BNP escapes penalties but equality watchdog still claims victory saying legal action forced changes to party constitution
BNP leader Nick Griffin has fought off a bid to have him declared guilty of contempt of court. The Equality and Human Rights Commission accused him of failing to comply with a central London county court judgment ordering the removal of potentially racist clauses from his party's constitution.
Robin Allen QC, appearing for the watchdog, said the BNP was "playing with" the commission and its officials instead of obeying the judgment. But Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mr Justice Ramsey, sitting at the high court in London, refused to take action against Griffin, BNP deputy Simon Darby and party officer Tanya Lumby.
The commission was seeking fines against them for contempt, or possibly the sequestration of party assets. The application stemmed from the county court's ruling that the BNP constitution breached discrimination laws because of a clause banning non-white members. The constitution underwent revision, but last March Judge Paul Collins ruled at the county court that the new version was indirectly discriminatory against those of mixed-race because it required party applicants to oppose "any form of integration or assimilation of ... the indigenous British".
Another section required new members to submit to a two-hour vetting visit at their home by BNP officials, which Collins ruled could be seen as "intimidatory". The county judge ordered both sections to be removed from the constitution.
The commission took the BNP to the high court accusing it of being in contempt by failing to comply with that order. Today, as BNP supporters demonstrated outside the royal courts of justice, Lord Justice Moore-Bick said he had reached "the clear conclusion" that the commission's legal action could not succeed.
The commission's legal group director, John Wadham, said today's ruling "makes no difference to the substance of our action against the BNP", which had finally obeyed the county court judgment.
"Mr Griffin failed to properly implement that judgment until we took these proceedings in the high court. When the commission began proceedings against the BNP in June last year the party's constitution was plainly illegal. We asked that they amend it at the time. Had they done so we could have avoided court proceedings. Eighteen months and seven court hearings later Mr Griffin has finally amended the constitution to bring it in line with what the commission had originally requested."
Wadham said the commission would continue to monitor any changes to the BNP's constitution "to ensure membership is made genuinely accessible".
"If we consider that it is not we will decide what regulatory action may again be necessary."
Guardian
Showing posts with label Equality and Human Rights Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality and Human Rights Commission. Show all posts
December 17, 2010
September 08, 2010
Nick Griffin jail proceedings adjourned
An attempt by the Equality Commission to imprison the British National Party leader Nick Griffin was adjourned [yesterday] for two months.
Griffin and two former BNP officers, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby, are accused of failing to remove potentially racist clauses from the party’s constitution. Although the party agreed in February to open membership to non-whites, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) believes that the party still discriminates on racial grounds.
Under the party constitution members have to agree with and support the party’s principles, which include several references to the “indigenous British”. Members who want to vote at party meetings and leadership elections also have to agree to home visits by local party officers, a requirement that may be intimidatory to ethnic minority members.
The CEHR action against the BNP began last autumn at a time when the racist party’s constitution banned non-white members. It forced the BNP to bar new members for over four months while it prevaricated over complying with race equality laws.
Eddy Butler, the BNP’s former national organiser, who last month mounted an unsuccessful challenge to Griffin’s leadership of the party, has said that Griffin could have saved the party tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs had he bowed down to the inevitable outcome at the start.
Today’s proceedings were the result of an application by the CEHR to commit Griffin, Darby and Lumby to prison or be fined for disobeying an order made by the Central London County Court on 12 March to remove two clauses from the BNP’s new constitution because they were indirectly racist. The judge, Paul Collins, also banned the BNP from admitting new members until it had changed the constitution, an order that the party ignored.
Griffin has taken every opportunity to portray himself as a martyr, prepared to go to prison for his cause, to persuade supporters to give yet more money to the financially strapped party. Although he defended himself in court, his desperate begging letters claimed the party needed to raise £30,000 “to make the necessary arrangements to defend our party” and its officers.
Presumably it was an attempt to appeal to his more illiterate supporters that resulted in the heading on one letter “Tommorrow [sic] is our D-Day” in round two against the “Equalities Commisson [sic]”.
In fact, even as he told supporters that he would “cherish my incarceration as an honour on your behalf”, he knew very well that he was not going to prison today. In an interview on the BNP’s website on 3 September, Clive Jefferson, the party’s national elections officer and close colleague of Griffin, claimed, albeit incorrectly, that the party had already won the case because the CEHR had withdrawn the action, leaving only an argument over costs.
At the High Court Mrs Justice Nicola Davies ruled that the cases against the three should be heard by two judges and adjourned them for a two-day hearing starting on 8 November. She laid down a strict timetable for submission of legal argument and evidence before the hearing, in view of Griffin’s very late submission of documents throughout the proceedings. Even his skeleton argument for today’s hearing was only presented yesterday afternoon.
Griffin had turned up half an hour late with his minder, Martin Reynolds, and other BNP security officers claiming it had taken him three and a half hours to get from the East End to court. Several other BNP members turned up in his support, either sitting in the public gallery of the court or on a demonstration outside in the Strand.
Also there, but keeping their distance, were Butler and a number of those who had supported his leadership challenge, including Richard Edmonds, a founder member of the BNP who was suspended from membership for revealing the huge sum the party paid its fundraising and management consultant, the convicted criminal Jim Dowson.
During the hearing Griffin was accompanied by Patrick Harrington, the leader of the rival Third Way party, whom the BNP employs in a staff management role alongside Adam Walker, the disgraced former teacher, who was also in court. Harrington, who acts as general secretary of the BNP’s fake trade union Solidarity, has represented several BNP members at tribunal hearings, sometimes successfully.
Jefferson had come all the way from Cumbria to support Griffin, though it is unlikely he understood much of the proceedings. Bob Bailey, who recently lost his position as London regional organiser, a role now filled by Griffin himself, was welcomed by Darby in particular.
Doubtless Griffin will use the two-month respite to try and raise more money to help the BNP pay off its liabilities, believed to stand at £600,000 and rising. The party claims to have received £23,000 as a result of its latest appeal, so it has a long way to go if it is to stave off insolvency proceedings by its creditors.
Hope not hate
Griffin and two former BNP officers, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby, are accused of failing to remove potentially racist clauses from the party’s constitution. Although the party agreed in February to open membership to non-whites, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) believes that the party still discriminates on racial grounds.
Under the party constitution members have to agree with and support the party’s principles, which include several references to the “indigenous British”. Members who want to vote at party meetings and leadership elections also have to agree to home visits by local party officers, a requirement that may be intimidatory to ethnic minority members.
The CEHR action against the BNP began last autumn at a time when the racist party’s constitution banned non-white members. It forced the BNP to bar new members for over four months while it prevaricated over complying with race equality laws.
Eddy Butler, the BNP’s former national organiser, who last month mounted an unsuccessful challenge to Griffin’s leadership of the party, has said that Griffin could have saved the party tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs had he bowed down to the inevitable outcome at the start.
Today’s proceedings were the result of an application by the CEHR to commit Griffin, Darby and Lumby to prison or be fined for disobeying an order made by the Central London County Court on 12 March to remove two clauses from the BNP’s new constitution because they were indirectly racist. The judge, Paul Collins, also banned the BNP from admitting new members until it had changed the constitution, an order that the party ignored.
Griffin has taken every opportunity to portray himself as a martyr, prepared to go to prison for his cause, to persuade supporters to give yet more money to the financially strapped party. Although he defended himself in court, his desperate begging letters claimed the party needed to raise £30,000 “to make the necessary arrangements to defend our party” and its officers.
Presumably it was an attempt to appeal to his more illiterate supporters that resulted in the heading on one letter “Tommorrow [sic] is our D-Day” in round two against the “Equalities Commisson [sic]”.
In fact, even as he told supporters that he would “cherish my incarceration as an honour on your behalf”, he knew very well that he was not going to prison today. In an interview on the BNP’s website on 3 September, Clive Jefferson, the party’s national elections officer and close colleague of Griffin, claimed, albeit incorrectly, that the party had already won the case because the CEHR had withdrawn the action, leaving only an argument over costs.
At the High Court Mrs Justice Nicola Davies ruled that the cases against the three should be heard by two judges and adjourned them for a two-day hearing starting on 8 November. She laid down a strict timetable for submission of legal argument and evidence before the hearing, in view of Griffin’s very late submission of documents throughout the proceedings. Even his skeleton argument for today’s hearing was only presented yesterday afternoon.
Griffin had turned up half an hour late with his minder, Martin Reynolds, and other BNP security officers claiming it had taken him three and a half hours to get from the East End to court. Several other BNP members turned up in his support, either sitting in the public gallery of the court or on a demonstration outside in the Strand.
Also there, but keeping their distance, were Butler and a number of those who had supported his leadership challenge, including Richard Edmonds, a founder member of the BNP who was suspended from membership for revealing the huge sum the party paid its fundraising and management consultant, the convicted criminal Jim Dowson.
During the hearing Griffin was accompanied by Patrick Harrington, the leader of the rival Third Way party, whom the BNP employs in a staff management role alongside Adam Walker, the disgraced former teacher, who was also in court. Harrington, who acts as general secretary of the BNP’s fake trade union Solidarity, has represented several BNP members at tribunal hearings, sometimes successfully.
Jefferson had come all the way from Cumbria to support Griffin, though it is unlikely he understood much of the proceedings. Bob Bailey, who recently lost his position as London regional organiser, a role now filled by Griffin himself, was welcomed by Darby in particular.
Doubtless Griffin will use the two-month respite to try and raise more money to help the BNP pay off its liabilities, believed to stand at £600,000 and rising. The party claims to have received £23,000 as a result of its latest appeal, so it has a long way to go if it is to stave off insolvency proceedings by its creditors.
Hope not hate
September 07, 2010
Bid to jail BNP leader Nick Griffin adjourned
A move to jail British National Party leader Nick Griffin was adjourned today at the High Court.
The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has applied for the committal of Mr Griffin, deputy Simon Darby and party officer Tanya Lumby over allegations that the BNP has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution.
Mr Griffin, who is representing himself, has countered with an application for the cases to be thrown out.
At a brief hearing in London before Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, it was agreed the actions should be heard by two judges and be transferred to the Divisional Court for a two-day hearing starting on November 8.
Independent
Note: Eddy Butler's blog reports the following:
The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has applied for the committal of Mr Griffin, deputy Simon Darby and party officer Tanya Lumby over allegations that the BNP has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution.
Mr Griffin, who is representing himself, has countered with an application for the cases to be thrown out.
At a brief hearing in London before Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, it was agreed the actions should be heard by two judges and be transferred to the Divisional Court for a two-day hearing starting on November 8.
Independent
Note: Eddy Butler's blog reports the following:
'Nick Griffin turned up half an hour late and submitted his skeleton argument late (yesterday afternoon) and the judge gave very strict instruction that a submission of legal argument and evidence prior to the hearing in November due to Griffin's history of very late submission of papers. The costs will be added onto the final bill.'
August 22, 2010
BNP leader interferes in independent’s work
The leader of the British National Party is trying to interfere in the work of an independent member of the London Assembly.
Nick Griffin, who recently appointed himself acting London regional organiser for the racist party, visited Chris Roberts at his City Hall office on Friday to discuss “GLA work” according to a report on the BNP’s London Patriot website. Roberts is employed by the Greater London Authority as an assistant to Richard Barnbrook, who earlier this month resigned the BNP whip until “allegations of serious wrong doing concerning senior British National Party officials” are investigated.
Griffin’s attempt to influence Roberts to work in the interests of the BNP rather than for the member he is paid to assist is highly irregular. The previous night Griffin told a party meeting in Barking and Dagenham, from which many dissident longstanding activists had been excluded, that he himself would be taking charge of the party’s campaign for the London Assembly and mayoral elections in 2012.
“To be successful, the BNP need a high profile candidate who can generate the publicity needed to mobilise the capital’s remaining demoralised traditional British population to come out and vote,” wrote Martin Wingfield, Griffin’s communications officer following the meeting. But that’s not all, once elected the BNP representative must be influential within the Assembly chamber and make sure that the patriotic voice of British Nationalism is heard at every opportunity,” an implied criticism of Barnbrook’s failure to do so.
London Patriot also reports that Griffin had a long meeting on Friday with solicitors to prepare for the next round of the Equality and Human Rights Commission court case over the party’s racist constitution.
“Mr Griffin will be representing himself in court against a renewed attack from the EHRC which has included a request to have the BNP leader imprisoned,” according to London Patriot. Whether this is because the impecunious BNP cannot afford a barrister or because no barrister is prepared to act for the dictatorial BNP leader is not stated.
The Barking and Dagenham meeting was treated to more of Griffin’s lies in response to questions about serious irregularities in the party that have emerged during the course of Eddy Butler’s unsuccessful leadership challenge.
The raising of the nominations threshold for a leadership challenge – to 20% of members of at least two years’ standing – was, he claimed, not his decision but that of the members at a party general meeting on 14 February this year, which adopted the new party constitution.
In fact members were only shown those parts of the constitution that had been amended in response to the Equality Commission legal action. Griffin slipped in the new rules on leadership challenges without even showing those clauses to members expected to vote for them and the amended constitution could only be accepted or rejected as a whole.
He said he would now ask for changes to the constitution to give the party leader a longer term of office, in other words abolishing the right to challenge him each year.
Griffin was cagey in response to questions about the party’s contract with Jim Dowson, the fundraising consultant with a string of criminal convictions whom Griffin brought in at great expense at the start of 2008. One questioner pointed out that the contract Dowson produced at an employment tribunal hearing over the sacked BNP employee Michaela Mackenzie had ended at December 2009. Griffin said that was not true. He claimed that Dowson’s help had been “invaluable” and said he would extend the contract with him if he felt it was in the party’s interests to do so.
Many in the BNP believe that Griffin will extend Dowson’s contract if it is in Griffin’s and Dowson’s personal financial interests to do so, but those who might say that openly had been kept out of the meeting.
Griffin also blamed the BNP’s current dire financial state on those who had called for members to stop giving money to the party until there was greater financial transparency, claiming this had cost the party around £300,000, an unlikely figure, and an attempt to divert attention from the fact that it is Griffin’s reckless pursuit of hopeless legal actions and Dowson’s huge salary and commission that are the largest contributing factors to the BNP’s debt mountain, now believed to be around £600,000.
Hope not hate
Nick Griffin, who recently appointed himself acting London regional organiser for the racist party, visited Chris Roberts at his City Hall office on Friday to discuss “GLA work” according to a report on the BNP’s London Patriot website. Roberts is employed by the Greater London Authority as an assistant to Richard Barnbrook, who earlier this month resigned the BNP whip until “allegations of serious wrong doing concerning senior British National Party officials” are investigated.
Griffin’s attempt to influence Roberts to work in the interests of the BNP rather than for the member he is paid to assist is highly irregular. The previous night Griffin told a party meeting in Barking and Dagenham, from which many dissident longstanding activists had been excluded, that he himself would be taking charge of the party’s campaign for the London Assembly and mayoral elections in 2012.
“To be successful, the BNP need a high profile candidate who can generate the publicity needed to mobilise the capital’s remaining demoralised traditional British population to come out and vote,” wrote Martin Wingfield, Griffin’s communications officer following the meeting. But that’s not all, once elected the BNP representative must be influential within the Assembly chamber and make sure that the patriotic voice of British Nationalism is heard at every opportunity,” an implied criticism of Barnbrook’s failure to do so.
London Patriot also reports that Griffin had a long meeting on Friday with solicitors to prepare for the next round of the Equality and Human Rights Commission court case over the party’s racist constitution.
“Mr Griffin will be representing himself in court against a renewed attack from the EHRC which has included a request to have the BNP leader imprisoned,” according to London Patriot. Whether this is because the impecunious BNP cannot afford a barrister or because no barrister is prepared to act for the dictatorial BNP leader is not stated.
The Barking and Dagenham meeting was treated to more of Griffin’s lies in response to questions about serious irregularities in the party that have emerged during the course of Eddy Butler’s unsuccessful leadership challenge.
The raising of the nominations threshold for a leadership challenge – to 20% of members of at least two years’ standing – was, he claimed, not his decision but that of the members at a party general meeting on 14 February this year, which adopted the new party constitution.
In fact members were only shown those parts of the constitution that had been amended in response to the Equality Commission legal action. Griffin slipped in the new rules on leadership challenges without even showing those clauses to members expected to vote for them and the amended constitution could only be accepted or rejected as a whole.
He said he would now ask for changes to the constitution to give the party leader a longer term of office, in other words abolishing the right to challenge him each year.
Griffin was cagey in response to questions about the party’s contract with Jim Dowson, the fundraising consultant with a string of criminal convictions whom Griffin brought in at great expense at the start of 2008. One questioner pointed out that the contract Dowson produced at an employment tribunal hearing over the sacked BNP employee Michaela Mackenzie had ended at December 2009. Griffin said that was not true. He claimed that Dowson’s help had been “invaluable” and said he would extend the contract with him if he felt it was in the party’s interests to do so.
Many in the BNP believe that Griffin will extend Dowson’s contract if it is in Griffin’s and Dowson’s personal financial interests to do so, but those who might say that openly had been kept out of the meeting.
Griffin also blamed the BNP’s current dire financial state on those who had called for members to stop giving money to the party until there was greater financial transparency, claiming this had cost the party around £300,000, an unlikely figure, and an attempt to divert attention from the fact that it is Griffin’s reckless pursuit of hopeless legal actions and Dowson’s huge salary and commission that are the largest contributing factors to the BNP’s debt mountain, now believed to be around £600,000.
Hope not hate
June 05, 2010
BNP not 'open and honest' says East Midlands councillor
One of the British National Party’s few remaining councillors has joined the growing calls for a challenge to Nick Griffin’s leadership of the party.Graham Partner, who holds one of the party’s two seats on North West Leicestershire District Council, says the BNP is not “being managed in an open and honest way”. Writing on his blog he comments: “I see people are being expelled for asking questions about the accounts and have to wonder what is there to hide. Therefore I conclude there is something to hide and I don’t like it.”
Drawing on his council experience, he notes: “Some good activists have been lost over recent years simply for speaking out. This is not acceptable to me either. I believe in people’s rights to challenge everything in the same way as scrutiny operates on the council. The answers are not always what we hope for but we still ask and don’t get sacked for having the nerve.”
In a reference to the widespread accusations that the party is being run for the benefit of Griffin and his “consultant”, the anti-abortion extremist Jim Dowson, Partner declares: “How can I be expected to encourage people to join, knowing that it is run as a personal empire where the members are merely a source of income.”
Partner would welcome a challenge this year to Griffin’s leadership but believes the new constitution makes it impossible. “I am totally supportive of anyone who wants to challenge for the leadership on the grounds of democracy and if Nick wins again then so be it. The constitution is a farce and designed to make it near impossible to instigate regime change. Those who voted for the current version must be deluded if they think that is democratic. What is more, I haven’t got a clue who the Founders are and would think collecting the required number of nominees as impossible.”
Party members were required to vote for the new constitution at an EGM in February under extreme pressure to settle the action brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over the party’s discriminatory membership conditions. If the BNP had not agreed to admit non-white members, the resulting legal proceedings might have prevented the party contesting last month’s elections.
However Griffin used the party’s desperate position to insert clauses imposing onerous requirements on anyone wanting to challenge for the leadership. Members could only vote for or against the constitution as a whole, without amendment and without even seeing these clauses, which were not presented to the meeting.
Under the new BNP constitution candidates for the chairmanship, who must be “voting members” (members of two years’ standing who fulfil activist and ideological training requirements) with at least five years’ continuous party membership, must secure the signatures of 20% of all party members with at least two years’ membership and 20% of all voting members. They must also by supported by 10% of the members attending a general meeting of the “Founders’ Association”, a body that is separate from the BNP but in which all party assets are vested. The constitution does not define the Founders’ Association but it is understood to be people who were paid-up members before the constitutional changes and are still members.
Griffin has promised to resign from the chairmanship by the beginning of 2014 to concentrate on securing his re-election to the European Parliament in June that year. Partner says: “If Nick Griffin is to step down in three years time, there will be a leadership contest anyway so let him accept a challenge now and save the Party three more years of squabbling and membership losses”.
Partner himself will not be a candidate. Apart from the fact that he does not rate himself as a speaker, is not interested in being chairman and would not want “the workload or the travelling about that Nick does”, Partner would not qualify as his party membership has lapsed. “Belfast [the BNP’s purportedly efficient call centre run by Dowson] were supposed to ring me on May 28th but failed to do so, therefore my five years continuous has been broken, ruling me out as a candidate and voter.”
Hope not hate
May 10, 2010
BNP faces legal threat amid new racism claims over redrafted constitution
Nick Griffin could be in in contempt of court for allegedly breaching court order to amend party rulesThe British National party faces the prospect of renewed legal action from the government's equalities watchdog over allegations that it has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The court case could potentially see the BNP's leader, Nick Griffin, jailed or fined for contempt of court, or see party assets seized, lawyers believe.
It caps a miserable couple of weeks for the BNP. Griffin came third in the parliamentary vote for Barking, a constituency the BNP had targeted heavily, while his party lost all 12 of its seats on Barking and Dagenham council. That followed a disastrous election campaign in which the BNP website was taken down by its designer, the party's publicity director was arrested on suspicion of threatening to kill Griffin and a London candidate was caught on camera fighting in the street with a group of Asian teenagers.
The BNP constitution was challenged in court last year by the government's Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In March, Judge Paul Collins ruled that even after the BNP lifted a direct ban on non-white members, the revised document was indirectly discriminatory because it required applicants to oppose "any form of integration or assimilation of ... the indigenous British", something the EHRC argued could not be endorsed by those in mixed-race relationships.
The constitution additionally required new members to submit to a two-hour vetting visit at their home by a pair of BNP officials, a clause Collins ruled could be seen as intimidating for non-white applicants. He ordered both offending sections be removed.
Following the ruling, Griffin redrafted the BNP constitution, something the party's rules allow him to do without consulting members. However, copies of the new version – officially known as draft 12.2 – show that both clauses have not been removed but moved and slightly amended. The home interview clause returns in near-identical wording as the "annual visit criteria", without which new members cannot attend meetings or vote on party matters.
"This seems like a slightly hapless attempt to get round the injunction by moving the offending section to a different part of the constitution," said Paul Epstein QC from Cloisters Chambers in London, a specialist in discrimination law. "There seems to be no doubt that what they have done goes against the spirit of Judge Collins's ruling at the very least. They're taking a real risk of being found in contempt of court. This is particularly the case for Griffin, given this role he has in changing the constitution."
The section relating to the "indigenous British" remains in the new constitution, under the heading "Temporary amendment". Gavin Millar QC, a specialist in election and discrimination law from Doughty Street chambers, said this appeared to breach the court decision. "The ruling made it quite clear that the reference to 'indigenous British' was discriminatory and had to be removed but the BNP has included it, saying it is only being temporarily removed pending a successful appeal, at which point it will be reinstated. This is a clear breach," he said.
The home visit clause had been slightly reworded but "it is in substance the same", he said, adding: "The approach they have taken is both a civil and criminal breach of the order and I think in the end, unless the courts or the commission give up, which I don't think they will, the BNP and Griffin will in the end face contempt proceedings and possible imprisonment."
Any EHRC action will have to wait until a government is formed, as until then its activities remain constrained by Cabinet Office guidelines on the behaviour of public bodies during election campaigns. An EHRC spokesman said: "At the time of the court ruling, we said that the commission would monitor the BNP's compliance with the ruling. We are currently looking into this matter."
The EHRC is understood to have written to the BNP outlining its concerns about the new constitution and is awaiting a reply. The BNP did not respond to a request for comment.
Guardian
April 30, 2010
BNP supporter spoofs 'The Spoof' (maybe)
Q: When is a spoof not a spoof? A: When it's BNP propaganda.The article that caught my eye was titled 'IMF Shock "Only Nick Griffin's BNP Can Fix The British Economy!"'. With a title like that and with all we know about the BNP's financial corruption and mismanagement, it looked like essential reading, if only for the odd snigger after a busy day.
It started off fairly promisingly and looked like it might be a tad more subtle than the usual fare (like 'Scientist proves Kerry Katona doesn't actually exist' or 'Entire UK Population To Hide From Inspector Morse').
'Red faces all around when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund amazed journalists and commentators at a news conference this morning In Berlin by announcing that only the British National Party has put forward enough spending cuts to save an almost certain imminent collapse of the British economy within the next few months.Hmm. That phrase 'British One Party State' seems strangely familiar...
Mr Strauss Khan endorsed the plans of Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP to make the real and substantial spending cuts necessary to cut the deficit and get Britain on track to regain her financial independence from abroad.
"Only the British National party" he said "has proposed enough cuts to prevent Britain from going begging for a bailout to the International Monetary Fund within the next few months of an election win by any of the three wings of the British One Party State."'
'Mr. Griffin commented "Unlike the other parties we will hide nothing, we will open all the books on the economy to the British people and the British media and trust them to understand, instead of hearing bits of the facts filtered through the the spin doctors in Number 11 or the main party's phoney think-tanks."'Odd then that Griffin can't even open the books (or indeed, balance them) for the BNP itself, let alone the entire UK, but there you go. The article continues:
'Before releasing the full economic policy as listed below this report, Mr Strauss-Kahn gave some interesting highlights drawn up by his advisors:The article then drifts into a complete (and long) reproduction of the finance section from the BNP's manifesto. Not funny at all, in fact.
The British National Party will begin by carefully explaining to the British people the truth about the economy and explain why a number of jobs, but less than those proposed by the other parties, will be lost for a while in public services. It will seek to get the British people on board in the spirit of the Blitz, when Britains [sic] united together to make sacrifices now to lay the foundations for a strong economy in the future for their children...'
So who would post something like this? Well, that at least is easily explained because the item was provided by a writer named 'sarasara'. Sarasara's homepage turns out to be a YouTube channel packed with pro-BNP and EDL videos and this little image at the top, which might help to explain things.
A search of other stories by Sarasara reveals that he, she or it has been a busy little bee on the BNP's behalf. A story named Secret MI5 Report Highlights Nick Griffin Threat is another puff-piece for the BNP, while others attack the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Unite Against Fascism, Billy Bragg and anyone even vaguely anti-fascist or linked in any way to anyone who has dared to question the BNP.In fact it's pretty clear where Sarasara's political sympathies lie, particularly when, on reading an article about a fictitious invitation to Nick Griffin to visit Israel, the phrase 'fascist far-left anti-Israel UAF' is used. Sarasara's 'satires' are no such thing - they are pro-BNP propaganda, pure and simple.
The Spoof, naturally, has a set of fairly familiar terms and conditions for the writers who submit their stories, one of which is:
'You must not use the website for any of the following...to impersonate any third party or otherwise mislead as to the origin of your content'I would suggest that providing political propaganda in the guise of satire is breaching that condition and I would ask that readers complain about this to the site's webmaster or the site's administrator. It's one thing to be attacked by humour - we do it all the time - but it's quite another to have an innocent site (if it is one) used to unwittingly spread the BNP's filth, lies and idiocies.
Annoyingly, Mark Lowton, the owner (or at least the site registrant) of The Spoof, lives here in Lancaster, so purely because I'm a nosey bastard, I searched to see what other domains he had an interest in and immediately one popped up, so to speak - www.bountifulpenis.com. Says it all really, doesn't it.
April 27, 2010
Young, nazi and out of a job
Mark Collett: accused of financial irregularities and threatening Nick GriffinAs British National Party members were still taking in the implications of the extensive constitutional changes forced on them by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, they were hit by news of the suspension of the party’s national publicity officer.
A bulletin to party organisers on 31 March accused Mark Collett of “conspiring with a small clique of other party officials to launch a ‘palace coup’” against Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, and spreading “lies and unfounded rumours”. He had therefore been “relieved of all positions within the party with immediate effect”.
Collett, 29, was also accused of “financial irregularities and scamming” over printing BNP election material and its Identity magazine, leaking sensitive party information on the internet and feeding “lies” to anti-BNP blog sites. And there had been a “catalogue of recurring and seemingly inexplicable ‘gaffes’ being made at various stages in our preparations for the general election by certain individuals within the party”.
The same bulletin stated that the police had been “made aware of very serious allegations potentially affecting the personal safety” of Griffin and Jim Dowson, the BNP’s fundraising and management consultant.
The “other party officials” said to ‘have conspired with Collett were not named. However two days after the announcement Emma Colgate resigned as the party’s staff manager saying she wanted to devote herself full-time to the election campaign in Thurrock, where she is standing for parliament and also hoping to get more BNP councillors elected.
“We’re in with a real chance in Thurrock and I want to give it my best shot,” she said. “I cannot properly work fill-time [sic] on the campaign while being paid by EU taxpayers to manage our European staff.”
As it was a party position from which she had resigned, this was a clear admission that the BNP had been ‘using EU taxpayers’ money to fund its party apparatus.
There was also a rapid exit by ‘Eddy Butler from his position as the BNP’s national organiser and national elections officer. His replacement, Clive Jefferson, is a rising star in the party. Appointed as North West regional organiser and national nominating officer last year, he too is on the BNP’s European Parliament payroll.
However Butler was “still very much with the BNP and is set to play a leading role in the party’s attempt to take control of the Barking and Dagenham council,” a special meeting of party officers and organisers was told.
The meeting, rapidly convened ‘on Easter Monday, “unanimously” appointed a “four man strong subcommittee” to listen to an alleged tape recording of a conversation between Collett and the party treasurer David Hannam, which the party claims would enable the police to “investigate a number of potential crimes including threats to murder, assault, fraud and falsification of accounts”, according to a BNP statement issued afterwards.
The committee declared the tape genuine, although the statement did not explain how they arrived at that verdict. However it is understood that the police are unlikely to bring any charges because the tape has been “edited”.
Perhaps the BNP did not really want a prosecution as a court case might reveal a lot more than it wishes to be made public.
Butler’s precise role in the BNP’s Barking and Dagenham campaign is unclear. Last November Griffin anno-unced that Richard Barnbrook, the BNP’s London Assembly member, would spearhead the campaign. ‘Perhaps he has not been producing ‘the canvassing returns Griffin expects.
Barnbrook and Butler are both standing for election in Goresbrook ward, where the BNP currently has two councillors. Butler recently put himself on the electoral register in Dagenham, despite remaining on the register at his real home in Loughton, Essex. Barnbrook and Bob Bailey, the BNP’s council group leader, pulled a similar trick at the time of their election in 2006. They got away with it then, but Butler and some other BNP candidates who have suddenly “moved” to Barking and Dagenham are likely to face investigation if elected.
Even so, the BNP has only managed to find 34 candidates for the 51 council seats in the borough, making it near impossible for it to win the 26 councillors needed to gain control.
This is not the BNP’s only problem. Delays have beset the party’s general election manifesto. As we went to press, the BNP said it would be launched in Stoke-on-Trent on 23 April, less than two weeks before polling day. The party has previously announced that its main election themes would be withdrawal from Afghanistan, immigration and “the global warming conspiracy”. ‘On the issue that is near the top in most voters’ minds, the economy, the fascist party has little to say.
Whether the manifesto delay is one of the “gaffes” being blamed on Collett is not known, but Collett would most likely have been responsible for its design and printing.
One huge gaffe unlikely to be Collett’s responsibility, because it occurred on 14 April well after ‘Collett’s departure, was the Normandy veteran fiasco. The previous day HOPE not hate sent an email to supporters asking them to join its big day of action on 17 April. Headed “I fought the Nazis. Will you?” it consisted of a personal message from Kenneth Riley, a Normandy veteran who fought in the Tank Division.
Amazingly the next day the BNP posted a nearly word-for-word identical message on its website, excepted that it implored people to support the party. ‘It was signed off by “Bob Head”, who claimed to have been “attached to the 51st Highland Division”. Instead of asking for volunteers, it solicited ‘£20 donations.
Riley was furious that the BNP had “stolen” his words and put his name to a new email for HOPE not hate to raise money for the anti-BNP campaign. ‘The Normandy Veterans Association said it had never heard of Head and ‘cast doubt on his claimed service record and medals.
Head’s email was one of only a small number appealing for donations for the BNP’s election campaign. Unlike in the run-up to last year’s European election, the BNP’s fundraising effort this year has been lacklustre. No begging letters have been dispatched for some time ‘and appeals on the party’s website and by email have been unambitious. Website donation links go straight to a form without any exhortation to encourage generosity.
The official launch of the BNP’s campaign fund on 10 April claimed ‘that the party had already raised £275,000, including £165,000 in election deposits, and was looking for another £180,000. The party was not being entirely straight. Most general election candidates are expected to pay their own £500 deposits or raise the money locally.
For several weeks the party has been reporting branch meetings around the country that have raised highly unlikely sums, considering that most of its supporters come from the lower socio-economic groups. Revelations that Griffin and Andrew Brons, his fellow MEP, have been misusing their European parliamentary expenses, coupled with the Collett “financial irregularities” accusation, cannot have enhanced the confidence of potential donors that their money would be well spent.
To add to the party’s financial woes, the Electoral Commission announced on 15 April that it had upgraded its review of the British National Party’s accounts to a formal investigation.
The BNP has already been fined £1,000 because its 2008 accounts ‘were submitted nearly six months late. They came with a report from the party’s auditors, Silver & Co, stating that they did not give a true and fair view and did not “comply with the requirements of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as adequate records have not been made available”. Even Griffin admitted the accounts were “inadequate”.
The Electoral Commission emphasised that the fact that an investigation had been launched did ‘not mean that electoral rules had ‘been breached. A statement by the commission explained that “no conclusion has been reached and therefore no assumption should be made as to whether a breach of the ‘rules has occurred”.
That did not stop the BNP describing the investigation as “an obviously politically motivated attack” and claiming ludicrously that the party had been assured it would be closed the following week.
Meanwhile the embarrassing leaks of financial information that the BNP tried to blame on Collett appear to be continuing. Earlier this year it emerged that the BNP had paid over £360,000 to businesses connected with Dowson during the first 11 months of 2009, a significant proportion of the party’s budget. This fact and the central position Dowson holds in the BNP’s operations gave rise to our conclusion that Dowson in effect owns the BNP.
The latest leak suggests that Dowson’s hold over the party continues, with more than £51,000 paid to his company Adlorries.com in March alone.
It has been suggested that Dowson was responsible for Collett’s suspension and supporters of Collett have thrown the “financial irregularities” accusation back at Dowson. Many in the BNP are suspicious of the close relationship between Griffin and Dowson, who claims he is not a party member.
Whether Collett’s BNP career is truly over remains to be seen. His Wikipedia page, which was hastily updated to record his suspension, states that his membership was reinstated a week later, though he has not got his old job back.
Collett has bounced back twice before, once after he notoriously starred in the television documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, in which he said he was inspired by images of German Nazis “sieg heiling” in the streets, the second time after the internal rebellion in the BNP in winter 2007-08, when he was widely accused of incompetence. He claims to remain “completely loyal” to the party and has offered to help with local election material.
Searchlight
March 28, 2010
British National Party goes upmarket to target white middle class
Legal defeat prompts far-right party to 'refocus its propaganda on a new front'
The British National Party is attempting to cloak its image as a party of violent, racist thugs by appealing to middle-class voters at the general election.
Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, has signalled a radical change in strategy for the forthcoming campaign after his widely derided performance last October on BBC1's Question Time, which draws a large middle-class audience. It will attempt to capitalise on disillusionment with both Labour and the Conservatives over the expenses and lobbying scandals.
The BNP's legal officer, Lee Barnes, in an article sent to activists, claims the BNP has "won over" the white working class and that it is now time to use "propaganda" to reach out to a wider circle of voters. Yet the strategy remains targeted at white voters, with Mr Barnes telling activists they must appeal to the "white liberal middle class" and the "white Tory middle class".
The move is a sign that the court defeat inflicted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over the BNP's ban on non-white members has forced the party to modify its election campaign strategy away from race to broader issues of class. Yet critics described the plan as a cosmetic move to cover up its racist beliefs and showed that the BNP had gone as far as it could in picking up working-class votes.
Last week Robert Grierson, a barrister, was selected to stand as a candidate for the BNP in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, where the Conservatives have a majority of more than 12,000. After his selection Mr Grierson was forced to resign from St Philips Chambers in Birmingham where he has worked as a tax barrister for 10 years. "I felt I had to stand up and take the flak I will no doubt get. This shows that the BNP is not a party of skinheads and knuckle-draggers," he said. But Sutton Coldfield's MP, the Tory frontbencher Andrew Mitchell, described his BNP opponent as "an extremist in a suit".
The BNP's top target seats remain the working-class constituencies of Stoke Central and Barking, and the strategy is unlikely to have a significant effect. Last year, however, a BNP candidate won a shock victory in a council seat in Sevenoaks, Kent, the heart of Middle England.
In his article, Mr Barnes dismissed the "smug, selfish, apathetic, politically correct parents" of middle-class voters, but said it was time to appeal to the next generation who are under 45. He claimed this group were suffering "racial discrimination" when applying for university places. He wrote: "As a result of the Equality Commission case we must now refocus our propaganda on a new front – that of the Nationalist Classless Society and the creation of a meritocracy as opposed to the racist multi-cultural system. Even though we have failed to market ourselves properly to the White Working Class we have won them over.
"But we must now also reach out [to] the children of the White Liberal Middle Class and White Tory Middle Class and explain to them how mass immigration, New Labour and Cameron's Tories and multiculturalism have betrayed them."
The BNP is fielding 300 candidates at the general election, expected on 6 May, and more than 1,000 in the local elections on the same day.
A spokesman for Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, said: "This is an indication of Nick Griffin's desperation as he is unable to break through to the extent he had hoped following the European elections and he is casting around for a new strategy. This will inevitably increase divisions within the BNP which have already been created by his disastrous Question Time performance and his defeat at the hands of the Equality and Human Rights Commission."
IoS
The British National Party is attempting to cloak its image as a party of violent, racist thugs by appealing to middle-class voters at the general election.
Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, has signalled a radical change in strategy for the forthcoming campaign after his widely derided performance last October on BBC1's Question Time, which draws a large middle-class audience. It will attempt to capitalise on disillusionment with both Labour and the Conservatives over the expenses and lobbying scandals.
The BNP's legal officer, Lee Barnes, in an article sent to activists, claims the BNP has "won over" the white working class and that it is now time to use "propaganda" to reach out to a wider circle of voters. Yet the strategy remains targeted at white voters, with Mr Barnes telling activists they must appeal to the "white liberal middle class" and the "white Tory middle class".
The move is a sign that the court defeat inflicted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over the BNP's ban on non-white members has forced the party to modify its election campaign strategy away from race to broader issues of class. Yet critics described the plan as a cosmetic move to cover up its racist beliefs and showed that the BNP had gone as far as it could in picking up working-class votes.
Last week Robert Grierson, a barrister, was selected to stand as a candidate for the BNP in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, where the Conservatives have a majority of more than 12,000. After his selection Mr Grierson was forced to resign from St Philips Chambers in Birmingham where he has worked as a tax barrister for 10 years. "I felt I had to stand up and take the flak I will no doubt get. This shows that the BNP is not a party of skinheads and knuckle-draggers," he said. But Sutton Coldfield's MP, the Tory frontbencher Andrew Mitchell, described his BNP opponent as "an extremist in a suit".
The BNP's top target seats remain the working-class constituencies of Stoke Central and Barking, and the strategy is unlikely to have a significant effect. Last year, however, a BNP candidate won a shock victory in a council seat in Sevenoaks, Kent, the heart of Middle England.
In his article, Mr Barnes dismissed the "smug, selfish, apathetic, politically correct parents" of middle-class voters, but said it was time to appeal to the next generation who are under 45. He claimed this group were suffering "racial discrimination" when applying for university places. He wrote: "As a result of the Equality Commission case we must now refocus our propaganda on a new front – that of the Nationalist Classless Society and the creation of a meritocracy as opposed to the racist multi-cultural system. Even though we have failed to market ourselves properly to the White Working Class we have won them over.
"But we must now also reach out [to] the children of the White Liberal Middle Class and White Tory Middle Class and explain to them how mass immigration, New Labour and Cameron's Tories and multiculturalism have betrayed them."
The BNP is fielding 300 candidates at the general election, expected on 6 May, and more than 1,000 in the local elections on the same day.
A spokesman for Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, said: "This is an indication of Nick Griffin's desperation as he is unable to break through to the extent he had hoped following the European elections and he is casting around for a new strategy. This will inevitably increase divisions within the BNP which have already been created by his disastrous Question Time performance and his defeat at the hands of the Equality and Human Rights Commission."
IoS
March 13, 2010
Griffin reopens BNP recruitment
British National Party leader Nick Griffin declared applications to join were being processed again despite a court order banning recruitment of new members
In a landmark ruling, Judge Paul Collins issued an injunction against the far-right group stating its constitution was illegal and ordering it to comply with equality laws. He said the party's membership rules meant it was "likely to commit unlawful acts". But Mr Griffin claimed he had now amended the constitution to comply with the law and membership had therefore reopened.
The 17-page judgment, delivered at the Central London County Court, found the BNP's clause that any members must agree to preserve the integrity of an "indigenous British" society was illegal and should be withdrawn. It ordered the removal of the pledge to oppose immigration into the UK and maintain Britons as the "overwhelming majority" racial group. As part of the injunction, the BNP will also have to abandon its "intimidatory" policy of sending officials to the homes of prospective new members.
Mr Griffin claimed he had used his authority to alter the wording of the constitution to remove the obligation on applicants to adhere to the principles of the party. He said: "Section 4, which deals with the requirements for membership and includes the demand that members support all the principles of the party, is not protected.
"I have, therefore, with immediate effect changed the section 4 requirements, as I am entitled to do, to comply with the court order. What this means is that people can apply to join the BNP without having to endorse and support the principles of the party." He said the amended version would be published online within 30 days.
"Membership applications are therefore now open and the 7,000-strong backlog will be processed in the order in which they applied," Mr Griffin added.
A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which brought the case against the BNP, said: "We will be monitoring the situation. They need to ensure they comply with the terms of the court order fully otherwise they will be in contempt."
PA
In a landmark ruling, Judge Paul Collins issued an injunction against the far-right group stating its constitution was illegal and ordering it to comply with equality laws. He said the party's membership rules meant it was "likely to commit unlawful acts". But Mr Griffin claimed he had now amended the constitution to comply with the law and membership had therefore reopened.
The 17-page judgment, delivered at the Central London County Court, found the BNP's clause that any members must agree to preserve the integrity of an "indigenous British" society was illegal and should be withdrawn. It ordered the removal of the pledge to oppose immigration into the UK and maintain Britons as the "overwhelming majority" racial group. As part of the injunction, the BNP will also have to abandon its "intimidatory" policy of sending officials to the homes of prospective new members.
Mr Griffin claimed he had used his authority to alter the wording of the constitution to remove the obligation on applicants to adhere to the principles of the party. He said: "Section 4, which deals with the requirements for membership and includes the demand that members support all the principles of the party, is not protected.
"I have, therefore, with immediate effect changed the section 4 requirements, as I am entitled to do, to comply with the court order. What this means is that people can apply to join the BNP without having to endorse and support the principles of the party." He said the amended version would be published online within 30 days.
"Membership applications are therefore now open and the 7,000-strong backlog will be processed in the order in which they applied," Mr Griffin added.
A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which brought the case against the BNP, said: "We will be monitoring the situation. They need to ensure they comply with the terms of the court order fully otherwise they will be in contempt."
PA
March 12, 2010
BNP membership rules still discriminatory, court rules
The British National Party's new membership rules are likely to discriminate against non-white people, a judge has ruled
The BNP voted to scrap its whites-only policy after a legal threat from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. A judge at Central London County Court has ruled the party's new constitution is still indirectly discriminatory. BNP leader Nick Griffin said the ruling was "appalling" but he had now made the changes demanded by the court.
Judge Paul Collins ordered the BNP to pay costs and said its membership list must remain "closed" until it complied with race relations laws. Delivering his ruling, he said: "I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution."
BNP leader Nick Griffin said the party thought it had made the changes needed to comply with forthcoming equality legislation and was "amazed" by the ruling. He told the BBC News Channel: "I think it's appalling. The court have opened a huge can of worms here, they have given a government funded, a taxpayer-funded body the right to interfere with the aims and objectives of political parties.
"That's not just an attack on us. It's an attack potentially on any political party. It's a bad day for democracy from that point of view."
But he said the party had complied with the ruling and was now "open for business".
A spokeswoman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it "had to take this action" and was "not concerned with the political outflow" of the ruling. She added: "As long as they comply with the court order then that is fine but obviously we are going to be looking carefully at the new constitution when it is issued if we still think it is racist in any kind of way, we will either be bringing this matter back to the court, under contempt of court proceedings or we will be issuing new proceedings."
The constitution rejected by the court asked members to sign up to the BNP's principles, including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of "integration or assimilation" that impacted on the "indigenous British", and a requirement to support the "maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British".
It also stated that members have to agree to two party officials - one male and one female - visiting their home for up to two hours. A lawyer acting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said this could be used to enable potential members to be intimidated, although there was no evidence it had been used in that way.
Mr Griffin said this was an "entirely normal" procedure to prevent the infiltration of people who wanted to sabotage the party and "find out what sort of people wanted to join the BNP". But he said it would now be scrapped to comply with the ruling, adding: "You don't have to agree to a home visit in order to be a member of the BNP."
He claimed there were 7,000 people on its membership waiting list, including a "handful" of people "from each of the main ethnic groups in Britain" including Sikhs, West Indians and "two Chinese ladies".
"We certainly won't put them to the front of the queue, that's for the Labour Party to put ethnic minorities to the front of the queue, we won't do that, but we will treat them fairly," he said.
Speaking earlier, he said if the party was forced to pay £60,000 in costs, it would have "some effect" on the general election campaign "but not a huge amount".
BBC
The BNP voted to scrap its whites-only policy after a legal threat from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. A judge at Central London County Court has ruled the party's new constitution is still indirectly discriminatory. BNP leader Nick Griffin said the ruling was "appalling" but he had now made the changes demanded by the court.
Judge Paul Collins ordered the BNP to pay costs and said its membership list must remain "closed" until it complied with race relations laws. Delivering his ruling, he said: "I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution."
BNP leader Nick Griffin said the party thought it had made the changes needed to comply with forthcoming equality legislation and was "amazed" by the ruling. He told the BBC News Channel: "I think it's appalling. The court have opened a huge can of worms here, they have given a government funded, a taxpayer-funded body the right to interfere with the aims and objectives of political parties.
"That's not just an attack on us. It's an attack potentially on any political party. It's a bad day for democracy from that point of view."
But he said the party had complied with the ruling and was now "open for business".
A spokeswoman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it "had to take this action" and was "not concerned with the political outflow" of the ruling. She added: "As long as they comply with the court order then that is fine but obviously we are going to be looking carefully at the new constitution when it is issued if we still think it is racist in any kind of way, we will either be bringing this matter back to the court, under contempt of court proceedings or we will be issuing new proceedings."
The constitution rejected by the court asked members to sign up to the BNP's principles, including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of "integration or assimilation" that impacted on the "indigenous British", and a requirement to support the "maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British".
It also stated that members have to agree to two party officials - one male and one female - visiting their home for up to two hours. A lawyer acting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said this could be used to enable potential members to be intimidated, although there was no evidence it had been used in that way.
Mr Griffin said this was an "entirely normal" procedure to prevent the infiltration of people who wanted to sabotage the party and "find out what sort of people wanted to join the BNP". But he said it would now be scrapped to comply with the ruling, adding: "You don't have to agree to a home visit in order to be a member of the BNP."
He claimed there were 7,000 people on its membership waiting list, including a "handful" of people "from each of the main ethnic groups in Britain" including Sikhs, West Indians and "two Chinese ladies".
"We certainly won't put them to the front of the queue, that's for the Labour Party to put ethnic minorities to the front of the queue, we won't do that, but we will treat them fairly," he said.
Speaking earlier, he said if the party was forced to pay £60,000 in costs, it would have "some effect" on the general election campaign "but not a huge amount".
BBC
March 09, 2010
New BNP constitution 'discriminates indirectly'
The British National Party was accused today of “indirectly” discriminating against black and Asian people even though the party no longer bars them from joining
A new constitution allowing people of any ethnic origin to join the party obliged prospective members to support its principles, which meant the door was, in reality, only “pretty narrowly open” for “non-indigenous Britons”, London’s Central County Court heard.
But the BNP, which voted to amend its constitution last month after the Equality and Human Rights Commission took legal action over the far-right party’s whites-only membership policy, denied the allegations and said it had a “waiting list” of black and Asian people and would welcome more applications from ethnic minorities.
The party will have to wait to find out if its decision to scrap the previous policy went far enough to meet race relations laws. After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Paul Collins said he would issue his judgment on the matter on Friday.
During a day of legal submissions, the court heard prospective members had to sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British” and a requirement to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.
Robin Allen, QC, representing the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “That is something which we would submit is indirectly discriminatory. They will put persons who do not fall into the indigenous British category at a disadvantage.”
He argued the principles could be interpreted to oppose mixed marriages and could force people to deny their own identity.
“We simply say from the commission’s point of view we are statutorily obliged to encourage diversity and recognise diversity as part of the British state in its widest sense,” he said. “We’re indifferent as to the expression of views as long as they are lawful. It’s the condition of access that we take exception to.”
The new, twelfth version of the constitution also includes a measure that members have to agree to two BNP officials - one male and one female - visiting their home for up to two hours, the court heard. Mr Allen said this could be used to enable potential members to be intimidated, although there was no evidence it had been used in that way.
Gwynn Price Rowlands, for the BNP, told the hearing there were “significant numbers” of members who were mixed race or in mixed marriages, along with “several” Jewish members.
“They (the BNP) make it clear that they would welcome more applications from ethnic minorities,” he said.
Mr Rowlands told the court he “could not understand” how a black or Asian person supporting the concept of British nationalism could be discriminatory, adding the BNP was “simply putting their principles forward and allowing any ethnic minority member to join and support and espouse those principles”.
Hillingdon and Uxbridge Times
A new constitution allowing people of any ethnic origin to join the party obliged prospective members to support its principles, which meant the door was, in reality, only “pretty narrowly open” for “non-indigenous Britons”, London’s Central County Court heard.
But the BNP, which voted to amend its constitution last month after the Equality and Human Rights Commission took legal action over the far-right party’s whites-only membership policy, denied the allegations and said it had a “waiting list” of black and Asian people and would welcome more applications from ethnic minorities.
The party will have to wait to find out if its decision to scrap the previous policy went far enough to meet race relations laws. After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Paul Collins said he would issue his judgment on the matter on Friday.
During a day of legal submissions, the court heard prospective members had to sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British” and a requirement to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.
Robin Allen, QC, representing the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “That is something which we would submit is indirectly discriminatory. They will put persons who do not fall into the indigenous British category at a disadvantage.”
He argued the principles could be interpreted to oppose mixed marriages and could force people to deny their own identity.
“We simply say from the commission’s point of view we are statutorily obliged to encourage diversity and recognise diversity as part of the British state in its widest sense,” he said. “We’re indifferent as to the expression of views as long as they are lawful. It’s the condition of access that we take exception to.”
The new, twelfth version of the constitution also includes a measure that members have to agree to two BNP officials - one male and one female - visiting their home for up to two hours, the court heard. Mr Allen said this could be used to enable potential members to be intimidated, although there was no evidence it had been used in that way.
Gwynn Price Rowlands, for the BNP, told the hearing there were “significant numbers” of members who were mixed race or in mixed marriages, along with “several” Jewish members.
“They (the BNP) make it clear that they would welcome more applications from ethnic minorities,” he said.
Mr Rowlands told the court he “could not understand” how a black or Asian person supporting the concept of British nationalism could be discriminatory, adding the BNP was “simply putting their principles forward and allowing any ethnic minority member to join and support and espouse those principles”.
Hillingdon and Uxbridge Times
Decision on BNP 'whites-only' rule
The British National Party (BNP) is due to find out if the decision to scrap its whites-only membership policy was enough to meet race relations laws.
Last month the far-right party voted to approve changes to its constitution to allow black and Asian people to become members. The vote followed the threat of a possible court injunction over its whites-only membership by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The BNP will be back at Central London County Court on Tuesday, where a decision is expected on the legality of the new constitution.
Following the change in the constitution, millionaire Asian businessman Mo Chaudry said he would apply to join the party to "fight them from the inside". But he was told his application would be blocked. Speaking ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Mr Chaudry, 49, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, said: "I'm hoping the court will take a robust approach and question the real intent of the change in the constitution. They have no real intention of allowing people like me into the fold. It is just a camouflage to appease the system."
Pakistan-born Mr Chaudry, who is worth £60 million, runs a string of businesses around Stoke-on-Trent, which has eight BNP members on the city council.
The decision to change the BNP constitution came after the far-right party held an extraordinary general meeting in Essex on February 14. Following the meeting, BNP leader Nick Griffin said he soon expected to welcome the party's first non-white member, a Sikh called Rajinder Singh. Lawyers from the EHRC have been considering the precise wording of the new rules to decide whether they believe the constitution is still discriminatory.
Loughborough Echo
Last month the far-right party voted to approve changes to its constitution to allow black and Asian people to become members. The vote followed the threat of a possible court injunction over its whites-only membership by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The BNP will be back at Central London County Court on Tuesday, where a decision is expected on the legality of the new constitution.
Following the change in the constitution, millionaire Asian businessman Mo Chaudry said he would apply to join the party to "fight them from the inside". But he was told his application would be blocked. Speaking ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Mr Chaudry, 49, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, said: "I'm hoping the court will take a robust approach and question the real intent of the change in the constitution. They have no real intention of allowing people like me into the fold. It is just a camouflage to appease the system."
Pakistan-born Mr Chaudry, who is worth £60 million, runs a string of businesses around Stoke-on-Trent, which has eight BNP members on the city council.
The decision to change the BNP constitution came after the far-right party held an extraordinary general meeting in Essex on February 14. Following the meeting, BNP leader Nick Griffin said he soon expected to welcome the party's first non-white member, a Sikh called Rajinder Singh. Lawyers from the EHRC have been considering the precise wording of the new rules to decide whether they believe the constitution is still discriminatory.
Loughborough Echo
March 07, 2010
The People exposes BNP member sham
The British National Party's boast that it's changed its rules to let non-whites join is today exposed as a sickening sham.
A senior figure in the far-right party openly told a British Asian reporter posing as a wannabe supporter he would not be welcome. Yet only weeks earlier, the BNP voted to end its ban on non-whites, with leader Nick Griffin bragging: "We are happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree this country should remain fundamentally British."
Our reporter tried to join the BNP's branch in Barking, London - the party's heartland where Griffin plans to stand against Labour MP Margaret Hodge in the next General Election. But Christine Knight, 60 - one of a dozen BNP councillors for the borough of Barking and Dagenham - left him in no doubt about the party's real attitude to non-whites.
Knight, a close ally of BNP Greater London Authority member Richard Barnbrook, told him: "The constitution may have changed but our core members would have a problem with you." And making no attempt to hide the BNP's vile views, she said: "You are for your people and I'm for mine. You're saying you're British but you are still siding with people who are not indigenous to the country. People can say I'm a racist for saying it but it's my opinion."
During a half-hour hate-filled rant she even claimed she could not get state benefits because she was "the wrong colour". Knight - whose dad was an immigrant from Ireland - said: "I'm British, my parents were, my grandparents were, their parents were and my parents' parents' parents were. I'm trying to point out that things that we've paid out for thousands of years don't go to us any more."
She added: "My father came over here and joined the Army. My husband was born and bred here. But it's going to change - we'll be ethnic minorities in our own country."
The BNP decided to rewrite its constitution after being warned it broke discrimination laws. After the party voted for the change, Griffin said he expected a "trickle rather than a flood" of applications from blacks and Asians. The whites-only policy had been in force since the party was formed in 1982. It was challenged in the High Court by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year and judges are due to rule on the case next week.
Griffin - who caused outrage when he appeared on BBC1's Question Time show in October - took over as BNP leader in 1999 and has since tried to tone down the party's fascist image. But he has been accused of choosing Barking to fight the next election as a way of deliberately exploiting local fears about immigration. Barking has more BNP councillors than anywhere else. And more than 40 per cent of voters backed them in wards contested by the racist party at the last local elections - compared with a Labour average of just 33 per cent.
Following The People's confrontation with Christine Knight, a BNP spokesman said last night: "As Britain's fourth biggest political party it's inevitable members will hold differing viewpoints. Should our new constitution be accepted by the High Court on Tuesday, membership will be open to all who support the policies and principles of the British National Party."
The People
A senior figure in the far-right party openly told a British Asian reporter posing as a wannabe supporter he would not be welcome. Yet only weeks earlier, the BNP voted to end its ban on non-whites, with leader Nick Griffin bragging: "We are happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree this country should remain fundamentally British."
Our reporter tried to join the BNP's branch in Barking, London - the party's heartland where Griffin plans to stand against Labour MP Margaret Hodge in the next General Election. But Christine Knight, 60 - one of a dozen BNP councillors for the borough of Barking and Dagenham - left him in no doubt about the party's real attitude to non-whites.
Knight, a close ally of BNP Greater London Authority member Richard Barnbrook, told him: "The constitution may have changed but our core members would have a problem with you." And making no attempt to hide the BNP's vile views, she said: "You are for your people and I'm for mine. You're saying you're British but you are still siding with people who are not indigenous to the country. People can say I'm a racist for saying it but it's my opinion."
During a half-hour hate-filled rant she even claimed she could not get state benefits because she was "the wrong colour". Knight - whose dad was an immigrant from Ireland - said: "I'm British, my parents were, my grandparents were, their parents were and my parents' parents' parents were. I'm trying to point out that things that we've paid out for thousands of years don't go to us any more."
She added: "My father came over here and joined the Army. My husband was born and bred here. But it's going to change - we'll be ethnic minorities in our own country."
The BNP decided to rewrite its constitution after being warned it broke discrimination laws. After the party voted for the change, Griffin said he expected a "trickle rather than a flood" of applications from blacks and Asians. The whites-only policy had been in force since the party was formed in 1982. It was challenged in the High Court by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last year and judges are due to rule on the case next week.
Griffin - who caused outrage when he appeared on BBC1's Question Time show in October - took over as BNP leader in 1999 and has since tried to tone down the party's fascist image. But he has been accused of choosing Barking to fight the next election as a way of deliberately exploiting local fears about immigration. Barking has more BNP councillors than anywhere else. And more than 40 per cent of voters backed them in wards contested by the racist party at the last local elections - compared with a Labour average of just 33 per cent.
Following The People's confrontation with Christine Knight, a BNP spokesman said last night: "As Britain's fourth biggest political party it's inevitable members will hold differing viewpoints. Should our new constitution be accepted by the High Court on Tuesday, membership will be open to all who support the policies and principles of the British National Party."
The People
March 04, 2010
BNP 'blocked' Asian man's membership
The BNP have told an Asian businessman that his application to join the party will be blocked, he said today
Mo Chaudry, 49, had wanted to join the far-right party to "fight them from the inside". The businessman, from Newcastle-Under-Lyme in Staffordshire, said he was seeking to take advantage of the enforced change to the party’s constitution to expose them.
BNP members voted to admit black and Asian people last month when the party was threatened with an injunction by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
Pakistan-born Mr Chaudry, who is worth £60 million, runs a string of businesses around Stoke-on-Trent, which has eight BNP members on the city council. He is a star of the Channel 4 programme The Secret Millionaire, in which rich benefactors go undercover to find good ways of using their money.
He said today: "I debated with the BNP’s deputy leader Simon Darby on BBC Radio 5 Live and he told me that my application would be blocked. How can you be more discriminatory than that?"
He added: "People are not racist in Stoke-on-Trent and I have never experienced racism in my time here but the city council has eight BNP members. The good people that don’t vote need to get off their backside and change things."
The EHRC is considering the changes the BNP have made to their membership rules and will be back in court on March 9. EHRC has threatened legal action if the rules are still considered discriminatory.
Huddersfield Daily Examiner
Mo Chaudry, 49, had wanted to join the far-right party to "fight them from the inside". The businessman, from Newcastle-Under-Lyme in Staffordshire, said he was seeking to take advantage of the enforced change to the party’s constitution to expose them.
BNP members voted to admit black and Asian people last month when the party was threatened with an injunction by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
Pakistan-born Mr Chaudry, who is worth £60 million, runs a string of businesses around Stoke-on-Trent, which has eight BNP members on the city council. He is a star of the Channel 4 programme The Secret Millionaire, in which rich benefactors go undercover to find good ways of using their money.
He said today: "I debated with the BNP’s deputy leader Simon Darby on BBC Radio 5 Live and he told me that my application would be blocked. How can you be more discriminatory than that?"
He added: "People are not racist in Stoke-on-Trent and I have never experienced racism in my time here but the city council has eight BNP members. The good people that don’t vote need to get off their backside and change things."
The EHRC is considering the changes the BNP have made to their membership rules and will be back in court on March 9. EHRC has threatened legal action if the rules are still considered discriminatory.
Huddersfield Daily Examiner
February 25, 2010
BNP say right to use force
Two Havering BNP candidates have backed the forced ejection of a national newspaper's reporter from a meeting in Elm Park.
General Election candidate, Michael Barnbrook, who is standing for Dagenham and Rainham, and Robert Bailey, a Romford candidate in the local elections, have both condoned the treatment of The Times' reporter Dominic Kennedy at the hands of their security guards at a pub on February 14.
Mr Barnbrook said: "The whole thing was stage managed by the reporter because he was asked to leave the premises and refused. The law states that you can remove a trespasser from the premises using as much force as necessary."
Mr Kennedy was invited to the meeting, but was forced out when the party's London Assembly member, Richard Barnbrook, became angry over an article in The Times. Security guards shoved Mr Kennedy out of the pub, with one even grabbing his nose.
Michael Barnbrook, a retired police inspector, said: "He was struggling violently and that is why he had a number of security officers around him. He was not assaulted, he was legally removed from the premises. He had the option to walk out unaided but chose not to."
Mr Bailey said: "A lot of people that work for The Times are very ugly and nasty. They have a distinct agenda and he was told to leave and we should have the right to evict anyone if it is a private meeting."
The extraordinary general meeting was held following the BNP's vote to allow black and Asian people into the party. The party was forced to change its rules after it was threatened with an injunction by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
But Gooshays ward BNP Cllr Mark Logan, who was not allowed into the meeting because his membership had expired, condemned the violence. He said: "The reporter should not have been man handled but should have been ushered out in a dignified manner and I was upset about what had happened because I do not believe in violence."
Barking, Dagenham and Havering Together has been set up in the wake of the meeting to fight the BNP. It is concerned about the party's rise in Barking and Dagenham and its encroachment into Havering. For further information, call 07973 421463.
Romford and Havering Post
General Election candidate, Michael Barnbrook, who is standing for Dagenham and Rainham, and Robert Bailey, a Romford candidate in the local elections, have both condoned the treatment of The Times' reporter Dominic Kennedy at the hands of their security guards at a pub on February 14.
Mr Barnbrook said: "The whole thing was stage managed by the reporter because he was asked to leave the premises and refused. The law states that you can remove a trespasser from the premises using as much force as necessary."
Mr Kennedy was invited to the meeting, but was forced out when the party's London Assembly member, Richard Barnbrook, became angry over an article in The Times. Security guards shoved Mr Kennedy out of the pub, with one even grabbing his nose.
Michael Barnbrook, a retired police inspector, said: "He was struggling violently and that is why he had a number of security officers around him. He was not assaulted, he was legally removed from the premises. He had the option to walk out unaided but chose not to."
Mr Bailey said: "A lot of people that work for The Times are very ugly and nasty. They have a distinct agenda and he was told to leave and we should have the right to evict anyone if it is a private meeting."
The extraordinary general meeting was held following the BNP's vote to allow black and Asian people into the party. The party was forced to change its rules after it was threatened with an injunction by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
But Gooshays ward BNP Cllr Mark Logan, who was not allowed into the meeting because his membership had expired, condemned the violence. He said: "The reporter should not have been man handled but should have been ushered out in a dignified manner and I was upset about what had happened because I do not believe in violence."
Barking, Dagenham and Havering Together has been set up in the wake of the meeting to fight the BNP. It is concerned about the party's rise in Barking and Dagenham and its encroachment into Havering. For further information, call 07973 421463.
Romford and Havering Post
February 19, 2010
Don't be fooled, the BNP is really nothing like you
The British National Party has announced that, following pressure from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it will now be admitting black members. Don't all rush at once, folks
Still, only fair, isn't it? After all, black people have every right to be racist knuckleheads, too. Maybe this new branch of the BNP could take it a step further and enter a float at next year's Notting Hill Carnival. After all, no sense in just preaching to the converted.
This being the BNP however, the ground-breaking declaration was made from a boozer near Romford. And as Nick Griffin, party leader, promoted the new inclusiveness, his company goons were encouraging a reporter from The Times to leave. That is the BNP term for it, anyway. The rest of us would say they were giving him a going over, nightclub bouncer style. Griffin said it showed the party was not going soft.
Anyway, if a bloody nose is the trade-off for reminding folk what the BNP truly represents, the man from the Thunderer might consider it a worthwhile exercise after all. A small episode of assault exposes the lie at the heart of the party because, incredibly, there are otherwise reasonable people who are actually convinced the BNP represents their views. It is the grab-bag manifesto of populist policies that does it. Weekly rubbish collection. The return of grammar schools. Hey, people think, this BNP lot are just like me.
But they are not. You are nicer than them. You are fairer than them. You are better, so much better, than the BNP. Do not confuse yourself with them. There are many who believe in educational reform. There are plenty who are upset at juggling four wheelie bins.
These are legitimate opinions, right or wrong. They do not make you a fellow traveller with the BNP, though. This is the con. This is what the BNP wishes you to believe. They want you to think of them as just another option, no different to the other parties; but they are. They are beating up people who question them, and this in the middle of a charm offensive, remember. Could you imagine what they would be like if they had the power to move out of the margins?
Walter Wolfgang, 82 and a Labour Party member for 57 years, was ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 for shouting 'nonsense' as Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, defended government policy in Iraq. The BNP would like to equate this with what happened to the man from The Times at the weekend. It bears no comparison.
The treatment of Mr Wolfgang, who was laughably prevented from returning to the auditorium by police enforcing the Terrorism Act, is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Labour, or any mainstream political party, and will not be quickly forgotten. By contrast, what unfolded at the Elm Park pub in Hornchurch was business as usual for the BNP.
Their slogan is 'People Like You'. So are you like Ian Hindle and Andrew Wells, two names on the BNP membership list, who in 2008 were convicted of sexually abusing 14-year-old schoolgirls? Maybe you are like Martin Glasgow or Anthony Weeks, who both received prison sentences in October 2008 for racially aggravated assault? No?
It is quite a roll call, the list of BNP members who are not so much men of conviction as men with convictions. Gang rapists, public nuisances, nail bombers, murderers, arsonists, football hooligans, benefit cheats, wife beaters. Of course, every party has its share of bad apples, but in the BNP they do seem rather high in density. So are these people like you? It seems rather a lively bunch.
Some think if we ignore the BNP they will go away. I'm not so sure. If we dismiss them, if we do not continue pointing out that beneath the sheen of good schools and clean bins lurk the same old thugs who used to go Paki-bashing in the Seventies, then they stand more chance of taking some otherwise good people down with them.
They mobilise members to disproportionately invade message boards, chat rooms, or the letters pages of local papers, giving the impression that the BNP view is sympathetic, even conventional. Yet the methods are insidious, like most propaganda campaigns. It is the blade of the stiletto, not the stomp of the jackboot: at first, anyway.
In the end, though, even on their best behaviour, the BNP can't resist beating someone up. And I don't think you are like that, because decent people are not. It is why violent thugs have to impersonate them in order to get elected.
Daily Mail
Still, only fair, isn't it? After all, black people have every right to be racist knuckleheads, too. Maybe this new branch of the BNP could take it a step further and enter a float at next year's Notting Hill Carnival. After all, no sense in just preaching to the converted.
This being the BNP however, the ground-breaking declaration was made from a boozer near Romford. And as Nick Griffin, party leader, promoted the new inclusiveness, his company goons were encouraging a reporter from The Times to leave. That is the BNP term for it, anyway. The rest of us would say they were giving him a going over, nightclub bouncer style. Griffin said it showed the party was not going soft.
Anyway, if a bloody nose is the trade-off for reminding folk what the BNP truly represents, the man from the Thunderer might consider it a worthwhile exercise after all. A small episode of assault exposes the lie at the heart of the party because, incredibly, there are otherwise reasonable people who are actually convinced the BNP represents their views. It is the grab-bag manifesto of populist policies that does it. Weekly rubbish collection. The return of grammar schools. Hey, people think, this BNP lot are just like me.
But they are not. You are nicer than them. You are fairer than them. You are better, so much better, than the BNP. Do not confuse yourself with them. There are many who believe in educational reform. There are plenty who are upset at juggling four wheelie bins.
These are legitimate opinions, right or wrong. They do not make you a fellow traveller with the BNP, though. This is the con. This is what the BNP wishes you to believe. They want you to think of them as just another option, no different to the other parties; but they are. They are beating up people who question them, and this in the middle of a charm offensive, remember. Could you imagine what they would be like if they had the power to move out of the margins?
Walter Wolfgang, 82 and a Labour Party member for 57 years, was ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 for shouting 'nonsense' as Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, defended government policy in Iraq. The BNP would like to equate this with what happened to the man from The Times at the weekend. It bears no comparison.
The treatment of Mr Wolfgang, who was laughably prevented from returning to the auditorium by police enforcing the Terrorism Act, is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Labour, or any mainstream political party, and will not be quickly forgotten. By contrast, what unfolded at the Elm Park pub in Hornchurch was business as usual for the BNP.
Their slogan is 'People Like You'. So are you like Ian Hindle and Andrew Wells, two names on the BNP membership list, who in 2008 were convicted of sexually abusing 14-year-old schoolgirls? Maybe you are like Martin Glasgow or Anthony Weeks, who both received prison sentences in October 2008 for racially aggravated assault? No?
It is quite a roll call, the list of BNP members who are not so much men of conviction as men with convictions. Gang rapists, public nuisances, nail bombers, murderers, arsonists, football hooligans, benefit cheats, wife beaters. Of course, every party has its share of bad apples, but in the BNP they do seem rather high in density. So are these people like you? It seems rather a lively bunch.
Some think if we ignore the BNP they will go away. I'm not so sure. If we dismiss them, if we do not continue pointing out that beneath the sheen of good schools and clean bins lurk the same old thugs who used to go Paki-bashing in the Seventies, then they stand more chance of taking some otherwise good people down with them.
They mobilise members to disproportionately invade message boards, chat rooms, or the letters pages of local papers, giving the impression that the BNP view is sympathetic, even conventional. Yet the methods are insidious, like most propaganda campaigns. It is the blade of the stiletto, not the stomp of the jackboot: at first, anyway.
In the end, though, even on their best behaviour, the BNP can't resist beating someone up. And I don't think you are like that, because decent people are not. It is why violent thugs have to impersonate them in order to get elected.
Daily Mail
February 15, 2010
Beware: the BNP has never been more dangerous
If turkeys had the vote, it is theoretically possible that they would join a party that was strongly pro-Christmas. Possible, but unlikely
Yesterday, the BNP voted at an “extraordinary general meeting” in Essex to amend its constitution so black and Asian Britons can join its ranks. As Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, told Sky News, this is likely to result in a “trickle, rather than a flood” of membership applications: and even a “trickle” may be pushing it.
The whole idea is, of course, innately hilarious: a party founded on the cultivation of intolerance and racial tension declaring that it has an open-door policy. In its 2005 manifesto, the BNP called for “voluntary resettlement” of immigrants and their descendants. So it wants you to leave the country but, before you do, invites you to join up and pay the membership fees (a standard rate of £30 pa, or £60 for the party's “gold” category, which presumably will entitle its new black and Asian members to a better class of dinghy when they are urged “to return to their lands of ethnic origin”).
Yet, even as we mock, we should be vigilant. The BNP is exploiting this constitutional change for all it is worth, both as evidence that it is being victimised and (the opposite claim) that it is voluntarily “modernising”. In truth, the new membership policy has been forced upon the party by the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On the BNP's website, there is currently a webcast by Griffin, complaining about the quango's attack on “this little party of ours”.
At the same time, the new membership policy fits neatly with his more general pursuit of incremental legitimacy. Like Sinn Fein-IRA with its “Armalite and ballot box” strategy, the BNP runs on twin tracks. Look at the so-called “security” at BNP gatherings if you doubt that the party still depends on a hardcore of skinhead brutes. At the same time, Griffin himself — a suit-wearing Cambridge graduate — has fought for years to bring the movement out of the Bierkeller and into mainstream political life.
This is why the election of two BNP candidates (Griffin and Andrew Brons) to the European Parliament last June was so depressing: it gave the party a claim to more serious media coverage, including Griffin's hugely contentious appearance on Question Time last November. The opening of the party's membership to non-whites is also part of this spurious process of “modernisation”: Clause Fourth Reich, so to speak.
Tony Blair had his Big Tent. Now Griffin will pretend that he has a Big Bunker, a rainbow coalition of prejudice. And it is certainly true that a plural society inevitably generates new tensions: where I live in east London, there is now a minor strain of hostility between second and third generation Afro-Caribbean Britons and newer arrivals from the enlarged EU: the working-class black community objects that it is being driven out of the service economy — cleaning, childcare — by Eastern European economic migrants who have undercut their wage-rates. In an age of globalisation and unprecedented population mobility, any complex urban society will generate such abrasions. And deplorable political movements such as the BNP will always be on hand to fan the flames and exploit the simmering anger.
As I wrote in November, Griffin and his gang are themselves refugees from reality, asylum seekers from the modern world. They choose to ignore the significant role that economic migration played (and will play again) in the years of non-inflationary growth. Worse, they seek to preserve something that never really existed: Britain is the historical product of nations and races coming together and commingling. Historically, this country has been a port rather than a fortress, a place of trade, exchange and racial interaction. Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Afro-Caribbeans, Asians, Eastern Europeans: pluralism is the very essence of our island story. Some of my best friends are Jutes.
At the wonderful Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck concert at the O2 Centre last night, it occurred to me that Britain is the only country on earth that could take a black American musical form — the blues — adapt it to a new setting and, eventually, revive it in its very country of origin (as Clapton and many others did in the Sixties). The BNP has no grasp of the porousness and heterogeneity of true Britishness.
Yet, more than ever in its 28-year history, the party represents a clear and present danger. A matter of weeks from now, it will field a number of parliamentary candidates in the general election: most dangerously, Griffin himself in Barking. The seat is held by Labour's Margaret Hodge, defending a majority of almost 9,000.
Safe? By no means. Labour's own polling shows that the category of voter most easily described as “white van man” is warming alarmingly to the BNP: in seven out of 11 wards, more than 50 per cent of this tranche of voters — more than 70 per cent in some areas — think they might vote for Griffin. Ever willing to nurture the voters' anxieties and resentments, the BNP has prospered during the recession and exploited the collapse of trust in the political class. In Barking, it sees a real chance to pull off an extraordinary victory.
It is bad enough that the party is represented in town halls and at Strasbourg. But the election of Griffin as an MP would be much, much worse. For the Commons is not just another representative assembly. Never forget: in our unwritten constitution, the Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. I don't know about you, but the thought of the BNP having a share in that sovereignty, however small, makes me sick to the stomach, and more determined than ever that the battle of Barking should not be lost. In the end, in spite of all its absurdities, the BNP's advance is no laughing matter.
London Evening Standard
Yesterday, the BNP voted at an “extraordinary general meeting” in Essex to amend its constitution so black and Asian Britons can join its ranks. As Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, told Sky News, this is likely to result in a “trickle, rather than a flood” of membership applications: and even a “trickle” may be pushing it.
The whole idea is, of course, innately hilarious: a party founded on the cultivation of intolerance and racial tension declaring that it has an open-door policy. In its 2005 manifesto, the BNP called for “voluntary resettlement” of immigrants and their descendants. So it wants you to leave the country but, before you do, invites you to join up and pay the membership fees (a standard rate of £30 pa, or £60 for the party's “gold” category, which presumably will entitle its new black and Asian members to a better class of dinghy when they are urged “to return to their lands of ethnic origin”).
Yet, even as we mock, we should be vigilant. The BNP is exploiting this constitutional change for all it is worth, both as evidence that it is being victimised and (the opposite claim) that it is voluntarily “modernising”. In truth, the new membership policy has been forced upon the party by the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On the BNP's website, there is currently a webcast by Griffin, complaining about the quango's attack on “this little party of ours”.
At the same time, the new membership policy fits neatly with his more general pursuit of incremental legitimacy. Like Sinn Fein-IRA with its “Armalite and ballot box” strategy, the BNP runs on twin tracks. Look at the so-called “security” at BNP gatherings if you doubt that the party still depends on a hardcore of skinhead brutes. At the same time, Griffin himself — a suit-wearing Cambridge graduate — has fought for years to bring the movement out of the Bierkeller and into mainstream political life.
This is why the election of two BNP candidates (Griffin and Andrew Brons) to the European Parliament last June was so depressing: it gave the party a claim to more serious media coverage, including Griffin's hugely contentious appearance on Question Time last November. The opening of the party's membership to non-whites is also part of this spurious process of “modernisation”: Clause Fourth Reich, so to speak.
Tony Blair had his Big Tent. Now Griffin will pretend that he has a Big Bunker, a rainbow coalition of prejudice. And it is certainly true that a plural society inevitably generates new tensions: where I live in east London, there is now a minor strain of hostility between second and third generation Afro-Caribbean Britons and newer arrivals from the enlarged EU: the working-class black community objects that it is being driven out of the service economy — cleaning, childcare — by Eastern European economic migrants who have undercut their wage-rates. In an age of globalisation and unprecedented population mobility, any complex urban society will generate such abrasions. And deplorable political movements such as the BNP will always be on hand to fan the flames and exploit the simmering anger.
As I wrote in November, Griffin and his gang are themselves refugees from reality, asylum seekers from the modern world. They choose to ignore the significant role that economic migration played (and will play again) in the years of non-inflationary growth. Worse, they seek to preserve something that never really existed: Britain is the historical product of nations and races coming together and commingling. Historically, this country has been a port rather than a fortress, a place of trade, exchange and racial interaction. Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Afro-Caribbeans, Asians, Eastern Europeans: pluralism is the very essence of our island story. Some of my best friends are Jutes.
At the wonderful Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck concert at the O2 Centre last night, it occurred to me that Britain is the only country on earth that could take a black American musical form — the blues — adapt it to a new setting and, eventually, revive it in its very country of origin (as Clapton and many others did in the Sixties). The BNP has no grasp of the porousness and heterogeneity of true Britishness.
Yet, more than ever in its 28-year history, the party represents a clear and present danger. A matter of weeks from now, it will field a number of parliamentary candidates in the general election: most dangerously, Griffin himself in Barking. The seat is held by Labour's Margaret Hodge, defending a majority of almost 9,000.
Safe? By no means. Labour's own polling shows that the category of voter most easily described as “white van man” is warming alarmingly to the BNP: in seven out of 11 wards, more than 50 per cent of this tranche of voters — more than 70 per cent in some areas — think they might vote for Griffin. Ever willing to nurture the voters' anxieties and resentments, the BNP has prospered during the recession and exploited the collapse of trust in the political class. In Barking, it sees a real chance to pull off an extraordinary victory.
It is bad enough that the party is represented in town halls and at Strasbourg. But the election of Griffin as an MP would be much, much worse. For the Commons is not just another representative assembly. Never forget: in our unwritten constitution, the Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. I don't know about you, but the thought of the BNP having a share in that sovereignty, however small, makes me sick to the stomach, and more determined than ever that the battle of Barking should not be lost. In the end, in spite of all its absurdities, the BNP's advance is no laughing matter.
London Evening Standard
January 10, 2010
BNP crisis as Nick Griffin faces jail over whites-only policy
The British National Party is facing a crisis in the run-up to the general election after it emerged that Nick Griffin, its leader, could be jailed over its illegal “whites only” membership policy.
Whitehall officials believe Griffin will be unable to comply in time with a court order forcing him to change the BNP’s constitution to admit Asians, blacks and members of other ethnic minorities.
They say the BNP’s membership is not due to vote on the constitutional change until after the court deadline expires towards the end of this month. Trevor Phillips, head of the government’s equalities watchdog, which won the legal ruling three months ago, has instructed his lawyers to be ready to ask the court to impose crippling sanctions, including a heavy fine or possible jail term against Griffin and Simon Darby, the BNP’s deputy leader.
If successful, the move could paralyse the right-wing party at a time when many at Westminster believe it is on the verge of winning its first seat in parliament with the support of disillusioned former Labour and Tory voters.
Officials question whether the head of a political party who has been imprisoned, fined or has had his assets sequestrated could continue to be its leader.
“The BNP is very much Nick Griffin’s party,” said one official. “Were he forced to stand down three months before an election, then what are the prospects for the party? He could be replaced by someone who was much more hardcore. They would potentially be in disarray.”
The legal action began last year when the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued county court proceedings against Griffin, Darby and Tanya Lumby, another senior BNP official. The watchdog argued that the BNP’s constitution was unlawful because it restricted membership to particular ethnic groups and those whose skin colour is white.
Last October Judge Paul Collins agreed and awarded costs against the party. Griffin was forced to order a freeze on membership applications. The court gave him until January 28 to persuade the party to change its constitution and allow non-whites to join. However, Griffin is unlikely to be able to deliver the change in time.
Times Online
Whitehall officials believe Griffin will be unable to comply in time with a court order forcing him to change the BNP’s constitution to admit Asians, blacks and members of other ethnic minorities.
They say the BNP’s membership is not due to vote on the constitutional change until after the court deadline expires towards the end of this month. Trevor Phillips, head of the government’s equalities watchdog, which won the legal ruling three months ago, has instructed his lawyers to be ready to ask the court to impose crippling sanctions, including a heavy fine or possible jail term against Griffin and Simon Darby, the BNP’s deputy leader.
If successful, the move could paralyse the right-wing party at a time when many at Westminster believe it is on the verge of winning its first seat in parliament with the support of disillusioned former Labour and Tory voters.
Officials question whether the head of a political party who has been imprisoned, fined or has had his assets sequestrated could continue to be its leader.
“The BNP is very much Nick Griffin’s party,” said one official. “Were he forced to stand down three months before an election, then what are the prospects for the party? He could be replaced by someone who was much more hardcore. They would potentially be in disarray.”
The legal action began last year when the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued county court proceedings against Griffin, Darby and Tanya Lumby, another senior BNP official. The watchdog argued that the BNP’s constitution was unlawful because it restricted membership to particular ethnic groups and those whose skin colour is white.
Last October Judge Paul Collins agreed and awarded costs against the party. Griffin was forced to order a freeze on membership applications. The court gave him until January 28 to persuade the party to change its constitution and allow non-whites to join. However, Griffin is unlikely to be able to deliver the change in time.
Times Online
December 13, 2009
Of infiltrators, liars and cheapskates...
In the latest BNP begging letter - sorry, newsletter - Nick Griffin (or rather, Paul Golding, for it is he who usually writes this rubbish) is still trying to get the party's tired and bored membership irate about the supposed 'sting' by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, where the EHRC 'attempted to entrap the BNP by planting fake ethnic recruits and getting them to join our Party'. If they were allowed to.
Regular readers will know that, despite the BNP's continued claim that its meetings are open to all who wish to attend, they suddenly become exclusive (see here and here) if someone who happens to be darker than Griffin himself attempts to walk through the door. BNP members generally have failed to show any real sign that they are indignant about such tactics because, after all, it's one way of seeing how racist the party remains and that is, when you get right down to it, what the Equality and Human Rights Commission is all about. Naturally, that doesn't stop Griffin/Golding fuming about the 'arrogant, anti-British immigrant agitator Trevor Phillips' and seething through gritted teeth 'doesn't it make you absolutely livid with rage!'. Well, no, actually. The party membership doesn't appear to care one way or the other.
As if this isn't enough to make a podgy, Holocaust-denying, racist incandescent with fury, the newsletter goes on to fume about how the EHRC 'forced us into accepting a freeze on our membership list', conveniently forgetting or choosing to ignore the fact that Griffin himself offered to freeze the membership pending the conclusion of the case. Nobody was forced into anything but the truth has never been an important part of Nick Griffin's make-up. One does wonder though, why Griffin should tell such an obvious lie, and the reason is revealed a little further on;
What has become very clear from the machinations around the EHRC court case, is that Griffin has used the membership issue to tell lies to both the public and the membership of the BNP itself. Using the oft-repeated dictum that a lie that's told often enough will eventually be believed, Griffin has repeatedly stated as fact that the EHRC has frozen the BNP's membership - or that it is at least responsible for that freeze, and that the freeze is itself responsible for the BNP being unable to stand in every seat in the coming GE. Complete lies, all from Griffin. Griffin himself proposed the freeze on new members, there was NEVER an intention to stand a full-slate and the first lie is now being used to support the second. For what purpose? Money, what else? Wherever you find Griffin, you find money, and he is only interested in himself and those who can be used to further his own 'career', 99% of which involves getting and staying rich.
Griffin has been able to tack a whole lot of other lies on to these to make his begging letter more acceptable to a weary membership, throwing in a few impressive (though unlikely) numbers to make the whole thing appear authentic;
And the point of all these lies in a single Chairman's newsletter? I don't really have to tell anyone, do I? Money. Increase your membership to Gold/buy a lifetime membership/send us a donation - it all equates to the same thing - give us your dosh.
Just one question for the BNP membership: where are the accounts? Your hard-earned donations are going to the party to pay for the fines incurred by the leadership's incompetence - if the accounts aren't in by January 1st, the fine could hit £1,000. Is this a good use of your donations?
And while we're on the subject of money, many of you may remember Nick Griffin's promise to donate 10% of his Euro Parliament earnings to the party. As this is illegal, Griffin was forced (though I doubt if he was forced against his will) to rescind his offer and as an alternative has now made a contribution to what the BNP calls the English Fair Fund - a BNP-run fake fund designed to bolster little projects in which the BNP are already involved or from which donation the party can gain some propaganda return. This week saw the FIRST donation from Nick Griffin towards this fund and after six months in the job and taking around £45,000 off the taxpayer for himself, all he could muster up was a measly and Ebenezer Scrooge-like £150. The tight bastard.
Regular readers will know that, despite the BNP's continued claim that its meetings are open to all who wish to attend, they suddenly become exclusive (see here and here) if someone who happens to be darker than Griffin himself attempts to walk through the door. BNP members generally have failed to show any real sign that they are indignant about such tactics because, after all, it's one way of seeing how racist the party remains and that is, when you get right down to it, what the Equality and Human Rights Commission is all about. Naturally, that doesn't stop Griffin/Golding fuming about the 'arrogant, anti-British immigrant agitator Trevor Phillips' and seething through gritted teeth 'doesn't it make you absolutely livid with rage!'. Well, no, actually. The party membership doesn't appear to care one way or the other.
As if this isn't enough to make a podgy, Holocaust-denying, racist incandescent with fury, the newsletter goes on to fume about how the EHRC 'forced us into accepting a freeze on our membership list', conveniently forgetting or choosing to ignore the fact that Griffin himself offered to freeze the membership pending the conclusion of the case. Nobody was forced into anything but the truth has never been an important part of Nick Griffin's make-up. One does wonder though, why Griffin should tell such an obvious lie, and the reason is revealed a little further on;
'Before the European Elections, we announced that in the event of victory the BNP would contest every single seat in the entire country in the forthcoming General Election...now, we find ourselves cash strapped and are consequently having to drastically scale back our General Election plans. Gutting as it is, there is nothing we can do about it! If you want to blame someone, blame the tax-guzzling foreigner Trevor Phillips.'Well, no. We've known when the next election was going to take place for at least a year and even the incompetent accountants of the BNP could have managed to tuck some money away for it, if it hadn't all been spent on getting the pig farmer into Brussels - a complete waste of time if, God help the people of Barking, he wins there and resigns his EU seat. But we're veering away from the subject. According to the quote above, the BNP was going to stand for every seat in the country? I think not. At £500 deposit per seat and 646 seats, that would cost £323,000, to say nothing of the cost of leaflets, posters, ads and God only knows what else goes into a GE campaign. Was the BNP ever likely to have £323,000 plus to throw away on a pointless countrywide full-slate? No, is the simple answer. And considering some of the morons the party puts up at the moment (the useless slob Mike Ashburner and the insane religious freak and liar Robert West spring to mind) it wouldn't be able to find enough candidates who were mentally capable of standing in the seats anyway.
What has become very clear from the machinations around the EHRC court case, is that Griffin has used the membership issue to tell lies to both the public and the membership of the BNP itself. Using the oft-repeated dictum that a lie that's told often enough will eventually be believed, Griffin has repeatedly stated as fact that the EHRC has frozen the BNP's membership - or that it is at least responsible for that freeze, and that the freeze is itself responsible for the BNP being unable to stand in every seat in the coming GE. Complete lies, all from Griffin. Griffin himself proposed the freeze on new members, there was NEVER an intention to stand a full-slate and the first lie is now being used to support the second. For what purpose? Money, what else? Wherever you find Griffin, you find money, and he is only interested in himself and those who can be used to further his own 'career', 99% of which involves getting and staying rich.
Griffin has been able to tack a whole lot of other lies on to these to make his begging letter more acceptable to a weary membership, throwing in a few impressive (though unlikely) numbers to make the whole thing appear authentic;
'To give you an example of the scale of the problem, since the freeze we have had some 6,000 new, fresh people try to join the BNP...if we do a modest calculation and reduce that number to 3,000, that is a potential £105,000 that Phillips and Co have robbed us of...those lost funds would have allowed the BNP to drive its way through the quiet Christmas period and launch an impressive General Election campaign the likes of which have never been seen in Britain.'Ignoring the bullshit about the General Election, that's a most peculiar paragraph. Are these 6,000 mythical people who tried to join after the freeze began so fickle that 50% of them will go off and join another party? Are they so annoyed at not being able to join up that they churlishly turn away from politics in a fit of pique? Or is it simply that the figures are made up to diguise the fact that the BNP is haemorrhaging members (either to the National Front or simply off into the non-political void according to the rumours we hear) following the news that the party may be forced to accept non-whites into it no matter what the undeniably racist membership thinks, and Griffin is trying desperately to convince the existing members that the party is still growing? The latter, I suspect. The truth will, of course, out. When the freeze is over, these three (or six) thousand can join if they actually exist, giving a tremendous boost to the party's income just before the GE campaign. They won't of course because they don't exist.
And the point of all these lies in a single Chairman's newsletter? I don't really have to tell anyone, do I? Money. Increase your membership to Gold/buy a lifetime membership/send us a donation - it all equates to the same thing - give us your dosh.
Just one question for the BNP membership: where are the accounts? Your hard-earned donations are going to the party to pay for the fines incurred by the leadership's incompetence - if the accounts aren't in by January 1st, the fine could hit £1,000. Is this a good use of your donations?
And while we're on the subject of money, many of you may remember Nick Griffin's promise to donate 10% of his Euro Parliament earnings to the party. As this is illegal, Griffin was forced (though I doubt if he was forced against his will) to rescind his offer and as an alternative has now made a contribution to what the BNP calls the English Fair Fund - a BNP-run fake fund designed to bolster little projects in which the BNP are already involved or from which donation the party can gain some propaganda return. This week saw the FIRST donation from Nick Griffin towards this fund and after six months in the job and taking around £45,000 off the taxpayer for himself, all he could muster up was a measly and Ebenezer Scrooge-like £150. The tight bastard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
