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.)

Who exactly is Nick Griffin working for - the BNP or Patrick Harrington's NLP?

• Why does BNP webmaster Simon Bennett run the BNP, NLP and Third Way's websites?
• Why are the Accentuate and Solidarity websites served up by BNP insider Lambertus Nieuwhof?
• Why did Nick Griffin ask Graham Williamson - not a BNP member - to chair the BNP's last conference?
• Why did Harrington's NLP stand against the BNP in South Hornchurch?

The recent history of the BNP and its connection with Patrick Harrington makes interesting reading. Harrington, you'll recall, engineered a hostile and possibly illegal takeover of the BNP's fake union Solidarity with Nick Griffin's blessing last summer, leaving the union split in two and in a state of chaos from which it has yet to emerge. The latest situation is that it is currently under investigation by the Trades Union Certification Officer.

One of Harrington's first tasks on grabbing the union was to hand a job to his Third Way colleague Graham Williamson, who despite having no experience (or indeed, talent) in public relations, decided to start running a web-based (meaning it doesn't exist anywhere except on the internet) public relations company, the utterly pointless Accentuate. Harrington, the leader of an utterly pointless union, aptly took Williamson on to run the PR for Solidarity. And has Solidarity been a PR success? Well, hardly, despite Williamson's third-rate PR company putting its best efforts into it.

Williamson, former treasurer of the National Front and old chum of both Griffin and Harrington, has popped up in an odd context recently over on the North West Nationalist blog, where it was suggested that he was one of the people who was asked to chair last year's BNP conference in Blackpool. Assuming that this is indeed the case, why would he be asked to chair the conference of a party to which he doesn't even belong?

In fact, the connections between the BNP and Harrington's version of Solidarity, his National Liberal Party and Third Way, and Accentuate are manifest mostly, like Accentuate itself, through the internet.

• The National Liberal Party website is run by Simon Bennett, the BNP's very own webmaster, as is the Third Way website.
• The Solidarity website is served up by Lambertus Nieuwhof's company Noisy Dinosaur, as is Accentuate.

Lambertus Nieuwhof, for those who don't recognise the name, was one of a trio of men who planted a home-made bomb at the Calvary Church School (in South Africa) in protest against the school's decision to become racially mixed. When the bomb failed to go off, one of them lost his nerve, gave himself up to the police and turned in his two associates, one of which was Nieuwhof. At the end of the resulting court case he received what Searchlight rightly stated was a derisory twelve-month suspended prison sentence. Leaving South Africa Nieuwhof set off for Britain, where he came into contact with the appalling Arthur Kemp, another South African extremist exile, who had been arrested for the murder of Chris Hani, a close colleague of Nelson Mandela, in April 1993 but was released without charge. Kemp had been named by Clive Derby-Lewis, a far-right South African MP who is now serving life imprisonment for setting up Hani's murder, as the author of a hit list of prominent anti-apartheid leaders. Both Nieuwhof and Kemp are in the BNP's inner-circle and both are close to Nick Griffin.

Back to the childish Simon Bennett (who has set up numerous sites imitating and attempting, though failing, to undermine Lancaster Unity) and we have a big question to ask. Why would the BNP's webmaster run a site for a rival party too? In fact, we asked this question of one of the ex-BNP members who are regularly in touch with us, who responded by stating that 'the NLP isn't really a rival to the BNP'. If that's the case, why did it support Michael Burton (an Independent) in the recent South Hornchurch by-election when there was a BNP candidate (Anthony Steff) who it could have supported? Clearly, the NLP IS a political rival to the BNP. Would the Labour Party trust its webmaster with running the Conservative Party's website too?

I'm aware that this article is more questions than answers but they all need to be asked in order to make sense of what is going on in the peculiar mind of Nick Griffin, who oversees all this nonsense. He has worked closely with Harrington for years and particularly closely during the Solidarity fiasco. Even Williamson, who is an idiot by anyone's standards, gets an important role in this comedy. We heard recently that he was asked by Griffin to watch over Richard Barnbrook at the London Assembly, to make sure he stays out of trouble. So why choose someone who isn't even a party member to do that next to impossible job (though if he keeps Barnbrook away from the booze, bananas and rugby players he should be okay)? Is he paid for it and if so, how much is he paid? Isn't there anybody in the BNP capable of doing the job? The questions are endless and they're not only coming from our side - people in the BNP itself are asking the same questions.

Answers on a postcard please...

Phone calls to Solidarity AGM hotel needed

The BNP tradition of lying about itself seems to have filtered down to its front groups. Even when pretending to operate as a trades union, the party seems unable to be honest about what it is and what it stands for. Today is supposed to be the AGM of the BNP's fake union Solidarity (to begin at 2pm) and a conference room has been booked for it at the Apollo Hotel at Hagley Road, Birmingham - under the name of Accentuate, a fake PR company that is the sinecure of former National Front treasurer Graham Williamson.

We need to ring the hotel to let them know that Accentuate is simply a front group for Solidarity, itself a front group for the BNP and Patrick Harrington's Third Way grouplet. Harrington is yet another old Griffin comrade from his days in the National Front.

The Apollo Hotel can be called on 0121 455 5291. Remember to stay polite and persistent.

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.