Showing posts with label late accounts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label late accounts. Show all posts

December 13, 2009

Of infiltrators, liars and cheapskates...

17 Comment (s)
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;
'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.

October 24, 2009

Party faces fine for filing accounts late

4 Comment (s)
The BNP is facing a fine of up to £5,000 by electoral watchdogs for failing to file its accounts on time, amid claims the far-right party is in financial crisis.

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, has issued a plea to members for extra donations after admitting the organisation was "suffering acute financial pressure" and was "fighting for [its] very existence" following a dip in its income and a £600,000 bill for its campaign in the June European elections.

Fresh questions have been raised about the BNP's financial controls, after the Electoral Commission confirmed that the party's accounts for 2008 are now nearly four months overdue. A spokesman for the commission said the BNP, which has been fined by the watchdog four times in the past two years for breaking rules on filing financial records, faces a penalty of between £600 and £5,000.

Party officials last night denied that the BNP was facing imminent financial collapse, pointing out that its cash-flow problems over the summer, which included a delay in the payment of salaries to its two new MEPs, had now alleviated. Simon Darby, the BNP's deputy leader, said: "Things are now a lot better than they were. Unlike other parties, we are in the black because no one will give us an overdraft."

Mr Darby declined to comment on the size of any deficit in the BNP's finances, and insisted that the delayed 2008 accounts would be filed with the Electoral Commission "imminently".

The BNP has relied on small-scale contributions from its members and commercial activities to fund its campaigns. It has not declared a donation above £5,000 to the Electoral Commission since March this year, when its largest donor, Adam Champneys, a Kent fruit farmer, gave a total of £15,060.

Accounts for 2008 filed by the BNP's regional organisations last month showed it had suffered a 27 per cent drop in its income to £211,000.

Independent

December 22, 2007

Reader article: Accounts for 2006 - the Style, the Style!

5 Comment (s)
This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste) from our supporters. Please send your articles to us at lancaster.uaf@zen.co.uk

At last the wait is over; the BNP's central accounts for 2006 are with the Electoral Commission, and we can study the wit and wisdom - or, more appropriately, the acumen and intelligence - of Griffin and Walker. Two people who, we might assume, could be Prime Minister and Chancellor in any BNP government.

This article deals with the Style of the Accounts; a further contribution will consider the Substance. But, hey - it's the festive season so let's have a laugh!

As we have come to expect the (poor) quality of their written English is matched only by the quality of the proofreading. So we enjoy such gems as:

"2006 saw the British National Party's biggest electoral and political" (no, that's it, the sentence vanishes into the next!), "out of 13 BNP candidates stood in Barking and Dagenham" and "it is far from whether her intervention made a great deal of difference".

We also have some classic Griffin abuse and mudslinging in his Chairman's report on the year. So he mentions "the multi-millionaire Labour MP ... Margaret Hodge", though the relevance of her wealth to the issue under discussion is far from clear. He's not too keen on Lord Lester (we presume he means Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Liberal Democrat peer and respected human rights lawyer). Now this may seem a little surprising as in the very week the BNP accounts were submitted Lord Lester tabled a parliamentary question relating to the prevalance of Wahhabist teaching in British mosques (a subject one might expect to be of some concern to the BNP), and earlier in the year he tabled a private member's bill to criminalise forced marriages. He is a former Human Rights Lawyer of the Year. And how is he described by Griffin? "Race Act Gauleiter Lord Lester". Charming chap, Mr Griffin. A Cambridge education really is the mark of a gent.

There are some wider targets too. The BNP's successes (2006 was their "semi-breakthrough year after all - Barking & Dagenham and all that) would have been greater still, but for the machinations of the establishment. "Postal fraud cost us at least two dozen seats". Strange that there have been no legal actions then? Oh, but there's a simple explanation for that - the "police campaign of intimidation" against the party!

"We see it here, we see it there; we see conspiracy everywhere!"

The "free speech trials" (their term not mine) get lengthy, and excessively tedious, coverage - so tedious I can find little of any interest to say. Except to pick up on Mr Griffin's triumphant assertion that coverage of the trials brought "significant surges in new membership applications" leading to "an excellent year for new memberships". Which all contributed to "an increasing membership".

Yes, OK Nick, we get the message. Membership increased. Well done - mind you, so it should. All that publicity. The trials. All those extra councillors, up from 21 to 63 according to your Annual Report.

There's just one difficulty. Your membership didn't increase. Not according to your own figures. Now in the past it's been difficult to quantify membership, with separate figures quoted in different parts of the same Annual Report! So membership in 2004 was variously quoted as 7,916 or 6,356; and 2005 as 6,008 or 6,502 (at least the gap's closing!). This year there appears to be just one figure, and on a like-for-like basis it gives the following picture:

2004 6,356
2005 6,502
2006 6,281

So, according to their own figures, BNP membership fell by 3.4% in 2006 - not catastrophic, but very disappointing (for them, not me) in the light of the year's political circumstances.

One final note on membership. The party boasts of introducing a new membership information system. And what does this new system offer?

"A new system of membership information-sharing ... to ensure absolute confidentiality".

Wonder what Sadie Graham now makes of that claim?

Iliacus

July 25, 2007

BNP to receive fine from Electoral Commission

8 Comment (s)
The financial accounts of the main political parties in the UK for the year ending 31 December 2006 have been published today by the Electoral Commission.

Political parties and their accounting units are required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) to submit their accounts each year to the Commission. Those with gross annual income or total expenditure of over £250,000 are given six months from year end to prepare their accounts and have them independently audited before submitting them. The accounts were due by 7 July 2007.

In May, the Commission published the financial accounts of those political parties and accounting units whose gross income and total expenditure were each less than £250,000. Accounting units with income and expenditure that are both under £25,000 are not required to submit their accounts.

Thirteen political parties reported income or expenditure of over £250,000:

Conservative and Unionist Party
Co-operative Party
Democratic Unionist Party
Green Party Labour Party
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru – the party of Wales
Respect – the Unity Coalition
Scottish National Party
SDLP (Social Democratic and Labour Party)
Sinn Féin
Ulster Unionist Party
UK Independence Party

Seven accounting units reported income or expenditure of over £250,000:

Aylesbury Conservative Constituency Association
Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Constituency Association
Kensington and Chelsea Conservative Constituency Association
Liberal Democrats in England
Parliamentary Office the Liberal Democrats
Scottish Labour Party
Surrey Heath Conservative Constituency Association

The Commission is currently scrutinising all the submitted accounts, by cross checking them against other information held and where discrepancies occur, raising them with the parties. Having agreed with comments from the Constitutional Affairs Committee and Sir Hayden Phillip’s review of party funding about the difficulty in interpreting financial accounts, the Commission is looking at this issue with a view to implementing guidelines to increase transparency and consistency by making the information more easily understandable. The Commission intends to consult with political parties later this year regarding plans to standardise the format and presentation of statement of accounts.

Two parties and one accounting unit in this reporting band will be fined for failing to submit their accounts by the statutory deadline. The Co-Operative Party submitted their accounts to the Commission six days late and have been issued with a penalty notice for £500. Final statements of accounts have yet to be received from the British National Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats’ accounting unit. The penalty they face will depend on the length of time between the missed deadline and the submission of outstanding information.

Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said:
“The accounts should be a key source of information for anyone wishing to find out more about how a political party is funded, and what it spends its money on. Without complete and open accounts, you cannot have full transparency about party finances.

“The rules on transparency are vital to public confidence and integrity in the democratic process. That’s why we are now taking a tougher approach to ensuring parties follow the rules, including fining parties who don’t submit their accounts on time and looking at how we can get parties to improve the ways in which they present their accounts.”
/ends

Notes to editors:

1. The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. Our aim is integrity and public confidence in the UK’s democratic process. We regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections.

2. The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that parties with a gross income or expenditure of £250,000 or less (and their accounting units with a gross income or expenditure in excess of £25,000 and below 250,000) submit an annual statement of accounts to The Electoral Commission by 31 March and for more than that sum by 7 July.

3. There are 388 political parties registered with The Electoral Commission as of today.

4. Under PPERA political parties may register accounting units with The Electoral Commission. An accounting unit is a constituent or affiliated organisation of a political party and is responsible for its own financial affairs and transactions.

5. The fact that a Statement of Accounts has been placed on the public record should not necessarily be taken to indicate that the Electoral Commission has verified or validated it in any way.

Contact: Neil Freshwater or Lynne Veitch
Phone: 0131 556 0770 or 07887 778 759 (out of hours).
Email: elections@pagodapr.com
Website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/soayearend2002.cfm

Thanks to our friends at Kirklees Unity