British National Party accused of hostile takeover of trade union

The British National Party has been accused of executing a “hostile takeover” of a trade union that subsequently accepted a £5,000 undeclared donation from Nick Griffin, the leader of the party.

Clive Potter, a founder of Solidarity, the nationalist trade union, told The Times that he and other members of its executive were ousted by allies of Mr Griffin because they wanted to remain independent of the BNP.

In documents to the Certification Office, the regulator of trade unions, former members of the executive claim that the union has been hijacked by “disaffected former officials and an outside political party”.

They said that the union had been subjected to “hostile attacks from unauthorised former officials and outside elements, namely the British National Party”. The split raises questions about Solidarity’s links to the BNP as it has been previously accused of, but has denied, being a front for the party. Many members also belong to the BNP and its president, Adam Walker, is a candidate for the party in the forthcoming European election.

The Times revealed on Thursday that Solidarity was the recipient of a £5,000 donation, originally sent to Mr Griffin, that is under review by the Electoral Commission. Mr Griffin admitted that he did not inform the authorities about the donation, which appeared to be from a political supporter, although he paid it into his own account before transferring it to Solidarity. Donations of more than £1,000 to individual party members must be declared if they are for political use.

Mr Griffin said that he gave the money to the union because the donor wanted to remain anonymous and he believed that he would have had to declare it if passed to the BNP.

Patrick Harrington, general secretary of Solidarity, a former organiser for the National Front and a friend of Mr Griffin, told The Times that the union was completely independent of the BNP. Mr Harrington, who is not a member of the BNP, said that Mr Potter’s accusations should be dismissed as they were from a “disgruntled former official”.

Although the alleged takeover occurred in 2007, it has not been aired publicly. Several disputes from it will be decided in a hearing next month by the Certification Officer.

Mr Potter, a former member of the BNP, told The Times that he helped to set up Solidarity in 2005 as a “mass nationalist trade union” that was to be independent of any political party. “If it isn’t independent then it fails. Unfortunately, as I found out later, Mr Griffin had other ideas,” he said.

After a series of disagreements with Mr Harrington, and following what he claims was interference from Mr Griffin, Mr Potter was ousted in 2007 along with members of the executive who supported him. He will claim that his removal was “unconstitutional”. Mr Harrington denied any impropriety and said that elections to the union’s executive were held properly.As a result of the split, two separate trade unions, both known as Solidarity, have been operating since 2007. One branch, which is run by Mr Harrington and accepted the donation from Mr Griffin, has acted for people who have been dismissed from their jobs because of association with the BNP.

Mr Potter said that his branch operates on “paper only” as it has no money — its bank account was frozen after the acrimony between the warring factions. He said that as a believer in BNP ideals but an opposer of Mr Griffin, he wanted a return to the “status quo” in leadership of the union.

In the final council by-election before next week’s county and European Parliament polls, the BNP pushed the Conservatives into third place. Labour’s vote held up in North Ormesby and Bramble Farm, Middlesbrough, where the far Right won 19.1 per cent of the vote. That would not be enough for it to win in the North East Euro constituency, which has only three seats. The BNP says its best chance for a European win is in the North West, where Nick Griffin is running. He predicts the party could win up to six seats and claims it is spending £500,000 on a national campaign. The BNP is fielding 450 candidates for the local elections and 66 for the European Parliament, at least one for every constituency in England, Scotland and Wales.

Money talks

• Any trade union that intends to spend money on political objectives must set up a separate political fund. This arose from the Trade Union Act 1913
• Before a political fund can be established, the union must ballot all its members. A simple majority of members is enough to pass the resolution
• The certification officer must approve both the ballot and the political fund rules before they are put to the vote. This ensures that there is a fair voting process
• The political fund can be spent on both affiliated political parties and more general campaigning. Each union publishes accounts of its expenditure to the certification officer. These are available to all members of the union
• Any union member can choose to be exempted from the political fund at any time. There can be no discrimination against members who opt for exemption Unions must review their decisions to have a political fund every ten years. This is done by ballot

Times Online

An inspector calls...

Earlier this year, in a number of articles referencing the fake fascist Solidarity "trade union", we stated that the "one big union" had a grand total of 211 members - a figure culled from founding member Tim Hawke's email statement made to a member of the LU team in May 2007 that Solidarity then had "nearly" 100 members, and Patrick Harrington's later claim for gains in membership that brought the total in early 2007 to 211.

We have to admit that we were wrong - completely wrong.

However, as our figures came from sources that are known for keeping only the most mercurial of relationships with The Truth, perhaps we can be forgiven the error?

As it turns out, the true figure for membership of the "fighting union" at the end of 2007 was a whopping 124, four of which appear to have "no home or authorised address". Given the fate of membership lists belonging to fascist outfits, the allegedly homeless four may yet have cause to celebrate their untraceability - always assuming, of course, that they actually exist.

Since its founding, the fortunes of Solidarity have assumed the pace and scale of a Brian Rix farce (this being the fate of any organisation touched by the luckless hand of Patrick Harrington), and the doings of the fake union's cast of misfits and losers have provided us with a good deal of amusement in the past two years. The same doings by the same misfits and losers should also have provided those unfortunates who insist on taking Solidarity seriously with more than ample cause for concern.

It is a matter of record that the BNP was obliged to hijack its own front-group from its founders to save the skin of Patrick Harrington and to keep it on a course favoured by the BNP, which led to the simultaneous existence of two Solidarity's - the legally constituted version led by Clive Potter and Tim Hawke, and the BNP-dominated hijacked version, led by Adam Walker and Patrick Harrington.

It was only in May of this year that the trade union Certification Office took up numerous complaints regarding irregularities in the financial affairs of Solidarity, all of them lodged by Clive Potter, Tim Hawke and Bill McLinden, with additional material supplied by Lancaster Unity and Searchlight - neither of which organisations, I must emphasise, has been in contact with, or has in any way supported Messrs Potter, Hawke and McLinden.

The Certification Office investigator's findings on the allegations are now available for download, and I recommend you read them carefully.

The inspector appointed to investigate the complaints was Gerard Walker (Assistant Certification Officer), who was hamstrung in that his terms of reference precluded him "from reaching any conclusions" in the matter of which version of Solidarity was the legitimate one - even though this was of fundamental importance to many of the allegations he investigated. Intriguingly, Mr Walker does say that he considered "various complaints of breach of rule and breach of statute that had been made against Solidarity by Mr Potter, Mr Mullen, Mr McLinden and Ms Haynes and which are now being progressed to a hearing or hearings".

Perhaps Clive Potter intends to have his day in court after all?

The inspector's looming visit to Edinburgh seems to have galvanised Patrick Harrington, since, being unable to provide an original receipt for £39 in printing expenses, he apparently did have a copy of the same "certified as an authentic copy by an Edinburgh solicitor". Since it is highly unlikely that the Edinburgh solicitor was present when Harrington came into possession of the original (and we are assuming there ever was an original) and also present when it was copied by whatever means, we can only presume that Harrington took himself off to this solicitor, copied receipt in hand, and swore to its authenticity.

If that is indeed what happened then it is a very curious circumstance indeed. We wonder how many real trade union general secretaries have found it necessary to have solicitors certify "copies" of receipts they claim to have "mislaid"?

Mr Walker continues: "Mr Harrington admitted that he had not kept structured petty cash records. He explained that given the small amount of money involved he had merely kept receipts when using the cash in hand and kept the balance in his own personal safe... He has also given an explanation as to his handling of the cash in hand, having admitted that he kept no structured petty cash records... Given the small amounts of money involved and the apparent authenticity of the receipts presented to me, I declined to investigate further in the absence of any evidence that the receipts were not authentic."

Or, indeed, any evidence that the receipts were authentic. Maybe we should be grateful that Mr Walker did not choose a career in the police force.

In section 15 Mr Walker states: "Mr Potter had alleged that since January 2007 Mr Harrington has been operating an 'unknown' Paypal Account to which he refused to share the access codes or relinquish control when he was suspended on 3 June 2007."

In the next section Mr Walker says that Potter did have knowledge of the account, and in section 17: "When interviewed by me Mr Potter accepted that, in essence, he was arguing that by Mr Harrington not having given the Executive access to the Paypal Account (which he says was requested by them prior to his suspension) Mr Harrington had improperly retained 'de facto' private control of part of the Union revenue. Mr Potter also argued that from the date of Mr Harrington's suspension, 3 June 2007, fund transfers to the Solidarity HSBC Account were no longer evident. He alleged that Mr Harrington had therefore committed fraud by operating a stolen account."

But Harrington's suspension, though vital to this matter, is something beyond Mr Walker's remit. In section 18 we have:

"In response to these allegations Mr Harrington stated that he had never formally been asked by the Solidarity Executive to hand over the Paypal Account details including access codes. He accepted that he may have been asked informally for this information by Mr Potter and he agreed that he did not give the information to Mr Potter."

And in section 20 Mr Walker washes his hands of the Paypal affair: "In essence the allegations made by Mr Potter and others in regard to this matter arise out of the unresolved dispute within Solidarity about the application of its rules to its governance. My terms of reference specifically preclude me from reaching any conclusions in this area."

Section 21 deals with Potter's allegation that Harrington made two unauthorised withdrawals from Solidarity's HSBC account, and one unauthorised transfer from its HSBC Business Money Manager Account into its HSBC community account in September 2007. Potter claimed that Harrington's name had been removed as an authorised signatory in June 2007, which the HSBC clearly accepted since it re-credited the monies following a complaint by Potter.

According to Mr Walker, in section 22: "Mr Harrington admitted that he had made the withdrawals. He produced minutes of a meeting of the Solidarity Executive held on 14 July 2007. The Executive in question was the new [BNP dominated] Executive appointed at the EGM on 14 July. These record that he had been instructed to take all necessary steps to gain full control of the HSBC account of the union. They also record that he was instructed to 'withdraw all funds possible from this account and pay into a new bank account.' In addition Mr Harrington produced bank statements and receipts to show what had happened to the money after he made the withdrawals. As already pointed out Mr Potter and Mr Hawke do not accept the legitimacy of the Executive Committee appointed at the EGM on 14 July 2007 and subsequently dispute any action or instructions it has issued."

And by section 23 Mr Walker has his hands under the tap again: "At the heart of these allegations is the unresolved dispute within Solidarity about the application of its rules to its governance. My terms of reference specifically preclude me from reaching any conclusions on this issue."

Section 23 deals with a number of cheque payments made by Harrington which Potter alleges were not approved by the Solidarity Executive, and for which Harrington had not provided receipts. Harrington did show cheque-book stubs to Mr Walker, but there are some curiosities here.

Mr Walker says: "The first payment concerned the purchase of rail tickets. The rail tickets in question had been retained by an automated ticket barrier."

It happens all the time.

"The second payment was in respect of expenses claimed by a Solidarity member who had travelled to London from Swansea for the Union's AGM. He had not been able to find the Solidarity steward redirecting members to the AGM location and had been very angry about his wasted journey. Mr Harrington stated that he and Mr Potter had agreed to pay the rail and tube fares and subsistence as a gesture of good will. Mr Potter does not dispute that he agreed that this payment be made. He alleges however, that it was paid in cash out of a cash donation made to Solidarity at the AGM. Mr Harrington denies this. Given that the relevant bank account is currently frozen it is not possible to retrieve the cheque to settle this dispute one way or the other."

Two cheques for a total of £485 were paid to "a commercial printer in Edinburgh" in May and June 2007, of which Mr Walker notes, "During the course of my investigation Mr Potter suggested that there might be some personal or political link between Mr Harrington and the commercial printers in Edinburgh used by Solidarity."

Harrington denied this.

Most curiously of all, Harrington was paid £75 per month in expenses, but not - as you would suppose - into an account in his own name. For his own mysterious reasons Harrington had the expenses paid into an account in the name of P.A. Sharp, his briefly famous ex-wife. This does not seem to us to accord with the behaviour of real general secretaries of real trade unions. Why, and from whom, did Harrington wish to obscure the fact that he was in receipt of £75 in expenses each month? Is this still his regular practice? We think we (and perhaps certain agencies concerned with the disbursement of benefits) should be told?

Rather too often, but inevitably, Mr Walker falls back on the refrain, "My terms of reference specifically preclude me from reaching any conclusions in this area", notably in relation to an account opened by Harrington with the Bank of Scotland in August 2007, which Clive Potter claims to be "unconstitutional and unlawful", due to the fact of its being opened on the instructions of the usurped BNP-dominated Executive.

Pressing on, Mr Walker records the appointment of Graham Williamson's super-unsuccessful Accentuate PR to act on Solidarity's behalf. As we have commented on this particular incestuous - and deeply suspect - relationship on previous occasions, we'll pass directly to Mr Walker's remarks:

"On the evidence presented to me it does not appear that the appointment of Accentuate amounted to a breach of the rules of Solidarity. I was presented with no evidence which established to my satisfaction any corruption or other wrong doing regarding the appointment of Accentuate or in the on-going relationship between Solidarity and Accentuate. Whether Solidarity needs a PR company and whether it is getting value for money from its association with Accentuate is an issue for the Solidarity Executive and the wider membership of Solidarity. It is not a matter within my terms of reference."

Embedded within that statement is, at least, a gentle hint that Solidarity is not getting value for money from Accentuate - something readily apparent to anybody not operating within Mr Walker's terms of reference. As for "corruption and other wrong doing", we credit our readers with enough intelligence and common-sense to make up their own minds on the nature of the unhealthy old pals act currently slicing up the Solidarity cake in their own favour. It all comes down to how the each of us defines "corruption".

Later in the report, Mr Walker is slightly more free with his views, drawing the attention of Solidarity's membership to the "close relationship (based on previous and current political connections) between the owner of the consultancy and Mr Harrington and Mr Kerr. [And] the question [of] whether a union of the size and with the limited resources of Solidarity needs or can justify the employment of a PR consultancy."

The deeper we go into the report, the more obvious it becomes that despite the formality of his civil service approach, his impartiality, and resolve never to step outside his remit, Mr Walker seems well aware of the nature of the people with whom he is dealing.

In the matter of Solidarity's 2006 accounts, Clive Potter made the incontrovertible allegation that Harrington (strangely, for a supposed trade union general secretary) breached the union's Rule 15 in the appointment of "close friends and political allies", Messrs Lindley and Smith, as auditors. Lindley, apparently a barrister, had been a member of the National Front, while Smith was with the BNP.

Mr Walker again:

"Mr Potter stated that the Executive Committee had played no role in the appointment of the auditors but had expected Mr Harrington to have the accounts independently audited. He said that Mr Harrington had told the Executive that, between Easter and the end of May 2007, he was working on the accounts but had met a problem in the amount of the fees required by accountants to act as independent auditors. He said Mr Harrington was 'given space by the Executive Committee to do his job' and that it was Mr Harrington who found the auditors Mr Lindley and Mr Smith. Mr Potter stated that he only became aware of the identity of the auditors when he received the AR 21 [statement of accounts] in May 2007. He was aware that Mr Smith was close to the BNP and was concerned that the auditors did not comply with Solidarity's rules. Mr Potter was unable to produce any minutes of the Executive Committee or other documentation relating to the appointment of the auditors. He said there was none. He further explained that the last quorate meeting of the Executive Committee (prior to the May 2007 meeting referred to above) had been in October/November 2006. Mr Potter said there was nothing in his note of the Executive meeting on 20 May 2007 about auditors but that the appointment of auditors was an obvious issue in May 2007 as it was close to the deadline for the submission of the AR21 to the Certification Office. He added that he had received e-mails from Mr Harrington asking to be left alone to do his job. Mr Potter stated that he had told Mr Harrington that the appointment of the auditors had to be agreed by the Executive Committee and that they must be independent."

We presume that Potter had drawn Harrington's attention to Rule 15 - in fact we must assume that as general secretary, Harrington was well aware of it, and of the relevant statement contained within Clause B: "Professional accountants shall be engaged to audit the account of the Union and prepare annual accounts for the Executive Committee."

Here Harrington managed to provide what he claimed to be a copy of his note to the Executive Committee meeting, in which - allegedly - the matter of auditors was discussed, with Potter and Tim Hawke agreeing that Lindley and Smith should be approached.

Mr Walker states that this copy was prepared by Harrington, and signed as a "true and accurate record" by himself - and close friend Graham Williamson. Mr Walker stresses again that Clive Potter disputes the accuracy of this note, and that no agreed minute of the meeting exists.

Fortuitous, then, that Harrington should happen to have a copy.

The inspector continues: "Mr Harrington now accepts that the rules of the Union appear to require that professional accountants are appointed by the Executive to audit the accounts. He accepts that this was not done."

This seems to us to be something of a let-off for Harrington, since the man could not fail to be aware of his own union's rules, which are quite explicit. And yet still - Clive Potter's contradiction of Harrington notwithstanding - he went ahead and appointed close personal friends to act as auditors.

Mr Walker: "Mr Harrington accepts that in appointing lay auditors to audit the accounts of the Union for the period ending 31 December 2006 Solidarity probably acted in breach of its own rules. However, Mr Harrington claims that this was done in error and was not a deliberate breach."

To this we can only restate that Harrington must have been aware of his own union's rules - he is, after all, its general secretary. So, Solidarity did not act in breach of its own rules. Harrington did. And knowing those rules, the breach cannot have been anything other than deliberate.

Needless to say, Solidarity is seeking (or already has made) a rule change to allow for the appointment of lay auditors, which will, we are sure, prove to be a far more convenient and convivial arrangement for the general secretary of the one big union.

The report's conclusions are, as you might expect, unsatisfying. Mr Walker restates the instances of unacceptable financial practices found by him, but always runs back for the cover of his limited "remit", his strongest language being that Solidarity had demonstrated a "regrettable attitude towards compliance with its own rules".

That's certainly one way of putting it. We can think of many others.

Harrington, then, received kid-glove treatment throughout the report, while "those bringing the allegations that I have investigated were more concerned with progressing [the internal] power struggle than the actual issues relating to process and compliance that I have been called upon to investigate by my terms of reference".

Quite how that applies to information supplied independently by Lancaster Unity and Searchlight is not clear in the slightest.

Passing on from Mr Walker's hand-washing exercise we come to Solidarity's 2007 accounts, which may be downloaded here.

I do not propose to deal with the accounts in any depth, save to draw attention to certain matters of interest.

Filed under "administrative expenditure" we find the astonishing figure of £7818, while "benefits to members" are listed as a miserly £224 (this last would appear to be covered in £200 solicitors' costs and £24 "travel to hearing"). Not exactly "benefits to members", then, as most trade unionists would understand the term.

Further on we find "legal and professional fees" listed as costing £1034. Presumably this includes payments made to the useless Accentuate PR company owned by Graham Williamson. Below this are costs for "stationery, printing, postage, telephone, etc.", which come in at a whopping £6189. Allegedly.

Bear in mind that this "union" had only 124 members as of 31st December 2007, and for much of that year membership was well below that figure.

I leave it to others to work out exactly what was spent on what (and why).

Solidarity's craven lack of success throughout 2007 is self-evident in the membership figures. As stated earlier, in May 2007 the union claimed to a member of our team to have "nearly" 100 members, and yet despite the publicity attendant to the internal dispute, despite the clarion calls made by Nick Griffin et al to the BNP membership to "save" Solidarity, only 124 individuals were paid up by the end of the year - which explains the tiny attendance at the organisation's AGM in January of this year, when, LU readers will recall, the "brotherhood" came under the scrutiny of the Stasi-like security employed for the hole and corner occasion.

Desperate for members, the BNP membership list leak was viewed by Harrington and Solidarity as a heaven-sent opportunity to recruit hitherto resistant BNP members fearful for their jobs, Harrington promising that "immediate protection" (!) would be extended to any BNP member joining now.

To be a member of one turbulent fascist organisation that cannot hold on to its membership list might charitably be described as careless, to join another just as turbulent and amateur as split-prone Solidarity would be reckless, and we understand for most BNP members it's a case of "thanks, but no thanks, Patrick".

Maybe, too, BNP members thought it more than a little hypocritical that while Solidarity fulminated against the General Teaching Council for mislaying thousands of teachers records, which "angered" the fighting union - "Heads must roll!" it screamed, in an Accentuate press release which appeared only on its own website, - just a few days later it was rather more understanding of Nick Griffin, the man in charge of the BNP and who bears ultimate responsibility for the leaking of the BNP membership list.

When Harrington calls for Griffin's head to roll we'll be the first to let you know, and it won't be long, because as Harrington has said, Solidarity doesn't operate double standards.

Getting back to Solidarity's 2007 accounts, these are signed off by two lay auditors, who, in a report written by them (we don't think) go out of their way to touch on some of the points raised with Patrick Harrington by inspector Gerard Walker. Naturally, these auditors can find no faults at all, and so everything is hunky-dory in fake trade union land.

Did we mention that one of the auditors is Andrea Whelpdale, of Spennymoor, Durham. Or that she stood as a BNP candidate and is a friend of Solidarity president Adam Walker?

Or that the other auditor is Norma Walker, also of Spennymoor. Or that she is the mother of Solidarity president Adam Walker?

We have now.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

(With thanks to TWAFA for information supplied.)

The last three months in the BNP

From our mate, Irish Tony. Want to see more of his YouTube clips? Click here. Enjoy...

Solidarity - police called in

News has reached us that the Executive Committee of the BNP’s fake Solidarity trade union has called in the police to investigate the affairs of the strife-torn organisation. EC members Clive Potter and Tim Hawke have also involved the trade union Certification Officer and sought the help of Leicester MP Peter Soulsby. This confirms comments made on the Nazi Stormfront forum.

This comes in the same week that Solidarity’s 2006 annual return became available, showing that at the beginning of 2007 the union had only 42 members. In May Vice-President Tim Hawke emailed one of our correspondents claiming that the union had around 100 members.

We don’t intend to repeat the entire Solidarity saga here (links to the relevant LUAF articles are provided below), save to reiterate that the farce began at a quorate meeting of Solidarity’s Executive Committee, where allegations of irregular behaviour regarding the union’s funds were put to General Secretary Patrick Harrington, and which at a later Special Executive Meeting resulted in his suspension pending an investigation.

Harrington, an old friend of BNP leader Nick Griffin, refused to accept his suspension and sought Griffin’s support. This seems to have caught the BNP leadership off-balance, as the “rescue plan” they put into operation was badly thought out - completely disregarding Solidarity’s legally agreed constitution - and enacted with typical BNP heavy-handedness.

Any pretence that Solidarity was ever anything other than yet another BNP front was shattered when the union’s host provider, owned by failed South African school-bomber and BNP member Lambertus Nieuwhof, hijacked its website which remains in the control of Harrington’s version of Solidarity. An unconsitutional EGM was quickly called, it being agreed beforehand to expand the number of Executive Committee posts and to carve them up between the BNP and Third Way (the tiny organisation represented by Harrington), which the non-EGM duly ratified.

The BNP’s internal affairs may be conducted in this hole and corner manner, but the affairs of what is a legally constituted trade union are quite a different matter.

Any unbiased perusal of Solidarity’s constitution will show that the Special Executive Meeting which suspended Patrick Harrington was a legal gathering within the scope of that constitution. Whether Harrington was guilty or not of the charges made against him has no bearing on that inescapable fact.

Consequently, we believe that the actions of Harrington and his supporters since that time have been entirely beyond Solidarity’s constitution, that his and the BNP’s version of the union has no real legal existence, and, therefore, no right to utilise the official union’s financial and other resources, including its membership lists - hence the involvement of the police.

Solidarity update - BNP’s Nick Griffin heavily criticised for interference
Where next for the BNP’s amoeba-like Solidarity union?
Solidarity disaster goes critical as criminal investigation is threatened
BNP discards democracy completely to force takeover of 'independent' Solidarity
Solidarity - an email update from the Vice-President Tim Hawke
BNP's Solidarity situation worsens - fake union under threat
BNP's fake union Solidarity already up against the ropes
Related articles

Solidarity update - BNP's Nick Griffin heavily criticised for interference

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.

Silver Ring Secrets

When 16-year-old Lydia Playfoot went to the High Court in a battle to wear a chastity ring to school, she won a wave of support among those concerned about the growing tide of underage sex and teen pregnancies.

The pretty teenager who turned up at court each day appeared articulate, independent and committed in her opposition to sex before marriage - as symbolised by the special silver ring on her finger. But now it appears that she may be little more than a pawn in a desperate publicity campaign driven by her parents.

Lydia, who has since left the school in West Sussex that refused to allow her to wear the ring, happens to be the daughter of Phil and Heather Playfoot, the founders of a chastity campaign called the Silver Ring Thing, or SRT.

They present themselves as wholesome defenders of the nation's teenagers - blaming the "bombardment of sexual images" for rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. But the Daily Mirror can reveal that one senior member of their organisation - which promotes "sexual purity" - is actually a lingerie model and ex-jailbird who lives with a man who is not her husband.

More disturbingly, the live-in boyfriend of SRT co-founder Denise Pfeiffer is a leading British National Party activist.

Pfeiffer is listed on the SRT website as a "media consultant" but she has also been described as its "assistant national director". The 37-year-old - who claims she's 27 - is a part-time model and bit-part TV actress who posted pictures of herself modeling underwear on a website. The Daily Mirror tracked her down to the home in Leicester she shares with 46-year-old Clive Potter. He was the local BNP's parliamentary candidate in the last two elections. He is also president of the BNP's trade union Solidarity and the Christian Council Of Britain.

The right-wing CCB says it is "a front-line ministry for men only and not for women nor for the effeminate or sodomites". And though it claims to be open to all races, the council "especially" welcomes white British Christians.

Pfeiffer, meanwhile, has appeared as an extra in TV shows including Emmerdale, Crossroads and Dream Team, and claims her "playing age" is 18 to 35. She also works as a freelance journalist and has previously published articles in a number of national newspapers, including the Daily Mirror. Her own website, celibrate.org, "celebrates celibacy". A self-confessed obsessive Michael Jackson fan, she was jailed in 1994 for harassing the family of Jordy Chandler after he accused the singer of sexual abuse.

Pfeiffer was freed on £10,000 bail, paid by actress Lynn Redgrave, before receiving a suspended prison sentence. She said at the time: "If it weren't for Michael, I'd be asexual. Nobody else could compare."

Describing her experience in jail, the model, who was happy to pose in her bra and knickers, said: "I was strip-searched. To me, this was worse than a vicious beating because I have always been shy and self-conscious."

In 2001, Pfeiffer, then aged 31 but describing herself as a 25-year-old virgin, said: "Sex seems to be thrown at me everywhere I turn - whether it's in the magazines that I read, the films that I see or in the conversations I have with my friends. I'm just someone devoid of sexual desire and incapable of enjoying sensuous contact. I do worry about whether it will one day destroy my relationship with Clive."

She said the couple, who moved in together shortly after they met in 1999, shared a bed but did not have sex. "Clive does try to go further than kissing sometimes but I can't bear it and we invariably end up arguing," she added.

Three years later, but still insisting she was 25, Pfeiffer became involved in the Silver Ring Thing and said: "I made a personal decision to abstain from sex before marriage 10 years ago, when I was 15."

Pfeiffer was among a group of "volunteers" who established the Silver Ring Thing in the UK in 2004. In America, the sexual abstinence movement is linked to the conservative right and received a boost in government funding under the Bush administration. The American Silver Ring Thing claims to have won pledges from 25,000 teenagers and hopes to sign up two million by 2010. Here, the UK version recently set up a company charging youngsters to attend abstinence courses.

The SRT decribes itself as "not-for-profit" on its website and insists that all profits will be re-invested into its abstinence programme. But Silver Ring Thing (UK) Ltd is not registered at companies' house as a "company limited by guarantee". That is the normal way for a "not-for-profit" company to register, with trustees instead of directors and no shareholders. Instead, Silver Ring Thing (UK) Ltd is a normal "public limited company" and states as one of its objectives: "To carry on as a general commercial company."

The firm's sexual abstinence courses are run at seven locations around the UK and involve DVDs, study bibles, journals and charts. After completing the four-week course, youngsters are charged £10 for their rings, with a replacement costing £13. Organisers also offer to put on special courses but ask for payment of at least £350, plus travel and accommodation expenses. Alternatively, parents can buy the course pack for £40, plus £20 for each student. So far, Silver Ring Thing (UK) hasn't filed accounts, so it's unclear how much the firm has made from the operation.

Tellingly, the company was formed three days after the Playfoots announced they were considering legal action against Millais School, near their home in Horsham, West Sussex.

Their daughter Lydia, 16, began wearing her silver "purity ring" to school in 2004 but it declared that the rings were pieces of jewellery and breached its uniform policy. Lydia and 11 schoolmates were banned from wearing them. She, in turn, claimed that she was being denied her right to express her faith and won the backing of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship to take her case to court.

Despite the fact that Lydia left the school after completing her GCSEs several weeks ago, the Playfoots pressed ahead with the case - one that generated international publicity for their company. This week, deputy High Court judge Michael Supperstone QC ruled against Lydia and in favour of the school. He rejected the idea that the baubles are Christian symbols, saying: "Whatever the ring is intended to symbolise, it is a piece of jewellery." Lydia said it was a matter of deep regret that "I could not persuade the court to consider upholding the religious liberty of Christian people in the United Kingdom".

Her father Phil was ordered to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs and Lydia said that she's considering an appeal. But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, praised the court's decision, saying: "The case was a manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on this school and, presumably, on other schools if this case had been won. Lydia's parents run the British chapter of the Silver Ring Thing and had a vested interest in being able to spread its message. Lydia had left the school and it did not infringe her freedom of religion."

When contacted by the Daily Mirror, Silver Ring Thing spokesman Andy Robinson said yesterday: "I don't wish to comment until I have seen the evidence. But I have spoken to Denise Pfeiffer and she denies that Clive Potter is her boyfriend."

He did not comment on her past as a lingerie model or on the time spent in a US jail, or on Potter's BNP links. Ms Pfeiffer herself was unavailable for comment.

Lydia may have been a pawn in the drive to boost her parents' chastity company.

Mirror

Where next for the BNP's amoeba-like Solidarity union?

Following the fraudulent Extraordinary General Meeting held by the breakaway Solidarity union on Sunday, there is speculation about what will happen to both it and the original Solidarity from which it split. Both organisations are claiming the name, both are carrying on business as usual and both are purporting to be the Solidarity. Confusion is rife. To avoid making it worse, we'll refer to them as Solidarity A and B, A being the original union and B being the one stolen by Nick Griffin and Pat Harrington.

In a typically BNP-style News Bulletin, Solidarity B printed this little gem on its website yesterday;

'Solidarity members have reclaimed their Union at an Emergency General Meeting. The meeting heard how all members of Solidarity had been notified of the meeting called constitutionally by 2/3rds of the membership. Notices were published on the Union website, text messages sent to mobiles and email and postal bulletins sent.'

So two-thirds of the membership called for the EGM, did they? We're assured by three correspondents (writing to us completely independently as far as we can tell) who are all in the union, that they were not contacted in any way at all, either by text, post or phone, and if they had been they would certainly have voted against the changes. One wonders how this two-thirds figure could be proven and whether the BNP actually bothered to get in touch with anyone it thought might possibly be in opposition to its great takeover plan.

One of our correspondents also asked exactly how many people attended the EGM - an interesting question which we would love to have answered. Perhaps Harrington (who has posted on here using the apt name 'doublethink') would like to post some details.

'Those who may have been frightened to attend had been offered personal guarantees of their safety and dedicated security to allay their fears.'

This is clearly BNP-inspired 'by implication' bullshit that ranks alongside the fake assassination attempt on Nick Griffin as entirely stupid and completely unnecessary. The BNP is always claiming threats and intimidation, though it's usually alleged that it's 'reds' that have carried them out. Who is it this time - Tim Hawke and Clive Potter?

Regardless of all this, Nick Griffin has, using a couple of other people, regained control of what he sees as his union. Yes, Griffin, not Harrington. In fact, Griffin's grubby, chubby mitts are all over this fiasco, as you can easily tell when you consider how Solidarity has been snatched from those who wanted it to be almost an ordinary union (even though it would be supportive of the far-right) and placed in the hands of those who simply wish to exploit it for their own ends.

Though starting off on the wrong foot with a sacked General Secretary, rumours of financial mismanagement at best and theft at worst, the very clear theft of the membership list, the Paypal account and the website, Solidarity B is patently going on to better things, with a completely illegal EGM and the unconstitutional election to the Executive of two people who were either not members at all or certainly hadn't been for three months, Lindsey Nieuwhof and Simone Clarke.

Lindsey, you may recall, is the wife of Lambertus Nieuwhof, the new(ish) BNP web guru and school-bombing terrorist who, at Harrington and Griffin's instigation, locked Potter and Hawke out of the Solidarity website. Simone Clarke is the ballet dancer everyone made such a fuss about a few months back - generally disliked in the BNP because her (ex?) partner and the father of her child is Cuban-Chinese and they just don't like that sort of thing.

All this, though a laugh for us opponents of the BNP and its allied idiots, is really beside the point. This whole fiasco was all caused when Potter and Hawke decided there was something dodgy in the accounts so rightly suspended Harrington pending an investigation. Since then a takeover has been engineered in collusion with the BNP through theft after theft - surely making the whole Solidarity B formation non-financial fraud on a fairly grand scale? If we were in the same unhappy position as Potter and Hawke, we would immediately begin seeking advice for a legal challenge to the ownership of Solidarity via the High Court.

Naturally, there is a financial angle to all of this. Well there would be - Nick Griffin's involved. Apart from the poor bloody members of Solidarity B, who are about to be ripped off for every penny they can spare via all the schemes that Griffin and Harrington will think up between them, another body from Harrington's Third Way mob has suddenly popped up from nowhere with a nice little potential earner.

Before we get into this one, we ought to state that we have seen evidence that not only supports this next part of the Solidarity disaster but also leads off to a couple of interesting tangents that we'll be picking up on in the very near future. That said, here's the next part of the story...

While he was General Secretary of Solidarity A, Pat Harrington was anxious to get the union to make use of a PR company named Accentuate. For various reasons - mostly to do with cost - this proposal was rejected by Harrington's fellow EC members. Probably just as well because Accentuate, which is run by Graham Williamson - former treasurer of the National Front and old chum of both Nick Griffin and Pat Harrington - appears to be a one-man PR company with absolutely nothing behind it. In fact, as far as we can ascertain, Williamson has no experience of PR beyond a single mention (from 2004) we could find on the internet, where his name is plugged in connection with one Dave Stephens (a fellow-member of the Third Way and one of the so-called Metric Martyrs) and the Customary Measures Society, one of those archaic groups that oppose the unnecessarily long and gruelling change to metric measurement.

Despite this, Williamson was keen to be associated with Solidarity A and indeed, intended to work for the union for one day a week for the princely sum of £100! No doubt, now that Solidarity B appears to be off the ground and under Harrington's control, Williamson will get his way.

Some way down the 'Strategy' document for Solidarity's PR requirements, which looks like it was largely gleaned from the Ladybird Book of PR Tips, mention is made of monitoring media reports of Solidarity's activities;

'...the first would be on the basis of ‘hits’ from press statements. This can be identified through using a firm like Durant’s who would monitor the media and supply us with identified coverage. I think this is a must regardless since we need to monitor what is being said about the Union. Whilst it will be very limited at present an active PR campaign will increase it significantly.'

We've no idea who 'Durant' is, though it wouldn't surprise us in the least if it turned out to be another ex-NF colleague of Griffin and current Third Way colleague of Williamson and Harrington, Dave Durant, who has stood for Third Way in a couple of elections (Hornchurch 2001 and Upminster 2005). More info on this would be appreciated.

Solidarity B has hardly been in existence for a few days and already the theme that is emerging is the familiar BNP theme of jobs for the family and friends. Harrington was, with Griffin's encouragement, demanding a wage for the work he was putting in despite the fact that everyone else was prepared to work for nothing in an attempt to enable the birth and growth of the union, and seems to be wangling a job for Williamson. If Durant is who we think he is, that's another one sorted - and so it goes on.

And who pays for all these fake jobs for these losers? The Solidarity membership, of course.

But jobs for the boys and financial shenanigans isn't all we associate with anything tainted by Nick Griffin. He's a great lover of political stunts too, as witnessed by the gag he wore at the first 'free speech' trial last year. Williamson seems to be on Griffin's wavelength because he's suggesting that Solidarity does what Griffin himself has done with the BNP - introduce a non-white character to deflect accusations of racism. The only real surprise is that they haven't (yet) got a Jew to come along too.

'The first ‘stunt’ should be a Press Conference launching the Union in Essex unveiling our first Sikh member Pramjit Sadra. This of course helps to counter the racist...accusations.'

Slightly out of date because the Third Way site mentions that Sadra actually joined Solidarity on or around April 20th of this year. Curiously Sadra, just like Nick Griffin, seems to be into all kinds of bizarre get rich quick schemes - search Google and take a look. It's interesting reading.

We'll leave this story for the moment because things are cooking in the background which might well mean there's a lot more about to happen. However, nil desperandum and all that jazz - we'll leave you with something to read in the form of Graham Williamson's great PR plan for Solidarity. Most of it seems to be the kind of stuff a schoolboy could have come up with in his lunch break but as the Solidarity B membership may well end up forking out £100 a day for this tosh, they should have the chance to see it first. Read on...

'PR STRATEGY FOR:

SOLIDARITY- The British Workers Union

The Union needs publicity in order to raise awareness. This will facilitate recruitment but also help create a ‘general’ (preferably positive) image, particularly to those ‘undecided’ and ‘outsiders’.

There are only three ways of reaching out to the general public, ‘Advertising’, ‘In-house’ promotion and Publicity.

Advertising

This will take the form of leaflets, both general and industry specific, but could include adverts in magazines (whether political or trade).

The advantage is that we control the message; the disadvantage is the limited coverage this can give us. Minor political parties struggle to get their message across when relying on leaflets and it might, for various reasons, be even harder to get our leaflets into the hands of a workforce (although it may only take one leaflet to bring a sympathetic worker ‘out’?).

Leaflets can also be costly and advertising even more so. Obviously however leafleting is still an absolute necessity since we can guarantee our address is given out, gives all members a role and is the only medium we can control. Beyond recruitment the impact will be negligible.

‘In-house’ promotion

This takes the form of advertising, promotional articles etc. within sympathetic circles e.g. BNP and Third Way events and publications..

Being a captive market this can initially boost membership and ultimately provide a steady stream of new recruits. The disadvantage is that it might a) raise questions of ‘entryism’ or accusations of being a front group b) make it more difficult to be independent.

It is a short circuit to increased membership but needs to be balanced at the earliest opportunity with parallel recruitment outside of politically sympathetic circles.

Publicity

The majority of the public’s awareness stems from what they read in the media, whether in print or on TV (and to a much lower extent on the radio). In comparison to direct advertising, including printed material, ‘third-party endorsement’ (or at least neutrality) is seen as more credible.

A good Public Relations strategy will seek to maximise its ‘horizontal’ hits i.e. volume of coverage as well as its ‘vertical’ i.e. positive hits in the media.

The ability to achieve positive coverage will rely upon the content and layout of any Press Release/feature and the relationship (even image) between the Union (or host PR company) and the media.

Press Release

This could either be about an event e.g. demonstration/AGM etc or a position e.g. on general industry matters e.g. minimum wage or on something specific e.g. a company’s labour relations.

To begin with it will be more of the latter but as we grow there will be more opportunities to be more active.

There is a ‘right’ way and style of writing any press release: Headline - who, what, why, where (preferably in a popular style) – quotes (harder to twist through fear of libel) – conclusion. You have to take account of the average journalists’ routines e.g. they cut from the bottom, prefer e-mails, like to put a face or voice behind a release etc. This comes with experience and professional interest i.e. tricks of the trade.

Features

Features on the Union or personalities will increase public credibility and tend to ‘humanise’ the organisation.

Such Organisational features rely upon a USP(s) (Unique Selling Point). For the Union this would be opposition to outsourcing, cheap migrant labour and PC. It will sell better if linked to actual events i.e. move of a call centre or factories e.g. “We oppose the loss of 200 jobs at British Gas’s Kettering Regional HQ because Management prefer using cheap labour in Malaysia. It’s deceiving the British public and putting people out of work”

It also has mileage being a Moral and Libertarian Union e.g. “the Fire Brigade sacked these officers but we welcome them because their personal or political views are no concern of ours”. Again examples of actually recruiting such people would help.

Personalities can be used because of who they are or where they come from. When Mick Shaw became Fire Brigade President one of my Regional papers did a page spread on him. The only link being he was born in Romford. It would be possible to get publicity for Solidarity officials. It can even use controversy in its favour. Again it humanises the Union.

Quotes

Quotes will be sought by journalists if they think you have something useful and credible to say. This might be direct to Head Office or a Press Office but can also be to known officials. At the last fuel protest I was contacted for a quote merely because I worked for a haulage company and I had credibility in the eyes of the journalist. I can imagine many such opportunities for Union officials with the right ‘priming’.

All the above can occur if a positive relationship with the media is achieved through regularity, personal contact and credibility. The latter has the same dynamic as between the public and the media. If the recipient believes you ‘have clean hands’ they will take more note. By using a PR company you immediately excite the snob in the journalist i.e. this organisation is serious (might actually pay for the privilege!) and a belief that such a company is likely to be a little more objective than his client.

THE STRATEGY

Defensive as well as Positive

Whilst the Union has now been well and truly born most of the publicity so far has been rather negative i.e. it’s a BNP front-group. Whilst there has been good defensive work on the blogs and to a lesser extent with some of the media it is going to difficult if we are always chasing our tail and reacting to events rather than creating them.

Of course the Union faces opposition because a) of its patriotic position b) BNP links. They are attempting to limit the Union’s freedom of action vis a vis neutral actors (businesses, media etc) and put-off potential recruits. They are treating the Union as if it were a political party by ascribing to it policies i.e. a 'scab' or 'racist' union. This however can be turned to our advantage (see later).

We need to minimise the number of opponents and their effectiveness. There will be a war of position with and within them. I believe our PR strategy will not only achieve this aim but of course create lots of positive publicity at the same time, leading to more recruits and a better image, leading to improved coverage translated into more recruits etc.

Positive

In the first year we need to in the:

Short term

a) Send out National Press Releases introducing the Union.
b) Organise ‘Stunts’ to attract interest.
c) Continue with defensive activity on blogs and appropriate press releases.

Medium term

This occurs once we have actual campaigns under way and appointed officials. We can then bring in event press releases, features and quotes.

To begin with we need to prepare Press releases on selected issues e.g. off shoring, whilst targeting sectors e.g. trade journals and the like.

The first ‘stunt’ should be a Press Conference launching the Union in Essex unveiling our first Sikh member Pramjit Sadra. This of course helps to counter the racist and ER accusations.

This conference should be largely for a selected local press (and any sympathetic journalists we may know of). In this way we can control the output and minimise opposition. We should tape/record the event for showing on web and promoting to the media at large.

Remuneration

There are only two ways; piece or daily rates. The first would be on the basis of ‘hits’ from press statements. This can be identified through using a firm like Durant’s who would monitor the media and supply us with identified coverage. I think this is a must regardless since we need to monitor what is being said about the Union. Whilst it will be very limited at present an active PR campaign will increase it significantly.

The other way of remuneration would be daily rates say of £100. Initially say one day per week. Although the work wouldn’t/shouldn’t be restricted to one specific day i.e. it would be carried out as and when it is a simple way of controlling expenditure. The evidence of the effectiveness of the PR strategy would still be required even if not directly tied to ‘hits’ at this stage.

Conclusion

I am keen to launch the PR strategy because a) I need to try and build my business b) explore all my skills and ideas c) I believe the Union has a massive potential and that a great deal of its success will rely upon an effective PR campaign(s) d) I am a member of the Union and wish it to succeed.

I await your deliberations.'

Don't hold your breath, is our advice.

Solidarity disaster goes critical as criminal investigation is threatened

Several correspondents have written to bring us up to date with the current bizarre situation regarding the BNP's fake union Solidarity. Rather than simply report an update though, we felt it would be useful to go through the timeline and the relevant sections of the available documents which are essential in understanding precisely what's happened and who has played what role in creating the chaotic situation that currently exists, which seems to have led to two separate Solidarity unions running independently of each other, both disputing its right to exist over the other. Once we've dealt with that, we'll report on the position as it stands now.

The three principal characters involved in this fiasco are Pat Harrington (General Secretary), Clive Potter (President) and Tim Hawke (vice-President) with Billy McLinden (current Acting General Secretary) playing the Harrington understudy and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) very clearly playing the villain of the piece.

As is made clear by the minutes of the meetings, which are available on the Solidarity web site this whole sorry saga began at the meeting of the Solidarity Executive Committee (consisting of the three principal characters named above) on May 20th. The meeting was quorate (which simply means that votes that were made at that meeting are binding when passed by a simple majority - a small but important point) and the accounts were duly submitted by Harrington, who was apparently acting as treasurer. Rather than interpret the minutes, we reproduce the relevant portions below exactly as they appear.

'1. Accounts Review

Proceedings were opened with the President insisting on a review of the long-requested accounts from the General Secretary / Treasurer.

General Secretary / Treasurer provides a piece of paper with his basic financial notes written on them. However, no receipts were provided or printouts of Account Balance made. President expressed his deep concerns regarding this and requests full accounts to be sent to him after meeting. Discussion takes place where we agree to search among our membership list towards finding a suitable candidate with book-keeping experience to become the Treasurer but that perhaps the President should take over this role once the accounts are in proper order. President is reluctant and states that this issue of a new treasurer must be delayed until the accounts are in order.

5. Discussion of Upcoming events

General Secretary discussed the plans he has made to promote the union at an open parade event called July 12th. Concerns were made by Vice-President that we mustn’t become partisan with regards to the Northern Ireland situation with Vice-President highlighting the RMT Bob Crow example. However, General Secretary who has considerable understanding in this region ensured that this wouldn’t place us on one particular side of the political divide that effects that area.

General Secretary discussed how he had been in discussions with the Chairmen of the BNP (currently the Unions main supporter) and that with the upcoming August BNP RWB family festival he had agreed (without EC consent) to holding a stall / two workshops and personally making a speech on the main podium. Vice-President was extremely concerned due to other upcoming events, such as the union Coffee Campaign, which would not give us time to feature and prepare for workshops, General Secretary expressed how this wouldn’t be a problem and would leave the workshops in the hands of the Vice-President.

Vice-President requested clarification on the term workshop, but none was given. President agreed with the RWB event having a Union stall but also expressed considerably confusion regarding what the workshops involved as well as the speech material that the General Secretary would use, particularly in regards to his terminology with previous adverts and articles that he had published without EC consent. The stall concept was approved but the speech and two workshops were not.

8. Investigation Declared

President returns to the area of the Accounts, accusing the General Secretary / Treasurer of not being transparent with regards to Union finances. Vice-President agrees with this and states his surprise at the lack of account information provided and its format.

General Secretary / Treasurer stated that this is his duty and trust must be shown. Vice-President criticises the General Secretary / Treasurer’s hiring of accountants stating that no 3 quotes for accountant were provided and that EC concerns were ignored. Also that the company did not provide a clear fee. General Secretary / Treasurer stated that time was against him due to restraints, when President expressed that the accounts could have been produced many months ago as requested, General Secretary / Treasurer stated that such comments were not helpful.

President expressed concerns over a meeting requested by the Union’s main sponsor Chairmen Nick Griffin on the 05/04/07 (where the Chairmen informed the President / Vice-President that the General Secretary / Treasurer needed a computer and small union salary from the union funds. This was opposed by the President and Vice-President due to financial situation of the union). General Secretary / Treasurer stated that his close friendship with Chairmen led him to express his requirements.

President states that this behaviour showed contempt for the EC and so that he would seek an investigation with concerns regarding the General Secretary / Treasurer’s actions. General Secretary / Treasurer stated that this couldn’t happen since the EC would have to make the judgement and if the General Secretary was suspended there would be no Quorum. General Secretary / Treasurer asked for Vice-Presidents input into this disagreement and he stated that if any concerns exist then an investigation should take place to resolve the issue. With the Vice-President’s approval the President confirms that a formal investigation would take place where the General Secretary / Treasurer would then be temporary suspended during the process. General Secretary / Treasurer refuses to accept the legitimacy of this.'

What is immediately obvious is that there has been a prior and continuing problem with the accounts - the phrase 'long-requested' gives that away along with 'President expressed that the accounts could have been produced many months ago as requested', and when the accounts arrive, there are no receipts and the accounts appear to be simply rough notes.

It's also pretty obvious that Harrington has not been keeping his colleagues au fait with what else he's been up to. In section 5, Harrington states that he has agreed (with Griffin) to hold workshops, run a stall and make a speech at the BNP's annual beer-fest, the Red White and Blue festival (RWB). In fact he doesn't appear to have kept his Executive Committe colleagues up to speed on much at all, as witnessed by the bitchy 'previous adverts and articles that he had published without EC consent' remark.

Quite rightly in our opinion, the EC expresses its concerns at the state of the accounts and then goes on to criticise Harrington, who seems to have regarded Solidarity as his own little toy, for taking on an accountant without bothering to get the required three quotes for their services. This sense of ownership by Harrington is shown up dramatically when it's reported that his old friend Nick Griffin had butted in by demanding a computer and a wage for him - rejected by the two more sensible members of the EC on the grounds that the union couldn't afford it.

At this point I would have kicked Harrington out of the meeting with a thick ear but Hawke and Potter, being far more patient, followed the proper procedure and decided to suspend him pending an investigation into both his behaviour and the state of the accounts. Though Harrington disputes the validity of the suspension, it's clear from the minutes that it was properly conducted.

The timeline gets a bit hazy for the next few weeks but Solidarity tidies things up with a fairly startling News Bulletin that outlines the events as they arrive in quick succession.

'On the 3rd June 2007 a Special Executive Meeting was held where the General Secretary was suspended pending an investigation. A temporary Acting General Secretary [Billy McLinden] was nominated and approved. This individual was chosen to head this investigation due to his experience in fighting corruption in the past. On the 3rd June 2007 the suspended General Secretary was informed of his status and asked to cooperate with the investigation.

An alarming amount of evidence has been obtained regarding Mr Harrington’s conduct. He has refused to relinquish any details with regards to the finances and so was redrawn from the Solidarity main account. He also set-up a Paypal online account, whose access codes he has consistently refused to provide. On the 20th June 2007, just over a week before the expected completion of the investigation, Mr Harrington hijacked the Solidarity website by contacting the sites host (a friend of his) and displayed his own altered version.'

This is extraordinary behaviour for a man who purports to be the General Secretary of a union - even one supported by the BNP. Anyone with any sense would have resigned, issued a statement defending himself to anyone who listened and walked away from the whole mess with as much dignity as possible held in reserve. Instead of that, Harrington goes off the deep end, hijacks the account and the website, and announces that he is Solidarity.

Is this the action of a rational man or a mini-dictator, we ask? Ah, well it depends why he did it the way he did, and the entrance of the BNP at this point tends to assume a little devious planning going on in the background.

It seems a little too much of a coincidence that Harrington took over the Solidarity website (run by Nick Griffin's chum Calvary Church School bomber Lambertus Neiuwhof) on exactly the same day that the BNP posted a notice on its website stating that Solidarity had been the 'subject of a far-left sabotage bid' and that these lefties were planning to replacing Harrington with someone [McLinden] who 'could well be a Marxist agent provocateur'. We reported on this statement here and we're not repeating it all here except to remind readers that it was in this statement that the BNP called for an Extraordinary General Meeting. As Harrington and now the BNP have the membership list, the accounts and the website, it seems they'll have their way. But not without a fight.

The Solidarity News Bulletin continues;

'Since then he has undemocratically declared himself the General Secretary of Solidarity with the understanding that he, and he alone, leads the union. Be assured that the Certification Office is now investigating this with deep concern.

Concerns have been expressed that Vice-President Tim Hawke has as yet refused to sign off the accounts of the union, which needs to be handed into the Certification Office shortly. His response to this is...

“I have strong reasons to believe that the AR21 form (accounts document) is highly inaccurate but have been unable to verify this due to the suspended General Secretary / Treasurer’s refusal to provide me the union receipts and balance print offs. This document is the Official Annual Returns form as presented to the CO, and if I signed off this deeply dubious version of our financial report I could very well be complicit in Union Corruption”

The President’s response to this is...

“Mr Harrington has placed the Vice-President in an unfortunate position. However, the Vice-President is an individual of high integrity and should Mr Harrington provide the details that he claimed to have presented to the mystery accountants and the auditors, then I know that the Vice-President would sign off the accounts. The current standing EC is deeply and generally opposed to union corruption, and we will stand up against any such poisonous actions since we are custodians of the Union members money and we won’t abuse this.”

With the exception of the Paypal account, your finances are safe. However, if you pay via Paypal we would strongly recommend that you cancel your subscription.

Once the investigation is complete, we shall ensure that all our members receive details of any evidence discovered and what actions we shall take if questionable activities have taken place.

Due to the unprecedented actions of the suspended General Secretary / Treasurer, the standing EC have been forced to plan an Extraordinary Executive Meeting into this individual’s actions with concerns towards necessary disciplinary action.

We are aware that Mr Harrington has called for an Emergency General Meeting, and that he states that requests should be sent to his personal home address. For a suspended General Secretary to act in this way, before the results of an investigation into his conduct is even complete, is totally inappropriate. In addition, any declaration stating that he is the union’s leader is highly unconstitutional.

Therefore the Executive Committee does not recognise this EGM. However, if members have any concerns or requests to make to the Executive, then please feel free to write to Solidarity’s Head Office at PO Box 8127, Leicester, LE21 9AN.'

On June 26th, with no website and no access to funds, Tim Hawke emailed us to attempt to put the record straight - certainly as far as the Hawke/Potter side of the argument is concerned - but it had already become clear that the BNP was deliberately manipulating things to re-establish what it sees as its union. In fact, since that date there has been no attempt, as far as we know, to suggest arbitration or even a simple meeting between the two sides to discuss the problems.

Clearly the divide is too great. On the one hand there is a pair of people who are apparently anxious to get a union that will support their own peculiar viewpoint up and running and on the other is Nick Griffin and the BNP, who want the union for some other reason. It can't be the same reason or the BNP would leave it in the hands of Hawke, Potter and now McLinden. Our guess would be the potential it has to be an earner for Griffin/the BNP. If the union miraculously managed to take off and, for example, the entire membership of the BNP joined, the potential skim (political fund) for the BNP would be enormous.

The BNP Dirty Tricks Dept is working overtime. On July 5th, an article appeared on the BNP website stating;

'It has emerged that a significant number of letters to the old Leicester PO Box were not getting answered. We do not know if this was an internal failure, or if left-wing postmen were interfering with deliveries there. Either way it is essential to stop using that address, particularly for sending money. Any letters or emails advertising or purporting to come from Leicester should be ignored, and any literature advertising that address must be destroyed'

We are assured that all of this is entirely untrue, that letters are being answered and that there is no internal failure with responding to mail. To interfere with the running of any organisation in this way is surely a criminal offence? If not, it damn well should be.

'New members are also entitled and encouraged to add their voices to this call.'

Pending any Extraordinary General Meeting there should be no new members. Membership should be suspended, particularly in a case such as this, to avoid one side packing the membership temporarily simply to achieve its aim, which is precisely what the BNP is doing.

'Please note that Solidarity’s Paypal system is working properly and is in safe hands.'

Indeed? Whose are those? Nick Griffins? Pat Harringtons? We know all about Griffin and his apparently insatiable lust for money but what about Harrington? Well, we've already seen what a dodgy character he is - prepared to lie and connive his way back to the top of the union (along with his computer and wage packet, no doubt) and content to see those who question his financial integrity or indeed capability thrown out unceremoniously. In fact, he's remarkably like Griffin in that respect.

But the chickens might well be coming home to roost. Several of our correspondents have consistently mentioned the disappearance of £400 from the Solidarity account that, according to the union's bank statements, appears to been transferred by Harrington after his suspension by Potter and Hawke. We have no way of knowing if this is true but if it is, that is arguably a criminal act. We understand that this is how it's seen by the genuine Solidarity leadership and that the police have been or are being contacted regarding taking further action.

While they're investigating that, the police might also care to take a look at the legality of what Harrington and Griffin have done to the union, with an especially close look at Griffin and his request via the BNP site that people send membership money to what is now effectively (though not morally) Pat Harrington's private Paypal account and PO Box in Edinburgh.

After this disastrous beginning we would be surprised if the Certification Officer granted any kind of credibility to Solidarity. If it stays in the hands of Hawke, Potter and McLinden it'll be impotent and will no doubt collapse soon through lack of interest and support, though one never knows. If it goes to Harrington and Griffin it will be based in corruption before it ever really started and any meaningful funds will be siphoned off into the BNP's ever-empty piggy bank or on the next stupid idea that Griffin has for making more money from hot air.

Either way, Solidarity is doomed to collapse completely in the fairly near future. Pending the outcome of any criminal investigation (if one actually takes place), Griffin and co will more than likely bulldoze their way through the democratic process and that'll be the end of the union.

One wonders why the BNP wanted a union of its own in the first place - just a few years ago, its manifesto said 'People whose freedoms must be curbed are the pressure groups, the media and trade unions’.

That's presumably unless money can be made out of having one of your own.