Ever eager to keep the public informed we present an exchange of emails between the current leader of the British National Party Nick Griffin, and Mike Easter, who is the challenger Chris Jackson's Campaign Manager.This exchange appears on the 'Chris Jackson for Leader' site, where his statement calls for 'a proper structure and Constitution for the Party: "A recognisably normal Constitution of a 'corporate body' under English law."' We've no idea what it all means but even we can see that it's a crap slogan for an election campaign. Apart from anything else, hasn't Griffin already got the party operating more as a 'corporate body' than a political party?
'Email to Mike Easter from Nick Griffin
30th June 2007
Dear Mr Easter
Following receipt of Mr Jackson's nomination papers for the 2007 BNP leadership election, and the close of nominations, I write to set out the way in which the contest will be run.
In setting this I am mindful of two key aims: To ensure that the process is both fair and seen to be fair; and to minimise the opportunities for troublemakers to damage the party.
Each candidate shall send via email an official statement not exceeding 200 words, together with a photograph of himself, to the editor of the British Nationalist BNP members' bulletin, Kenny Smith (administration@bnp.org.uk), by noon on Thursday 5th July at the latest. Each candidate or his agent should also check with Mr. Smith on 01324 555187 before that deadline to ensure that he has received these.
Additionally, each candidate shall send via email to Mr. Smith a longer and complimentary, (sic), official statement not exceeding 800 words which will be published with the photographs side-by-side on a section of the main BNP website which will be open to members only with a URL which will be published in the July issue of British Nationalist. www.bnp.org.uk/leadershipelection
The statements will set out each candidate's stall as potential leader, and may contain any material they wish, provided it is not potentially libellous and contains no errors of fact. If Mr. Smith believes that such material has been included he will contact the candidate or his appointed agent to discuss revision. For this purpose it is recommended that the statements for British Nationalist be submitted no later than noon on Wednesday 4th July, as failure to have a statement agreed by then may result in unilateral action by Mr Smith – who is of course legally responsible for the contents of BN – to correct the statement by making the least number of changes possible in his opinion.
The candidates' statements and photographs will then appear in the July issue of British Nationalist, which will be sent to members who are paid up for 2007 by 30th June (EBNS will not be issued in July). A single sheet ballot paper, designed to be as proof against forgery as is reasonably possible, will be mailed out together with British Nationalist on 9th/10th July.
The statements for the website should be submitted to Mr. Smith by Tuesday 10th July and will be published simultaneously online by our web editor Steve Blake on Wednesday 11th July.
Ballot papers must be returned by post to PO Box 87, Ossett, Wakefield, WF5 8WN to arrive by Thursday 26th July at the latest. All ballots received before that date will be safely stored unopened. The opening of the ballot papers will commence at 3 pm that afternoon at the Excalibur/Great White industrial unit in Morley near Leeds. You will be notified of precise directions in good time in due course. Each candidate and agent may attend and may bring an additional two telling agents with them should they so wish. The whole proceedings will be under the control of the Returning Officer, party manager Nick Cass
The opening and counting of the papers will be carried out by four currently paid up members of the party, two nominated by each candidate by notifying Mr. Cass at the PO Box above by Monday 21st July or Mr. Smith via email. Any spoilt or unclear ballots will be adjudicated upon by the standard method used in UK elections, with the decision of the Returning Officer being final.
The result will be announced immediately after the count and the winner will be the leader of the party from that moment.
From now until the close of polls, both candidates and their supporters are at liberty to appear and speak at any party meetings to which they are invited by local officials, and to organise campaign meetings of their own.
In order to avoid giving an unfair advantage to the incumbent, or encouraging the illicit collection of membership data, neither candidate nor their agents or supporters shall distribute any information, in any form, by post, phone or email, except in response to a direct request from an individual member for information for him- or herself.
In setting the date of the election I am mindful of the fact that you do not approve of the Red-White-and-Blue family festival and also have again not applied to attend the Summer School. Clearly this would place you at a disadvantage if the election took place after these major BNP events. In addition, even a long campaign would not reach more than a limited number of members at meetings and, in view of the bitterness of the ad hominem attacks already made by some, no good purpose would be served by holding hustings meetings in a few places or in dragging the campaign out.
As per the precedent set by Mr. Tyndall when he laid down how the 1999 leadership election was to be run, neither candidate nor his agent nor supporters should make any comment to the media about the contest until it is over. This is an internal matter for the BNP and interviews to a fundamentally hostile media are not acceptable. Any approaches should be dealt with by way of a simple statement along the lines of "The election is a matter for the members of the BNP and I have no comment to make."
Your press statement of 29th June, having been issued before you were notified of these rules, is of course exempt, but should not be reissued. However, in view of the insinuations and allegations contained within it, the BNP Treasury Department will be issuing a clarification and explanation of the true position to all BNP officials early in the coming week. This Treasury statement will not be issued to the press as it is clearly not in the interest of the party to involve the left-liberal media in our internal affairs.
Also in order to avoid the possibility of unfairness – primarily to you – campaign meetings will not be reported on the BNP website or in its publications. The website may be used, if necessary, to correct any lies or disinformation which end up in widespread circulation. If at any time you feel that Mr Jackson's candidacy is being adversely affected by such things please do not hesitate to contact me to arrange such a statement. Our members have eyes to read and brains to think for themselves, so propaganda of all kinds is to be avoided and the whole outcome left to the members' personal and private judgement based on what they already know and what appears in British Nationalist and in the dedicated section of www.bnp.org.uk
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Nick Griffin M.A. (Hons) Cantab.
Leader, British National Party'
'Reply from Mike Easter to Nick Griffin
2nd July 07
Hi Nick,
Before commenting on the main part of your email/letter of 30th June, please may I confirm what we do agree.
1. We agree to Nick Cass holding the returned votes and supervising counting.
2. We agree to 200 words and a photo appearing in "British Nationalist".
In considering your letter we have taken regard to three principles:
1. English law.
2. The BNP Constitution, in particular, section 4,4 – "provided always that it is in compliance with the letter and the spirit of this Constitution".
3. The precedents made when you challenged John Tyndall in 1999:
a. You announced your challenge on 9th February 99.
b. You formally confirmed the challenge in June 99.
c. Ballot papers were sent out to members at the end of August 99, PLUS an A4 sheet printed both sides from each candidate and paid for by the Party.
d. Votes were counted at the end of September 99.
e. Each candidate had a copy of the then current members' list.
f. For some time before the election and during the election, you were involved with a special magazine, "Patriot" which was designed to promote yourself.
Commenting on the points made in your letter in the order that they are written, except we will first comment on the proposed timing of the election, as this is of over-riding importance.
The timescale that you are proposing is quite ridiculous and would prevent any meaningful campaigning. Is this the purpose of the suggestion? Don't you want members to discuss and debate how the Party should be organised and run?
We require a timetable that is sensible and counter propose the timetable set by precedent, so that ballot papers go out at the end of August and are returned by the end of September. Such a proposal is also in tune with section 4,4, of the Party Constitution. Further, because of annual holidays, August is regarded politically as a 'dead' month.
Failure to agree such a reasonable proposal will be regarded by us as a refusal to hold an election.
Your letter talks about "seen to be fair" and "opportunities for troublemakers to damage the party". Your proposed timescale blows "seen to be fair" out of the water even before considering any further sections of your letter. "Troublemakers", who have you in mind? How can they damage the party? What relevance have they to this election?
The statements for the website need to be seen by both sides prior to publication, again this was the precedent with your own challenge to John Tyndall. Accordingly, we suggest that both sides exchange drafts on 10th July and submit their final copy on say 17th July.
"Both candidates and their supporters". Members do not need permission to attend Party meetings.
"In order giving an unfair advantage". We will campaign as we see fit.
"Red-White-Blue". This remark is just a 'stocking filler'. In fact, we have agreed to attend for approximately 2 hours.
"Bitterness of the ad hominem* attacks". Nothing to do with us, or this campaign. Your enemies are your problem.
It is a fundamental part of our campaign that we want openness and normality in the running of the Party. In a democracy, it is normal and proper for journalists to ask questions of politicians. Accordingly, we reserve the right to speak to journalists and answer their questions in a responsible way.
Regards,
Mike Easter.
0799 058 7575
* Note: ad hominem is attacking the man rather than countering the argument. This debating style is not being used by Chris Jackson.'
Easter has a point - in fact he has several. The timescale issue - just three weeks to campaign - isn't that unusual but given the peculiar limitations on campaigning it clearly gives the advantage to Griffin as the incumbent leader. Without access to the membership list or some other method of access to the members of the party, how precisely is Jackson to make his points clear to everybody in the party including those without internet access? The veiled threat from the Jackson camp following the suggested revised timetable is an empty gesture. 'Failure to agree such a reasonable proposal will be regarded by us as a refusal to hold an election' leading to a Jackson withdrawal, will be regarded by the membership as a cop-out and, if Griffin rejects the proposal and Jackson stands down, there simply won't be an election.
The phrase in Easter's email 'Your enemies are your problem' is a telling one. Jackson is patently aware of Griffin's propensity for creating enemies where there was never a need, the sacked/proscribed ex-members for a start - the Edwards', Mike Newland, Sharon Ebanks, Keith Axon, Joe Owens et al, the other far-right groups like the British People's Party, England First, N9S (or whatever they're calling themselves this week), the National Front, the New Nationalist Party and so on which Griffin's BNP always tries to destroy by force of numbers - and the fast-growing anti-fascist internet presence which is certainly having an effect if readership is a reflection of interest.
One poster on the nazi Stormfront forum remarked that this leadership election 'sounds like an election in North Korea. Come to think of it, a parallel universe ruled by a vainglorious, egotistical tyrant who has lost touch with reality, and lives in a palace while his subjects starve isn’t a bad comparator [by which we assume the writer means 'comparison]'.
The leadership election campaign is plainly hotting up after a pretty slow start. We will be watching developments very closely.
5 comments:
Hello - I've just read a comment aobut Richard Littlejohn and the 'Toytown Nazis' on your blog. It was very interesting.
Indeed it's probably rebutted osme of the points I made in my latest blog entry, but I tohught you might like to have a look anyway.
Let me know what you think:
http://www.roberthenryjackman.blogspot.com/
Robert :)
Robert
The email exchange clearly shows that Mr Griffin is a bit miffed at being challenged by Easter (whom he obviously thinks is a bit of dimbo compared to someone of his own huge intellect).
However I am not sure if Griffin is being ironic when he writes:
'Our members have eyes to read and brains to think for themselves, so propaganda of all kinds is to be avoided.'
So, BNP members have brains to think for themselves - now that is funny.
Now now be fair, they do have brains but when they join the BNP they get expelled for having independent thoughts.
Take Spencer Pearson of Birmingham below as an example. He doesn't think the BNP forum very useful and wants to start his own, why? Is it because they're not allowed to discuss what they want on the undemocratic BNP forum? Don't BNP members get expelled for things like this? Do they post on Stormfront because such things are not allowed on the BNP forum and does anyone have more information on Spencer Pearson? He writes like he has some clout in the Griffin family business.
"brummie76
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Posts: 1,303
Re: How can I set up a private forum?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the advice people. I'll get on it.
SoD, I know that even private forums are not secure. However they should keep the causal opposition in the dark. As for the pros, well e-mails, phone calls, text messages are all the same to them. We are not terrorists and do not have anything to hide which they might be interested in.
Most nationalists are grafters, I work 55 hours per week on average (over time is not optional for truckers) making get togethers rare and I would rather spend that time actually doing something than talking about organisation and tactics. Nationalist groups need better communication systems in order to organize and share information. The lack of such communication systems severely limits the capabilities of front line units with organizing even a leafleting expedition involving dozens of calls, text messages and emails. Meetings are often adversely affected by un productive group dynamics. Private forums can do a lot to alleviate these problems. So long as their limitations are recognized.
If necessary forums discussion can use codes which require paper based keys to make sense. This can be as simple as "meet at location 3" which means nothing if you do not have the key."
Griffin has the last word on Jackson's challenge statement to prove what a cunt he really is. He also lies when he states people have signed to show the BNP is democratic and will be voting Griffin. We know they hate his guts and think him a dictatorial greedy grasping bastard.
Griffin...
The BNP under my leadership has been transformed from political irrelevance to electable household name. We’re standing record numbers of candidates and getting record votes. Our administration has advanced from being an amateur shambles to an organisation which, although not perfect, punches well above its weight.
Our financial accountability systems have been praised by the Electoral Commission as a model for other parties. While the other big parties are millions of pounds in the red, the BNP is in the black. Personally, I have faced and bested Establishment heavyweights such as John Humphreys, Jeremy Vine, Jonathan Dimbleby, Gavin Esler and Jeremy Paxman.
While I welcome the opportunity this election gives to obtain a mandate to continue to steer the BNP on its current uniquely successful course, I believe his ‘challenge’ is not only a grubby affair involving lies and baseless smears but would, if successful, plunge our party back into the political Stone Age; it is not a serious proposal for a different way to run a successful party, but the last gasp effort of the pre-1999 ‘old guard’ to drag us back to their extremist past, bungling amateurism and guaranteed failure.
Mr. Jackson’s statement while seeking nominations was that I am “unacceptable to the National Front” and to other tiny extreme groups, and hence a block to ‘nationalist unity’. Well, I am very happy to be ‘unacceptable’ to anti-social extremists – are they the kind of people with whom you wish to be associated, let alone ‘united’?
Mr. Jackson wants to return to the old policy of compulsory repatriation. I am sure this would be political suicide - utterly ‘unsaleable’ to the vast majority of British voters. It would put our members at even greater risk of persecution as ‘racists’. It would strip us of all legal protection under Human Rights laws.
We are doing very well with our present position – a party with indigenous British membership only, calling for a halt to all further immigration, the expulsion of all illegal immigrants, foreign criminals, asylum seekers and Muslim religious extremists, combined with a system of voluntary resettlement grants and an end to welfare sponging and discrimination against British whites.
I am determined to maintain the present membership qualifications and policies, steering a sensible course between the twin follies of powerless racist extremism and civic nationalist liberalism.
Having inherited a frankly dictatorial constitution, I have worked steadily to reform and democratise it. First by creating the Advisory Council, with the power to call an EGM if it feels the leader is acting wrongly, then by handing control and oversight of party finances to a separate treasury office.
The latest improvement is the Voting Membership system, which won overwhelming support at Annual Conference as the best way possible to put power and responsibility in the hands of the local officials and activists whose tireless efforts push the party forwards.
It is my intention to continue the careful transfer to the Voting Members of key powers, including over policy-making and mechanisms to hold the leader and treasury department to account. But such powers should only go to those who have demonstrably earned them. Why should Johnny Come Lately loudmouths or bar-room patriots have as much say in the running of the BNP as you who do the work?
I fear Mr. Jackson’s proposals would condemn our Party to the sort of ‘one armchair, one vote’ liberalism that doomed previous nationalist parties to endless factional splits. The superficially reasonable proposal of electing key officials is in fact particularly foolish, for it would in my opinion lead to perpetual plotting and scheming to get different factions’ nominees into powerful posts; it would paralyse the party’s administration and allow a future wave of liberal refugees from the Tory Party or UKIP to put forward candidates who might look good but who would not in fact have the faintest grasp of nationalist ideology or a shred of loyalty to our Cause.
The BNP already has fully legitimate status in British law as a properly registered party and ‘unincorporated association’. To switch to being a corporate body would be a disastrous error, not least because it would make the entire leadership, and potentially the whole membership, jointly and individually liable for debts or legal problems facing individual party members. This proposal would make the BNP an easy target for scheming opponents and money-grubbing lawyers.
There will arrive a time when my term as leader of the British National Party should come to an end, and when someone better for the job is available. But this is not it; I ask you to vote for me, for the team that has brought us to where we are today, and for the steady hand on the tiller that will yet take us closer to our destination and our destiny.
Nick Griffin M.A.(Hons) Cantab.
Leader, British National Party
Jackson...
LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE 2007
“A proper Party structure and Constitution”
The following gave their assent to this challenge: 5 Founder members, 2 Advisory Council members, 3 Councillors, 8 Branch Organisers, 20 Election candidates*.
Chris Jackson, is Chairman of the ‘Reform Group’ and is challenging for leadership of the British National Party. The ‘Reform Group’ came into being because many members, particularly established members, believed the Party was being run in an erratic way and some member were not renewing as a result. As a talking point, I believe, the current leader has, and the founder leader had, enormous talent in some directions but it seems none in others. This has meant the Party has not been developed in a balanced manner.
In particular, the Chairman authorises the spending of Party money. He also appoints the Treasurer and Auditor. This is I believe is quite contrary to established, prudent, practice. Further it should be noted that Nick Griffin was once declared bankrupt, though now discharged, no prudent organisation would allow someone with his history to be responsible for Party funds.
I also believe Nick Griffin appoints all Party officials and consequently, many are ‘yes’ men. As a result I believe, opinions, other than those of Nick Griffin, lead to dismissal from Party positions and even dismissal from the Party. Over the years Nick Griffin has held widely varying political views. This means, in my opinion, that his political judgement is very poor. It is my belief that he has made some serious errors in his appointment of personnel, most particularly the retaining of Tony Lecomber as a senior party official**.
I believe that the Party Constitution should be changed to one that is a recognisable as normal for a corporate body under English law.
In my view, the Party must have a proper structure. It must have a number of the key officials directly elected by the members, in particular, the offices of Vice Chairman and Party Treasurer must be directly elected. The Party Chairman would be bound to discuss and agree with the majority of the other elected officials, matters of policy and discipline.
The new Constitution will provide for a compulsory Annual General Meeting at which all paid up members are entitled to attend, propose resolutions and vote. We believe that the Party belongs to the members and that Party officials should be accountable to the members. This election gives members the chance to question the current leadership and management of the Party. However, we believe that the very short time allowed for this election is an attempt by the current Leader to stifle this process.
The Party must adopt a set of basic principles, for example the declaration that***:
1. Our homeland is the United Kingdom. No-one else can live permanently in our homeland.
2. We are an independent nation. We must leave the EU.
3. We want to live and be ruled by our traditional laws and customs.
“WE HOLD OUR LAND IN TRUST FROM OUR FOREFATHERS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDRENS’S CHILDREN.”
The Party should make an effort to unite all genuine nationalists into one party. Nick Griffin is unable to do this. He is an ex-chairman of the National Front and is now persona non-grata in that direction. Similarly, he is unacceptable to the Freedom Party, other nationalist groups and the many people who have left the Party either directly or indirectly because of him.
Lastly I would like to comment on the suggestion made by the current Leader that the Party is more successful than under the previous Leader. How can you compare starting a Party from scratch with taking over a Party already in existence? This is not like for like. Can having 50 councillors be regarded as a success for the current leadership bearing in mind the conditions in the country? I say no progress was made in the May elections – we lost 3 seats****. Is Nick Griffin offering more ‘success’ like this?
I pledge myself to see the reform of the Party on the above lines.
Chris Jackson,
Challenger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifications made by BNP Head of Administration, Kenny Smith and agreed to by Mr Jackson's Agent Mike Easter.
* A number of people who signed Mr Jackson’s nomination papers, key officials and ordinary member alike, have indicated that they did so purely because they believe that a leadership election is a good way for the BNP to prove its genuine commitment to democracy in all its forms. At the same time, they have also indicated that they will in fact be voting for Mr Griffin in the hope that his re-election with a resounding majority will “shame the other lot into shutting up.”
** Mr Lecomber is no longer an official or a member of the BNP
*** It is only fair that it should be clarified that the Party has a current ‘Statement of Principles’ which were last changed and adopted, as is laid out it its constitution, by an overwhelming majority at an Extraordinary General Members’ Meeting in March 2000. See below:
Section 1:2) The political objectives of the party are set out in the following Statement of Principles:-
(a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism, committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples.
(b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.
(c) The British National Party is pledged to the maintenance of a private-enterprise economy operating within a broad framework of national economic policy. It is opposed to international monopoly capitalism and to laissez-faire free trade and free movement of plant and capital. Social stability and contentment is best achieved by the many enjoying a personal stake in our society. Accordingly, we believe that private property should be encouraged and spread to as many individual members of our nation as possible. We recognise that Finance exists to serve the Nation and its industries rather than the other way around.
(d) The British National Party is implacably opposed to Marxism and liberal-capitalist globalism, which undermine our standard of living, human and ecological welfare, freedom and national identity.
(e) The British National Party stands for a policy of armed neutrality in international and military affairs. We are pledged to ensure that the lives of British servicemen are not risked in international quarrels in which no national interest of our own is at stake.
(f) The British National Party will introduce a Bill of Rights, establishing as absolute the right of all British people to effective freedom of speech, assembly and worship. The undemocratic power of the mass media and vested interest groups will be curbed by the introduction of a statutory right of reply and tougher penalties for corruption in public affairs. We favour a devolved, democratic system in which political decisions are made by ordinary citizens at the most local level of government possible. We are pledged to extend and rejuvenate democratic government by means of electronic media and Citizens’ Initiative referenda, and by returning to Parliament the powers that have been appropriated by the EU.
**** The BNP won 4 and lost 3 borough seats and over all we gained 32 and lost 8 at all levels.
Read Nick Griffin's statement here
http://www.bnp.org.uk/leadershipelection/
Post a Comment