Sunday, 20 January 2008

We've Been Here Before!

Those of you who read the post titled 'Ian Dawson - A Personal Perspective', will know that Ian referred to an article by the late John Tyndall where John compares his expulsion with previous events in the BNP. It seems to be that the common denominator where trouble in Nationalist circles are concerned, is Nick Griffin.

While the EiE team make no judgement either way on the rights and wrongs of John Tyndall's leadership (before we get Nick squealing "see I told you they were hard line"), he was certainly an honourable man with great integrity - something sadly lacking with the BNP 'leadership' in January 2008.

The tactics employed by Nick Griffin have been used before. Same tactics, different era. How many people will be fooled this time we wonder?

John Tyndall compares his expulsion with past events


Personal attacks

Accusations of 'subversion'



To be exact, we were here 17 years ago. The year was 1986. The British National Party was four years old. The National Front, the party out of which it was formed, was racked by chronic internal divisions, with accusations and counter-accusations, personal attacks and demands for expulsions poisoning the air. Does it sound familiar? It should, because there is a certain common thread linking that time with times much more recent.

It was in 1986 that the NF split in two. One morning, nationalists in Britain woke up to find that there were now two organisations claiming to be the National Front where previously there had been one: there was the 'Official' National Front, led by Nick Griffin and Derek Holland; and there was what came to be known as the National Front 'Support Group', of which the main leaders appear to have been Martin Wingfield and Ian Anderson. There is some irony in this because the former gentleman is now one of the leading lieutenants of Mr. Griffin in today's BNP!

Inevitably, both sides in the conflict issued their respective versions of what had gone wrong and who was to blame. Those of us by then in the BNP smiled as we watched these two factions screech at each other like alley cats, each seeking to outdo the other in mutual recrimination. Of course, we took no sides. Long ago, we had come to view the NF as a party with no future, albeit that it still contained some good patriots at rank-and-file and lower leadership levels. With the individuals at the top, a clash had always been probable, and it was no surprise when it came.

Hysterical and nutty

Neither version of what had happened impressed us, but of the two the version issued in the name of the 'Official' Front seemed by several degrees the more vituperative, paranoid, hysterical and plain nutty. It was titled Attempted Murder: the State/Reactionary Plot Against the National Front. From this choice of words it will be gleaned that the 'Official' NF regarded its internal opponents as hirelings of the political establishment, whose mission was to sabotage the party from the inside. Our own view at the time was that there was probably some truth in this but it was only half the truth; the likelihood was that the establishment had its agents placed in both camps, with the intention that through action and counteraction from one direction and then another the NF would be smashed to pieces. Effectively it was, though a rump of it has managed to survive to this day.

Attempted Murder in due course took its place among the piles of mostly forgotten factional literature that have gathered dust in attics, cellars, spare bedrooms and garages over the years - just occasionally retrieved and read for amusement and for old time's sake. Certain recent events, however, brought memories of it back, and we acquired a copy for study. The study was well worthwhile, and the document is highly recommended to those who seek to make sense of what has been happening in the BNP, our own party, over the past few years. We too are deeply divided within - though successes on the electoral scene should, from every commonsense standpoint, be making us more united than ever, while other nationalist groups should be abandoning their own separate operations and joining us. Why is there this division? Let us turn to Attempted Murder, and see if it offers some clues.

In the introduction to the document it is made clear that, though it was unanimously approved by the National Directorate of the National Front, its author was in fact Nick Griffin, who as a consequence of the split had emerged as leader of the party.

'Disciplinary tribunals'

We do not have to proceed very far in Attempted Murder before something of its flavour emerges. In the third paragraph of the Introduction it is stated that:-
'The facts about the State's response to the growing NF threat, and the part played in it by the last reactionary elements within the old leadership, have taken a long time to uncover. And the need to ensure fair trials for these few individuals at their resuming disciplinary tribunals has prevented previous publication of the full story about the rise and fall of their factional adventure.'

It is at this point that we should explain that throughout the document Mr. Griffin's opponents in the NF are described as the 'reactionaries' and his own faction as the 'radicals'. The division, in other words, is over matters of ideology and principle, and has nothing to do with human egos, personal ambitions or power-rivalries. Make sure you understand this!
Fair trials for individuals at disciplinary tribunals! Does this not sound faintly familiar In the next paragraph members are assured that the offending individuals - termed 'ring-leaders'- have now been expelled. Familiar again?

What follows is a depressing tale of organisational incompetence within the party, with one individual after another being blamed for this. In fact, when one tots up the names of the people who are accused of incompetence and/or bad personal habits and/or dishonourable or subversive behaviour the list reads like a roll call of just about everyone who was anyone in the NF at the time. There is one notable exception among these names, and that is Nick Griffin himself. None of the blame for the long catalogue of cock-ups is Nick's; it is all other people's fault. And, needless to say, Nick remains a beacon of honourable behaviour while so many other people are acting dishonourably!

The tale takes a kind of diary form, with commentaries recorded against the months in which things happened. The first such entry is for December 1983. Here it is stated that "a meeting of the National Directorate voted to expel [Martin] Webster and his homosexual lover Michael Salt from all their paid and elected positions within the party." Now that really is interesting - because not so very long previously Mr. Griffin had been one of those in the NF who had opposed John Tyndall's move to have Mr. Webster dismissed on the grounds of his homosexuality! This sounds a rather Damascan conversion, but no doubt Mr. Griffin will be able to explain it - as he usually has an explanation for everything.

In the same section Martin Wingfield is accused of trying to obstruct the dismissal of Webster in the first place but changing his mind when he was offered the editorship of the party's newspaper, then called National Front News.

The narrative proceeds to August 1984, in which section Tom Acton, Ian Anderson and Roger Denny are all attacked. There is an argument over the location of a party printing machine, which, according to Mr. Griffin, Anderson wanted to be in East London "which he saw as his own personal power-base." Following on from this, in a section dated April 1985, Anderson is accused of lying to his close associates. The next thing is that the same Mr. Anderson is as good as accused of financial impropriety.

Everyone is guilty except Nick!

Needless to say, we have no way whatever of knowing whether any of these accusations are justified or not. It is just that virtually everyone who had been, or currently was, a colleague of Nick Griffin gets accused of something. Nick comes out of every encounter with clean hands!
It is the same in a section which follows, dated July 1985. In this section we read about a long succession of cock-ups. Money has been handled irresponsibly, if not dishonestly. Large numbers of letters to the party office have gone unanswered. Stocks of books have run down while orders have not been dealt with. Leaflets have been produced far too late and have been of poor quality. A printing press has been purchased which is quite useless, while the motive for its purchase is deemed as factional. There are more attacks on Anderson, Wingfield and Denny in this connection. There is even a snide reference to rivalries over lady friends affecting the performance of party duties - something more appropriate to the gossip column of a tabloid newspaper than a bulletin dealing with serious business in a political party.

Next target for attack is one Michael Hipperson. Yes, he too has incurred Mr. Griffin's displeasure. Mr. Hipperson is accused of failing to deliver photos of an NF march for the party's paper and also neglecting to pursue follow-ups - with what justification we have no way of knowing. He simply joins Mr. Giffin's 'hit list' and is thought to be part of the rival faction because he shares accommodation with Anderson. It gets more and more complicated!

While all these misdeeds and failures of duty were occurring, what, the reader might ask, was Nick Griffin himself doing? Of course, as always, he is not to blame! The failures were other people's. However, Nick has an explanation for the chaos that seems to have been endemic in the party. It is not just incompetence; it is worse than that; it is deliberate sabotage! At the end of the July 1985 section he announces that those he is attacking are doing it all "in order to discredit their radical colleagues..." In other words, it's a conspiracy, folks!
The attacks continue. One person out of favour is accused of being into drugs. Another is too fond of his beer.

The hit list grows

There next appear accusations of a leak to The Guardian newspaper over a printing operation. As with so much else, it is impossible 17 years afterwards to get to the truth of what actually happened. Ian Anderson, by now very clearly enemy number one, is believed to be the culprit; however Wingfield and Acton are attacked again, this time for obstructing charges against Anderson being brought on the Directorate. And they are joined by two more: Andrew Brons and Paul Nash. All are accused of scheming, lying and rigging the Directorate agenda to get Anderson off the hook. Mr. Griffin claims that they have been doing so "to protect a member of their secret faction," and that they are therefore 'corrupt'. Four more to be added to the hit list.
Coming to the Autumn of 1985, the attacks on Anderson continue. There are allegations of theft, fraud, drunkenness and incompetence, but that is not all; again the theme of 'deliberate sabotage' reappears, and again Wingfield and Brons, among others, are accused of shielding Anderson - no doubt as part of the factional conspiracy!

It is known that at some time during those years Ian Anderson was in fact chairman of the NF Directorate and therefore in effect leader of the party, though Attempted Murder is extremely imprecise as to when he took over this position and when he vacated it. At all events, throughout the time he was most definitely part of the NF's hierarchy. If his sins were so glaring as Mr. Griffin makes them out to be, it seems incredible that anyone in senior party circles should have failed to be aware of them and support the appropriate action against him. Yet he appeared to have several defenders at the very top of the party. Why? Perhaps these defenders knew a few things that are not made obvious in Attempted Murder.

Next to come in for condemnation is Miss Tina Dalton; she joins the lengthening list of guilty persons. She is accused of inefficiency as a typesetter but it is hinted that in this capacity she did some jobs for Anderson for factional reasons. Miss Dalton later became Mrs. Denny and, subsequent to that, Mrs. Wingfield, which we understand she remains today. Mr. Wingfield, for his part, is now editor of the BNP paper The Voice of Freedom, as most people know. This suggests an extraordinarily forgiving attitude on his part towards Nick Griffin - or should we put that the other way round?

Gutter press tactics

Interspersed with these attacks against all and sundry, we find in the section headed January 1986 a reference to certain sensitive papers being found in an office and destroyed as part of a security operation. Apparently not all of the papers were of a political nature, and here Mr. Griffin again descends to a piece of bitchiness worthy only of a low-grade female gossip columnist, talking about certain personal diaries and love letters that should never be regarded as party business. He is at it again a page later, insinuating an 'affair' between a member and another member's wife when the husband was unavoidably away. This is gutter stuff which we could well do without.

Next to incur disfavour is one Steve Brady, whom some readers will know. Brady apparently sent a letter to Joe Pearce, now (Spring 1986) in Prison, which contained sensitive information liable to be read by the prison censors. This was foolish but hardly a hanging offence. Nevertheless it is stated that "The Directorate took a dim view of this and Brady ended up on a charge." It is not stated who actually moved that there should be such a charge, but the reader will perhaps have little trouble in guessing! Brady is described as having letters of support from Wingfield, Brons, Acton and Dalton - which presumably means that these people did not consider his letter to Pearce sufficiently serious for disciplinary action. Says Griffin: "Most of the key figures in the subsequent faction leapt to Brady's defence, so they had already clearly transferred their loyalties from the National Front as a whole to members of their own clique." Much more likely, they simply regarded a disciplinary punishment against Brady as ridiculous and could see that it was being pursued in a fit of paranoia that could not be countenanced. Here Pearce, up to now not on the hit list, incurs disfavour by sending a letter out from prison which appears to defend Brady. Obviously, Pearce must from now on be watched!

Northern Ireland becomes the next battleground for Mr. Griffin's factional war. A loyalist by the name of Keith White gets killed by a bullet from an RUC rifle during a demonstration against the Anglo-Irish Agreement - probably no more than a tragic accident. However, in the minds of Nick's 'radical' wing of the NF it becomes 'murder'. In retaliation for the death, some loyalists in the province make petrol-bomb attacks on the homes of RUC officers - an utterly inexcusable action, whatever the natural anger prompting it. And what do Griffin & Co. in the NF do? They make a declaration which as good as justifies the attackers! Wingfield condemns this declaration, and is in consequence himself condemned by the so-called 'radicals' in the NF, presumably including Nick Griffin. Another mark against Wingfield!

About-turn on street confrontation

Following this, there is further condemnation of Wingfield for his opposition to a policy of 'direct physical confrontation' by the NF against marches by IRA supporters. It is not the time nor place here to enter into this argument, save to remark that Mr. Griffin, who clearly then approved of these tactics, has now done a 180° turn and throws the 'street confrontation' charge against his opponents in the BNP, alleging that they favour it!

After more tirades against Wingfield (his ally these days, remember), Mr. Griffin turns to the satirical writer the late Ted Budden, whose columns in nationalist papers gave great entertainment to many nationalists. Ted is accused of "reactionary and juvenile race-hate rantings" and called "an elderly bigot." One more on the hit list! Ironically, Nick was pleased later to accept Ted Budden's humorous contributions to the BNP newspaper before the latter died at the end of 2000. But we are not finished with the tirades against Wingfield. They continue at some length, and at one point Griffin writes: "Wingfield's 'Mr. Nice Guy' image conceals an arrogant self-importance and lust for power of shocking proportions." Phew!

But none of this should sidetrack us from the fact that Anderson continues to be the number-one enemy. It is all now building up to the disciplinary action against him intended to hound him out of the party. No prizes are being offered for correctly guessing who is bringing the charges!
Of course, anyone disposed to disagree with this action is branded an 'enemy' too, with prominence in this regard given to Wingfield and Acton. Wingfield is accused here, as elsewhere, of having 'Tory' tendencies. Brons, out of things for some time, is attacked for opposing the action against Anderson.

Recently Spearhead has spoken to some of the people around at this time to get their views on the situation. They are unanimous in saying that, although Anderson had many weaknesses and faults, they believed that the attempt to bring disciplinary charges against him to drive him out of the party was utterly ridiculous; hence their opposition to it. One witness has testified to the paranoid way in which anyone who opposed these charges was lumped together with Anderson as part of some imaginary 'conspiracy' against the party.

We now come to the Directorate meeting at which Anderson is intended for the chop. Here an extraordinary admission is made of which the reader should take careful note. Steve Brady, who in this section again comes in for much stick, is accused of making a false claim to the effect that Griffin had told him that Anderson was about to be expelled on 'trumped up' charges. Brady, it will be recalled, was already in hot water over his letter to Pearce. Here Nick's version of what actually happened is spelled out. This is now Nick Griffin speaking, not someone else putting words into his mouth. Bear in mind that he (Nick) writes of himself throughout Attempted Murder in the third person, and he writes as follows:-
'For all his faults, Brady was considered quite radical and was a drinking mate of Pearce's, so Nick had told him on the 'phone that his recent short suspension was the end of the affair of his indiscreet letter to Pearce, and had made it clear that Wingfield's attitude made it necessary to expel Anderson. He went on to tell him that there were so many genuine charges against him that his removal was assured, but that no one else would be touched as long as they didn't move to support his corruption...'

His removal was assured! Readers will perhaps find here an eerie foretaste of later events and declarations. As for the promise that no one else would be touched, this sounds very much like: "Support my action - or else". Here again, future events seem to cast their shadow. When in July of this year Mr. Griffin was phoning around the country urging people to support the planned expulsion of John Tyndall he was making similar threats to those who showed insufficient enthusiasm for the idea, in the case of BNP town councillors hinting at the withdrawal of the party whip from them if they did not endorse Tyndall's dismissal.

In the outcome, the motion to bring charges against Anderson, which was put by Griffin, was defeated by one vote. There follows in the document a list of the diabolically subversive practices employed to achieve this result, as part of which, again, nearly everybody is attacked, but Wingfield in particular comes in for very heavy punishment, being accused of manipulating the whole proceedings. At the same meeting a new party Executive is elected, leaving Wingfield as chairman and Griffin as his deputy. This does not seem a recipe for future harmony, and it isn't.

Accusations of corruption

Nick is not finished with Wingfield. There follows in Attempted Murder a two-page section headed 'Wingfield's Corruption' which makes it all the more amazing that Wingfield and Griffin are now colleagues and the latter is able to write glowing tributes to Wingfield's skills as a journalist and propagandist. The whole affair of 1983-86 involving Griffin and Wingfield leaves two questions begging. If Griffin's assessment of Wingfield's character as shown in Attempted Murder is correct, how on earth can he now embrace him as a senior colleague in the BNP? Alternatively, if the assessment is just malicious fabrication, how on earth can Wingfield accept with any honour a job that involves working under Griffin?

The new party Executive, according to Mr. Griffin, consists of six persons, namely Martin Wingfield, Andrew Brons, Paul Nash, Tom Acton, Joe Pearce and Griffin himself. If what he has written in Attempted Murder is correct, this leaves Nick in a minority of one - at least with regard to his current obsession of driving Ian Anderson out of the party. It will not require too much perception on the part of the reader to appreciate that Nick was none too pleased.
At this point it should be explained that the National Directorate remained the senior authority in the NF; the Executive was merely a body appointed by the Directorate to make quick day-to-day decisions that could not await the next scheduled Directorate meeting. Thus appointed, the Executive could likewise be dismissed.

And this is what Mr. Griffin now sets about planning. According to the account in Attempted Murder, he manages, by energetic and persuasive lobbying of Directorate members, to obtain a majority, albeit not a large one, for the dismissal of the Executive he dislikes and the appointing of a new one. Readers will not be overwhelmed with surprise to hear that the new chairman of the Executive, Directorate and party is - Nick Griffin!

According to his own account (and corroborated by others), Nick now sets about pursuing the expulsion from the party of his main opponents and rivals. The pretext is a bulletin issued by these people which is claimed to reveal confidential minutes of a Directorate meeting, but to put spice on things the offenders are also accused of telling lies and making attacks on Nick and his supporters. And that's not all. To quote Attempted Murder, "additional charges of disloyalty were also brought."

The four arch-criminals, namely Wingfield, Brons, Nash and Acton, are duly expelled from the party. One of our current witnesses who was there at the time has opined that the four had a pretty strong case for challenging the expulsions in court, but were put off the idea by the thought of the expense involved. It seems from Attempted Murder that there were additional purges, but the document is not too specific about which individuals were affected. Somehow the ghost of Joseph Stalin makes a fleeting appearance here.

Attempted Murder rambles on for many more pages the details of which it would be tedious to reproduce here. Briefly, what next transpired was that the sacked people refused to recognise their expulsions and set about creating their own organisation. They called it the 'National Front Support Group', claiming that their loyalty was still to the party though not to its existing leadership. For a while, Britain witnessed the absurdity of two 'National Fronts' operating quite separately from each other, each claiming to be the authentic representative of the original party.

Griffin support slips away

Nick Griffin, in Attempted Murder, claims that his faction, the 'Official' Front enjoyed the support of a very clear majority in the party. This may have been correct at the time it was written (1986) but it ceased to be so before very long. A year later, the rival faction had become indisputably stronger. Mr. Griffin's supporters deserted him in droves. Some joined the other 'National Front'. Some went to the BNP. Some dropped out of nationalist politics altogether. Griffin's Front and Wingfield's Front measured strengths against each other at the Remembrance Day parade in November 1987, and the latter was seen to be at least four times more numerous.

Eventually, the Griffin Front disintegrated entirely, leaving the Wingfield Front as the sole claimant to the patty's title. The National Front of today is the heir to that party.
In years following, nationalists in Britain were to witness more political turns by Mr. Griffin. Soon after the 1986 split there came the 'Cadre' National Front (so named as a result of Nick's organising of an elite 'party within the party' which enjoyed a superior status to the ordinary membership and thus thoroughly and predictably alienated the latter). Then there was the 'Gaddafi' Front, a nickname earned by the adoption of the doctrines of the eccentric Libyan dictator. The most notable event in the short career of this body was an unsuccessful visit by Griffin and Derek Holland to Libya to solicit money. There followed the era of the 'Political Soldiers', another Griffin stunt modelled on the example of Rumanian Iron Guard leader Corneliu Codreanu. Later Nick became involved with the International Third Position, but this did not last long. For information on his contribution to the ITP, the reader is best advised to contact one of its leading officers, Mr. Gareth Hurley.

We come then to the early to mid-1990s, when we find Nick making overtures to the BNP, which some years previously he had been regularly attacking. But that is another story.


Anonymous said...

Nick’s reply to Bradford BNP and the latest posting about Nick’s political history, is making me change my mind about whether a new party should be set up after all. A split would undoubtedly cause a short term reverse in electoral support, but I feel Nick’s curt letter to Bradford, and his past reputation, indicate that trying to reform the BNP from within would be a long and bloody affair - and might not even succeed. So, reluctantly, I now think a new party should be established as I believe that will be the quickest and least painful way of achieving the reformed democratic party that we all want and our country desperately needs.

I believe it should be called either the new British National Party or perhaps the democratic British National Party, with the prefix in each case all in lower case letters. This is for two reasons. Firstly either name would clearly indicate to the electorate the party’s close, if not identical, ideological stance to the present BNP. Secondly it would benefit from the brand recognition that the present BNP has now established - recognition that many contributors to this blog have helped to create through our hard work and financial support over the years.

Given the large number of talented and experienced people who have been sacked or have resigned, and the many other members who are less prominent but equally concerned about the present BNP’s dictatorial leadership, the new party would be in an excellent position to start running as soon as its feet touched the ground.

Salvation said...

As a political historical narrative no comment is called for. I would however like to express my thanks for the time and effort invoved in producing it, because it saves me the time of doing the research. This is very much the sort of material required to arrive at an informed opinion as to the likelyhood of what is factual in the current events to which it draws comparrisons.

William McCarthy

Anonymous said...

What should be borne in mind was that many were conned by Griffin during the initial stages of his 1986 split but most left. Those who remained disappeared into complete oblivion and those who generally adhered to Tyndall's seminal late 1960s "Six Principles of British Nationalism" opted to support the BNP, which, under JT, was at least pretty united and increasingly well-organised.

When I think of the massive damage done by Griffin at the time it horrifies me and I never thought Nationalism would recover from the mess Griffin and his few ideological friends caused but I was mistaken, which is as much a testament to the decline in this once great nation as it is to our subsequent efforts.

So here we are proving once again that people don't learn the lessons of history and are destined to repeat them. And they do. And we are.

Griffin's track record is appalling and I never for one second believed that he wouldn't do this again. FOR OVER 20 YEARS MANY OF US HAVE BEEN CONVINCED THAT GRIFFIN IS A WRECKER AND A STATE AGENT OF SOME SORT. The evidence is massive, overwhelming, undeniable.

He has seen Nationalism as a way to make money and has been a clever and skilled political gambler - gambling on the publicity around court cases and other faux pas being to his benefit rather than to the British people.

And yet many can't - or won't - see it as they naively believe in the myth of "unity" as a panacea for saving Britain when, in fact, a few hundred activists can do a great job locally, regionally and nationally as the far-left has shown.

I have read the many and various accounts of the Griffin/Wingfield situation back in the 1980s and having lived through it and learned the lessons personally it disgusts me that it's all happening again and I say without fear of contradiction that minus Griffin the BNP could and would be stronger than before.

Again I say, that is why we couldn't believe that he was allowed back into the BNP but because we were practical and realised that there wasn't an alternative to a Griffinite BNP - until now - we had to go with it even though it turned our stomach and because too many good people we knew from the old days were already involved at grass roots level.

But now many of us old-ish timers and starting to sharpen the knives because we feel entirely vindicated by recent events and, although you can't turn the clock back, many of us believe that we could have made as effective progress under JT as under Griffin because the social, economic and political circumstances were, and are, right for a British Nationalist revival.........

E. N. Ronn said...

I agree. It is interesting that Tina Wingfield, who back in 1986 said that Nick Griffin has mental health problems, now backs him. It's not as though he were paying her much of a salary. How cheaply people can be bought!

EnoughIsEnough said...

That is not possible southeast man. The Electoral Commission would reject applications that use the name British National Party.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe for a second that Tina Wingfield has been bought. She has made no comment that I know of - though some say silence indicates endorsement of the corrupt regime - so it is unfair to say so E N Ron.

Her husband has come out and smeared us, so maybe her loyalty is to him rather than Griffin.

She has been the best Membership Secretary the BNP has ever had. Professional, efficient and curteous at all times, she was a credit to the Admin Dept.

The quote attributed to her though is believable as Griffin appears to be having a relapse of his mental health problems.

Anonymous said...

This is eerily similar to what happened in UKIP in 1999. From my position then as a UKIP Executive member I could do little more than morbidly watch the train crash. The party had just won it's first three seats in the EU parliament. Withing three months the party was not only split in two - it actually was acting as two parties. Both with their own HQs.

I still have detailed accounts of the sorts of things that were going wrong then. Inexplicably going wrong to my way of thinking at that time. How - for instance could this party that had just had such enormous (comparitively) EU election successes then refuse point blank to fight two by-elections - indeed refusing to allow any of it's members to fight these by elections - nor did they even produce a newsletter for three months!!! I notice UKIP repeated those little tricks after the last EU elections in which the "Kilroy" effect boosted them still further.

In UKIP there was Farage. In the BNP you seem to have Griffin. But from my position I could see other forces at work. We were lucky enough to have an investigative journalist who uncovered at least two MI6 operatives inside of UKIP. They did not deny it - but they said they only had "desk jobs". Sure!!! I believe that - don't you? Anyway it seemed to explain a lot! The one MI6 woman spoke several EU languages and worked in the National Office (paid of course!). My only experiences in dealing with her was that I could never get anything done whatsoever. It was as if she was deliberately sabotaging everything I tried to do. She STILL works in UKIP (last I heard) - in the MEP's offices! The other MI6 guy took a leading role in deposing the then party leader Michael Holmes. Funnily enough a number of the people I felt were most suspect had joined UKIP from the Referendum Party!! Not sure what that means - apart from the fact that any party that threatens to undermine the main three party system is going to get such problems.

I only mention that to confirm that I am quite sure the authorities have their "plants" -on both sides the the argument - who will deliberately call each other all names under the sun - and half the normal party membership will walk off disgusted with the stench of it all. And - lo and behold - those people then become real buddies again - almost as if nothing had happened!

Nowadays UKIP has capitulated and is part of the problem - even though some very good people remain as ordinary members. But the experience I gained there was invaluable. I am very much better placed now to recognise what is going on - types of people involved, and the techniques used.

I just somehow had hoped that the BNP would be better placed to resist such chinanigans.

E. N. Ronn said...

Kenny Smith said:

"I don't believe for a second that Tina Wingfield has been bought. She has made no comment that I know of - though some say silence indicates endorsement of the corrupt regime - so it is unfair to say so E N Ronn."

Okay, perhaps I went a little too far - apologies to Tina if I have done her an injustice.

What I had in mind was that silence, and a willingness to send out Mad King Nick's letters threatening expulsion, deportation to Siberia &c. suggested support for NG, but I accept that her husband's stance makes it difficult for her to do otherwise. I had thought better of Martin Wingfield.

Anonymous said...

While you all me be right in what you say I was in a pub in Essex last night, I think the fact that the meeting room where Nick Griffin was speaking was so packed people where standing & not everyone one could get in is a testement that Nick & the party are far from finnished,

stgeorge said...

Anonymous said...
While you all me be right in what you say I was in a pub in Essex last night, I think the fact that the meeting room where Nick Griffin was speaking was so packed people where standing & not everyone one could get in is a testement that Nick & the party are far from finnished,

What gives you the idea that anyone wants the party to finish, and if you are so sure of Nicks popularity, why have you posted anonymous? Are you just hedging your bets just in case?

Anonymous said...

One thing's for sure, if Barnbrook does poorly in the mayor elections and Griffin doesn't win any seats on the GLA assembly, griffin will be out on his arse, leaving true patriots to take over.

Anonymous said...

This has been taken from Steven Smiths book, How It Was Done; The Rise Of Burnley BNP. Pages 50 & 51.
It was written in 2004.
Is any comment required?

"In the event the meeting went off relatively smoothly and without incident - much to the dismay of the party leadership, no doubt. Days later there were howls of protest in the local press from predictable quarters complaining about the cost to the taxpayers of the town of policing this BNP-sponsored event. Again and predictably enough, the complaints backfired as we highlighted the fact that had it not been for the SWP demonstration there would have been no need for any policemen, police horses, police motorbikes or police helicopters. The press didn't let us down and again gave us lots more free publicity, which generated lots more sympathy and, hopefully, votes to boot. Who informed the police, the SWP and the media about Mr Tyndall's intended speaking engagement, however, is and will probably always remain a mystery to most, but not to everyone!
It was these events more than any other, I think, that confirmed my worst fears, which were that the leadership of the BNP were more interested in themselves than the party, as evidenced by their preparedness to discredit their most successful branch simply to get at John Tyndall. It occurred to me that they had not freed themselves from the yoke of the old nationalist mindset of only seeing Britain's foremost nationalist political organisation as a means of enriching themselves and their hangers-on, whilst allowing people like Simon Bennett to bleed to death financially. Their mindset was a carry-over from an era when, because of the absence of activity and success, all there was to do was compete for internal status and the money that went with it, and to exaggerate the state of affairs existing within the organisation, which after a time became an acceptable substitute for the real thing. In the old days you had to have an allegiance to this particular leader or that particular organiser, and if you were not for them you were judged to be against them. This was the mindset of Nick Griffin, who could not or would not see that there were people in the BNP who were capable of putting such petty considerations to one side so that they could concentrate on making the party genuinely successful. Twenty years of failure on their own part had taught these people nothing about the true nature of Burnley's success.
Despite my discomfort with the leadership, I had not as yet decided to throw my dolly out of the pram; we were simply too close to the 2003 elections. And so in February of 2003 I invited Nick Griffin to speak at what was to be the final meeting before the election. Please note that it was Nick Griffin and not John Tyndall whom I invited to rally the troops, so to speak, as we were still three candidates short of the
fourteen that we needed. Burnley BNP, I would like to reiterate, had no favouritism towards either of these two men; we simply believed that each had their own particular gifts and that the BNP would be best served by retaining the services of both."

Anonymous said...

It has become plainly obvious (except to the blinkered few that I'm sure believe Griffin is the second coming)that the survival of the BNP is no longer Griffin's main concern, power and an increasing bank balance is. So what happened Nick, were you paid off by the state before yours and Colletts trial to destroy the Party in return for your freedom? This scenario is beginning to look highly likely and it certainly makes more sense than your actions in the last couple of months. The split in the party isnt down to Sadie, Kenny and Co, this was orchestrated by the State, and delivered by hand by Griffin.

Anonymous said...

So Nick Griffin had a successful meeting in Essex.
Just proves the old adage.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time as this website is showing extremely effectively.
I would also like to confirm all that Cllr Chris has stated about the security services role in the ousting of Michael Holmes as leader of UKIP and the dodgy imposition of Nigel Farage as leader.
I too was a member and was one of many who resigned from the party in utter disgust. It is dispiriting to see a similar scenario in the BNP today.
On a personal level I have my own view as to whom might be an agent at the top level within the BNP.
Out of interest I am certain that Cllr Chris was the brilliant individual who organised the last great UKIP conference in Birmingham at which we celebrated Michael Holmes and his success in picking up the party from poor leadership and gaining three EURO seats. Little did we know that within months Michael would be forced out.
It was a wonderful conference at the time Cllr Chris. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

We really need to get our message to members in London before they waste too much of their time, energy and money on Griffin's GLA "retirement scheme".

He's given up on the MEP gravy train but he still thinks he might be able to screw enough out of the London electorate to finance his dotage.

Anonymous said...

At this pub in Essex can you tell us why people were there, what questions were asked, how were they answered,did they swallow the answers and what was the general mood at the end. I'ld like to know.

Salvation said...

Anonymous said...
"While you all me be right in what you say I was in a pub in Essex last night, I think the fact that the meeting room where Nick Griffin was speaking"
Before I joined the BNP I wrote to the Chairman telling him that I was considering joining but would not do so until the 'minders' lost the baseball caps and track suits.
Very soon after they did lose the baseball caps in exchange for shaven heads, but also donned more accetable suits, which obviously also came with sun glasses as a freebie.
However it does point the way to another aspect I would like to see removed, the 'requirement' for meetings to be associated with drinking establishments. It is all about image. I recall when I was working in the mines over 50 years ago, that I had my first forrays into political activity, so much so that even before I had reached my 17th birthday I had become a NUM representative. Yes we held meetings in the 'clubhouse' simply because there was a room set aside for such things and it was of course free, plus the fact that the miners welfare clubs tended to be the hub of local communities, particularly in small villages. One of the first things I had agreement on with the other reps was no drink at the meetings. Initialy there was resentment but it soon became the accepted thing and was often commented on by visitng speakers, as were my politics which were decidedly right of centre, following in father's footsteps who was a bin man. Yes, we were working class but we knew there was a time and place for drinking and a place for politics. But it does seem to be a recurring theme when one reads reports of BNP meetings. Surely there are other places in which meetings could be held or am I really that naive? They do say politics is a hearts and minds exercise but in this day and age image is also a very important part of the equation.

Anonymous said...

A further thing about all this occurs to me. I assumed when reading the transcript of the original so called 'treacherous' conversation, that one of the three people concerned had recorded the conversation. Apparently not. The recording device must have been in the so called 'BNP property', the BNP computer being used by Sadie Graham.

Are all such BNP computers bugged? What sort of paranoid nutter would sanction such a thing?

Anonymous said...

Salvation said...
...... another aspect I would like to see removed, the 'requirement' for meetings to be associated with drinking establishments. It is all about image.
Absolutely. Several of us have constantly asked, “Why meet at a pub?”
Pubs of any kind are completely the wrong image for a any first class political party, and the pervading 'pub mentality' is one of the reasons why we seldom attend meetings.

Why this obsession with booze, especially when the results of alcohol cause so much anguish throughout society?
The image of pre-war beer halls (somewhere in Europe)! Also the image of someone within the UKIP leadership comes to mind!

I do hope that VoC will recommend a rather better image. Why-ever someone cannot go without a can of beer for an hour or two, and instead, concentrate on the serious task at hand, is beyond our comprehension. It reminds me of a BNP meeting that spent almost the whole time fetching drinks and planning the Christmas dinner! What a lost opportunity that was, especially when some of us had brought along potential new members!

Anonymous said...

When we were preparing ourselves to stand in local elections last year we were told that if we got elected and claimed a free laptop from the council, we should pass it to our own BNP IT dept to check it out and make sure it was secure.
I never bothered as I don't have any secrets but I am more suspicious of our own security than that of the council IT dept now.

Anonymous said...

Any guessing who gave technical advice to Griffin on how to bug computers, besides the "South Africans"?

MI5 or MI6?

Also, is there any truth in the rumour Nick Griffin's Conservative Party father was an MI5 operative? Someone said he has an "unaccountable past" which signifies a state agent lifestyle.

Dr Chris Hill said...

Come on folks let’s stop being paranoid about this, the present troubles are caused by a megalomaniac and a slightly power mad leader, Mark Collett and Nick Griffin. To start stories that MI5 or MI6 are behind this is nonsense. Let’s keep our feet on the ground and fight the real threat to our party, ie. Collett & co.

Chris Hill

Anonymous said...

Nick Griffin's dad is certainly a Freemason. Perhaps we overlooking this as a potential link - with the "establishment."

I understand his family was Masonic for a few generations...

Public school boy, MI5? Whoever heard of something so ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

I see Griffin has now set up a "private" BNP blog to spread his lies to the members:

Anonymous said...

By the looks of things, and the latest developments in London, the rebellion is failing through inertia more's the pity. If Griffin can command a turn out of such impressive numbers in London - as per the photos shown on the main BNP site - then the rebel faction has serious problems and is not having any effect whatsoever outside the East Midlands and Yorkshire. Obviously the "all out for London 2008" propaganda is working on BNP activists desperate to achieve something for all their hard work and effort over the years.

Eddy Butler and Richard Barnbrook are key to this and has any effort been made by Sadie and co to co-opt their support? Butler has long been his own man having jumped before when corruption has been evident although he has more invested from a personal point of view in the London and Essex efforts.

What is the rebel leadership doing in response? I think we should be told.......

Anonymous said...

Maybe Nick Griffin's lifetime remit since graduating, was to infiltrate far right parties, build them up, sucking in all the potantial nationalists, before wrecking them. If so, he was recruited at uni., and has been a nark ever since.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the picture of this here Mr. Mark Collett on the London BNP site?

Is it my ageing eyes or is he possibly wearing high heels or just standing tippy-toe to make himself look taller and more important than the Number One Candidate Richard Barnbrook who is right (as we see in the picture) next to him?

The high heels might explain why the Leadership continue to give this troubling and tiresome young man their support but how pathetic if he has to stand tippy-toe - look closely at those brown trouser legs.....!

Has Mark Collett taken part in loads of public political debates? If yes then does that make him a master debator or even as a debator of the masses and so a mass debator?

Collett's nightmare.....oh blast I nearly typed "nightmate"...nah....not my type, far too Middle Eastern swarthy type for my liking and far too physically inadequate in certain departments by many accounts! Something he makes up for in his gift of the gab, a second hand car salesman springs to mind....

Old Maid of Malham.

Anonymous said...

What is the rebel leadership doing in response? I think we should be told.......

Try a head count of the picture mikeinengland...60ish. (ok, perhapos they couldn't fit them all in - but hey, with us 'doubters' scrutinising every line you'd think they would make sure we had a picture of each and every group.)

Voice of Change are meeting next weekend, send Sadie an eamil if you want to attend the meeting.

Oh, by the way, I have just aquired a copy of the latest BN. It says Excalibur are revamnped. Just click on 'SHOP' on the home page.

We seek it here, we seek it and improved indeed.

Anonymous said...

If Griffin does make the breakthrough to the GLA, and consolidates his own rock solid position in the party, nationalist politics will be finished.

If this does happen, and Sadie cannot derail the bnp in London, there will be no leadership challenge ever.

What then for Sadie?

Anonymous said...

"All out for London 2008" should be renamed "Quids In For Griffin Until 2050".

We must act fast, or it will be too late.

The rebellion will be over!

Anonymous said...

To be honest I don't want to be remembered or forgiven by the likes of silent nationalist.

Simon Darby is useless and loyalty makes no difference to that.

Collett may well lead the BNP one day but it won't have any power, just as now.

To go anywhere the BNP needs to reform and drop the nazi worshippers like Collett and Griffin otherwise it's all futile and irrelevent.

There's no going back for me whatever the rest decide.

Anonymous said...

I've just been looking at Sharon's blog and see that I've withdrawn my support for the rebels.

It's amazing what you can find on the internet, even stuff about myself that I didn't know!

Anonymous said...

Interesting link re. Simon Darby:

Anonymous said...

I put forward a suggestion, but I dont think the Voice of Change group should act on it.

The number of prominent BNP activists who want rid of Griffin makes it certain that 2008 is the last year in which he will be the leader of a substantial political party. If he agrees to go now, he could keep a standard party income as Wales organiser, the income to continue as long as he behaves himself in the job. And the standard party income would continue until he gets elected as an MEP or as a Westminster MP.

In return for him going now, he would be put at the top of the party list of MEP candidates in the most promising region, whatever that may turn out to be. Griffin would thus be allowed to salvage his ego, quite undeservedly in my opinion. And he would be able to secure an income from politics, something which we all believe to have been his primary motive all along.

The procedure of his going would of course involve him cancelling the recent expulsions and him nominating the leader of the Voice of Change group, presumably Sadie Graham as his successor.

I am against the Voice of Change group acting on the suggestion because acceptance of the suggestion by Griffin would merely solve the organisational problem. The basic problem for the BNP at the moment is the corporate culture of failure, incompetence and paranoia created by Griffin.

Nationalists win the political arguments, but we cant express ourselves effectively as long as we have leaders like Nick Griffin, leaders obsessed with organising excremental little personal empires for themselves.

Getting rid of Griffin quickly and easily might divert attention away from the pressing need to change the corporate culture of the BNP. Activists and the British electorate in general need to see that their idealism can lead directly to social changes.

Anonymous said...

Griffin's got a massive ego and he wouldn't agree with such a move, it has to be said. Nothing less than absolute power fill fulfil him, even though he is nothing more than a third grade politician.