After 'Bernie Winters' wins Labour Party leadership contest.....

Brothers at war: As Ed Miliband uses his maiden speech to declare Iraq invasion was wrong, David can't hide his bitterness

David snipes at Harriet Harman during brother's speech

Defeated Miliband will announce if he'll stay on today
Ed Miliband denies he has betrayed his older brother
Ed drops hint on Davids future: 'I don't think you've heard the last of him'

Ed Miliband today fuelled speculation his brother David will quit frontline politics as the issue continued to overshadow his leadership.
The new Labour leader was forced to deny he had 'betrayed' his brother and stolen his crown this morning as he desperately tried to play down the sibling rivalry.
But he said in one interview: 'I certainly don't think you've heard the last of him. I think he's going to make a big contribution in the future.'

After keeping Ed dangling for days, David must declare by this evening whether he will stand in elections for the shadow cabinet or if he will refuse to work in his brother's top team.
He is expected to reject calls from senior party figures, including former Chancellor Alistair Darling, to stay and keep the New Labour flame alive.

Tense moment: How Channel 4 screened the exchange between Mr Miliband and Miss Harman

Shadow cabinet member Peter Hain today said he believed David Miliband will not seek a post in his brother's team.
Mr Hain said: 'It looks like David is going to decide to do something else. If that is the case it will be sad for him and the party but we've got a strong team. We wish him well and we hope he'll be back at some point.'
More...'Red' Ed: I WILL get married and I'm embarrassed my name isn't on birth certificate (and I don't believe in God)
ANDREW PIERCE: How Gordon melted the Queen's heart
QUENTIN LETTS: His brother steamed nicely in the front row
JAN MOIR: Clever girl! A new look without breaking the bank
STEPHEN GLOVER: Red Ed? More like Dead Ed
JAN MOIR: Clever girl! A new look without breaking the bank

The former foreign secretary left Manchester, where the Labour conference is being held, last night and was said to have switched off his mobile phone.
Mr Miliband’s wife Louise is understood to be deeply upset at his treatment by his brother and the party.

His mother, Marion Kozak, is also said to have been distressed by the fractious tone of the contest.
Simmering tensions between the pair erupted yesterday when David was caught denouncing Ed’s crowd-pleasing attack on the Iraq War in his debut speech as leader.

As 40-year-old Ed attempted to turn the page on New Labour by declaring that a ‘new generation’ had taken over and insisting it had been ‘wrong to take Britain to war’, his brother sat stony-faced in the front row.
David, 45, then turned to the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, who was applauding enthusiastically, and sniped: ‘You voted for it, why are you clapping?’
A stunned Miss Harman hit back: ‘I’m clapping because he is the leader, and as you know, I’m supporting him.’
David was later seen shaking his head as Ed complained about the nickname said to have been ascribed to him by some of his brother’s supporters - ‘Forrest Gump’, after the dim-witted and innocent character in the Tom Hanks film.

His remarks, picked up by an ITV News camera, undermined attempts by Labour’s high command to paper over the cracks between the brothers turned leadership rivals.
They appeared to end any prospect of David, who was beaten by the narrowest of margins thanks to the votes of the trades unions, staying on.
Ed Miliband insisted today that David would be 'around in one way or another' even if he steps down from frontline politics.
'I know he will make a big contribution to politics in the future and he will have different ways of doing it, either inside the shadow cabinet or outside the shadow cabinet, but I think that is his decision,' he said.

'He has just been through a leadership contest, and a leadership contest he lost. He has got to decide what he wants to do. It is most important that he makes the right decision for himself and his family and a decision he is comfortable with.'

The new leader denied that he had 'betrayed' his older brother, and insisted David did not feel like that either.

Asked if he felt he had stolen his brother's crown, he said: 'It isn't the way I see it because I think it wasn't me, it was the Labour Party that made its decision.'
Pressure: Ed Miliband with partner Justine Thornton arriving at the conference hall yesterday
New leader: Ed Miliband waves to the conference crowd and then embraces his partner Justine Thornton

He did admit he was worried about how his victory had affected his brother. 'I worry always about the effects of any decisions I make on my family because family comes first.

'But I thought it was the right thing to do to stand in this election because I had a distinctive message. Of course I worry about him and my family but I think it was right to stand.'

He stressed that he had 'absolutely' thought through the implications of his standing on his relationship with David and insisted it was strong enough to survive.

David Miliband and wife Louise Shackelton arrive back in London last night
'The biggest obstacle for me standing in this contest was the relationship with David, because I thought long and hard about it.

'But in the end I concluded that if I had something to say which was distinctive, if I felt I would be the best leader of this party, for me not to stand in those circumstances would actually be an abdication of my responsibility, my responsibility to this party, my responsibility to this country and that is why I stood.

'My love for David is very deep, and his for me is too. It has been a difficult time, obviously, but it will withstand this.'

Mr Miliband also defended his blunt condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq, saying: 'The journey begins with humility about our record.'
He insisted he was not being an 'opportunist' by attacking Labour's record and insisted he wasn't trying to 'deny' his associations with the previous government.
It was vital to 'show we understand the reasons we lost trust and Iraq was one of those reasons. I have got to be honest about that as leader of this party,' he said.
Yesterday, the victorious younger Miliband used his conference speech to reject another of his nicknames, ‘Red Ed’, telling critics: ‘Come off it. Let’s start to have a grown-up debate in this country.’

He attempted to distance himself from his union backers by insisting that he will not back ‘waves of irresponsible strikes’ over cuts to public spending.

But he went out of his way to praise the role of unions in society and made a series of Left-wing policy pledges, apparently designed to persuade his anxious party that it has not picked the wrong brother.

He also admitted Labour had made mistakes on a series of issues, including immigration, civil liberties and the economy.
But it was the section on Iraq that prompted his defeated brother to let his mask slip after days of carefully-scripted calls for unity.
In an apparent reference to Tony Blair, Ed said some people had ‘sincerely believed that the world faced a real threat’.
But he went on: ‘I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that. Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations.’

David’s irritation at his brother’s stance on Iraq is just one of a series of policy splits which have opened up between Ed and party grandees. In his speech, the new leader emphasised his belief in civil liberties and distanced himself from New Labour’s tough counter-terror plans.

But that immediately put him at odds with Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who warned: ‘You do not demonstrate your commitment to civil liberties by failing to protect the most important civil liberty of all; the right to be safe on our streets.’

And while Ed backed Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s call to spare thousands of prisoners from jail, Shadow Justice Secretary Jack Straw denounced that view as ‘madness’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315969/LABOUR-CONFERENCE-As-Ed-Miliband-criticises-Iraq-invasion-David-hide-bitterness.html#ixzz10vXV7TSR

Communist reds run true to type !

Here is a picture shown on the zionist/communist blogsite Lancaster Unity, literally drooling in their approval of a handful of BNP members getting a 'kicking' in Glasgow last Saturday, the 18th.September 2010. These are typical odds that the reds like, over 10 - 15 to 1 odds.

.

Thankfully the reds are as naive as the poor BNP victims of this assault, and gloating pics have allowed more serious nationalists to pinpoint the culprits

.

The sheer hypocrisy of the Lancaster Unity site though through the resident Lesbian writer/liar, Denise, who hails from that multi-culti area of Norfolk/Suffolk, has to be seen to be believed. Here is a taster;


September 21, 2010
Weekend reports - BNP chased out of Glasgow, "gutless" Griffin flees Liverpool
Posted by Denise BNP & SDL chased out of Glasgow

Saturday 18 September saw a hugely successful day of anti-fascist direct action against the racist thugs of the BNP and the Scottish Defence League – both of whom attempted to carry out public activity in Glasgow on the day.

Another of these 'class heroes' apparently hails from that other multi racial melting pot of the Island of Arran. Still, he probably has an excuse for still living in 1936.

What wasn't surprising was how the Police did their usual 'feetdragging' when nationalists need their help. According to many, this area of Glasgow is one of the most highly CCTV'd areas in the UK, and it took the Police over 15 minutes to arrive from round the corner. Then proceed to just stand there and do nothing. No arrests were made - typical British Police 'modus operandi' when it is nationalists on the receiving end ! But if ever the BNP are the culprits, we suffer smashed down doors and the like - the full force of the law as they say.

Hopefully, these naive Griffinite BNPers will lay siege at the Police, and get the services of a Solicitor to pursue the real thugs of the left.

"Guests agreed it was probably the best food ever served at a nationalist gathering." !

And this is the news from the Butler liberal type nationalists who aspire to take over from 'crook' Gri££in as leaders of the BNP. Other pics showed people wearing 'dicky bows', no doubt also wearing the compulsory cummerbunds. A weekend of 'schmoozing' seems to have been enjoyed.


These people who hijacked the BNP under Griffin and now a supposed challenge to Griffins fiefdom see success at holding dinners as being success at politics !


The zionist EDL are having some success at drawing away some people who would take to the streets in 'demos', and these people seem to be having some success at junketing in posh hotels in Yorkshire.


Griffin and Butler have succeeded in getting rid of politics and political activity away from the BNP. Instead of discussing radical politics at their weekend retreat they had a fine display of folk music apparently, availed themselves of the pool and 'had the best food ever served at a nationalist meeting'.

It was a shame to see Richard Edmonds tucking into this fine food.


Meanwhile the British people suffer on under a madness without any nationalist political leadership !


http://nwnationalists.freeforums.org/probably-the-best-food-ever-served-at-a-nationalist-gatherin-t199.html

Gri££in updates his "Attempted Murder" farrago of 1986

Hello, everybody!

Nick Gri££in, Chairman of the British National Party, has updated his 1986 classic.....

‘ATTEMPTED MURDER
– The State / Reactionary Plot Against the National Front’

(regarded by many as the definitive exhibition of political paranoia)

......with a new diatribe of paranoid delusion and self-justification entitled:

‘SEX, MANIPULATION, LIES and SUBVERSION
– Real Life Studies of Anti-Nationalist Dirty Tricks’

This latest opus is designed to convince naïve newcomers to the nationalist movement in Britain that the blame for the British National Party turning into a political, financial and legal train wreck is not his – even though he has had personal dictatorial control over all aspects of the party’s operation for ten years.

Oh no!

The blame for the catastrophe must be imposed on the Satanic conspiracies of Sonia Gable of Searchlight (who, I am sorry to say, comments accurately on his financial shenanigans) and any number of un-named infiltrators from State security agencies who, working in tandem, were behind such “plots” as to try and prompt an election this August for the leadership of the BNP as provided for (just about) in the party’s constitution.

Just how evil can these conspirators get?

I will not run out the text of Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion here as it is a very long text. I won’t say more about as I don’t want to put people off reading it. I want people to read it at least once so that they can compare it with the contents of his 1986 work Attempted Murder. In fact, I ask everybody to read Attempted Murder first.

Attempted Murder, published as a booklet by a faction of the crumbling National Front in 1986, can be seen at:

http://www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html


Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion, published on the BNP web site last Saturday, can be seen at:



http://bnp.org.uk/news/sex-manipulation-lies-and-subversion-%E2%80%94-real-life-studies-anti-nationalist-dirty-tricks


To those able to persevere with a reading of both documents will be struck by their essential similarity.

In 1983 Gri££in, with the support of Andrew Brons, Ian Anderson, Joe Pearce and sundry other members of the NF’s National Directorate seized control of the party by means which, months later, a High Court Judge described as “....unconstitutional....illegal....disgraceful....” This ruling and various court injunctions in my favour were given too late to rescue the NF from ruination.

By 1986 the NF was riven with factional warfare. There were bloody street fights between them. The faction which Gri££in ran (motto: “Long Live Death!” – I kid you not) had control of the party’s Head Office and its administrative and financial affairs became a shambles. Cheque payments for supplies of books and leaflets were cashed but the goods not despatched was just one of myriad complaints, most of which focused on money.

In an attempt the fend off the crisis brought about by his and his associates’ maladministration and dishonesty he brought out the booklet Attempted Murder in order to try and demonstrate that the party was the victim of a conspiracy by (among others!) State security agencies and the Post Office....and, of course, members of the faction which opposed his little crew of International Third Position nut-cases led by the Italian crook Roberto Fiore, (with whom Gri££in and his family are still in business relationships which involve the importation of Afro-Asian “students” into Britain!)

This inane – insane – propaganda ploy failed and within another year or so the NF finally succumbed to all that the loonies had inflicted on it, and died. The group which nowadays parades about using the name “National Front” is not a legitimate continuance of the original party and has policies and a constitution considerably different from the original party.

I will not attempt to summarise Attempted Murder beyond what I have said above, other than to ask those who read it to look out for Gri££in’s vituperations against his then factional opponents, and then reflect on how many of these “poisonous subversives” of 1986 are now “valued close colleagues” of 2010! (See what Gri££in has to say about his current best mate Martin Wingfield, for example!)

Having read Attempted Murder, and come up for air, you should then turn to Gri££in’s August 2010 screed Sex, Manipulation, Lies and Subversion. You will find yourself of familiar ground.

The BNP is crumbling politically, administratively, financially and legally as a result of his decade long maladministration. The keys to the collapse are improper and dishonest maladministration of the party’s financial affairs and cowardice and surrender in the face of the legal challenge by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

What is Gri££in’s response to the situation – other than to send out almost daily begging letters and e-mails to people who have already given till it hurts?

His response is to devise a long turgid text designed to show that all the trouble the party faces is not down to him, the dictator of the party since 1999, but down to the machinations of Sonia Gable, State security agents and senior members of the party who have either infiltrated the party as enemies from the outset, or who have been suborned.

How Gri££in has had the time to churn out such self-serving paranoid drivel when his party is facing crisis on a number of fronts, all of which require the attention of a proper leader, is proof enough of this man’s lack of balance and sense of proportion.

The time is soon coming when the men with the flapping white coats and a secure van will be calling at a certain farmhouse in Wales. Will they precede the bailiffs?

Martin Webster.

Nick Griffin going to jail ?

We don't think so.

The 'establishment' need Griffin in his position so that British nationalism never gets anywhere.

There have been several reasons for Griffin to go to jail in the past, but he has never been chased by the authorities. The 'free speech trial' was a sham to cement Griffin in power and which gave him massive free publicity.There was no way that Griffin was going to do time in that Court case.

This is either another Griffin scam for money. Or the 'state' realise that Griffin is losing his grip on the nationalist scene, and needs a boost to his credibility.

The establishment fear a real contender rises as leader of radical British nationalism and Griffin is certainly not feared by the state, but neither is Butler.

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