The latest Ebanks tirade against the BNP - revelations or rubbish?

As we all know (to our cost) Sharon Ebanks, former BNP activist and Griffin-favourite until a major fall-out last October has been posting on our comments sections in increasingly strident tones for the past week or two, claiming to have revelations that will be guaranteed to bring down her Nemesis, Nick Griffin.

Despite offers of space to air her accusations against him, Ebanks refused to pass on the information about Griffin, choosing instead to keep her information to herself until she decides the moment is right. She now seems to have made that decision, having posted a series of badly-written and completely unreferenced statements and accusations against Griffin, the BNP and other BNP-linked operations in the comments section of a 'nationalist' blog. Assuming these to be the revelations, we'll take a quick look at them.

'Griffin certainly has become untouchable since Darby became Deputy Leader and Griffin spoke with Barbara Amiel.'

Strangely, Scott McLean is still listed on the BNP's website as the Deputy-Chairman of the party, despite the fact that everyone knows he's gone and precisely why he's gone. As far as we know, Darby has never been Deputy Leader, though Griffin did designate him as de facto leader should he have been jailed during the trials in 2005/6.

The reference to Barbara Amiel, former director at The Spectator and wife of Conrad Black is presumably a nod towards a Martin Webster allegation of April 2006 that Griffin had been in telephone contact with the Jewish Amiel, this conversation rapidly being followed by a major shift in the public stance of the BNP indicated by a much-criticised article ostensibly written by the party's legal head Lee Barnes (August 2006) in which he stated, 'As a Nationalist I can say that I support Israel 100% in their dispute with Hezbollah. In fact, I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood.'

Whether the conversation between Amiel and Griffin happened or not is, as far as we're concerned, irrelevant. The shift away from anti-semitism (at least publicly) to anti-Islam has been going on over a number of years and is simply one of Griffin's weak attempts to make his party more appealing to the general public, who he clearly regards as being more likely to fall for his line on Muslims than they are that on Jews. Griffin is a populist, prepared to change his public image in a moment if he feels a change will gain him some power.

The fact that he has apparently shifted his viewpoint has not made him untouchable, or at least more or less untouchable than before. He was done for inciting racial hatred nearly a decade ago and the government tried (twice) to have him done again last year. The fact that he wasn't convicted was due to the jury in the case, not to the allegation that he is 'untouchable'. Presumably, Ebanks is trying to suggest that Griffin's new pro-Israel stance allows him to say or do anything without fear of retaliation but the evidence, such as it is, doesn't really support that statement.

'Why indeed did the press not print Simon Smiths resignation when under any other circumstances they would have leapt at the opportunity for blasting across their front page "BNP COUNCILLOR ACCUSES BNP OF FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY". Why did the press remain silent on Websters accusations and why has the press, the police and the Electoral Commission and Silvers and Co not done anything about my complaints regarding BNP money?'

There are a lot of questions in that small paragraph but we'll take a look at them one at a time. Regarding Simon Smith's purging from the party, which was turned into yet another resignation, the Birmingham Post reported the party line on the resignation with a report including quotes from Simon Darby but obviously didn't want to drag the story on with Smith's own version of events that appeared in his letter which we reprinted here. Nevertheless, we do agree that the press missed out on an opportunity to generate discussion of Croatia, Solidarity and the BNP's lucrative Trafalgar Club, which were all mentioned in Smith's letter and could have reaped large rewards. Being charitable, we can assume that the potential was either missed by a busy sub-editor or that the general embargo on BNP-related rubbish forced it to hit the bin. In either case, it was an excellent opportunity for good copy that was missed.

The answer to the complex question 'Why did the press remain silent on Websters accusations and why has the press, the police and the Electoral Commission and Silvers and Co not done anything about my complaints regarding BNP money?' is that while many people suspect and there is mounting evidence to support the ever-growing claims of financial impropriety, there is little hard evidence - patently not enough to generate a police enquiry or an enquiry by the Electoral Commission, for the moment at least. Once the BNP's accounts have been submitted, we may find the evidence we already have suddenly becoming far more valuable.

If Ebanks felt she had enough evidence to take to the EC, the BNP's auditors and the police, there must have been something relatively substantial to present to them. If so, Ebanks needs to put this information where it can do some good. At the moment, her only options appear to be to place the evidence before the public via her own New Nationalist Party, which one suspects doesn't want to get involved, to post on a forum like Stormfront, where the BNP-allied moderators will probably delete it instantly or to take us up on our offer to publish it - though that offer has a limited life-span and it's rapidly running out.

'Why does Griffin allow idiots at the top when he claims from a platform on a daily basis that he wants some semblance of Britain back? Why are thieves and cranks promoted through the ranks and decent honest people ignored? These are not the actions of a political party and certainly not the actions of those wishing a winning one.'

We couldn't agree more and we suspect, like Ebanks and many others, that we know why the scum rises to the top in the BNP - simply because they will assist Nick Griffin to achieve what he aims to achieve (the personal enrichment of Nick Griffin) and/or they have something on him. The more we and other observers look into the BNP and the more that is exposed about the internal workings of it, the more we tend to regard it as less a bona fide political party and more of an undernourished Mafia - a low-grade criminal organisation with pretensions of grandeur and less murders (though probably not if Tony Lecomber had his way).

'Why is Griffin ditching local politics in favour of Europe, a place where nothing can be achieved for British people at grassroots level?'

Because Griffin and his pals at the top of the BNP have absolutely no interest in doing anything for anybody except themselves. The European elections are where Griffin sees his opportunity to sneak a seat and rake in the money, incidentally making lots of connections all over Europe via the group of far-right MEPs, which should be handy for Griffin when we wants to buy more land abroad with his ill-gotten gains.

'Where are the BNP accounts? Why is GWR trading without filing accounts for 2yrs when it has made thousands of pounds?'

We've no more idea than Ebanks why the BNP's accounts are so late in being submitted to the Electoral Commission though we suspect it has a lot to do with cooking the books and concealing the drop in membership in some way that it won't cost Griffin and co any money. Regarding Great White Records, the BNP's musical wing - we're told that the idiotic Dave Hannam has less than six months to get it making a profit or he's out on his ear. The lack of accounts simply indicates that financial disaster is pending but being concealed - for now. Griffin is juggling all the BNP's financial cock-ups in the air at the moment but he's rapidly losing control and we firmly expect the whole lot to collapse in the very near future.

'Why does the BNP PayPal line empty into several different numbered accounts instead of remaining static and traceable?'

We have to wonder how Ebanks could possibly know that this is the case? We'd welcome some evidence...

'Why has Griffin hijacked the money and members of Solidarity?'

Presumably because he sees it as yet another potential scam, where he can rip off members of his own party ad nauseum. It's always worth remembering Griffin's own quote from way back in Spring 1999's edition of Patriot magazine; 'In increasingly hard economic times, a group of people the size of the BNP and its support base can provide a significant assured market for a variety of small businesses.' Oh boy, has he taken that to heart.

'Why is Civil Liberty allowed to commit fraud and nothing is done?'

We reported that the Electoral Commission had launched an investigation into Civil Liberty after the Guardian had provided information to Scotland Yard last April. Since then, no-one has heard anything about either the possible investigation or indeed, Civil Liberty itself.

'Why are decent people resigning only to be rubbished by morons after their personal sacrifices?'

One assumes Ebanks is referring to herself here though one would expect her to be aware that it's an old trick of the far-right to attack those who have left acrimoniously, just to discredit anything they might say about the party before they say it.

'Why is the BNP swiping money from peoples credit cards without them knowing? Once again this is fraud perpetrated against those who have joined online and entrusted them with their details and trusted them full stop.'

If this is the case and if Ebanks has any evidence to support this statement, she should see it as her duty to go straight to the police. Credit card fraud is criminal and if the BNP can be shown to have committed it, heads will roll. This is probably the one line that really means anything in her post. If she has the proof, she has the party by the throat.

'A party cannot exist without intellect and activism but the heads of the BNP do everything in their power to repel such people.'

This is probably a reference to Jonathan Bowden, who seems to be much admired by Ebanks. We don't really care but we'd assume that the last thing Griffin wants around him is someone with intelligence who might see through him and tell the rest of the BNP what a fraud he actually is.

'And last but not least, why was one of Britains most dangerous criminals contacting me 2 weeks ago with the police claiming to know nothing and do nothing but Simon Darby knew everything even the bogus name that the man was using? If the police couldn't figure it out how the hell could he?'

Unless she's referring to Tony Lecomber, Nick Griffin's favourite terrorist, we have absolutely no idea what Ebanks is going on about here. We'd like to know more though so if anyone has more information, feel free to provide.

So there you have it. Sharon Ebanks' most recent attack on the BNP - revelations that could damage the party beyond repair or rubbish that can be shrugged off as the ravings of an embittered former favourite?