May 14, 2008

Butler attacks 'joke' leadership challenger

A copy of an email from Eddy Butler, the BNP's National Elections Officer, has been forwarded to us as an example of all that is undemocratic within the British National Party

It refers to the coming leadership challenge from Colin Auty, BNP councillor for Dewsbury East since 2006. Auty announced his challenge immediately after the recent elections, and is receiving growing support in the party for his call for openness, accountability and a more democratic internal structure to the party, despite a barrage of verbal attacks on him from the existing hierarchy on both the BNP's own forum and the Stormfront nazi forum, where many of the BNP's officers hang out.

Despite what is said in public, the news we get from inside the party indicates that the officers (and Nick Griffin himself) are none too pleased with the election results of a fortnight ago. They expected to get a lot more than an additional ten councillors (pushing the current total up to fifty-three) and had also hoped for three Assembly seats, ending up with just the one presently occupied by the embarrassing and frequently incoherent Richard Barnbrook. Given that this poor result reflects badly on the leadership of the party, such as it is, the last thing Griffin needs at the moment is a leadership challenge. He is, we are told, already putting himself about in London, to ensure that BNP activists are aware that HE is the chairman of the party, and not Barnbrook. Bless him, he must be feeling vulnerable.

Butler appears to be writing to the BNP's election team - the people at Head Office and the various organisers dotted around the country (though as the party refuses to make its internal structure clear, it's impossible to know if the team also includes local chairpersons, fundholders, et al). Nevertheless, whatever Butler sends to organisers will eventually filter its way down the BNP food chain to the more active membership - though unofficially, thus ensuring that he is not tainted by the criticism that was aimed at Lee Barnes, the 'Director' of the BNP's Legal Department and all-round freak, who was seen to be sharing his opinions rather too freely for a supposedly unbiased officer of the party.

Even so, Butler's email is uncompromising in his contempt for a) the challenger Colin Auty, and b) democracy. Curious really, as Butler makes the point in his email that the right of members to challenge the leadership is 'a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to democracy' then goes on to spoil it by stating that the party expects anyone who has the 'temerity' to challenge the leadership only if they seriously consider they have the possibility of winning and they are able to perform the duties expected of them as leader should they do so.

Very interesting use of the word 'temerity' there. For those who don't know, 'temerity' means audacity, nerve, cheek, effrontery (or, as we Jews sometimes say, chutzpah). Quite why a challenger should be accused of audacity for challenging is beyond me, though as Nick Griffin's leadership is generally treated as some kind of divine right held by the pig farmer from Welshpool, that might explain it.

The point of Butler's email seems to be to attempt to persuade the more influential members not to sign Auty's nomination papers because he is a 'joke candidate' and a 'no-hoper' and that his frivolous challenge may give the Griffinites within the party enough ammunition to limit possible challenges in future. Thus he says;

'There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.'

Whether we take this to mean that he is trying to put off potentially hopeless challengers to avoid Griffin becoming even more entrenched than he already is or is just attempting to divert support from Auty is debatable, though we generally lean to the former. It's pretty well known that Butler doesn't want Griffin around forever and perhaps this really is an attempt, by subverting the BNP's peculiar internal version of democracy, to bring a more substantial and overt democracy to the party in future. However, we would welcome your views. Here is the emai from Butler - let us know what you think of it.

From: Edward. Butler.
To: ###
Sent: ###
Subject: Statement on the so-called Leadership challenge

Anyone in the Party who has more than five years continuous membership has the Right to stand for the leadership of the Party. The only limit to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained and for non officers a hundred signatures are required. This is to ensure that frivolous candidates do not stand.

As I said this is a Right that members have. And it is an important Right – it is a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to democracy. However with Rights come responsibilities and duties. A Right without a duty is an abomination in any society. It is a recipe for chaos. Indeed in our modern society it is the incessant claiming of Rights by groups that shown no sense of duty or responsibility that is one of the key components of the undermining of the civic order of our country.

So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members. We as members should expect that a candidate would only put themselves forward if they were of sufficient stature and ability to potentially be able to lead the Party if they were to win. Otherwise why would someone wish to challenge for the leadership? It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender. That is the whole point of the requirement for signatories.

A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances. It is not there for disgruntled people to act out their personal bitterness about things – no matter how ‘justified’ they may think their grievances are. It is an abuse of the process to misuse it in that way. It is an abuse of their Constitutional Right.

And that is precisely what we are seeing this year. We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway and they admit that the sole reason they are doing it is to air their own personal grievances. In other words their sole aim is to raise issues which have already been fully aired and which could be raised at a variety of different forums such as the Summer School (where there is always a session for all participants where they can bring up matters they are unhappy about) or the Annual Conference.

What is the likely outcome of this leadership challenge? The challengers (there may in fact be two!) will be comprehensively defeated. The leadership challenge process as it currently stands in the Constitution will be brought into disrepute. There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.

I would not normally comment on a leadership election. It should normally be up to the membership to make their own minds up without non-participants trying to influence the process.

But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution. It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a legitimate way.

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

Eddy Butler
National Elections Officer

30 comments:

RVF's Interracial Gay Dating Company! said...

RVF's Interracial Gay Dating Company!

We are pleased to see the wannabe stormtroopers of the Racial Volunteer Force advertising a gay dating agency and encouraging relationships not only between men, but between black and white men at that.

Well done guys. And we all thought you were the pure Aryan vanguard type with a violent homophobic streak...

See here:

http://www.antifa.org.uk/nucleus3.32/nucleus332/index.php?imagepopup=1/20080513-rvf_gay.jpg&width=850&height=441&imagetext=See+here

Anonymous said...

Isn't Eddy Butler the guy who was attacked by Nick Griffin's right-hand man Tony Lecomber a couple of years ago?

Blake (but not Steve) said...

Richard Chadfield has written this over on the North West Nationalist site

"Is the author of this email ,Eddy Butler, the same Eddy Butler who met with myself , David Jones, Sadie Graham, Steve Blake, Mic Simpson, Chris Beveley and Bev Jones at Leicester Forest East M1 services in January 2008 to discuss the BNP's internal problems . Is this the same Eddy Butler who attended that meeting and stated that he too wanted a change in the leadership of the BNP and those who,like him, wanted a change in leadership of the BNP should have followed his advice about how to attain that change and not gone off half cocked."

John P said...

It all smells a bit fishy to me.

Anonymous said...

I think that Griffin in charge of the BNP could, in the near future, make the UAF redundant. He's doing a fine job. Like a big turkey he's plucked it and is now in the process of stuffing it. All it will take is for someone to shove its feet up its arse and it will be oven ready, roll on Christmas.

Anonymous said...

All the comments from NWN

Simon Smith said...

A good leader would surround himself with cleverer people than himself.

Griffin obviously doesn't.

You know. There are enough people with ability on the "outside" of the BNP now who could certainly organise "something".

It seems strange that we have the those that don't think too much or don't understand too much voting for Gri££in and yet there can't be that many actually "running" the BNP.

There have been attempts at smaller parties. There are a few mobilising as Independents, including a couple of principled decent ex UKIPers.

Because of his duplicity Griffin has succeeded to some extent in keeping a broad church of beliefs within the BNP. (In fact on an internet forum he will send an attack dog who is a Nazi fetishist after a "softliner" BUT send a "softliner" against a traditional BNPer, depending on where along the ideological spectrum, the attack is coming from. I think JT referred to fallouts in the party caused by insignificant things , BUT SERVED THE PURPOSES OF THOSE CLIMBING THE GREASY POLE !)

Even without the Gri££in factor, the challenge would still be great in allowing a broad church of opinion to unite and take on the ideologically identical Lib/Lab/Con.

13 May 2008 19:24
Richard Chadfield said...

Is the author of this email ,Eddy Butler, the same Eddy Butler who met with myself , David Jones, Sadie Graham, Steve Blake, Mic Simpson, Chris Beveley and Bev Jones at Leicester Forest East M1 services in January 2008 to discuss the BNP's internal problems . Is this the same Eddy Butler who attended that meeting and stated that he too wanted a change in the leadership of the BNP and those who,like him, wanted a change in leadership of the BNP should have followed his advice about how to attain that change and not gone off half cocked.

If it is the same Eddy he is clearly now running for cover or was he just giving us a bit of b******t back in January?

Now lets have a quick look at his email.
In paragraph two Eddy asserts the need to earn the right to stand as a leadership challenger.
My answer. I quite agree. Colin Auty ,by any decent persons reckoning, has earned that right. He has been a paid up member for over five years, an activist for all that time. Colin has been a BNP councillor in Dewsbury for two years. He is the sole nationalist councillor in a council chamber dominated by Muslims and Labour. In addition colin is a prominent writer of nationalist music.
By contrast what were Mr Griffin's 'rights' to stand for the BNP leadership back in 1999? Mr Griffin had never held ,and still has not held, any elected position outside of the BNP or National Front. What exactly were Mr Griffin's credentials for standing for leader in 1999? He had been the Chairman of the National Front in the eighties –that was when the National Front was split and split again .His chairmanship of the National Front could not be described as a successful chairmanship .

In paragraph 3. we have this quote:
So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members
My answer. Colin Auty, as above, has done his duty by the cause, the party and the members. And the members know it. This quote also states that the sitting leadership will decide who ,if any , may challenge for the leadership.

Quote:
It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender.
My answer. Those BNP members who are right now signing Colin Auty's nomination forms do regard him as 'a viable and serious leadership contender' So does the current BNP leadership—if they did not this email would not have been sent out. Interestingly if we extend Eddy'd idea to council and national elections very few members of the public should sign BNP election nomination forms since very few BNP council/parliamentary candidates are 'viable'. And what does that tell us about the viability of the current BNP leadership?

In paragraph.4.
Quote: A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances
My answer Actually it is. Though the would 'excuse' should be replaced with the word 'reason' Leadership challenges occur because the membership have lost faith in the leadership. The membership have grevencies and believe that those grevencies can only be addressed by a change of leadership.
In paragraph 5.
quote: We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway

My answer. Who are these people who think colin can not win? Clearly they are not among the ranks of the BNP leadership who appear to be in panic at the prospect of a leadership challenge. If not why the L.B email and then this email?

In paragraph 6.
Quote: 'The challengers (there may in fact be two!) '
Who is the other challenger? Many members think Richard Barnbrook will challenge but next year. So who is the other challenger. Will it be a leadership stooge to split the Colin Auty vote?

Quote: to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years

My answer. This is called disenfranchising the membership. That is dictatorship.

In paragraph 9

Quote: This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

My answer. The leadership openly flaunt their anti-democratic natures. 'if it goes ahead' they are thinking of banning the election. 'Zero publicity' this means keep the membership ignorant of party developments , deny the membership information and negate the democratic process. The above two sentences are an open declaration by the BNP leadership that the BNP ,under their leadership, despises democracy. It also is a statement of the current leaderships foolishness. In the computer age it is increasing difficult to deny information and those who try are likely to come unstuck. Notice also the beginning of the belittling of councillor Auty. (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc). Next will come the smears. Notice also how Colin is spoken of as a 'joke candidate'

Conclusion. It really is time for a change in leadership----thankfully this is a believe shared by many members.

Richard Chadfield (thirty years an active nationalist, council candidate, Parliamentary candidate, Euro candidate etc)

13 May 2008 22:11
Shambles 83 said...

Not bad from Ed.

I've always admired him for bringing up Ian Anderson's love child.

It was an open secret in east London and something that Richard Edmonds had to stop Lecomber from spreading far and wide.

I kept it a secret myself until now as I though Ed may have had some decency left inside of him.

I guess not.

13 May 2008 23:32

Snotr said...

"It all smells a bit fishy to me."

How do you mean?

Loo Barnes LLB said...

The email's a fake. All emails are fake. I don't even know what email is. I've never heard of email. And I'm a lawyer so that proves it.

Anonymous said...

Unfucking believable!
Freedom of speech? hahahahahaahahah

Anonymous said...

"Bless him, he must be feeling vulnerable."

He is. He's bloody terrified of loosing his grip.

Election Watcher said...

The BNP always screams about interference in the electoral process yet itself interferes constantly whener there is a perceived threat to Nick Griffin's dictatorship then has one of its own people (a loyalist) count the votes rather than a third-party under scrutiny of both sides. Democracy in action? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

"The email's a fake. All emails are fake. I don't even know what email is. I've never heard of email. And I'm a lawyer so that proves it."

Thank God for Lee. What would we do without him. LOL

Confused said...

Perhaps unstoppable pressure to limit leadership challenges to once every four years??? How is that right? Surely the membership has the right to pick its own leader.

Dave T said...

"Thank God for Lee."

Yep, without him we wouldn't have half as much to laugh at.

Unhappy BNP member said...

Eddy Butler should keep his fucking snout out. This is a matter for the membership, not the officers. The same goes for Bonkers Barnes. All they need to worry about is that the challenge is conducted legally and FAIRLY, though I don't suppose there's much chance of that.

Did you know by the way that membership is falling again, despite our successes in the election. I was told this by one of the senior officers just yesterday.

Nick Griffin and his dodgy reputation is holding us back and it's time to get rid. Once he's gone there can be a purge of all the sycophants, criminals, ex-nazis, pervs and hangers-on like Mark Collett, Dave Hannam and Barnes. Then we'll have a party worth having that can engage with the mainstream.

Up the rebels, as they say.

Anonymous said...

"Quite why a challenger should be accused of audacity for challenging is beyond me, though as Nick Griffin's leadership is generally treated as some kind of divine right held by the pig farmer from Welshpool, that might explain it."

Oh it does, believe me.

Anonymous said...

Stormfront is staing strangely quiet about this

Malcolm XYZ said...

"the backers of this ridiculous bid"

It's good that he's not biased anyway.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear More inteference from the bosses.

JP said...

"Surely the membership has the right to pick its own leader."

Only in your dreams and Griffins nightmares.

Anonymous said...

If there are any BNP members looking in, you lot need to wake up and kick that fat one-eyed bastard out before he makes himself impossible to get rid of.

Cyclops Fetish said...

Nick Griffin has one eye like Odin.

There's some weird cultish reason why the hardcore neo-nazis in the party think he is their religious savour.

Anonymous said...

NEWSFLASH - its the Annual Assembly in Barking & Dagenham tonight, and of course Dicky will make sure he is there.

Just for a little fun of course anyone like to kick off with a BID on how many times Dicky mentions his position at the GLA.

Winner will get a signed photo of Mr. Fister.

tulip

Anonymous said...

What will happen to the BNP when they realise they will never become a government?

Will they follow the evil example of the Soho pub bomber?

Jo said...

"Winner will get a signed photo of Mr. Fister."

Naked, I hope. We could all do with a laugh. ;)

Jo again said...

"Just for a little fun of course anyone like to kick off with a BID on how many times Dicky mentions his position at the GLA."

Seven, I reckon. Unless he's drunk, in which case eighteen.

worried said...

If you read the writings of Nick Lowles, you will realise that the nazis are always poised to "go feral" when they realise that the electoral path won't reap results.

leejoanbarnes said...

Lee Joan Barnes (LLB CDM NUTS) writes:-

"Leadership elections should be limited to no more often than every 50 years."

Did I get that right Mr Griffin, sir .....

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Stormfront is staing strangely quiet about this

10:43 AM, May 14, 2008"

That's because the posters who would normally make comment in Griffins favour, are utterly opposed to him wanting to become the Mugabe'ish dictator he so desires, and that's why you have silence.

Who Ate All The Pies? Who Told All The Lies? said...

Who Ate All The Pies? Who Told All The Lies?

There has rarely been a time when one or two uniform fetishists on the British fascist Right haven’t clubbed together and pretended to be some form of ‘combat organisation’, giving themselves the trappings of a quasi-terrorist group. Despite the publicity given to these grouplets by the pseudo-antifascist entity ‘Searchlight’, they have generally posed more of a threat to their own members than to anyone else. Little has changed since the days of ‘Column 88’, with a few ageing skinheads currently posing as both the ‘Aryan Strike Force’ and the ‘Racial Volunteer Force’ as an excuse to swagger and posture on the nuttier internet forums the fascist menace inhabit.

The circumstances behind this handful of numbskulls currently being lauded as the “backbone” of ‘white nationalism’ might be considered bizarre in any other walk of life – backbone is something we have rarely seen in evidence among the Fash. As with their forbears on the pantomime fringe of British fascism, the ‘RVF’, and the even more laughable ‘ASF’ (with more initials than members) are far from averse to bullshit and outright lies to court the whoops and back-slaps of their doting compatriots.

In reality, it’s already been a bad year for the Fash, with numerous militant antifascist attacks against them. Recently the ‘British People’s Party’s so-called ‘security team’ got completely turned over by Antifa in London. As usual, much recrimination ensued after the horse had bolted (a very overweight old nag called ‘Sid’ if the metaphor is to be stretched.) “Who will save us from the pesky Reds?” They cried. “We are clueless and gutless to a man (if truth be told.”) Cue bold Sir Adrian Brookes (AKA ‘Kruger’), who certainly looks like he has the arse for a row. Though it’s dwarfed by that of wife Michelle, it might even be big enough to plug the yawning chasm at the centre of Nazi security, that’s if it was matched by a brain one tenth the size.

Brookes may fancy himself as the fuhrer of any tin-pot gang of inbred idiots going, but one only has to look at his track-record within his previous outfit to get a glimpse of the pathetic reality. The short-lived Hitlerite drinking gang, the ‘Wolf’s Hook White Brotherhood’, of which Brookes was leader, could not even get pissed together without their ‘Head of Security’ stabbing the founder of the gang to death.

The latest incarnation of the ‘RVF’, together with the other Laurel & Hardy outfit mentioned above were recently ‘blooded’ in Manchester, when they bravely took on the might of Antifa. Or so they would have their fellow Nazis believe. In reality half a dozen of these dumplings stumbled into a confrontation with a few members of the small and mainly female Manchester branch of the ‘Revolutionary Communist Group’. Despite being outnumbered, we gather that the RCG gave a good account of themselves. As usual, the blustering buffoons of the Right lied through their teeth about what had actually occurred, including claiming they had confronted Antifa, something their gullible fellow-nazis were only too eager to believe.

Soon after, Brookes and his pals ran the ‘security’ for a Leeds get-together of the ailing joke that is the ‘British People’s Party’. A speaker told the assembled dozens that they were damned lucky to have the ‘RVF’ there to protect them against Antifa, claiming to the fools in the audience that 35 ‘Reds’ had threatened to attack the meeting. This blatant lie resulted in Brookes and his crew being heralded as the saviours of British fascism! The reality is that the lunatic fringe of the extreme Right are only ever likely to be a side-order for Antifa, idiots we batter when we’re bored or tired of chasing bigger but more elusive fry. This ‘RVF’/’ASF’ ‘security detail’ are little more than an excuse for a few middle-aged men to dress up in combat fatigues and scam free beer from their even dafter associates. If we ever believed Brookes and his crew posed a serious threat we would simply go round and knock on his door at 58 Cornwall Crescent, Brinington, Stockport, Cheshire, SK5 8HB and have a frank exchange of views.

Since they are unable to make the grade even among the pot-bellied oafs of the BNP ‘security team’, it was inevitable that Brookes and his small crew of misfits would turn up in the political orbit of the ‘British People’s Party’. Riven by a basic political contradiction, this shambolic bunch of near-geriatric Hitler fantacists, have struggled since their inception to decide whether they want to be a gang of terrorists or an electoral party. The problem is largely to do with the makeup of the membership, and particularly that of the leadership. The former are for the most part senile neo-Nazis, shunned even by the BNP and forever wedded to the losing side in World War 2, while the leadership are even more ridiculous. Current fuhrer, on paper at least, is Kevin Watmough, a pathetic individual with no charisma or speaking ability whatsoever, whose influence on the fascist Right, beyond peddling swastikas, has only ever extended to running ‘Redwatch’ and various tawdry internet forums. Even among fellow neo-Nazis he is regarded as a coward and is also strongly rumoured to be a police informer. Alongside Watmough, is veteran fascist and chronic alcoholic Eddy Morrison, whose seen more retirement parties than Saga cruises, and been in and out of the BPP like the hokey-cokey since it was formed. When he’s sober, Eddy can get up and talk bollocks at a meeting, but he’s regarded as unreliable and untrustworthy by many on the fascist Right, not least because of his history as an informer (both to AFA and to the cops.)

Until recently, the dreadful duo of Watmough and Morrison were joined in the BPP leadership by Peter ‘Sid’ Williamson, another almost laughable figure, who could rarely stay sober long enough at BPP meetings to hold a steady knife to a comrade’s throat. Williamson departed with the usual acrimony following the BPP’s recent London humiliation at the hands (and boots) of Antifa.

With so many fragile egos dog-paddling around in such a diminutive puddle of piss, any friendship between the pond life of the RVF and that of the BPP is likely to be short-lived. There has already been tension caused by Brookes’ pal Tommy Williams, of Sheffield, threatening Watmough and Morrison via the internet. Williams, who runs the ‘Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics’ blogspot, must be a strong contender for the biggest gobshite (and shithouse) in British fascist politics. He famously fell out with Williamson, posting up his home address all over Indymedia, together with numerous ‘trademark’ Photoshop ‘piss-takes’, and threatening to fight him at the BNP’s ‘Red, White & Blue’ knees-up. On the day of reckoning however, both were shown to be the cowards they are, and Williams has now sided with Williamson against Watmough and Morrison. The spat appears to be the usual hot-air from Williams, and Brookes’ apparent ability to help diffuse the row may be one reason Watmough and Morrison are dribbling all over his DM’s. With this bunch of cranks though, it will only be a matter of time before there’s more falling out.

Neither Morrison nor Watmough (who Morrison groomed as a teenager) have ever been able to resist the attraction of rubbing shoulders (and whatever else) with younger men with a fetish for combat clothing and shiny Nazi badges. Like most Nazis they are certainly no strangers to posturing and posing themselves. Some BPP members are so thick or deranged however, that they take Eddy and Kev’s wanking fantasies for reality, two BPP organisers are currently behind bars on terrorism charges. No doubt all the chocolate soldiers of the BPP/RVF/AST or whatever silly name they’re using this week were downing a few pints for their ‘racial comrades’ behind bars both during and after the recent Leeds BPP meeting – Surprising how brave you can be when you’re pissed in the pub isn’t it lads?

The BPP are currently trying to con a large amount of money out of their pitifully small (and just plain pitiful) membership, supposedly to fund candidates in the next General Election. Of course it is very unlikely that they will raise the sum required, meaning that the donations received can make their way into Eddy’s drinking fund and Kev’s Evostik expenditure. In any case, do they really think that people are going to vote for a bunch of Hitler-worshipping would-be terrorists who resemble some of the cast from the film ‘Deliverance’? Eddy Morrison’s previous showing in Leeds’ Bramley ward, when he was caught conning pensioners into signing his nomination papers, suggest the BPP are a very long way from power. And despite their squawkings on fascist internet forums they have no more real presence on the streets than the cartoon Nazis of the ‘RVF’/’AST’. Nor will they have.

No Pasaran!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398818.html