Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Leadership Contest
Where do we go from here? That is the question many supporters of Andrew Brons are asking, in the light of yesterday’s leadership poll. Supporters of Nick Griffin are asking similar questions.
In the ballot, existing Chairman Nick Griffin won a new term as Chairman by the narrowest margin of nine votes, or 50.19%, against 49.80% for Andrew Brons. There were 11 spoiled papers.
The Returning Officer will now carry out some elementary checks to ensure there was no misconduct in the issuance of ballots and that voters were properly qualified two year members.
Probably, this was the worst mandate the Chairman could win. In effect, the party is split from head to toe and there remain grave questions of doubt over the fitness of many existing officers of the party to exercise control over its operations. Many of these officers are unpopular.
There were also serious offences carried out by the Chairman’s staff during the campaign itself.
A disgraceful 50 point, three page email was circulated to members, savagely attacking Mr Brons with outrageous lies and distortions.
The Chairman attributed its existence to his head of security, Martin Reynolds. Whether Mr Reynolds was capable of writing such a document is open to doubt. The Chairman, moreover, did not explain how Mr Reynolds was able to source the membership data.
The Chairman’s agents also flagrantly breached the electoral rules. In the South East, for example, a prejudicial email was issued under the name of Dave Price, imploring members to support Nick Griffin.
How many voting members these emails influenced will never be known.
The current Chairman enjoys no margin of support. The only practical means by which he can unite the party and lead it, therefore, is to consult and act on the views of the opposing team – not merely initially but on a continual basis.
He should also consider making appointments from Mr Brons’ team. Not least, it will be essential to dispense with the services of the non-member and political opponent, Pat Harrington, who is widely disliked and who stood ethnic candidates against our party in a previous role.
His continued influence in the party, however remote, will be viewed as divisive and confrontational. The Chairman should heed this message very carefully.
The Chairman is in an invidious position. Whereas there are no feelings particularly strongly held about Mr Brons, it is known that the Chairman is, alas, loathed by a significant portion of the activist base and widely resented.
That is why he will need to show resolve and replace a number of unpopular members of his team, whose abilities are open to question.
By contrast, it is widely admitted that the activist base for the most part supported Mr Brons. The activist base must be invigorated and its confidence won over if the party is to make meaningful progress.
An Unfortunate Backdrop
The fact remains that a significant proportion of activists have departed the party over the past year – an occurrence, ironically, that is not unrelated to the activities of Eddy Butler. But for Mr Butler, Mr Brons might have won the election by a significant margin.
In most regions, political activity has collapsed. In Scotland and the Eastern Region, for example, there are no longer any active branches. In the latter, there were dozens of active units earlier last year.
In all regions, the number of units has collapsed.
In all regions, the councillor base has collapsed – from approximately 87 two years ago to about a dozen, presently. It is doubtful whether most of the incumbents will retain their seats when new elections are held.
In other areas, units are controlled by tattooed half-wits, who will never appeal to the public.
The party website has become an illiterate shadow of itself.
In sum, this is an appalling record for the previous administration and, in particular, the Chairman, the National Elections Officer and the National Activities Organiser.
More serious, is the dire financial condition of the party. Large bills, amassed and unpaid, are now due for settlement and comfortably embrace six figures.
During the leadership campaign, it was claimed that the party was capable of settling its debts and there were no invoices outstanding of significance where arrangement had not been agreed. This website has demonstrated otherwise and we shall now see who was correct.
Enormous legal bills have also been amassed and the Chairman is exposed to a large claim from the ‘Decembrists’.
Serious questions also remain, relating to the Chairman’s conducts over an outstanding invoice from Romac Press and his related conduct towards Richard Barnbrook.
In any other party, any one of these developments would have been sufficient enough reason for the Chairman to resign. Unfortunately, the same principles of conduct do not arise in our party but they should.
We shall soon discover whether the existence of these and other events cause such a crisis of confidence that the Chairman’s position becomes untenable.
We would remind him, in such circumstances, that the party is not his personal fiefdom: the party belongs to its members, not to the Chairman so that he might employ his family members and cronies. The party and the country are infinitely more important than the Chairman.
Given the closeness of the vote, there is no question, in our view, that the Chairman should have stood down and provided his support to Mr Brons, which would enable the party to unite.
This would have demonstrated statesmanship and selflessness, qualities that we doubt the Chairman possesses.
When Mrs Thatcher lost the leadership election within the Conservative Party in 1990, she secured a simple majority of 50% of the support of voting MPs. Under the rules, she also required an additional 15% of MPs’ support and narrowly failed that criterion. The purpose of this additional parameter was to ensure a wide margin of support, over and above the simple majority.
By many benchmarks, the party now stands where it was shortly after the Chairman was elected to the post in 1999. If the decline continues, we shall find the party has gone nowhere in a little over ten years.
The idea that the Chairman should remain in office for a further four years is not one which is tenable.
At the next AGM, this rule must be overturned and opportunities created for a further contest, which will doubtless be necessary given the parlous financial condition and the crisis of confidence amongst the activist base.
Across Europe, nationalist parties are booming. In the UK, conditions have never been more favourable for us. Instead, we find that there are now more activists out of the party than in it and that the party is run, for the main party, by half-wits, whose presence is toxic to the cause.
Finally, the party website has written as follows:
“Upon the announcement of his re-election, Nick Griffin said: “The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work. We have a Party to build and a Nation to save. Let us go forward together!””
“This election was a great example of internal democracy. Nick Griffin has won and has a mandate to lead the Party for four more years. The members have spoken. We must all get behind Nick and take the fight to the enemies of our Nation.”
Far from ‘healing’, we are reminded that many people were suspended or expelled from the party because they spoke out in a way that was critical of the leadership. Many resigned because of this absence of tolerance.
This election was a poor example of internal democracy. Dirty tricks abounded and an enquiry must be held into the circulation of illicit material by party officers.
Mr Griffin certainly has no mandate. He has split the party and has won by the narrowest of margins. If he and the party stall as a result of any of the numerous cases pending in the law courts, his position will become entirely untenable.
We shall watch Mr Griffin carefully.
NWN: We largely agree with the above post. Whether current BNP members leave or carry on in the hope that Griffin gets his comeuppance is a matter for them take stock of and act accordingly. We would disagree Mr.Brons view that the current state of the BNP is similar to how the party was in the immediate aftermath of the Griffin 'hijack' in 1999. Morale within the BNP is at an all time low. It was exactly the opposite in 1999. We at NWN will continue to watch the 'parasite' that is Nick Griffin on the 'body politic' that is British nationalism.
Monday, July 25, 2011
So it's 4 more years of nepotism, financial corruption, no direction , a lack of coherent policy and hiding from the creditors amongst many other charges we could easily lay at Griffins hands.
The BNP will not exist in another 4 years.
A rather telling statement was made by the numbers who voted in the BNP leadership election.
Apparently, only about 2,500 actually voted. So how small has the BNP now become under the Griffin 'leadership' ?
No doubt Griffin will spout some niceties for the moment. Though there is a rumour doing the rounds that Griffin sent his 'paid heavies' to take over the BNP admin records office and to destroy them if he lost.
What will happen now ?
We think that a split will occur.
Whether Mr. Brons will be involved in that, we at NWN have no idea. Mr. Brons said he will not be standing again as an MEP. So no one would blame him if he just said 'bolleaux' to Griffins BNP.
Many will now 'vote' with their feet.
But of course the destruction of the BNP was planned by 'the state' and advertised as such by the media just prior to Griffins hijack of the BNP in 1999 and as mentioned in the SPEARHEAD John Tyndall article just below this one.
The next few days are going to be very interesting.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
John Tyndall asks: Is the BNP infiltrated by hostile agents?
No longer very covert state action
As can be seen from the report on page 4 of Spearhead magazine, last month I was expelled from the British National Party for the second time in 16 months. The charges were as ludicrous this time as they were the previous time. Then I took legal action to obtain reinstatement, and I was successful: to avoid the matter going to court and very big costs being incurred, party chairman Nick Griffin agreed to an out-of-court settlement whereby the expulsion was annulled and my membership restored. As it was, the action was expensive: due to a procedural error by my solicitors in notifying Mr. Griffin of the application for judicial review of the case, the judge hearing the costs application ruled that each party to the dispute pay its own costs. A total bill of over £12,000 resulted from this fiasco, which was split roughly equally. The cause of Nationalism in Britain, never abounding in affluence, was that much the poorer for Mr. Griffin's folly.
Just what the costs will amount to in the new action which I have been forced to institute over this latest expulsion remains to be seen, but the affair will not be dealt with cheaply. No one regrets more than I do the fact that loyal nationalists will again be asked to dig into their pockets to pay, but the dispute has not been of my making. I never had Mr. Griffin expelled; he has had me expelled – twice!
A study of the history of Nick Griffin's involvement in nationalist politics indicates that he gets rather a kick out of expelling people – or, if not that, proscribing them – which amounts to almost the same thing. In our October 2003 issue we took a look at a document titled Attempted Murder, of which Mr. Griffin was the main author. This chronicled the internal quarrels that convulsed the National Front in 1986, in which he (Griffin) stood right at the centre. As a sample of paranoia it takes some beating; and it should be studied by everyone who wants to arrive at some understanding of the troubles now besetting the BNP. Attempted Murder can be read online at www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html
But this would only touch at the surface of these troubles. There is much more that is needed to explain what is now going on in our party than the personality of Chairman Nick. We need to step back for a moment and focus on the bigger picture. This is important because, from the many letters and e-mails that I receive from nationalists around the country, I sense that an awful lot of people are utterly confused. The political climate in Britain is now more favourable to us than it has ever been. Despite the disappointments of last June's round of elections, both European and municipal, we are still getting some hugely encouraging votes. We should be on the crest of a wave of high morale and optimism, with our ranks united and our tails up. Yet the BNP is racked with internal division and widespread demoralisation – a truth which is only superficially concealed by the upbeat 'spin' that comes from official publications and bulletins.
Suspensions and expulsions
Right now, one of the party's best organisers in the South of England is under suspension, with his branch virtually in a state of limbo – only a probable five months from a vital general election. Another excellent organiser, in the East Midlands, has just been expelled (welcome to the club!). A leading activist in the London area only reported to me just before Christmas the alarming state of dissatisfaction among members throughout the capital and its suburbs. Just what is happening?
I will endeavour to give my own up-to-date 'take' on the situation. It is one which necessarily requires a certain amount of repetition, over which I hope readers will bear with me. The repetition must begin with some words quoted in these pages in our March 1999 issue. They come from a report in The Express newspaper published on 18th February of that year, and they read:-
'Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.
'Other officers will tap telephones, open mail and scrutinise bank accounts and medical records. "We plan to close down these organizations by using every administrative device available to us," said a Yard source.'
I believe that we must constantly keep these words in the forefront of our minds if we are to make sense of what has been happening to our party in the near six years that have followed. And it is perhaps the right place and moment for a further quote:-
'More recently, as the National Front declined to a mere rump, the British National Party (BNP) has been seen as more dangerous. By the early 1990s MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents inside the BNP.'
These words come from a book Defending the Realm, by Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, published by Andre Deutsch in 1999. I have no way of ascertaining the sources of the writers' information, but I have to presume that they carried out considerable research into the workings of MI5, the establishment's main internal security service, and would have had no reason to invent their claim. They are almost certainly no friends of the BNP and would not have made it to do us any favours.
This aside, the claim gives all the appearance of fitting logically into the picture of what has been happening in the party. Taken in conjunction with the words of the Scotland Yard spokesman reported in The Express newspaper, they present a scenario that should at once sound loud warning bells and enlighten us as to what our enemies are doing. For myself, I can see no rhyme nor reason in the conflicts we have had in the BNP without such forces at work – and this applies not only to our party but to other nationalist organizations, past and present, where similar internal trouble has been constantly visible. In one case, in the National Front in the 1970s, I was able to observe the same pattern: recurring internecine quarrels and splits, which seemed to break out not when there was organisational and political failure but at the moments of greatest success, when in theory morale should have been high and unity at its strongest.
These experiences of years ago led me to give a good deal of study and thought to the question of internal subversion of dissident political groups carried out by the state and other hostile agencies. The phenomenon is not new, and it is not confined to Britain; in fact it has been a recognised technique of political warfare for centuries. Neither should we imagine that it targets only our side of the political spectrum. The writers of Defending the Realm affirm that it is practised also against radical left-wing organisations, most notably of all the IRA but also cranky fringe groups like the Socialist Workers' Party.
The infiltrator is an animal of which most nationalists are aware, but many have only the sketchiest idea of his chief function. There is often talk of 'enemy plants' working to get inside information, but where this occurs it is only for the purpose of that information being used in much more destructive designs. At the end of the day, nationalist political parties like the BNP are absolutely legal: unlike terrorist groups, they have nothing to hide. Not a single one of their activities is secret. The infiltrator, whether state or other, can obtain no information about these activities that his controllers do not already know about because of their completely open nature.
The principal function of the infiltrator in a nationalist political group that operates within the law (and nearly all do) is to promote internal sabotage. This can best be done by encouraging the formation of rival factions, in conflict with one another over matters of leadership or policy. Here there is almost always ready-made fuel for the saboteur.
Radical organisations tend by their nature to be fractious. They attract individuals with strong opinions, sometimes amounting to obsessions. This fractiousness is most common on the left, where ideological arguments that would appear to us ridiculously nit-picking in their proportions can become the subject of passionate and raging quarrels. On our side of politics conflicts of this kind are less common, though far from unknown. In the early to mid-1980s a group gained ascendancy in the National Front which pushed hard and persistently for the adoption of what came to be known as 'Strasserite' policies. This appellation was taken from a rebel faction in Hitler's National Socialist Party in Germany led by the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, which sought to combine a kind of civic Nationalism with social and economic doctrines that were little short of Bolshevism.
At the time all this was happening, I and people of like mind to me had parted company with the official Front over matters in no way connected with it, but we were still hoping for the fractured marriage to be repaired and the party united again. I noted that those most vociferous in their advocacy of the 'Strasser' line of thought were the most obdurately resistant to such a reunification, resorting to ideological pettifogging as an excuse for their self-entrenchment rather than focusing on the bigger picture. At the time I thought of them, politically speaking, as immature schoolboys who had a lot of growing up to do: their political ideas were shallow, sloppily thought out and very easy to demolish in debate. What I did not consider seriously enough then – though I did later – was that there could be some method in their evident silliness, and that 'Strasserite' politics could well have been some skilfully conceived wedge driven into the remnants of the former NF in order to ensure its continued division.
However, a more obvious and easily available pretext for division within nationalism has always been the disagreement between what, for simplification, we might call the 'hard-liners' and the 'modernisers' within the movement. I have always regarded this conflict as grossly exaggerated in substance and wholly unnecessary when measured beside the strategic imperatives confronting us.
In all politics there is the ever-present debate as to ways and means: whether to present objectives in strident, uncompromising tones or to employ the 'soft sell', the soothing, moderately worded approach that will encounter the fewest objectors. To a great extent, divisions over these matters are rooted in the differing personal characters of those who argue them. There are those of the born warrior outlook, who will tend naturally towards the fighting approach which brooks no compromise; and there are the natural conciliators, who will forever be seeking gentler methods because their temperaments can conceive no other way.
I have long believed that the course of practical politics demands a fusion of the two instincts: that of the fighter and that of the diplomat, wisdom lying in recognising the moments and situations in which one or the other is called for, and deciding accordingly. A movement with an excess of warrior qualities over the qualities of the conciliator will rush blindly into political action that is often ill-conceived and self-destructive, while one in which these attributes exist in reverse measure will atrophy and wither on the vine because of a shortage of courage, motivation and will.
When all is said and done, I believe that it has to be the code and approach of the fighter that must prevail over that of the conciliator; but the fighter must be one with the discernment to accept the need for conciliatory methods when the situation calls for them. Here we who like to think of ourselves as fighters must be aware of instincts within us which sometimes need curbing, and to curb them when required. Here we have the fusion that makes for the soldier-politician, of whom Caesar, Napoleon and Marlborough were outstanding examples.
On the other hand, human nature being what it is, it is only rarely that life's born conciliators can overcome their innermost instincts and face a real fight when fighting is the only option.
And as with individuals, it is the same with ideologies, which tend to conform to individual bent. An ideology of firmness and strength should be able to incorporate the gentler virtues and practise them when needs demand. But an ideology rooted in weakness can never summon firmness and strength that simply are not there.
Recipe for splits
This is a bit of a diversion but, I hope, a useful one in identifying potential sources of conflict in a political movement. Between people of goodwill there is reasoned thought and discussion over the respective tactical viewpoints; but to the would-be wrecker these viewpoints, instead of being reconciled in synthesis, present a perfect recipe for internal quarrels resulting in factions and splits.
Again and again, I have seen this happen in nationalist organisations; and again and again I have come to the conclusion that somewhere, in each case, there is an external agency stoking the fires of conflict where common sense, and a focus on the greater common good, could have avoided it. I believe that just such an external agency – indeed more than just one – has been present in the divisions which over recent years have convulsed the British National Party.
It is at this point that we should focus on a third type that is to be found in organisations. This type has instincts neither towards the 'hard-line' nor gentler approach but is in the struggle for essentially egotistical reasons – and sometimes also mercenary ones. To this type, arguments about 'hard-line' or 'soft-line' politics have only one utility and criterion: do they advance or retard his own personal ambitions and personal faction? He can be at one moment the hard-line fundamentalist and the very next moment the soft-line 'moderniser' according to tactical requirements – the tactical requirements being not those of the party but purely his own.
This type, again, is putty in the hands of the would-be wrecker. His ego and ambition can be so easily exploited by cunning manipulation which sets him against others with whom he should be working in dedication to a common cause.
Mysterious new arrivals
Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?
Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called 'modernising' faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.
In what limited contact I had with these people one thing struck me vividly. Their arrogance and conviction in the rightness of their attitudes was astounding. Most of them were young enough to be my children and some even my grandchildren. Their practical experience of the nationalist struggle was at an apprentice level. Yet they spoke to me about political ideology and tactics as if they were experienced achievers with battle honours under their belts and I a young lad just out of school. Just where had they learned all this stuff? At an MI5 training college perhaps? Or were they just wired up that way? One of these explanations is not necessarily exclusive of the other.
In previous articles I have focused on the various policy and presentational gimmicks that have been employed allegedly with the object of making the BNP more 'electable': a Sikh newspaper columnist; a Jewish candidate (and later councillor); a Asian spokesman on a TV party political broadcast; declarations that the party would be satisfied with the permanent presence of ethnic minorities in Britain, providing there were not too many of them. I could go on.
I have never believed that these innovations make more than 0.01 per cent difference either to our election results or to our recruitment. On the other hand, they have been hugely divisive to the party internally, with large numbers of members, including some of our best activists, quitting it in disgust. Is this just folly – the lack of intelligent political calculation of gain and loss? Or is it deliberate – a quite cynical manoeuvre aimed at alienating the genuine nationalists within and without and turning the BNP into nothing better than a neutered Tory pressure group? I am in no doubt myself as to the answer to these questions. I hope that what is written here will lead others to think about them seriously. Let us remember the words of the 'Yard source' back in 1999. "We plan to close down these organisations..." One way to close down an organisation is to divide it into fragments which, separately, exert almost zero influence in national politics. This was what happened to the National Front at the end of the 1970s. Is it the strategy now being pursued with regard to the BNP? There is a great deal of evidence – albeit admittedly circumstantial – that it is.
I have spoken earlier of the sacking and suspension of excellent organisers and branches. If this is not intended as a deliberate act of sabotage of the party, it most certainly is operating to that effect. The pretext for this orgy of purges is the need to maintain internal party discipline. Well, there is no one more firmly committed to the principle of internal party discipline than I. But in an organisation of volunteers – very different from a branch of the armed forces – discipline cannot be imposed by bullying and coercion; it must be maintained with prudence and must begin with its ultimate arbiter – the top party leadership – winning respect and being seen to apply it disinterestedly and with a view solely to the party's welfare. This simply has not been happening in the BNP. Certain people have been 'chopped' on purported disciplinary grounds, while others much more deserving of disciplinary action have been allowed to get away with almost anything they like – providing they show loyalty and willing subservience to the people currently in control. This is not a recipe for order in the party; it is one for self-destruction.
Financial gravy train
It is the time now to take another look at the BNP's quite ludicrously inflated wage bill. I have asked the questions before: Who is being paid and how much? And whence is coming the money to keep this gravy train on the rails? The people bidding to take over the party in 1999 made one of their main campaigning issues a demand for transparency and accountability in the handling of party finances. Yet these present questions continue to be shrouded in secrecy. Why?
I would suggest that the overriding reason for the payments that are being doled out to so many party functionaries is that they are intended to keep them subservient and acquiescent in the numerous outrageous policy decisions that have been made over the past few years and a few examples of which I have highlighted. In any other circumstances there would have been a palace revolt at the top of the party, with numerous senior officers simply not being willing to accept what has been going on. Yet there has been an almost indecent compliance. Could it be that when promptings of rebellion come from the inner conscience a self-reminder about bread-and-butter dependency stiffle the urge. Thoughts about the mortgage or instalments on the motor car act as a brake on protest.
I would strongly urge those in receipt of these emoluments to examine their consciences again. Can they reconcile their positions with personal honour and self-respect? Can they with sincerity condemn the 'bought' politicians of the established parties when they have their feet planted on the same path?
And I ask again: where is the money coming from? I remind those in control of their previous clamour for transparency. Where is the transparency here?
No to new party!
As I write these words, many still urge me to take the lead in forming a new party. As has happened in the past, I refuse to take that step. All previous experience counsels against it. Indeed I am convinced that it has been the intention and hope that I would launch and lead a breakaway movement from the BNP that explains so much of what has been happening – both to the party itself and to me personally. But I simply do not intend to play these people's game. The name of the game is divide-and-conquer. It made Nationalism in Britain impotent for so many years. It is the hope and prayer of those who seek to keep things this way.
And just as I would be playing our enemies' game by consenting to the setting up of a breakaway party, so also are those who on grounds of principle and protest have let their party subscriptions lapse, and have thus disenfranchised themselves with regard to action for internal change. If you aren't a member you can't vote. And if you can't vote you're going to leave things as they are. Here I risk offending some of my staunchest friends and allies by saying that this kind of abstention boils down to a form of self-indulgence. It is precisely what is wanted by the people who are steering the BNP – whether by intention or under manipulative forces of which they have no knowledge – to self-destruction. You may not like sending these people money at renewal time. Nor do I. But it is an utterly necessary procedure if the BNP is to be saved.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
It looks like some of the evidence of debt is being revealed against the BNP as a result of the Nick Griffin shenanigans/dictatorship. This document is now doing the rounds and seems to show that the BNP owes a company called ROMAC, the sum of £42,505.82p for work done.
Is this the first of the debts that Griffin has 'racked up' and hasn't paid for goods and/or services? We at NWN know that Griffin has an habit of spending other peoples money then 'doing a runner'. At the first RWB held near Burnley a local pub landlord was left with a debt for beer and other such stuff of over £1,000+. That was circa 2002 !
Griffin tried to avoid paying two of the main Burnley activists for work done on his home for major plumbing and central heating work carried out there around 2001/2002.
Will Griffin lie his way to 'winning' the BNP leadership election before this info/facts comes out?
We at NWN wonder if Mr. Griffin can play the lyre? At least the Emperor Nero had some artistic skills.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Griffins election broadcast !
My word he is seriously rattled.
This is not an election broadcast its an appeal to Andrew Brons.
He reminds us of puppet Basil Brush, except Griffin is not funny.
His comment "When I am re-elected" is also worthy of further question. And what about his comment for Mr. Brons to "come to Head Office".
Where is the BNP 'Head Office' ?
Is it at Griffins mountain retreat near Welshpool where the BNP members paid for another barn conversion ?
Why did Griffin not refute and answer the allegations contained in the document he starts his appeal with ?
Griffin looks reminiscent of the Dickens character Mr. Mickawber. His days are numbered thankfully. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later, because if he wins, then it's 'goodnight and goodbye' for the BNP.
Griffin has been the very worst disaster ever to happen on the BNP. He couldn't have done more damage if we combined Searchlight/Special Branch into one entity.
We would urge everyone to see this broadcast, it is even as bad as the QUESTION TIME debacle.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Andrew Brons Leadership Election 2011
Here is Andrew Brons MEP video. There are some surprising faces on the video and Griffin must be extremely fearful now of the consequences of losing the contest.
We at NWN are generally in favour of Mr Brons taking over the BNP from the corrupt madman Nick Griffin. However we have some reservations about some on the video. One of them, Arthur Kemp, should be nowhere near the helm as his shady past with the security services is far too dodgy.
Martin Wingfield as well is about as nationalist as David Cameron. In fact, Mr Wingfields true home is the liberal tory party. Wingfield has pushed for the non whites into the BNP as long as Nick Griffin and used the BNPs organs to promote that. For example, the appalling story in VOICE OF FREEDOM when he pushed about the chap from Barrow in Furness and his daughters marriage to a black guy from Zimbabwe/Rhodesia together with their half caste children.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Friday, July 08, 2011
July 08, 2011
Millions of British Gas customers are to face higher utility bills after the company said it is putting up the price of both gas and electricity.
Gas prices will rise by an average of 18% and electricity bills by an average of 16%.
The increases, which will come into effect from August 18, will see the average dual fuel energy bill rise by £190 a year.
The announcement was made at 10am today - as Prime Minister David Cameron was in the middle of announcing plans to deal with the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.
British Gas said it had raised its prices in response to a 30% hike in wholesale prices since last winter.
It is the second of the "big six" companies to put up prices after Scottish Power announced a 19% hike in gas prices and 10% hike in electricity last month. Other companies are expected to follow.
The change in prices will directly affect nine million customers while a further million have fixed prices and will not be immediately impacted.
British Gas last hiked its prices in December when household bills increased by an average of 7%, adding £1.50 to the average weekly dual fuel bill.
Managing director Phil Bentley, said: "We know there is never a good time to raise prices but we are buying in a global energy market and have to pay the market rate.
"Rising wholesale costs is an issue facing all energy suppliers. Our advice to customers is to wait and see what happens in the energy retail market before making any decisions about switching supplier."
The company said it "cannot continue to make a loss on the energy it sells" and it needs to make a profit to invest in future energy sources.
It offered numerous ways for its customers to keep their prices down, including fixing their bills or improving insulation in their homes and energy monitors.
British Gas said some bills could increase by as much as 24% depending on how customers pay their bills and where they live. The minimum increase will be 12%.
Mike O'Connor, chief executive of Consumer Focus, said wholesale prices have gone up but are still a third lower than their peak in 2008.
He has calculated that in this time British Gas prices have risen by around 44% on gas and 21% on electricity and "suppliers have made healthy profits".
He added: "This price rise will send a shockwave across the country. The impact on customers will be severe, piling more pressure on severely stretched household budgets and pushing hundreds of thousands more households into fuel poverty.
"Consumers simply don't trust that energy companies have customers' interests at heart and rightly question whether prices are fair."
The latest price rises will cause more misery for cash-strapped households, which are struggling as wages fail to keep pace with rising inflation. All of the big six companies hiked prices over the winter.
The Bank of England earlier this year said it expected bills to rise by 15% as part of its forecasts that inflation will hit 5% this year.
But the two companies to have brought in hikes so far have increased prices at a greater rate than the Bank forecast, raising the possibility that inflation will climb even higher.
Richard Lloyd, executive director of consumer campaigner Which?, said: "Many people are already having to cut back on essentials because of the rising cost of living, and with energy bills rising further, this could be a cold winter for many."
NWN: Looks like the poor British public are to get screwed even more. Rises like this will result in deaths this coming Winter, especially if they are like the last two vicious winters we have had. Maybe it's time to re-nationalise the utility companies ?
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Nick Griffin Opposes Death Sentence for KLF Activist
Thu, 07/07/2011 - 14:00 News Team
By Patrick Harrington – Nick Griffin MEP has spoken out against the imposition of the death penalty on Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) activist Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar.
Bhullar was sentenced to death in 2001 for plotting terror attacks on Punjab SSP Sumedh Singh Saini and the then Youth Congress President M.S. Bitta in 1993, leading to several deaths in New Delhi.
Following the assassination attempt on the SSP of Chandigarh, in August 1991, with which police alleged Bhullar was involved, his father and his maternal uncle were arrested, tortured and killed. Balwant Singh Multani, a friend of Bhullar, was also killed in police custody.
Prof. Bhullar was sentenced to death by a trial court in Delhi on 25th August 2001 under the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) act. Dissidents and Separatists claim this has been consistently used as a tool of the Indian state and its ruling parties to harass activists. Even after the act has been scrapped, verdicts passed under it are still being upheld.
A review mercy petition, filed by a Chandigarh-based organisation, Lawyers for Human Rights International, questioned the application of different yardsticks for the accused in the same case. Apart from Bhullar, Daya Singh Lahoria and two other persons were named in the 1993 case.
"Bhullar was convicted on the sole basis of his confession before the police, which was admissible as evidence under the then special Terrorist & Disruptive Activities Prevention Act (TADA) law, whereas his co-accused, Lahoria, was acquitted by the trial court," states the review petition.
"Lahoria was acquitted for the lack of evidence, since the confessional statement could not be read against him, since he was extradited to United States and the authorities there at that time had obtained an undertaking from India that he would not be tried under TADA," the petition pointed out.
It is extremely surprising that Lahoria was tried only under the offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, under which the confession made before the police is not admissible under law. "So, Lahoria was acquitted on the same charges, in the same trial, whereas Bhullar was convicted," the petition stated.
President Pratibha Patil rejected this mercy petition on 25th May, clearing the decks for his execution.
Nick Griffin said:
“I have concerns about this case. We believe that the Sikhs have a right to establish a separate State in Khalistan. I am concerned that the conviction of Prof. Bhullar was on the basis of a forced confession extracted under duress while he was in police custody.
“Additionally, the accused in the case appear to have been treated very differently, and Prof. Bhullar was the sole person convicted for conspiracy. When all other accused persons have been acquitted, how could have Bhullar created a conspiracy on his own?
“In these circumstances, where there is substantial doubt about the guilt of the accused and the judicial process, the imposition of the death penalty is deeply flawed.”
NWN: Have the British people no issues or problems for Mr Griffin to get involved with ? The good people of the North West of England who voted Griffin to be their Euro MP did not vote for stuff like this. The NHS is in a mess. Unemployement is rising. Constantly rising food and fuel prices. But Mr.Griffin is more interested in someone from half way around the planet.