was the one exception, and many people wondered why he was the exception. Now we see that even 'wonder boy' falls out with crook Griffin. The one's who hold any position now in the BNP should have learnt by now, that they will get sacked by Griffin, not if, but when.

Griffin has obviously got psychological issues, and is unfit to run a kebab shop, never mind a political party.

Collett no doubt knows some interesting stuff on Griffin. We at NWN wonder what he will reply back with ? Many think it was Collett who released the porno pics of Griffins minder Martin Reynolds.

Ahmadinejad unhurt after motorcade explosion - Mossad ?

[TEHRAN (AFP) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unhurt on Wednesday after an explosive device, officially described as a firecracker, went off near his motorcade.

Ahmadinejad was on his way to a sports arena to make a speech in Hamedan, south of the capital, when the explosion occurred.

Conservative website Khabaronline, the first source to report the incident initially said a hand grenade was thrown at the hardliner's motorcade but later in the day dropped "grenade" in its report and used the word "firecracker" instead.

"This morning a hand grenade exploded next to a vehicle carrying reporters accompanying the president" the website, close to parliament speaker Ali Larijani, said first.

"Ahmadinejad's car was 100 metres (yards) away and he was not hurt," it said, adding that the alleged attacker was detained.

Iran's Mehr news agency quoting witnesses as saying a "hand-made noise bomb exploded a far distance from the president's car."

"Nobody was hurt and several people have been arrested," the agency said.

Click image to see photos of Ahmadinejad's motorcade


Reuters
Ahmadinejad later delivered his speech and made no reference to the incident.

An official in the president's media office told AFP the explosion was from a "firecracker."

The ISNA and ILNA news agencies also said the blast was caused by a "firecracker," while Fars news agency said a "hand-made grenade" had been thrown at the motorcade.

"After the president's motorcade passed someone threw a hand-made grenade at the vehicles behind it," Fars said.

The agency used the Farsi word "narenjak," which means both a hand grenade of the military sort and a noisy home-made firecracker, the size of a tennis ball, that Iranians set off at festive events such as the New Year fire festival.

"Security agents arrested the person who threw it," Fars said, adding that the incident had "irritated" well-wishers, but not saying if anyone had been hurt.

The incident came only two days after Ahmadinejad repeated his claim that Iran's archfoe Israel wants him dead.

"Stupid Zionists have hired mercenaries to assassinate me," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech to expatriate Iranians on Monday.

On Tuesday, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman also insisted that the hardliner is on Israel's hit list.

"It is quite evident that the Zionist forces are under state orders to assassinate different figures in the Islamic world," Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters.

"They may dare in their mind to assassinate Islamic world figures as soon as they have access to them and one of the greatest enemies of this regime is Dr Ahmadinejad."

The animosity between Iran and Israel has steadily worsened under the presidency of Ahmadinejad who has infuriated the world powers by dismissing the Holocaust as a "myth."

Israel too has never ruled out a military strike against Iran to stop its nuclear programme. On its part, Iran does not acknowledge Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100...iranpoliticsunrest_20100804130221