Hypocrisy, lies and Lee 'Bonkers' Barnes

Two extremely bad poets, neither of which is a qualified lawyer

If there's ever been a better anti-fascist asset within the British National Party who consistently does more good for our side by his sheer stupidity and apparent insanity than the party's legal beagle Lee Barnes, I've yet to hear of it. There are very few days that go by without Barnes' lunacy running wild, his hypocrisy reaching ever-dizzier heights or his furious arrogance leaving him foaming at the mouth because the world doesn't quite see him as the undoubted genius that he is. Even on the days when his medication is stopping the raving, he still manages to irritate fascists and anti-fascists alike by talking crap about psychology or writing extremely bad poetry. Anyone remember Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz? Barnes' poetry is worse.

Despite the fact that, like Mark Collett, Barnes is almost universally despised inside the BNP, he seems to have a curious hold over Nick Griffin. Barnes' insane rantings over the Rachel Whitear disaster had complaints coming in from all directions, even from hardened BNP supporters and nazis, who found his violent verbal attacks on the tragic Rachel far beyond the pale. His email attack on the Auty leadership campaign also earned him a good deal of angry and well-deserved criticism, though he deflected some of that anger by claiming (as they all do when in a corner) that the email was a forgery.

However, redemption has come in the form of the release of the BNP membership list (don't bother asking - everyone knows it's on WikiLeaks) and Bonkers Barnes is suddenly seen by the myopic Nick Griffin as the source of all legal wisdom, despite the fact that he has never actually got around to acquiring any kind of legal qualification. Still, lack of competence has never stopped anyone in the BNP reaching the top - look at Dave Hannam.

Barnes has (allegedly) been slinging legal-looking letters around the universe at large since the list hit the public domain, each of them containing numerous threatening-sounding phrases that appear to put the leak on a equivalent footing with terrorism, clearly invoking the Terrorism Act in one of his emails to Indymedia. He claims that bandying member's addresses and other details around the internet puts them at risk of attack - though nearly three weeks after the leak there are yet to be any verified attacks at all.

Barnes really seems to have a blind spot when it comes to hypocrisy. This from Indymedia:

'Most incredibly Mr Barnes then explains, “I will also be issuing a request to our internal investigations team to initiate actions to collect your home addresses, contact details and financial details relating to you personally as persons running or hosting the Indymedia website”. Internal Investigations? Once the BNP has this information, it “will be used to initiate legal actions upon yourselves, to initiate financial sanctions against your company and also will be publicised on various websites so that people may contact you and address any legal issues they may have”. Pot, kettle, black?'

Yes, while threatening people for showing sections of the list with personal details, Barnes threatens to publish their personal details. Clearly, the man is an idiot - though Indymedia seems to have him pretty well tagged:

'Mr Barnes’s threat to post personal information about Indymedia participants may in itself be illegal – it certainly would cause a registered legal practitioner to lose his credentials. Perhaps then, it comes as no surprise that the Law Society confirms that Barnes is NOT a qualified lawyer at all. In fact, Mr Lee John Barnes LLB (hons) is an incoherent, buffoonish windbag who could well be charged with incitement himself.'

But anti-fascists are not the only target of Barnes' list-making lunacy. Last night, he rounded on his chums at the Stormfront nazi forum and the anti-Griffin North West Nationalist blog. Why is he complaining about Stormfront? Because;

'...rather than having a rule that the activists and posters on the site have to use a real name and a real identity, so we can all see who they are, what organisations they represent and find out what their real pasts are - the site allowed anyone to post on the site using a fake name. This has allowed Reds, agent provocateurs and the State to take advantage of the internet and use it against the interests of nationalism itself. It has allowed the flamers, the malcontents and the red scum to hide behind fake names and denigrate not just those that they have some sort of issue with, but to attack and undermine the entire cause of nationalism itself. This ability to hide behind a fake name and post rubbish online has allowed nationalist internet sites to be taken advantage of by the most loathsome creatures to ever infect and infest the Nationalist movement - the Key Board Warriors...The Key Board warrior that hides behind a fake name is a coward. They do nothing but talk rubbish'

Funny he should mention keyboard warriors - because he's largely regarded as one of the worst. Frequently in tandem with the creepiest young nazi ever, who lavishes praise on Barnes at every opportunity (using the fake name Jacob Cobain though he's generally assumed to be Barnes' partner), he wanders the rapidly-emptying corridors of the Stormfront forum attacking people at random like some demented drink-addled tramp. Anyone who dares to criticise the BNP or Nick Griffin is fair game and will be 'outed' by Lee Barnes. And he somehow sees this as different from BNP members being outed? How exactly?

He is prepared to make the rare exception though, as he states here:

'To his credit Jack Black [who Barnes outed on his blog a few months back] has gone from being just a presence on the internet and on stormfront to becoming an nationalist activist for the BPP [British People's Party]. That means I can now respect the real man himself as a true nationalist who is working for the nationalist movement and standing up for what he believes in, and not just see him as another key board warrior.'

Fine, so a keyboard warrior who has now joined a party led by a well-known police informer who runs the Redwatch site - which specifically exists to encourage attacks on anti-fascists - is okay now because he's an activist? He belongs to a party well known for its flirtations with hardcore nazis and Holocaust-deniers and that is famed for its terrorist links, but that's okay because he's now an activist? And this is the BNP's so-called legal director saying this? Do we assume that, because these statements were made in the public arena, they are acceptable to the BNP and Nick Griffin? If not, then isn't the BNP being hypocritical allowing Barnes to come out with this rubbish in public - particularly his threats to print personal details on the net while the party screams about breaches of its member's human rights?

Barnes generally gets an easy ride from the moderators at Stormfront, particularly from Jock Oldham (John 'Jock' Shearer, one of Griffin's former heavies and BNP-loyalist) who is frequently described as 'an illiterate drug dealing arsehole' on the North West Nationalist blog. It's interesting that Barnes should be cosy with Shearer but at the same moment so distant from another Stormfront moderator who closed down all the Barnes-related threads last night with this terse statement:

'I have closed down all threads on the subjects of NWN, Covert or any blog in which Lee Barnes posts his deranged ramblings.'

Oh, that one could shut him up so easily.

Nick Griffin fends off challengers and gains severance package in stage-managed EGM

 

Welcome to the BNP's family fun weekend

• Challengers must get 5% of long-term membership to endorse them
• Severance package of approx £30,000 could bankrupt BNP instantly

Amid cries that the Extraordinary General Meeting at the BNP's Red, White and Blue was 'a sham and stage-managed' there is jubilation in the Griffin camp following the startling acceptance of, in particular, two proposals.

The first was the ludicrous attempt to stop leadership challenges being made annually by changing the rules so that they could only be made every four years. Clearly this was never a serious proposal and was never expected to get through but an even more outrageous proposal did win and that was to limit challengers to those who could gain endorsement from 5% of the membership.

Whether this means members who have had unbroken membership of the party for two years or five years has not yet been made clear (though two year membership sounds most likely - there's not that many who have been in the party for five years apart from Griffin himself). Colin Auty's recent leadership challenge failed because he was unable to find one hundred two-year members to support him. If this two-year membership rule is still the case, the numbers are difficult though manageable. The BNP has a notoriously high turnover of members, only retaining an estimated 10% of the membership permanently (or until they're thrown out on some pretext or other) which, taking the BNP's claimed 10,000 members at face-value (though the true figure is unlikely to be anywhere near that), leaves a pool of 1,000 from which the challenger would have to find 50 signatories. If you don't think this is bizarre, consider this: just a dozen nomination signatures could get you elected on to a local authority.

Fifty signatures would be difficult enough but if the pool turns out to be the entire membership, any challenger would be expected to obtain 500 signatures, a next to impossible objective especially when one considers that the party refuses to release the membership list to any challenger (using a dodgy and possibly illegal interpretation of the Data Protection Act for its purpose) and that the challenger gets no opportunity to present his/her case to the membership as a whole as part of the challenge campaign.

Assuming the two-year rule is to be the one used, it's apparent that the membership doesn't trust Griffin in the least. A poster from a member of the BNP via the NWN blog says;

'If anyone thinks that the HQ will release confidential membership details which are both accurate and up to date to a would be challenger think again. They will supply a dummy set of records and then protest when the 200 or so names are submitted because a handful are (deliberatley) false.'

This appalling and anti-democratic change to the BNP has its internal opponents seething. As one of the dissidents said in another comment on the North West Nationalist blog;

'...let's just suppose for the minute that any potential challenger knows 500 people without having access to the lists. Can he/she be sure of their membership status? Or that, having achieved the impossible and collected 500 signatures, the membership will not suddenly have leapt to 15,000 in the meantime? Failing a successful legal challenge, there is now no way that Griffin can be removed from the leadership of the BNP - fact!'

That this farce was completely stage-managed is obvious. Just a few days ago, the party happened to mention that it intended to publish membership figures every July (which will be interesting to compare with the official numbers reported to the Electoral Commission each year). Then there is the fact that Griffin's four-year proposal was spoken against by his long-acknowledged supporters - Richard Barnbrook, Arthur Kemp, the vile Mark Collett, Eddie Butler and co, none of whom would say anything against Griffin or his machinations even if you held a knife to their throats because they all rely on his continuing patronage for their survival and their wage packets - some of the latter very considerable.

The second proposal that those inside the party don't really seem to have realised the potential impact of yet, is the agreement to give Nick Griffin and subsequent party leaders a severance package. I'm sure we can all name the severance package we'd like to give Griffin but in this case, as usual with King Nick, this one is all about money. It's worth remembering though before we get into this, that the BNP states in its accounts that none of its employees has a pension. Part of Dave Hannam's statement in the accounts says;

'Because of the size of the party and the number of staff the party does not have a pension scheme, but this position is under continual review.'

It would be untenable for the party to give Nick Griffin a pension but not to give one to the rest of its employees, so instead of a pension, Griffin has wangled himself a 'severance package', meaning a payout rumoured to be as much as £30,000 if and when the membership of the party comes to its senses and boots the pig farmer out on his ear.

A payment of this magnitude will - and Griffin will certainly know this - bankrupt the party instantly. At any given moment, the BNP is operating on a financial knife-edge and a slip of any kind will damage it irreversibly. As a for instance, we reported here just a few days ago that the party had to accept a CASH donation of £5000 to subsidise the Red, White and Blue. Without that, there was less than £5000 in the bank and the party would have had to go into the red or borrow money, assuming that the latter is possible.

Despite the propaganda that's being thrown around to the contrary, numbers were well down this year - 2600 over the weekend, compared to last year's claimed 4000. Seats, marquees, generators, toilets and the rides were all cash on delivery, which would mean a lot of the £5000 will be gone already, and the temporary bouncers that were taken on for the weekend for £50 cash in hand a day each plus food and petrol would have knocked a sizeable dent in any money that was left. Even the children's rides weren't as popular this year - which is a laugh for us because they also made a large loss last year - meaning another few hundred pounds was poured away so the BNP could have its annual ego-massage and Griffin could make sure he got what he wanted to secure his future. Naturally, the party will have made a bomb out of letting tent space to the members and selling them ASDA-burgers for £2 a go - only to see that money disappear into the usual black hole.

For a party so financially rocky, the idea that it has been committed to a sudden payout of £30,000 at the whim of its mercurial leader, is startling and, even more worrying for the membership, this decision comes just a short while after the party has suffered numerous exposes about the treasury and what it gets up to and in particular, what Griffin is getting up to on the quiet. While he and the loathsome Mark Collett both seem to be making a fortune, the party's finances seem to be chugging inexorably downhill.

If Griffin suddenly decides he's had enough, the BNP is dead.

We'll leave this (for the moment) with a quote from a current member of the BNP (though not for long by the sound of it):

'I'm cutting up my membership card and sending the pieces to Griffin telling him he can stick his dictatorial regime up his vast backside.'

So there.

The Griffin opposition speaks out...

There are two very interesting posts on fascist blogs at the moment, both of which are well worth taking a good look at. The first is on the North-West Nationalist site and was written by Adrian Davies, the second is on the dissident Enough is Enough blog.

Now is the winter of our discontent

As I write these words, it seems increasingly likely that Nick Griffin’s paranoia and unbridled lust for power (I said power, though it seems that he will also have his Gaveston!) are leading to the disintegration of his party.

If that does not happen in the next few weeks, and “the Leader” (as he likes to describe himself, capitalised as in the original German) somehow retains control of a few square miles of rubble strewn wilderness around the Welshpool bunker into 2008, it will happen in the next few months. The financial time bombs ticking away under the bunker are going to detonate soon, and that will be the end. That, however, is not my principal theme for to-day, though I must touch upon it. My good friend E. N. Ronn will be writing in depth about the saga of the BNP accounts shortly, so watch this space!

The immediate crisis has been precipitated by the latest purge of senior members who complained about the indecent influence of Mad King Nick’s (yes, I know that Gerry Gable thought of that title first, but why should the devil have all the best tunes?) current favourite, Mark “Young, Nazi and Proud” Collett, and asked awkward questions about the incompetence of the BNP treasurer John Walker and his deputy, ex-convict Dave Hannam, who are now well over five months late in filing the party’s 2006 accounts.

The real problem is not however the vain juvenile Collett, nor the criminal Hannam, nor the incompetent Walker, nor even the appalling Nick Griffin himself. In part it is the authoritarian constitution bequeathed to Griffin by John Tyndall, which allows Griffin to indulge his whims and caprices at will, and the culture of secrecy in which the members are treated like mushrooms by “the Leader” and his kitchen cabinet, who are not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone an organisation with an income of £672,246 in 2005, the last year for which it troubled to file accounts (not to mention an expenditure of £766,958!). In part however the problem is also the poverty of expectations in the movement, and the easy tolerance of sleaze and criminality by people who should know better, conniving at the arbitrary misuse of power and gross financial malpractice, while prating on about how they will save our country from a corrupt establishment. May heaven preserve England from such “saviours”!

At present, the stated position of the BNP dissidents is that they do not desire a new party, and seek reform from within. I can well understand their feelings. They have given years of their lives to build up the BNP, they have to deal with a membership that has a sentimental attachment to the name, while precedents from the National Party in 1976 to the Freedom Party in 2001 show how hard a task it is to build something new, as I know from personal experience.

The dissidents face two big problems if they persist in that course. The first is that under section 5 of the BNP’s constitution, “General Members’ Meetings may only be called by the National Chairman or by the Advisory Council in accordance with Section 5 of this Constitution”. Somehow I cannot imagine Nick Griffin or the leading light on his rump Advisory Council, his insinuating deputy, Simon Darby (an interesting if unattractive chimaera created by mingling the DNA of Grima Wormtongue, Martin Bormann and the Man who was Thursday in a government laboratory at Porton Down) agreeing to an EGM!

Secondly, the BNP is almost certainly bankrupt. I have said that the state of its accounts is not my principal theme, but I must outline the most glaring features to explain why I have come to that conclusion.

As the BNP’s auditors, Silvers, said in their report annexed to the 2005 accounts (more recent accounts are notoriously not available):

“ . . . for the last two years the party has incurred a deficit . . . the Balance Sheet is now in deficit, there is an element of doubt as to its ability to continue as a going concern. There are however funds available within the ‘Regional Accounting Unit’ . . . to rectify the situation.”

Indeed there were. Note 5 to the Regional Accounting Unit’s accounts for2006 (which, unlike the Central Accounting Unit’s, have been filed with the Electoral Commission), prepared by Dave Hannam (who is on the out for the time being) reads:

“At the end of the year, the party owed the regional accounting unit £21,854, and this was repaid by 26th January 2007.”

Put into plain English, head office dipped into branch funds to the tune of £21,854 to pay 2005's bills, then repaid that amount out of 2006's income. A problem with this tactic is that in the next year, you run out of money even sooner. Such practices are redolent of trading while insolvent. I wonder how much has been borrowed from branch funds to meet this year’s deficit? Is that why the 2006 accounts have not been filed?

When, shortly before his resignation from the BNP’s Advisory Council earlier this year, Jonathan Bowden asked Nick Griffin what economies he proposed to make to reduce the carried forward deficit, the answer came back “none”. The deficit would be funded by growth.

The BNP grew rapidly in the early years of this decade. >From a total of some 1,200 when Nick Griffin was elected chairman in 1999, membership rose to 6,008 or 6,502

(it is not clear which: both figures appear at different pages of the 2005 accounts!) in 2005. In passing, while Nick Griffin likes to claim the credit for such growth, it is largely the result of external factors, namely the leftward drift of the Tory party, the failure of UKIP to rebrand itself as a broadly based party of the populist right, and the reaction to massive immigration.

Since audited accounts are not available for any date after 31st December 2005, it is impossible to say what the current membership might be, but after disappointing results in the May 2007 local elections, it seems unlikely that growth will plug the gap.

Put bluntly, the BNP has operated much like a Ponzi scheme for many years, but now the new money is not coming in to pay the accumulated debts. Soon the music will have to stop.

Interesting though I as a lawyer might find the question how far incoming members of the committee of management of an unincorporated association are liable for debts contracted by their predecessors, I somehow doubt that there will be a rush of volunteers to defend a test case brought by disgruntled creditors! Yet that would be the likely position of anyone taking over the leadership of the BNP from Nick Griffin.

It appears therefore to follow that at some point in the not too distant future (though possibly not for so long as Griffin and Walker can avoid filing accounts for 2006) the stark reality of insolvency will compel even the reluctant to consider a fresh start (and even leave them with no practical alternative).

Significant advantages can be obtained from such a scenario, which now seems much more likely than a week ago. Not only will Nick be left to pay the debts that he contracted, as is only fair and right, but also the problematic baggage that the BNP carries can be jettisoned. Never again will sensible patriots have to answer awkward questions about the role in their party of Lecomber or Collett.

Certain measures will have to be taken. The first will be to form a broadly based committee to run a new party till elections to its governing body take place. It would seem sensible to allow six to nine months before holding elections, to build up the membership, and allow a meaningful vote for a representative committee.

The second will be to agree a platform for the party that is neither so bland as to fail to put clear red, white and blue water between us and, say, UKIP or the Cornerstone group of Tory M.P.s, while not being so radical as to lead us into the political wilderness so beloved of purists, fantasists and fanatics of the left and right.

A draft constitution would have to be put to the members at the first general members’ meeting. Such a constitution should provide for the holding once a year of a general

meeting of the members, who alone should have the power to amend the constitution and the statement of aims, and to appoint the members of internal disciplinary tribunals, so that the chairman or governing body cannot pack them. The constitution should also require the officers to lay accounts, prepared by the treasurer, and passed by a registered external auditor before the members in general meeting for approval.

Rid of the albatross legacy of “Young, Nazi and Proud”, “the Secret Agent” etc. ad infinitum et ad nauseam, and committed to a sensible tactical doctrine of building up from the grassroots by engagement in local elections, not fantasies about getting onto the Brussels gravy train, such a party will quickly occupy the large electoral space created by the leftward drift of PC Dave’s Tories, and the abject failure of UKIP to capitalise on the long lost opportunities of 2004.

Now is the time for all true patriots to take a principled yet practical stand. Adherence to the embattled Welshpool clique is not only immoral, it is now also impolitic. Continued support for Griffin amidst accounting scandals and raids by illegal goon squads on the homes of democratically elected councillors equates to moral leprosy, and political suicide.

Over the coming weeks and months, we shall see who does the right thing, who does the wrong thing, and who sits on the fence to see which side will prevail. What will you do?

Wretched and rebellious

Nick Griffin’s latest posting on the website does nothing to enhance his reputation for telling the truth. While the GLA elections are indeed a massive opportunity for the BNP, his attempts to describe the circumstances surrounding the last seven days smack of utter desperation.

To suggest that ‘far-left’ embedded assets have emerged to cause this crisis, when all people have tried to do is awaken you to real and dangerous problems within, is playing a very dangerous political game. It seems that the bigger the crisis, the bigger the smear that has to be told to get yourself out of it. Nonetheless, there is no better response to this than to tell the truth.

In conjunction with the above, some serious questions need to be asked:

• Why has Mark Collett been able to cause trouble wherever he has gone, while you have taken his side on every instance which has led to the sacking or smearing of hard working and well respected Nationalists?
• Why has Dave Hannam been allowed to keep his job for such a long time despite clearly not being up to it, and despite serious reservations from many Party officials?
• Why was the expulsion and treatment of Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith broadcast on the website for 10,000 visitors a day to read that the BNP illegally records people’s conversations and enters their homes by deception while stealing personal property?
• Why are extracts from that personal property then added to that website, in full view of the public at large?
• Why are you now going round the country accusing others of being state assets, when you know full well that those you are accusing have literally given years of honest hard graft to the Cause?

Your revelation about a ‘palace coup’ is nothing more than an inept and incorrect justification for you to rid the Party of those people who have criticised Mark Collett. People before have criticised Mark, and those people are now gone, yet not without being smeared by you as either a ‘red’ or having stolen money. The larger the degree to which Mark dislikes the said people, the larger the smear used against them.

The suggestion that ‘the little clique’ wanted to remove power from the leader, the members who elect the leader and the voting members is nothing more than a lie designed to get those said people on board by deceptively suggesting that all of you as Chairman, the Voting Members, and the members in general are all being undermined together. Chris Beverley was voted to be the Councillors Representative at the latest annual Conference, by existing Councillors. This would have given him a place on the AC, which comes with that position. At the latest North West Regional Council meeting (not the stage managed hatchet job last week) Chris Jackson was given overwhelming backing by the North West Officials (no-one voted against him) to be the North West Regional Organiser. However you have not honoured this and you have instead installed yourself as the North West RO. Both Chris Beverley and Chris Jackson can’t exactly be described as Mark Collett fans, yet they are both excellent Organisers and dedicated Nationalists. To suggest that these two people, democratically elected by their peers meant filling the AC with people to undermine you is ludicrous. How then do you explain the fact that Ian Dawson turned down the role of Yorkshire Organiser (and thus a place on the AC) when according to your theory, Ian, as another Collett non-fan, would surely have jumped at the chance to be back on the AC?

Greed? Insecurity? Juvenile arrogance? A secret extremist agenda? Knowing that their own failings are about to catch up with them? A more perfect description of Mark Collett surely does not exist.

A ‘very productive meeting in the North West’? Where three well respected and hard working long term Nationalists, who were also Regional Officials, resigned? Where you had the room to yourself to show off your undoubted skills as a politician and political debater without your scandalous and desperate claims to be properly challenged?

Glasgow – there was no unanimous vote at all, the Organiser and the Fund-Holder have resigned in protest at your handling of a situation that would never have developed had you lanced the Mark Collett boil on the numerous occasions presented to you over the years. No doubt your ‘one side of the story only’ road show will enable you to win over more people who ‘can’t see the wood for the trees’, yet the truth always comes out and you reap what you sow.

Your tale of badgering phone calls is astounding! It is you and your various lieutenants that have been making calls, spreading lies and badgering officials not to resign in protest. To do the deed and then falsely accuse others of doing it is about as low as it gets. When you’re in a hole……

Which activists were turned away from the smart and friendly pub venue (the first pub you went to after being aquitted at Leeds Crown Court) used for the openly advertised social meeting in Bradford? The thirty plus people in the meeting did not include wretched women, in fact there were no wretched women in the pub at all. Those present were men and women who pay their membership fees so that you and your ‘advisers’ can lie about them to 10,000 visitors a day on the BNP website.

Angela Clarke was in the pub at the time, though not as it happens in the ‘rebel meeting room’. The suggestion that Angela is a wretched woman shows the utter hatred you have for anyone who dares to ask the wrong questions about Mark Collett. Angela was an exceptionally brave BNP councillor who literally fought on the front line in the town of Keighley. She endured more than anyone yet you gave such little support. When you sent Mark Collett in to protect her (the sheer irony of it all) all she received was a computer filled with perverse pornography to which when questioned about it, Collett’s reply was “so f***ing what, it is for my own personal viewing”. The fall out that followed was once again handled with the same trusted method – that of smearing Angela and defending Mark Collett.

Mark Collett, while now given the title of ‘Head of Graphic Design’, was never more than this anyway. Martin Wingfield design and produces Voice of Freedom (and does a fantastic job), John Bean is the editor for Identity (and does a fantastic job) – Mark Collett only ever did the layout and pictures. Steve Blake was in charge of the website (and did a fantastic job even though he was never taken on full time and had to fit it around a non-BNP job). You wrote the information for the national leaflets; Mark Collett only did the graphic design for those leaflets. The only Publicity that Mark Collett has ever been head of is ‘Bad Publicity’. Despite the change of title, Mark will be doing exactly as before and more, now that he has been given the role as editor of the British Nationalist bulletin.

We understand the ‘road show’ was in Leicestershire yesterday afternoon – the outcome of the meeting for Sadie to remain as a normal member was far from satisfactory. She has not only lost her job and her income in the run up to Christmas while pregnant, her personal possessions have not been returned (including her personal computer) despite you accepting at the meeting that the BNP computer you thought you had taken is still in Sadie’s possession. Therefore you have been trawling through Sadie’s private computer given to her by her father, when you knew full well that this was the case. You have thus broken the law of the land by the dissemination of (whether true or amended for your own agenda) Sadie’s personal information. You are in boiling hot water and you damn well know it.

Meetings in the New Year won’t be about listening to the BNP answers; they will be about listening to your answers. Yet Nick, this is the British National Party, not the Nick Griffin Party.

You make so many predictions and cover so many angles, that whatever is to happen you can link it in with past predictions to suit your immediate requirements. Great politician, great political speaker and debater, yet that alone will not take us to the finish line.