Much information has been received by Lancaster UAF over the past week, the bulk of it concerning the Solidarity disaster, its unconstitutional and possibly illegal Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and the bizarre and very probably fraudulent election that led to putting Patrick Harrington and the BNP firmly in control of the breakaway Solidarity - the one we'll refer to as Solidarity B.First things first. If you've not been following the Solidarity fiasco, you're going to be easily confused, in which case you should check out some of our previous posts from June 22nd, June 25th, June 26th, July 5th, July 11th and July 17th.
It has been announced (and repeated ad nauseum) that the support for an EGM was overwhelming, with an excess of the two-thirds membership requirement voting in favour. We've now received five emails from members who have all reported that they never received a ballot paper at all, clearly indicating that there are one or two porkies being told. Based on past experience, we would suggest that the Griffin/Harrington camp are the liars.
The postal ballot itself was described as a 'nonsense', a 'farce' and a 'sham ballot' by a poster on the Stormfront nazi forum who said;
'The "voting paper" that i received was a nonsense. there was no number to the slip and no way of proving who was sending in the slip, and who would count them and how. It was a farce reminiscent of a Zimbabwean election...'
Indeed it was. There was no independent officer to oversee the process, nobody except Griffin and Harrington to send out the ballots, no tellers to count the votes, no indication of how many voted for, against or abstained, nor was there any proof that any ballot papers had been sent out at all.
All the information we have received indicates that the EGM was attended by just fifteen to twenty members - at least we assume they were all members - and a number of heavies, presumably to keep out the riff-raff like the rightful President and Vice-President of Solidarity, Clive Potter and Tim Hawke.
From this fifteen to twenty in attendance, seven were chosen to represent the Executive Committee and one, Graham Williamson, was clearly put in post as the union's public relations guru - despite the fact that he has no experience of public relations at all. More on Williamson here. Near as dammit half of those who attended then, went along in the sure and certain knowledge that they would be voted into a position of some authority - assuming we concede that the Solidarity B union has any authority at all, which we don't.
Whether you like them or loathe them, unions are rightly famed for one single thing - their strict adherence to the rules of the union, or the Constitution. The Constitution of any union is sacrosanct and no member or officer would consider breaking any part of it or bypassing it. A change in a union's Constitution will only be carried out (generally) at the Annual General Meeting.
Part of the problem with Solidarity B is that there is already a Solidarity union (Solidarity A) in place complete with a properly drawn-up and agreed Constitution. Harrington deciding, for whatever reason, that Solidarity A is not for him, and running off and forming Solidarity B, is, whatever way you care to look at it, entirely unconstitutional.
Disregarding all the convoluted facts and outright lies that have been told about the Solidarity split, the simple fact is that it was reported that Tim Hawke and Clive Potter had problems with Patrick Harrington's version of the accounts. It's worth remembering that that is what started the whole Solidarity fiasco off. Harrington then promptly denied the bona-fide President and Vice-President of Solidarity access to the Paypal account which holds the union's funds (in other words, the member's fees that were paid to the properly constituted Solidarity), and denied them access to the membership list and the union website.
With Nick Griffin's collaboration, he hastily presented his version of events and the wheels were put in motion for an entirely unconstitutional EGM. He also announced (again with the BNP's help) the establishment of three new Solidarity (B) websites, announcing repeatedly that they were the proper sites to visit. You'll note that Griffin and the BNP is prominent in this mess but only on Harrington's side. So much for the BNP's belief in fair play and (excuse my laughter) democratic values.
Just my opinion but all this has a distinct taste of cover-up and, rather more importantly, fraud.
Since Harrington's rapid departure from Solidarity A, the internet has been awash with lies and misinformation about Hawke and Potter. They did nothing to present the union as professional, they did nothing at all, they didn't want to see a membership campaign, they didn't want a stall at the BNP's Red, White and Blue event, that they were 'State-controlled', that they were part of a 'far-left' plot etc etc. Anything, in fact, to discredit them in the eyes of the membership - repeated by Harrington and the BNP in the clear hope that if it's repeated often enough, it'll be believed.
Though we're reluctant as a rule to credit anyone on the far-right with any decency at all, Potter and Hawke have generally maintained a dignified silence throughout this disaster, quietly working in the background maintaining their union and sticking to the Constitution rigorously. Having said that, we believe that Solidarity - both versions - should be barred from becoming a bona-fide trade union when they are patently not a trade union, simply a support group for so-called nationalists run by a combination of the NF, the ITP and the BNP - all of them arguably fascist groups.
Following, as far as we can see, the proper procedure, Potter and Hawke eventually expelled Harrington. The letter of expulson is enlightening and well worth a read;
'With reference to an Extraordinary Executive Meeting held on the 8th July 2007 I inform you that you have been instantly expelled from the Union due to gross, unacceptable behaviour in your refusal to accept your suspension dated 3rd of June 2007.
Your refusal to accept an investigation of your irregular behaviour regarding union funds, and still refusing to comply with the Official Union Executive in these concerns is no longer sustainable.
Also the other main reasons for expulsion from the union are as followed:
1. Hijacking the unions website and claiming you were illegally suspended from your office – which is false. In this matter you can refer to the Union Constitution on the following
Section 1 (b), Section 7 (a), Section 8 (a) (b), Section 12 (c) – specifically.
Section 12 (e) – specifically.
Section 14 (a) – specifically unless you appeal – no executive member is subject to the same rules as its members.
Section 15 (a) – your refusal to accept an investigation by the Executive through their nomination of a Special Auditor on this matter.
Section 19 (d) – your long-term refusal to submit the books to the Unions Head Office.
2. Bringing the Unions Governing Body and the Union into Gross Disrepute by working with the BNP leadership to undermine their independence and hijacking the unions website by their abuse of relationship of this union in this matter.
3. Manipulation of Account with regards to your apparent transfer of £700 from the main HSBC Solidarity Account to a Business account, many days after you were notified of your suspension.
4. Stating on Union Accounts that their was a loan to a member of £150 which is not true as the loan was given to the union, not the other way round.
You have gone to extreme lengths to circumscribe being investigated by this union, to such a degree that you issue publicly gross malicious and false lies, concerning the actions of this governing body in your suspension. You falsely claim that we are duped, by several Marxists, and we look forward to you naming such ghosts. These malicious and false lies will be in due course answered at an appropriate time.
This union’s Executive in the position of President and Vice-President take great umbrage to the false use of our Names in your illegal use of the unions website and request you stop this at once. In any serious professional union the processes of its governing body and its relationship with members, is clearly defined, in its constitution, which ours also reflects in this matter. You have totally disrupted and attempted to destroy this good order and discipline of the union in such matters and brought it into Gross Disrepute. On these grounds alone let alone other serious charges, no serious professional union could allow such a destructive personality, which you are, to exist within its body in any capacity. On this ground alone you are immediately expelled from this union on these charges.
Please note that you have SEVEN days from the date of receipt of this letter to appeal and present any claims that you believe is illegal in your expulsion on these grounds.'
Assuming points 3 and 4 to be correct, these seem to me (as a person with no formal legal training but with a reasonable sense of right and wrong) to be criminal in nature and one wonders whether this has yet been passed on to the police. Rumour has us believe that it has but, if not, we have to ask ourselves why not?
There are now two unions claiming the name Solidarity. There are people who will join one simply because they loathe the people involved in the other. Griffin, in yet another attempt to deflect any well-deserved humiliation at his unwarranted interference, will try to persuade the BNP membership to switch to the Harrington/BNP coalition Solidarity, then will claim the takeover as a huge success leaving many members less than happy. One Stormfront poster expressed his disatisfaction with Nick Griffin's unwanted interference thus;
'...no leader should be free of criticism and I must say that criticism here is well-deserved. He has made a very flawed judgement and a crucial error in regards to assisting the hi-jacking of this Solidarity Union. By allying himself with an old National Front comrade over his own members and destroying any concept of decency, truth, right and constitution then he has sadly behaved dishonorably and unlawfully. He has given his enemies, both on the Right and on the Left, the ammunition that they need. He is now a damaged man who has shown his weakness and ineptude and his failure of leadership. This is very sad for someone like myself who truly believed and followed Nick Griffin, who still admires his achievements and his talents, but has seen his followers betrayed.'
The Solidarity fiasco started off as something of a joke which has descended rapidly into a farce. Considering the union has only existed for roughly a year and a half, its short life has been plagued with chaos (as is relatively normal for anything involving the BNP) and the only sensible thing to do is to put it out of its misery. Consequently, we would like people to write to the Certifications Officer, asking for an investigation of the union(s) and the appalling mess in which it seems to have got itself. A decent investigation by an outside body might uncover a lot more than just interference from Nick Griffin and co. It wouldn't hurt to send a copy or separate letter/email to the TUC, the Trade and Industry Secretary (now the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) and your local MP too. Addresses below. It's time to shut this rubbish down before ordinary people start getting sucked into it because someone tells them Solidarity is a great union. It isn't. It's crap and it needs to go.
David Taylor
Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers' Associations
Brandon House, 180 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LW
Tel: 020 7210 3734
Fax: 020 7210 3612
CERT@certoffice.org
Trades Union Congress
Congress House
Great Russell Street
London
WC1B 3LS
Tel: 020 7636 4030
Fax: 020 7636 0632
No email? Shameful.
Rt Hon John Hutton MP
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
22 Hartington Street, Barrow in Furness, Cumbria LA14 5SL
Telephone: 01229 431204
Fax: 01229 432016
huttonj@parliament.uk
You can find out who your local MP is and write to him/her here.
36 comments:
What a bloody joke Solidarity and the BNP are. I'll write to the addresses you listed tonight.
If the police are going to be involved I wish they'd get a move on and finally put a stop to all this. At this rate, both the unions could survive for years.
"Harrington then promptly denied the bona-fide President and Vice-President of Solidarity access to the Paypal account which holds the union's funds (in other words, the member's fees that were paid to the properly constituted Solidarity), and denied them access to the membership list and the union website."
Seems to me theres grounds for an enquiry by the police right there.
"It's time to shut this rubbish down before ordinary people start getting sucked into it because someone tells them Solidarity is a great union. It isn't. It's crap and it needs to go."
LOL Don't beat around the bush. say what you mean.
"...simply a support group for so-called nationalists run by a combination of the NF, the ITP and the BNP"
I don't think the first two groups have any involvement, probably not even as individual members?. Even the BNP rehgard them as extreme!
'I don't think the first two groups have any involvement, probably not even as individual members?. Even the BNP rehgard them as extreme!'
Isn't Harrington ITP? And aren't Potter, Harrington and Griffin ALL ex-NF? And I'm pretty sure none of them moved away from the NF because it was too extreme.
Even the BNP rehgard them as extreme!
Yeah right!
Harrington is a member of the Third Way, never a member of the ITP as far as I know, though he was in Political Soldier with Griffin.
Whoops, brain's dissolving. Must be old age.
This is up on stormfront
"Green Arrow says:
'In a war you need three things. Money, money and money.'
No, Green Arrow. What you need is Honesty, Decency and then Money.
The hijacked Solidarity Union now has the latter.
It seems to be sorely lacking in the first two.
Green Arrow also accuses the Official Solidarity of being 'brown shirts' (groan)
The actual Brownshirts my dear Mr Green Arrow were Nazi thugs who smashed up German trade unions, stole property, hijacked institutions and rigged elections.
Mmmmm.... sounds a bit like what has happened to the Solidarity trade union.
As regards Mr Grren Arrow celebrating the fact that 000s of Solidarity members' money will now be in the hands of a nationalist party... you really do show your true colours. So Mr Grren Arrow - you are now condoning the theft and acquistion of funds belonging to a legitimate and independent trade union going to a political party? This is not what Solidarity was for. Yes, I understand that it was going to support the BNP ( and other nationalist organisations in their endeavours), but the fact that a political party (no matter what tendency it represents) is channelling the funds of trade union members into it speaks of fraud and gross intereference. And where exactly do you think that money would end up...? I dare say not with the BNP members. 'Nuff said...
And in response to the other posting all I can say is that as far as I am aware Solidarity was itself began as a trade union by the BNP and was supportive of the BNP, but in order to function in the real world it had to be independent. That is why it has its own constitution, elections, governing body and AGMs.
The fact is that Mr Griffin did not trust Potter and Hawke to run Solidarity in the interests of the BNP (read 'Mr Griffin's interests'). Solidarity was conceived by Griffin as a money-making machine for his own speculative purposes and when Potter and Hawke did not play ball with corruption they had to go.
Hence we saw the hijacking of Solidarity by Harrington with Griffin pulling all the levers of power to enable that coup to take place, topped off with a nice little 'EGM' to make it look legitimate.
But legitimate it ain't."
The ITP might share a number with the Third Way but little else.
The Third Way is multi-racist and, like their new political party, liberal. He can stay where he is.
"3. Manipulation of Account with regards to your apparent transfer of £700 from the main HSBC Solidarity Account to a Business account, many days after you were notified of your suspension.
4. Stating on Union Accounts that their was a loan to a member of £150 which is not true as the loan was given to the union, not the other way round."
Griffin wrote out a BNP cheque for £1000 to Solidarity toward start-up costs. It bounced.
When will BNP members realise that Griffin is a greedy thieving lying dictator? I take back everything I said before about BNP members not being stupid.
You're all fucking brain-dead.
And, when are we going to get more info on Griffin and Lecombers drug deals in the 80's/90's? I'm hearing there was an amphetamine factory being run out of a farmhouse and money laundered through Spanish PO Boxes.A man called Frank Forte is alleged to have been involved as well.
Anyone got any more on this?
I wonder how you lot sleep at night.
All this intrigue and speculation.
It must drive you bonkers!
'I wonder how you lot sleep at night.
All this intrigue and speculation.
It must drive you bonkers!'
If we did nothing at all about the BNP and other similar scum we'd certainly have trouble sleeping. Listening to Nick Griffin speeches is the best sedative out there!
You are very deluded individuals. You can refer to Solidarity a, b, c -z but there is only one Solidarity and that is led by our General Secretary, Pat Harrington. Potter/Hawke/McLinden may whinge and whine as much as they like about their loss of control of all the key levers of power within the Union. Harrington is backed by the membership and will deal with them and you in due course.
We will deal with any complaints patiently and professionally. You and your allies Potter/Hawke/McLinden will be revealed for the fools you are.
'Harrington is backed by the membership and will deal with them and you in due course.'
Harrington is backed by Griffin and his acolytes - for the moment. As soon as he is of no more use, he'll be dropped and you know it.
'...and will deal with them and you in due course.'
That sounds like a threat to me.
[b]4. Stating on Union Accounts that their was a loan to a member of £150 which is not true as the loan was given to the union, not the other way round.[/b]
There has been an interesting development on this point. Potter has now written to Harrington withdrawing this allegation. The Certification Office have put him right on his misinterpretation of the £150 in the accounts submitted to the CO. Harrington seems to be vindicated on this point. Read the whole story on www.solidarityunion.org under the amusing page title, Solidarity Progress News.
In the course of communications we were informed that the £150 loan had been accurately recorded. Consequently, the President has since written to Mr Harrington stating that this reason for his dismissal has been revoked as stated in a letter dispatched to him.
the £150 is transparent within the accounts and the confusion arising from the information submitted on the AR21 has been clarified and resolved.
Consequently, that particular reason for your dismissal has now been removed and an amended dismissal letter is attached for your information.
The Union’s Executive apologises to you for the error incurred. As regrettable as this matter is the lack of information given to the accounts by yourself and your lack of co-operation to the investigation caused this situation to occur.
However, all the other charges as outlined in the attached letter pertaining to your expulsion still stand.
This really undermines the foundations of Potter's first claims about Harrington. It looks to me that he had decided to dump Harrington and was looking for any plausible excuse. Any thoughts or comments?
Nick Griffin has expelled Clive Potter.
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION:
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF SOLIDARITY GENERAL SECRETARY/TREASURER MR PATRICK HARRINGTON
BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF SOLIDARITY TRADE UNION
PREAMBLE
The 33 page report now published was commissioned by the governing Executive Committee (EC) of Solidarity Trade Union on 3 June 2007 and completed in July 2007.
Solidarity was founded in late 2005 by Mr Clive Potter who had been politically discriminated against by UNISON, who subsequently expelled him for membership of the British National Party.
The Solidarity formation team comprised Mr Clive Potter, Mr Lee Barnes and Mr John Walker (the latter subsequently resigned due to pressure of work and his post of Treasurer was assumed by Mr Harrington on 1 November 2006).
Mr Patrick Harrington (Third Way/National Liberal Party) was invited on to the team in early 2006 after recommendations from the leadership of the BNP. The embryonic Union was registered by the Certification Office in February 2006 and by the spring of 2006 Mr Harrington had been appointed as the Vice-President and Mr Potter as the President.
In August 2006 Mr Tim Hawke was invited onto the management team, bringing with him invaluable IT skills, and assuming the role of Vice-President and with Mr Harrington requesting the appointment of General Secretary.
On 1 November 2006 after the resignation of Mr John Walker the post of Treasurer was temporarily given to Mr Harrington.
In February 2007 Solidarity held it first AGM and formally appointed Mr Potter in the post of President, Mr Hawke as Vice-President and Mr Harrington as General Secretary.
It was shortly prior to the AGM that the President requested that the accounts be made available to the EC. These were not forthcoming at the time.
EVENTS SUMMARY
Requests for the accounts to be submitted by Mr Harrington continued from both the President and the Vice-President but Mr Harrington refused to do so and continually gave excuses as to why they were not being submitted.
In April Mr Harrington requested that he be provided with a laptop computer, ostensibly for official Union business. The President refused this request as the Union did not have sufficient funds and should not be seen providing officers with equipment from members’ funds. Since February 2007 Mr Harrington had been receiving a payment of £75 per month which was initially for expenses as at the time he was dealing with administration. Mr Harrington assured the EC that he would be providing receipts.
By March Mr Potter and Mr Hawke had decided to assume responsibility for administration and the President requested several times to stop the £75 per month payment. Mr Harrington delayed this and in discussions concerning his laptop PC stated that he would relinquish receipt of the monthly payment in return for the PC. The £75 monthly payment was only stopped on 1 May.
In the week prior to Easter 2007 both the President and Vice-President were summoned by BNP Chairman Mr Nick Griffin to meet in Shrewsbury, ostensibly to discuss the progress of Solidarity. Instead Mr Griffin requested that they submit to the demands of Mr Harrington (who was a former political colleague from the National Front), and that this was necessary in order to retain the political support of Mr Harrington’s own organisation (Third Way/National Liberal Party) to further the aims and objectives of the BNPs strategy. This political deal had apparently been consummated at Mr Harrington’s Edinburgh home when work on a BNP leaflet to counteract TUC anti-BNP propaganda was negotiated between the two individuals. Furthermore, Mr Griffin also revealed that Mr Harrington also demanded that he retain his £75 monthly payment from Solidarity plus an additional £100 monthly payment so as to enable Mr Harrington to conduct his own political work for both the Third Way and for the BNP, writing articles for BNP publications in return for payment since Mr Griffin had expressed a concern that material of insufficient quality was being published in BNP literature such as ‘Identity’.
After a protracted discussion after the meeting both the President and Vice-President agreed that the demands were totally unacceptable and contrary both to the spirit and practice of Solidarity and its Constitution and values. Furthermore, both officers would have been legally complicit in involving the Union in corrupt practices if they had agreed.
The President was deeply disturbed that an officer of the Union had bypassed the EC of the Union and attempted to procure property and funds by appealing to the leader of a political party in which the President was a member. This attempt at political blackmail was met with deep concern and a verbal confrontation over the telephone over Easter ensued between the President and the General Secretary.
Due to excessive Union commitments on the President and the fact that the Vice-President lacked political and union experience the matter was suspended.
Mr Harrington was of the belief that he could play the Vice-President off against the President and Mr Harrington informed the Vice-President that he would oust the President in due time, and on one occasion stated that "it is us two (Mr Harrington and Mr Hawke) running this Union"). Mr Harrington meanwhile deliberately bypassed the function of the President and failed to keep him in the loop over discussions, initiatives and work that he was doing or planning. At a later date in April Mr Harrington stated his intention to Mr Hawke to have early elections and to replace the President with someone of his own choice.
For the Vice-President the final straw came with the need to have the annual accounts submitted to the regulatory body - the Certification Office. These were required by 1 June. Again, further requests by the EC to Mr Harrington for the accounts went ignored. Furthermore, at the EC meeting of the 20 May Mr Harrington showed the EC copies of his Bulletin that was rejected by the EC, yet Mr Harrington ignored the will of the EC and published it.
The President requested that Mr Harrington relinquish the role of Treasurer due to his incompetence and evasive behaviour regarding the accounts. This was refused by Mr Harrington on account that he had been elected at the AGM (but not by a postal vote, which was required at the latest by February 2008). The President and Vice-President pointed out that when the vote was taken at the AGM it was made clear that this was only a temporary measure until a suitable individual could be found. It was totally unacceptable that an officer should hold the post of General Secretary. This did not demonstrate financial transparency of the Union. It also showed that the trust the EC placed on Mr Harrington had proven fatal.
The President was already preparing disciplinary proceedings against Mr Harrington for the BNP debacle at Easter and for his refusal to step down as Treasurer and for his failure to submit accounts.
The final straw for the Vice-President occurred when Mr Harrington failed to submit the accounts in good time despite repeated request by both the President and the Vice-President, and consequently having to seek an external accountant to do the books. This action was not discussed at EC level and was not approved by the EC. Furthermore, Mr Harrington failed to obtain the necessary three quotes before any service or goods could be purchased on behalf of the Union, contrary to good practice, and neither was any provision given for accounts to be done other than in-house. Furthermore, a fee of several hundreds of pounds was expected in return for the accounting.
On 20 May 2007 an Executive Meeting was held and it was clear that Mr Harrington had not prepared the accounts and did not provide any receipts either. He attempted to justify his actions of calling in an accountant as the accounts were required by 1 June by the regulatory body. We were assured that the accounts would be submitted in time.
Towards the end of then EC meeting the President made it very clear that he was dissatisfied at the failure of financial transparency and the fact that an expensive accountant was being called in to do what should have been a very quick job as we were a new union and there had been few transactions carried out. Furthermore, the President expressed his anger and deep concern that Mr Harrington had bypassed the authority of the EC and attempted to blackmail the EC by appealing over the heads of the President and the Vice-President to Mr Griffin of the BNP. Mr Harrington attempted to justify his actions and felt there was nothing wrong in his actions as he did not receive his PC or money. The President demanded that the EC would be taking immediate executive action over this matter and that an investigation would ensue.
Shortly after the EC meeting a member of the Union emailed both Mr Harrington and the EC requesting to see the accounts. Mr Harrington as Treasurer failed to provide this material, in direct contravention of the Union’s Constitution and also the law as stated in section 30 of the Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992.
Just days before the deadline of the submission of the accounts Mr Harrington was still delaying them and just one day before their submission telephoned the Vice-President that he needed to meet with him to get the AR21 Annual Accounts Form signed by another EC officer. This was not possible as there had been no advance notice given of this by Mr Harrington and in fact Mr Hawke was busy that particular weekend. Plus the 32 page document needed to be read and analysed and there were still no receipts provided. Mr Harrington attempted to pressurise the Vice-President by insisting that he sign the accounts and threatened legal consequences from the regulatory body if he failed to do so. It was evident that this was a tactic by Mr Harrington to force the Vice-President into a position whereby he had to quickly sign the accounts without seeing the receipts or studying the form carefully.
The President fully supported the actions of the Vice-President in this matter. The following week Mr Harrington managed to secure an extension by the Certification Office and then sent the AR21 form to the Vice-President.
There were no receipts attached and neither were there any bank statements to verify the accounts. Yet they had been countersigned by two people, neither of whom could be considered as independent as one was a BNP administrative officer and the other was a former National Front colleague of Mr Harrington’s. If neither of them had sight of the receipts and bank statements then one must question their declaration too.
After the 3 June Special Investigations Meeting the Vice-President – who was at the time in possession of the AR21 form – was placed under pressure from the Chairman of the BNP, Mr Griffin, to get the accounts signed and submitted to the Certification Office. His refusal to do so at the time because of the lack of documentary evidence to support them earned him the smear of being a ‘leftist’ infiltrator by the likes of the suspended Mr Harrington (later went on to hijack the Solidarity web site with the assistance of Mr Griffin) and Mr Griffin (who authorised a BNP web item supporting Mr Harrington’s takeover bid of the Union and smearing the official EC).
On 3 June the EC had to hold an extraordinary EC meeting under the aegis of a Special Executive Meeting where it suspended Mr Harrington due to serious allegations of misconduct and misuse of Union funds pending an investigation. In his place to assume a full quorum a Solidarity member, Mr William McLinden, who possessed much trade union experience in dealing with union corruption, took his place on a temporary basis. He was also appointed as a Special Investigator and Special Auditor to assist the EC in its investigation of Mr Harrington.
Mr Harrington was informed by the President of his suspension on 3 June by telephone and this was followed up by a recorded delivery letter immediately.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Investigation was conducted by then EC and relied on analysing existing information as to whether Mr Harrington had broken any rules of the Union’s Constitution. The Investigation was hampered by the fact that Mr Harrington refused to recognise his suspension and failed to co-operate in the investigation.
It is clear from the Investigations Report that Mr Harrington has behaved in a manner totally unacceptable as an officer of a trade union. He has acted with intrigue, a political agenda of that of the Third Way and attempted to assume total authority over the Union and in contempt of the governing EC of the Union.
Mr Harrington has been exposed as having breached the Union’s Constitution on several issues. These can be summarised below;
1) Failure to record the business of the meetings and submitting minutes (contrary to section 12 (b) and (g)
2) Acting without the consent and approval of the EC in publishing material.
This includes such issues as the recent Bulletins starting in May 2007 when he attempted to force the EC to hold early elections, using phraseology that contradicted the values and aims of the Union (eg that the Union was opposed to cheap non-unionised migrant labour, not cheap migrant labour), and attempting to damage the independence of the Union by associating it too closely with the BNP and involving it in sectarian issues in attempting to promote the Union with the July 12th Orange Parades in Ulster and mainland.
This was in breach of section 8 (a) in wilfully exposing the Union to disrepute.
3) Failure to submit the Union’s accounts in a timely manner at the request of the EC and of a member.
This was a persistent and very serious issue as it showed that Mr Harrington was attempting to hide possible inaccurate accounts. The financial affairs of a union are of serious concern and since Solidarity was set up to fight union corruption and to act as a beacon of nationalist values the EC had grave responsibility top ensure that financial transparency was maintained at all times.
Mr Harrington’s serious and persistent actions were in clear breach of sections 12 (g) – requirement to keep transactions open and to provide information to any request and 17 (b) – to provide financial statements to the EC.
4) Attempt to procure and misappropriate Union property and funds.
Mr Harrington’s abortive attempt to extort a laptop PC and monies from membership funds of the Union by bypassing the EC and appealing to the leader of a political party, namely Mr Griffin of the British National Party, was in gross violation of the Union’s Constitution and of the values and principles of both the Union and nationalism in general.
This was in clear and direct breach of section 8 (a) – bringing the Union into disrepute, and also in section 6 (a) – attempting to misappropriate Union funds.
5) Misrepresentation of Union funds on AR21 Annual Returns.
Mr Harrington wilfully misrepresented the date of his appointment as Treasurer by stating it as 30 December 2006, just one day of the period of responsibility as the accounts relate to year ending 31 December 2006. In fact Harrington assumed the role of Treasurer on 1 November 2006 (evidenced by a resolution document given to HSBC bank to enable Harrington to act as Treasurer).
Since the Investigation Report was written the EC has received certain documentary material from Mr Harrington in the form of bank statements and some receipts for year ending 31 December 2006. These reveal at the very least some questions of serious concern.
The £200.00 "cash in hand" is not accounted for. Without access to the accounts and receipts from 1 January 2007 the EC are unable to determine where this money is and what it has been spent on. Mr Harrington has consistently refused to show these accounts to the EC despite repeated requests to do so. The EC can only look at this evidence and make the assumption that Mr Harrington is attempting to conceal a false account.
A cheque (No 10002) dated 15 November 2006 of £100.00 was made out by Mr Harrington and has no documentary evidence as to what it was for.
A cheque dated 17 August 2006 (No 100101) that the President wrote out for Mr Harrington (Mr Harrington was not then a signatory to the account) for £200.00 is to date undetermined .It was written out for ‘mail-outs’ but Mr Harrington has so far failed to provide receipts for this business. There are various receipts totalling £25.56 for an assortment of postage so that leaves a figure of £174.44 of this £200.00 unaccounted for.
Furthermore, there is a figure of £74.00 for printing costs for which there are no receipts provided.
Since the publication of this Report and Summary it has since been established from the Trade Union Certification Office that an amount of £150 that had apparently been recorded as a loan and not as a liability on the AR21 Accounts Form, has now been satisfactorily accounted for. It was in fact a liability to the Union and the Executive has apologised to Mr Harrington for this error, notwithstanding that it was understandable considering the lack of financial information from Mr Harrington .
Since the publication of the Investigations Report there was no time to incorporate the findings of the analysis of the Solidarity bank statements received from HSBC bank within the last few days. Unfortunately, the EC has no access to any of the receipts – if they exist at all – retained by Mr Harrington in his role as Treasurer.
There are four payments of £75 from 1 February -1 May, ostensibly for administrative expenses which were paid directly into Mr Harrington’s personal bank account, although Mr Harrington did provide a document requesting that the expenses be paid into an account under his "married name of Sharpe".
There are several cash payments that are documented but again without receipts or cheque stubs the EC cannot make a judgement as to the authenticity of these payments.
They include a cash payment of £200.00 dated 18 January 2007 and another cash payment of £160.00 dated 19 April 2007, as well as several cheque payments undocumented due to lack of receipts.
On 7 June 2007- only 4 days after Harrington was advised by telephone and letter of his suspension - an amount of £700.00 was mysteriously transferred to the Solidarity Business Money Manager Account and then £200.00 of that money was then transferred back to the Solidarity Community Account. This was done illegally whilst Harrington had been suspended as an official of Solidarity and without the approval or indeed knowledge of the EC. Such illegal transfer of funds from one account another without the approval or knowledge of the EC whilst Harrington was already suspended beggars belief. One can only speculate on the motives of the individual in question for a transfer of a sum of money that large.
Mr Harrington’s attempt to procure unauthorised professional accounting and in delaying the accounts for the regulatory body and then attempting to coerce the Vice-President into signing the accounts off on the final day prior to 1 June through pressure of time and threatening legal consequences if he failed – these are all serious matters of financial wrongdoing and showed a complete lack of competency and/or financial corruption cover-up.
Mr Harrington’s inaccurate accounting and wilful failure to provide receipts at the time (and incomplete receipts when he finally does so) is either evidence of total incompetence or of wilful corruption, or both.
Either way Mr Harrington’s actions in these regards is in clear breach of the Union’s Constitution, namely sections 8 (a) – bringing the Union into disrepute, fraudulently misapplying funds.
Also section 17 (b) has been broken where Mr Harrington has failed to provide financial statements to the EC.
6) Mr Harrington’s actions since his suspension have made it immediately obvious that he has committed a gross act of betrayal to the Union and carried out acts of gross misconduct contrary to the good Order and Discipline of the Union.
On 18 June the official Solidarity web site had been hijacked by Mr Harrington since he was working closely with Mr Griffin and the web host provider – ‘Noisy Dinosaur’ run by an individual known as ‘Bep’.
Then on the 20 June a new web site had been created and the EC were unable to gain access to their site. At the same time Mr Griffin had authorised a news item on the BNP web site stating that there had been an ‘unconstitutional attempt to remove Mr Harrington’ and that it was the work of ‘leftist infiltrators’. The same news item appeared on the new usurped Solidarity web site and it was evident that the BNP item had been lifted from the one written by Harrington on the Union web site.
Previous to the BNP web item going online the President had received pressure from Mr Griffin to sign the Union AR21 accounts and to assist in distancing himself from the official EC, as well as to assist in ‘BNP enquiries’. The President refused but attempted to demonstrate to Mr Griffin that there was no ‘leftist’ plot and that Mr Harrington was officially suspended because of serious allegations of misconduct and that the BNP should not be involved in the internal affairs of a Union that was supposed to be independent. Mr Griffin refused to accept these arguments and supported Mr Harrington in his illegal takeover coup of Solidarity, supporting an illegal EGM to be held on 14 July.
Such an EGM requires the support of the EC and as there is only Mr Harrington ( who is in any case suspended) calling for an EGM the matter is inquorate and therefore unconstitutional.
Mr Harrington’s hijacking of the web site; his attempts to freeze Solidarity accounts; his creation of a new PO Box; his issuing of illegal Bulletins and web articles; his publishing of false and defamatory material about the EC members and promoting his illegal takeover of the Union; his operation of a fraudulent and illegal Paypal account to procure members’ money; and his illegal use of a personal email address for union business are all indicative of Mr Harrington’s gross misconduct.
These actions clearly contravene sections 8 (a) – members conduct likely to bring the Union into disrepute and fraudulently receiving funds.
Section 13 (f) – failure to manage the Union funds and obtaining benefits by false pretences and engaging in political activity which is detrimental to the interests of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, or for other actions which in the opinion of the EC are detrimental to Solidarity’s interests.
CONCLUSIONS
The Investigation commissioned by the EC of Solidarity has uncovered many instances of Mr Harrington’s misconduct that shows a clear contempt for the authority of the EC and a desire to assume total control of the Union.
The fact that previous to May Mr Harrington had shown a contempt for the BNP and had no desire to be closely associated with the BNP or of its officers show that Mr Harrington has a lust for power, and is able to assume a chameleon approach to politics in order to serve self-interest first.
The fact that Mr Harrington’s motive seems to involve self-interest and a pursuit of self-enrichment again demonstrates that he sees the Union as a vehicle of earning money from its members.
His unwillingness to submit to the authority of the EC and the Constitution of the Union led him to fall back on the support of his former political colleague of the National Front, the Chairman of the British National Party, Mr Griffin. For reasons as yet unclear it would seem that Mr Griffin betrayed the loyalty of BNP members and supporters and chose to lodge his proactive support with Mr Harrington, effectively enabling Mr Harrington to takeover the Union whilst he was suspended. Without Mr Griffin’s help Mr Harrington was impotent, and Mr Griffin’s bizarre behaviour towards Hr Harrington ensured that Solidarity’s Constitution was broken and the EC bypassed as the Union was hijacked illegally and a new parallel Solidarity was set up with illegal accounts, web site and PO Box.
It is matter of record that Patrick Harrington has been involved in previous political intrigue and splits within nationalist organisations, and this factionalism seems to have continued into the establishment of a nationalist trade union. Mr Harrington was invited on to the management board of the fledgling Union (recommendation from the BNP Chairman) and this trust has been fatally reneged upon.
The EC has shown conclusively that a core number of six areas have been identified as having been examples of gross misconduct by Mr Patrick Harrington.
In these six core areas the EC have identified clear and blatant breaches of the Union’s Constitution, in the main sections 6 (a), 8 (a), 12 (b) and 12 (g), 13 (f) and 17 (b).
Both Mr Harrington and Mr Griffin have asserted that the EC were unable to conduct their investigations into Mr Harrington.
Clearly the Executive Meeting on 20 May was quorate and Mr Harrington was informed of an investigation and the charges. At a Special Executive Meeting on 3 June the President and Vice-President were sufficiently concerned by the evidence to suspend Mr Harrington and then to fulfil the quorate of the EC by appointing a temporary Acting General Secretary. All quorates are organic and evolve in line with the EC where membership may be lost as a result of death, illness or suspension.
The EC had every right under its own Constitution to suspend Mr Harrington and to investigate it as under its Constitution it has the right to do so – sections 6 (a) ( any member can be barred or dismissed if guilty of misappropriation or attempted misappropriation of Union funds or property); 8 (a) (members may be suspended or expelled if they have brought the Union into disrepute, fraudulently received or misapplied the funds of the Union); 8 (b) (members who are charged with a disciplinary offence may be suspended); 13 (f) (the EC has the power to suspend, dismiss or remove from office members obtaining benefits by false pretences); and 14 (a) (the EC may suspend or dismiss any Solidarity officer in cases of misconduct).
The EC of Solidarity takes very seriously any attempt by a suspended officer or an outside agency to interfere with the legal and democratic processes of a trade union. Attempts to do so represent a clear case of gross corruption and political vandalism. Any such constitutional sabotage by a political party or external agency in the internal affairs of another organisation such as Solidarity represents illegal and unethical activity and, when that activity is in defence of an individual who has been charged with corrupt practices, the suggestion that there are deeper and more sinister corrupt forces involved are raised. This issue will be the subject of a further EC investigation which will again be published as part of its remit to root out and expose corrupt practices.
The Executive Committee of Solidarity with the power invested within it from its AGM in February 2007 when it was ratified and its Constitution accepted do present this Investigations Report into the conduct of its suspended General Secretary/Treasurer Mr Patrick Harrington.
Under the terms of its Constitution section 2 (e) the EC have to publish the results of its investigations and it is hoped that this Report and its Summary will be published widely to ensure that its members have access to its contents, which will show that the official EC of Solidarity is resisting all forms of union corruption.
STOP PRESS
The publication of this Report and Summary was delayed until closure of balloting for the BNP leadership election.
This decision was taken so as to prevent the BNP Chairman and the expelled General Secretary, Patrick Harrington, from attempting to claim that the investigation and its report were part of a plot against Mr Griffin.
Publishing the Report and Summary after the polls have closed will show that the Solidarity Executive is not associated with either camp involved in the BNP leadership election.
The investigation of Mr Patrick Harrington and its investigation were instigated solely to determine the allegations concerning Mr Harrington and any disciplinary action that was necessary.
At a later date in April Mr Harrington stated his intention to Mr Hawke to have early elections and to replace the President with someone of his own choice.
If he was proposing 'early elections' wouldn't that mean that the Solidarity membership would decide who would be President? Harrington could certainly nominate someone but that wouldn't have stopped Potter from standing.
Mr Harrington’s attempt to procure unauthorised professional accounting
If I were 'cooking the books' I would do what Potter wanted and do the books 'in house' rather than go to an accountant as Harrington did. It is difficult to follow the logic of this allegation.
Mr Harrington was invited on to the management board of the fledgling Union (recommendation from the BNP Chairman) and this trust has been fatally reneged upon.
If Potter and Hawke were 'independent' of Griffin and the BNP (as they claim) why would they accept his 'recomendation' as to who should be on their management board? If they were following the Party line then why not now? Are they accusing Griffin of betraying their trust or Harrington? The writing style and content raises as many questions as it answers!
On 7 June 2007- only 4 days after Harrington was advised by telephone and letter of his suspension - an amount of £700.00 was mysteriously transferred to the Solidarity Business Money Manager Account and then £200.00 of that money was then transferred back to the Solidarity Community Account. This was done illegally whilst Harrington had been suspended as an official of Solidarity and without the approval or indeed knowledge of the EC. Such illegal transfer of funds from one account another without the approval or knowledge of the EC whilst Harrington was already suspended beggars belief. One can only speculate on the motives of the individual in question for a transfer of a sum of money that large.
Transfer of funds between Union accounts is part of the role of any Treasurer. Perhaps one bank account has a better rate of interest than another? Why would he need to clear this through his exec - it is after all a transfer, not expenditure. As he doesn't recognise the suspension or expulsion I suppose he might claim it is just 'business as usual'. Is there another explanation that is more sinister? If so could someone tell me what it is?
"Clearly the Executive Meeting on 20 May was quorate and Mr Harrington was informed of an investigation and the charges."
The minutes produced by Hawke and Potter are disputed by both Harrington and the other two people who attended the meeting as guests. Harrington states that there was no mention of any investigation into him and he has an email trail (as well as the witnesses) which shows his version is true. Even those minutes don't state that Harrington was informed of any charges just that he would be investigated.
There is also an implied admission here that the June 3 meeting is not clearly quorate. If charges were made at the May meeting (as Hawke and Potter state) why didn't they suspend him then?
"All quorates are organic and evolve in line with the EC where membership may be lost as a result of death, illness or suspension."
It may help if we look at the definition of quorate:
"U.K. with enough members present: describes a meeting attended by at least the minimum number of members that the rules state are needed in order for business to be conducted"
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition]
The Solidarity rules stated that to be quorate an Executive meeting had to be attended by three members (at that time Harrington, Hawke and Potter). By the account of Hawke and Potter Harrington was not suspended till the meeting they held on June 3. Therefore he had a right to be present and speak at that meeting. By denying him that right they also ensured that the meeting was inquorate and that all their 'decisions' since then are constitutionally invalid. They should have invited him to that meeting and then suspended him. That was a big mistake on their part. Death and illness which prevents a member from functioning are special cases of course. Even if Harrington were suspended it is arguable that his role could not be filled as that would be pre-judging his case. That is why most sensible organisations ensure that there is a big enough committee to still be quorate if you suspend a member of it!
The EC has shown conclusively that a core number of six areas have been identified as having been examples of gross misconduct by Mr Patrick Harrington.
In these six core areas the EC have identified clear and blatant breaches of the Union’s Constitution, in the main sections 6 (a), 8 (a), 12 (b) and 12 (g), 13 (f) and 17 (b).
I have read through the website run by Clive Potter and Tim Hawke. In all the minutes and letters there is no record of these charges ever being put to Harrington and him being invited to a disciplinary hearing. If I am wrong please point me to the document concerned.
Furthermore, at the EC meeting of the 20 May Mr Harrington showed the EC copies of his Bulletin that was rejected by the EC, yet Mr Harrington ignored the will of the EC and published it.
Curiously there is no mention of this in the minutes produced by Hawke and Potter giving their account of the meeting of 20 May. Are they just making all this up as they go along?
As regards Mr Grren Arrow celebrating the fact that 000s of Solidarity members' money will now be in the hands of a nationalist party... you really do show your true colours. So Mr Grren Arrow - you are now condoning the theft and acquistion of funds belonging to a legitimate and independent trade union going to a political party? This is not what Solidarity was for. Yes, I understand that it was going to support the BNP ( and other nationalist organisations in their endeavours), but the fact that a political party (no matter what tendency it represents) is channelling the funds of trade union members into it speaks of fraud and gross intereference. And where exactly do you think that money would end up...? I dare say not with the BNP members. 'Nuff said...
Green Arrow isn't a member of Solidarity and has obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Both Harrington and Potter oppose Union money going to the BNP. They have both stated that if and when a Political Fund is established how it is spent will be directly decided by Union members, it will be an opt-in and they are both opposed to financing any Party from it. A rare area of concord!
Anonymous said...
Furthermore, at the EC meeting of the 20 May Mr Harrington showed the EC copies of his Bulletin that was rejected by the EC, yet Mr Harrington ignored the will of the EC and published it.
Curiously there is no mention of this in the minutes produced by Hawke and Potter giving their account of the meeting of 20 May. Are they just making all this up as they go along?
--------------------------
It is actually worse than there simply being no mention in the minutes. The 'Special Investigation Report' produced by McLinden/Hawke/Potter quotes an email from Hawke to Harrington of May 23, 2007. He refers to the contested bulletin:-
"It was not possible to discuss the content since it was written up by you after the meeting"
Hawke, Potter and McLinden are terrible liars in every sense of that phrase - they lie a lot and they are not very good at it!
"In August 2006 Mr Tim Hawke was invited onto the management team, bringing with him invaluable IT skills"
He uses bitmap images which take yonks to load rather than compressed files of the .jpg or .gif type on his website. The design looks childish and unprofessional. There is no concept of balance. He managed to lose the domain to Harrington. There are so many spelling mistakes and html code errors one loses count. Invaluable? Only to his opponents!
In April Mr Harrington requested that he be provided with a laptop computer, ostensibly for official Union business. The President refused this request as the Union did not have sufficient funds and should not be seen providing officers with equipment from members’ funds.
I can understand refusal on grounds of lack of funds (doesn't say much for their fundraising though as laptops cost about £300 these days!). If officers of any organisation need equipment to do their job though can't really see the problem with that! What is the alternative?
Also the other main reasons for expulsion from the union are as followed:
1. Hijacking the unions website and claiming you were illegally suspended from your office – which is false. In this matter you can refer to the Union Constitution on the following
Section 1 (b), Section 7 (a), Section 8 (a) (b), Section 12 (c) – specifically.
Section 12 (e) – specifically.
Section 14 (a) – specifically unless you appeal – no executive member is subject to the same rules as its members.
Section 15 (a) – your refusal to accept an investigation by the Executive through their nomination of a Special Auditor on this matter.
Section 19 (d) – your long-term refusal to submit the books to the Unions Head Office.
Trawling through the various documents I can find none of these charges being put to Harrington and him being asked for a response. Nor can I find any mention of him being invited to a disciplinary hearing. Am I missing something here?
Though we're reluctant as a rule to credit anyone on the far-right with any decency at all, Potter and Hawke have generally maintained a dignified silence throughout this disaster, quietly working in the background maintaining their union and sticking to the Constitution rigorously
Who do you think you are kidding? Your own postings from Hawke and Potter rule out a "dignified silence". They produced a 34 page rant and called it an 'investigation report'. Their bogus website consists largely of personal and defamatory attacks on our General Secretary.
If as you say they had stuck to the Constitution they wouldn't be facing the problems they have now. Your dislike of Griffin and Harrington seems to have blinded you to the facts.
The EC of Solidarity takes very seriously any attempt by a suspended officer or an outside agency to interfere with the legal and democratic processes of a trade union.
Strange how Potter and Hawke have gone running to every outside agency under the sun then! Strange also that they have never put their case to their own members!
Assuming points 3 and 4 to be correct, these seem to me (as a person with no formal legal training but with a reasonable sense of right and wrong) to be criminal in nature
Well as Potter/Hawke and McLinden have admited they were wrong on these points and given a grudging apology such an assumption was also wrong.
Anonymous said...
If the police are going to be involved I wish they'd get a move on and finally put a stop to all this. At this rate, both the unions could survive for years.
Are you really so reactionary that you favour police action to close down a Union?
we believe that Solidarity - both versions - should be barred from becoming a bona-fide trade union when they are patently not a trade union, simply a support group for so-called nationalists run by a combination of the NF, the ITP and the BNP - all of them arguably fascist groups.
Solidarity is a bona-fide trade union. Solidarity represents members at grievances and disciplinaries and gives advice and guidance in the same way as every other Union. The NF and ITP are not involved in the Union. The Union has been backed politically by the BNP and Third Way. Solidarity does not politically vet members and will challenge any attempt by employers to deny employment or discriminate on political grounds. We would defend the right of a Communist, Anarchist or anyone else facing such discrimination. Most of the cases Solidarity is dealing with, however, are non-political in nature.
"...simply a support group for so-called nationalists run by a combination of the NF, the ITP and the BNP"
The NF has nothing to do with Solidarity. The ITP is a bit sniffy, boasting about four 'nationalist trade unions' in Italy.
Challenges about this by one of harrington's supporters on Stormfront as to what Solidarity can learn from these four unions, an ITP poster suggests..."How can Solidarity learn from them? Try being:
1. Openly linked with a 'fascist' group which takes a sound stance on Palestine, Homosexuality, Immigration...
2. Honest.
3. Sink real roots.
4. Put the members before awarding pay cheques.
For the ITP it's not about offshoring of British jobs, protection of British workers' rights or anything like that. It's being 'sound' on Palestine.
Mind you. pro-Palestinian gays or anti-gay pro-zionists need not apply!
As for the rest of the stuff, it's either happening already or in hand.
This is their idea of the first priority of a British workers' union. No wonder, they have no interest in the union.
Post a Comment