Huge growth for BNP's One Big Union - useless Solidarity claims 211 British "workers"

You've got to hand it to Patrick Harrington. As imaginations go, they don't come much better than his. Where the rest of us see a squalid little scam invented by a gaggle of racist bigots, fantasist Harrington sees something pretending to be a "trade union" for "British workers" - One Big Union as he likes to call the unimaginatively named Solidarity.

Of course, One Big Union would go very nicely with One Party Rule, if that unlucky day were ever to dawn.

Last month the One Big Union held its grandly titled Annual Conference at the not so big Apollo Hotel in Birmingham. As we reported, the One Big Union resorted to deception to book the hotel, insisted its members meet at a redirection point, then subjected them to stringent security measures, and would not allow photography or any form of recording to take place.

Exactly the opposite of what any bona fide trade union would do.

The report of the meeting on Solidarity's website avoids mentioning exactly how many members of the One Big Union turned up at the Apollo Hotel and only shows a photo (above) of the "Executive" cramped together on the top table, so we think the attendance was what you might call embarrassing and therefore best not mentioned.

One member who did show up was that horny-handed toiler Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, where he's made sure you can forget all about grievance procedures, fair disciplinary hearings, unfair dismissal or even open and honest leadership elections.

Maybe Griffin was there to keep an eye on his investment, or maybe he was watching for signs of anti-Griffin rebel activity in the One Big Union.

According to the report on Solidarity's website, which has the fantasist Harrington's paw-prints all over it, the One Big Union now has a membership of 211, which means that since Harrington and Griffin hijacked the fake union from its founders last spring it has put on a whole 111 members.

Unite must be quaking with fear!

At a fiver a month a throw, that means that Solidarity's annual income from membership fees is £12660. Members don't actually get anything worthwhile for their money, because the One Big union is so useless that the only advice it could give Mark Walker, at the centre of its feeble cause celebre case, was to "hire a lawyer specialising in employment law".

But £12660 - now that's worth talking about. Think about all the lovely expenses to be claimed. Maybe even a wage for General Secretary Harrington at some point? Donations to a certain political party?

You'd have thought that with a kitty of £12660 to play with that the One Big Union would have funded Mark Walker's lawyer, not told him to shove off and hire one. If all that money isn't there to do what regular and honest trade unions do - provide legal representation for their members - what is it there for?

You'd also have thought that for a party regularly claiming 10,000 members and apparently growing by the minute, more than a piffling two hundred BNP members would have joined the "British workers' union".

Obviously BNP members don't have much faith in the One Big Union. Or perhaps they know a lucrative income stream being set up when they see it.

They can certainly see that Solidarity does things on the cheap. Leaflets and flyers are to be downloaded and printed at your own expense, though printed versions are supposed to be available (but we'd get a cost comparison made first, just in case there's the usual right-wing rip-off involved).

And the tardy amateurishness of its sole publication, "The British Worker" (another cheapo download and print yourself job), just has to be seen to be believed. Looking like it's been chucked together on Word, it's an object lesson in bad layout, a stylistic disaster zone that would shame any parish magazine.

It's also months old and only one edition has ever been produced.

Everything about Solidarity has an air of fantasy about it. On its hyperbole-prone website it lists nine industry sectors in which it is allegedly organising (with 210 members and a pig farmer?), and for each section there is a wordy and completely unrealistic statement of aims that could only have been penned by the Great Fantasist himself.

Each section contains the following exhortation: "However, without your support we are powerless, so don't hesitate in supporting us so that we can support and protect your livelihood."

As in telling you to hire a lawyer specialising in employment law?

We think that the One Big Union only has one purpose, and that £12660 in the cash box is the best clue. If you can raise that from 211 members, just think what you can raise if only you could con 1000 BNP members into signing up for the toy union that won't support and protect your livelihood.

Which thought must have occurred to the member representing the pig farmers' section and his old mate, the Great Fantasist.

Griffin knows this "union" is a joke and will remain a joke, but even with a tiny membership it represents steady cash, and that's what it's all about. So Griffin is happy to let the Fantasist play at trade unions, because the Fantasist knows what the real game is.

"Together we're strong" runs the One Big Union's slogan.

Yes, and £60 quid a year poorer.

Atreus

Lancaster BNP's Chris Hill gets all over-excited at eviction

Eviction from Lancaster University student's SCAM forum, that is!

A couple of years ago, a bunch of Lancaster University students got together to form an online alternative to the worthy but dull Students' Union newspaper Scan, and eventually came up with a forum which they named SCAM. Everything you might expect to find on it is there - discussions on politics, courses, uni life, music, lust, gossip, booze and so on. All the things in fact, in which one would expect students to show an interest.

As expected before long, someone recently asked the question 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' The usual arguments were aired - 'it's a legitimate political party', 'no platform', 'allow a platform then shoot their arguments down', 'they're not welcome on campus' and so on.

The NUS has a very clear 'no platform' policy regarding fascists, generally followed by the Uni and Lancaster University Students' Union (LUSU) except when corporate crooks want to use the facilities, and Scam appears to actively adhere to this policy. So when Lancaster BNP's Chris Hill, who is a grad student, posted in the 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' thread, the forum administrator acted in a way that would make any anti-fascist (in the NUS or not) proud - immediate deletion of all Hill's posts followed by this unequivocal statement:

'As owner of this website I wish to inform Chris Hill that he is specifically not authorised to post messages on this forum, under his own name or otherwise, and that for him to cause this server to carry out the operations required to post a message will therefore be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

I would further like to inform him that any such messages he posts will be deleted. Now being aware of this, should he continue to post he should take note that the actions he knows I will take will cause me annoyance and inconvenience. Therefore, posting in this knowledge and to this purpose would be an offence under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

Chris Hill may like to remember that it is not necessary for him to be prosecuted for any law breaking to affect him. The University will doubtless wish to avoid their systems being used for acts which are of questionable legality and may reconsider their provision of services to him in this event.

To everyone else: don’t encourage him, don’t debate him, don’t take actions that support him. Ultimately, this is a privately run site and I’ll not have my money going to spread the message of the BNP.'

Bravo to the site admin/s, whoever he, she or they may be. But Chris Hill has taken great exception to being denied a platform to spread his lies and the BNP's racist filth.

Over on his third-rate blog, he has descended into the usual barrage of abuse that the BNP always indulges itself in when denied a space to preach, throwing the word 'fascism' about with reckless abandon, droning on about his 'right to reply' and free speech (something the BNP denies on many of its own sites - the Chairman's own blog and that of the party's Press Officer to name but two).

This is what Hill had to say:

'Fascism (of the left wing sort that is) is alive and thriving on campus at Lancaster University. The National student union organisation has, for a long time now, had a far left slant to its ruling body. A policy called no platform, which basically allows it to deny free speech to anyone they disagree with, has been introduced by some student unions, although not yet by LUSU (Lancaster University's Student Union)...This is of course the only action these left wing fascist can take when faced with reasoned debate, because they know they would lose in a free and open discussion of policies. Today the local student internet discussion forum removed my right of reply to postings made on its site...The no platform policy is supposed to apply to fascists; the irony is they are the very people who impose it...Can I assure the people running Lancaster’s SCAM forum, your fascist censorship will not in any way stop, or hinder, the growth of the British National Party in Lancaster...'

Quite why Hill imagines the BNP is growing in Lancaster is beyond any rational human. As the graph here plainly shows, the BNP's presence in Lancaster is rapidly waning and, pending another Margaret Hodge stupidity, will continue to do so. However, that's all beside the point. As a commentor points out on Hill's blog; 'It's not just the left who hate the BNP. The right don't like them either...'[and the] student body at large regards a chunk of its manifesto to be gravely offensive...prospective students (be they black, white, purple, blue or green) would be put off Lancaster University if they knew that there was an active BNP group.'

Hill's response is atypically BNP. 'As for the activities of a group on campus putting potential students off coming to Lancaster to study, don’t you think that the potential students might be put off knowing they are not allowed free political association on campus, which by the way is guaranteed by the human rights act.'

Which, for what it's worth, the BNP doesn't and wouldn't under any circumstances subscribe to, although naturally they're prepared to make use of it when it suits them.

Hill then states his case on four sections of BNP policy; race, immigration, homosexual rights and Islam.

On race: 'We do not want to see the mongrelisation of any race...'
Which clearly means that he is opposed to mixed-race relationships, diversity and a multi-cultural society.

On immigration: '...along with the vast majority of British people I would stop all immigration tomorrow.'
Obviously not true or Nick Griffin would have his feet tucked under the table at 10 Downing Street right now.

On homosexual rights: 'My own view is that homosexuality is a mental illness.'
My own view is that Chris Hill is a homophobic idiot who needs to get out more.

On Islam: 'This is not a religion, it’s an evil cult.'
Clearly showing that he's spent more time listening to the insane rants of Nick Griffin instead of investigating Islam through one of Lancaster's friendly mosques.

Hill then makes this strange statement; 'I hold no commission to talk for the British National Party on any issues or policies...'

Er, yes you do. You're the local BNP candidate. If you don't have a commission to talk for the party, who the hell does?

All of which goes to show that fascists believe they have a right to go anywhere and spout their ridiculous opinions, no matter who they offend in the process, that anyone who opposes them is automatically either a raving red or a fascist themselves (or preferably both) and that Chris Hill has no idea of the role a candidate plays within a political party - indicating that for all the smart suits and weasel words the BNP is no nearer to being a political party than I am to being a duck.