Richard Edmonds to challenge Griffin for the BNP Leadership ?
A strong rumour doing the rounds suggests that Richard Edmonds is to challenge for the leadership of the British National Party. We are still awaiting conformation of this but comes from a reliable source.
RE was seen as being one of the 'hardliners' and so will probably be despised by some of the rubbish that holds a membership card in the BNP these days.
We at NWN welcome any moves to rid us of the parasite Griffin. We feel though that this is too little, too late, by Mr.Edmonds.
We still though, if the reports are true, would encourage people to support RE in his quest to grasp the BNP away from the wreckers.
18 comments:
How can Edmonds be considered hardline when he not only voted for ethnics in the BNP, but also argued from the platform for it as well.
He also wasn't very complimentary about Chris Jackson when Jackson argued against allowing more power to Griffin at that EGM.
Although i admire RE for has long standing commitment to nationalism its probably a little too late.Griffin has too many party wreckers,deviants and paranoid schizophrenic's in place who would probably vote for the Archbishop Desmond Tutu if it meant keeping out a nationalist saviour to run the party.
Richard Edmonds has never "...voted for ethnics [sic] in the BNP...". He, along with all but half a dozen or so others, voted to approve changes to the party constitution that were considered necessary in order to curtail costly litigation started by the EHRC, which might have led to the party's de-registration, and prevented it from contesting the 2010 general election. This vote took place at an EGM on 14 February 2010. Chris Jackson was no longer a member of the BNP by that time, and so was not present at the meeting.
Dr Andrew Emerson said...
Richard Edmonds has never "...voted for ethnics [sic] in the BNP...". He, along with all but half a dozen or so others, voted to approve changes to the party constitution that were considered necessary in order to curtail costly litigation started by the EHRC, which might have led to the party's de-registration, and prevented it from contesting the 2010 general election. This vote took place at an EGM on 14 February 2010. Chris Jackson was no longer a member of the BNP by that time, and so was not present at the meeting.
28 April 2011 12:08
===========================
Semantics Dr.Emerson.
John Tyndall would never have 'voted' to allow ethnics into the BNP.
Also, it could easily be argued that it was Griffin himself that engineered the ethnics in business.
To suggest that we were forced is a 'non sequitar'.
Griffin tried to get them in around 2004 but was beaten back.
Then he said he had received a letter which he never produced that we had to allow them in.
At an EGM were Jackson voted against Griffin RE supported Griffin and he called Jackson 'a prat'.
In fact, when Chris Jackson stood against Griffin for the leadership RE had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support CJ at all.So what has changed ?
I am afraid Dr.Emerson, RE is a 'busted flush' nowadays. Ever since JT 'passed away' RE has lost his 'political compass' unfortunately.
He failed to support we so called hardliners who were routed on an ongoing purge from the BNP since 1999.
While we wish you and he all the best with the challenge, we cant really see RE winning.
The following is a quotation from John Tyndall's article "The Party I Want", which was published in Spearhead magazine in September 2004, less than a year before his death.
"Membership
"I am pledged to maintain the present rules of party membership as defined in Section 2 of the BNP Constitution. This means that membership would continue to be restricted to persons of British or kindred European ethnic origin.
"The only event in which I would consent to an alteration of these rules would be IF IT WERE FORCED UPON US BY AN ACT OF LAW. This has not yet happened and unless and until it happens the rules should remain as they are.[Emphasis mine, AE].
"I give this pledge concerning rules of membership confident that the members of the party will believe it to be a firm one. Unlike Mr Griffin, I do not change position politically from week to week according to the requirements of expediency."
From the part of the quotation that I have emphasized it may be seen that JT would have accepted a change in the party constitution in order to comply with the law. Since the enactment of the Equality Act, in October 2010, it is unlawful for any political party to refuse an application for membership solely on the grounds of race.
Laws can be made. They can also be repealed. But JT, as an intelligent man, recognized the importance of staying within the law.
It is wrong to back down to pressure to accept foreigners as members, irrespective of what the law says- and remember, these aren't British laws, this is crap brought in from the EU.
Our refusal to accept foreigners should remain firm, even if that means downgrading from political party to political organisation, this is afterall nothing but a technicality, we would lose very little if we did stand down as a party, and far better to do that than to accept immigrants.
I can't work out why Edmonds has left it so late to take a stand.
He hardly supported Chris Jackson who again is regarded as old school nationalism.
So why has RE himself decided now ?
He should have rallied the opposition just after John Tyndall left us.
Northwest Nationalists, there's definitely problems with your site - chech it out.
Regards
Fly On The Wall
Dr.Emerson
you initially argued that RE did NOT vote for ethnics in the BNP.
But then went onto argue the BNP were forced by law to accept non whites.
RE did vote in support of Griffins acceptance of non whites something he had wanted since 1999.
So what was RE voting with Griffin for ?
By the way, I do not accept that the BNP had to accept non whites.
We had to accept because Griffin was sticking with the conspired acceptance.
The BNP wanted non whites under Griffins leadership so that it bogged us all down in timewasting nonsense like we are currently doing.
It also split the nationalist movement as we can all plainly see.
This meek acceptance of it all by Griffin was done to demoralise white nationalists.
EFPStoke said...
It is wrong to back down to pressure to accept foreigners as members, irrespective of what the law says- and remember, these aren't British laws, this is crap brought in from the EU.
Our refusal to accept foreigners should remain firm, even if that means downgrading from political party to political organisation, this is afterall nothing but a technicality, we would lose very little if we did stand down as a party, and far better to do that than to accept immigrants.
29 April 2011 07:11
You say "...we would lose very little if we did stand down as a party..." but who is "we", exactly?
Your user name includes the name of a rival political party. Are you a member of the British National Party, or not? If not, then it seems rather presumptuous on your part to offer advice to the BNP concerning its internal affairs. If you are, why do you publicly promote a rival political party?
GWR said...
Dr.Emerson
you initially argued that RE did NOT vote for ethnics in the BNP.
But then went onto argue the BNP were forced by law to accept non whites.
RE did vote in support of Griffins acceptance of non whites something he had wanted since 1999.
So what was RE voting with Griffin for ?
By the way, I do not accept that the BNP had to accept non whites.
We had to accept because Griffin was sticking with the conspired acceptance.
The BNP wanted non whites under Griffins leadership so that it bogged us all down in timewasting nonsense like we are currently doing.
It also split the nationalist movement as we can all plainly see.
This meek acceptance of it all by Griffin was done to demoralise white nationalists.
29 April 2011 17:34
In 2004 Griffin proposed to change the constitution of the British National Party in order to permit the recruitment of ethnic aliens into the party, BEFORE IT WAS LEGALLY NECESSARY TO DO SO. John Tyndall, Richard Edmonds and Chris Jackson led a successful grass roots' campaign of opposition, and Griffin was forced to back down and drop the idea. This demonstrates that Richard Edmonds was prepared to risk his party membership in order to defend the principle of an entirely ethnically indigenous BNP.
In 2010 the situation was very different. Constitutional change was being forced on the BNP by both costly EHRC litigation, as well as an imminent change in the law. Under these circumstances both Richard and I saw changing the constitution in order to comply with the new law as the lesser of two evils.
I believe that subsequent events have vindicated our judgement. The BNP has not been inundated with ethnically alien members. It seems unlikely to be so affected in the future.
Emerson said:
''I believe that subsequent events have vindicated our judgement. The BNP has not been inundated with ethnically alien members. It seems unlikely to be so affected in the future''
Yeah, and it hasn't been ''inundated'' with white British members either...has it?
You speak as though you and Richard Edmonds are as one on this issue, and by implication, a team!
Henry.
P.S. Where does RE stand on the Holohoax these days?
You speak as though you and Richard Edmonds are as one on this issue, and by implication, a team!
Henry.
P.S. Where does RE stand on the Holohoax these days?
30 April 2011 02:09
====================
As I thought Henry.
I have known RE for well over 35 years and to be honest am deeply disappointed in one who should have rallied the nationalist cause.
The mantle was handed down to him from JT but he failed us.
Dr Emerson,
I was a member of Stoke BNP beofre Alby Walker killed it off, and the path that should have been taken by all those unhappy with Griffin has been clear for years; don't be stupid enough to change the constitution so he can't be removed, cut him off from his funding to try and get him out that way, but if that failed, then you needed to start something new or get behind a going concern, bring into that all the unhappy members of the BNP, and start afresh without Griffin or the other spoilers.
This is advice that Eddy Butler has constantly ignored, in favour of holding on to try and rescusitate the BNP should Griffin be removed, but that is not going to happen! Griffin will go when Griffin is ready, and not before!
I'm, having my say as this BNP farce isn't only affecting the BNP, it's casting a shadow over nationalism as a whole, and that includes the small party I threw my lot in with, rather than sitting on my arse doing nothing but moan, which is what far too many of you BNPers have done.
Craig Pond, England First, Stoke.
CHRIS HILL MUST NOT READ THIS !!!
http://nafcash.com/
I know your going to love this !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQle0Sl6-Sc
YOU WILL ENJOY THIS!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug&feature=player_embedded#at=37
In the meeting the other night where RE launched his campaign, why is Eddy Butler on the platform as well ?
FFS Richard what is this all about ?
Post a Comment