The BNP purge continues: Griffin to discipline/expel Mike Easter?

In a move that is so full of irony that the BNP had better check it for rust, news is emerging that Mike Easter, election agent to leadership-challenger Chris Jackson, is to be disciplined for late submission of the challenger's election expenses to the party treasurer.

One would expect a party that is a couple of months late with its own accounts submission to the Electoral Commission to have had more sense that to make itself a target for ridicule in this way but Nick Griffin is presumably so anxious to punish those who assisted the challenger that he is prepared to ignore the laughs to get his revenge.

Regular readers will no doubt recall his description of Chris Jackson's supporters as cranks, Hollywood Nazis, congenital losers, thieves and vermin - and all this in a single blog post - despite the fact that they included five founder-members, two advisory council members, three councillors, eight branch organisers and 20 election candidates. Not a great deal of respect there then.

The response from other 'nationalists' is predictably angry though as usual the nazi Stormfront forum (run by Griffin's friend, ex-Klansman Don Black and ably assisted by the forum's pro-Griffin UK moderators) is keeping a lid on any discussion by disabling the accounts of anyone who shows any sign of having a go at the BNP leader under any pretext. A couple of other sites are displaying their anger though, one of them with this classic comment posted to it;

'...this comes from a party of THEIVING BASTARDS and INEBRIATE LOSERS who can't even get their accounts IN ON TIME. WHERE ARE THE BNP ACCOUNTS AND WHY ARE BNP MEMBERS SUCH A BUNCH OF BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY SCARED OF, EH? Surely they cannot be scared of the one eyed wonder of a sheep farmer and his pervert security chief?'

along with the omnipresent Sharon Ebanks, a former supporter of Griffin, sticking it to him thus;

'Do you think it ok to allow a jumped up twat with a 3rd rate degree and an insecurity complex larger than Snowdonia national park to just go around chopping people willy nilly? When you cease kissing Griffins arse you'll be next. The very idea that such a man even dreams of running this country makes me want to take up shooting practice.'

One angry contributor asks the same two questions that many others have asked;

'What I can't get my head around is why the BNP election process (that's to say the terms imposed by Griffin, etc) weren't challenged legally. It still can be. Likewise all the trumped up expulsions.'

These are reasonable questions though the first one is really only answerable by Mike Easter himself and the challenger Chris Jackson. When Nick Griffin dictated the terms of the election, it was suggested that a legal challenge to the terms was likely. Sadly this never materialised (though it certainly should have). To have completely ignored the ludicrous restrictions placed on campaigning was tantamount to agreeing to lose, and lose Jackson subsequently did.

The second part of the question is far more dangerous to Griffin - that those expelled from the party could legally question their expulsions. This is not only true but has happened a couple of times before, following Griffin's repeated expulsions of the late founder of the British National Party John Tyndall for being a 'disruptive influence'. Tyndall was reinstated by the courts, the embarrassment caused to Griffin was profound and it cost the party a small fortune, also having the distinct advantage of showing Nick Griffin up as the pompous buffoon that he is.

Of course, disciplinary action isn't necessarily the same thing as expulsion and it may be that Easter will just take what's coming and carry on doing whatever he does but judging by Griffin's words above, he's determined to force all of his opposition out of the party by using any means that are available to him. Simon Smith and Jonathan Bowden have already been forced out, Easter's turn has come and we confidentally expect Jackson-supporter Richard Edmonds (another one to have been expelled then reinstated) to be in the firing line before long. One only wonders how long it will take for Griffin to expel all 337 party members who supported Chris Jackson.

Butler attacks 'joke' leadership challenger

A copy of an email from Eddy Butler, the BNP's National Elections Officer, has been forwarded to us as an example of all that is undemocratic within the British National Party

It refers to the coming leadership challenge from Colin Auty, BNP councillor for Dewsbury East since 2006. Auty announced his challenge immediately after the recent elections, and is receiving growing support in the party for his call for openness, accountability and a more democratic internal structure to the party, despite a barrage of verbal attacks on him from the existing hierarchy on both the BNP's own forum and the Stormfront nazi forum, where many of the BNP's officers hang out.

Despite what is said in public, the news we get from inside the party indicates that the officers (and Nick Griffin himself) are none too pleased with the election results of a fortnight ago. They expected to get a lot more than an additional ten councillors (pushing the current total up to fifty-three) and had also hoped for three Assembly seats, ending up with just the one presently occupied by the embarrassing and frequently incoherent Richard Barnbrook. Given that this poor result reflects badly on the leadership of the party, such as it is, the last thing Griffin needs at the moment is a leadership challenge. He is, we are told, already putting himself about in London, to ensure that BNP activists are aware that HE is the chairman of the party, and not Barnbrook. Bless him, he must be feeling vulnerable.

Butler appears to be writing to the BNP's election team - the people at Head Office and the various organisers dotted around the country (though as the party refuses to make its internal structure clear, it's impossible to know if the team also includes local chairpersons, fundholders, et al). Nevertheless, whatever Butler sends to organisers will eventually filter its way down the BNP food chain to the more active membership - though unofficially, thus ensuring that he is not tainted by the criticism that was aimed at Lee Barnes, the 'Director' of the BNP's Legal Department and all-round freak, who was seen to be sharing his opinions rather too freely for a supposedly unbiased officer of the party.

Even so, Butler's email is uncompromising in his contempt for a) the challenger Colin Auty, and b) democracy. Curious really, as Butler makes the point in his email that the right of members to challenge the leadership is 'a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to democracy' then goes on to spoil it by stating that the party expects anyone who has the 'temerity' to challenge the leadership only if they seriously consider they have the possibility of winning and they are able to perform the duties expected of them as leader should they do so.

Very interesting use of the word 'temerity' there. For those who don't know, 'temerity' means audacity, nerve, cheek, effrontery (or, as we Jews sometimes say, chutzpah). Quite why a challenger should be accused of audacity for challenging is beyond me, though as Nick Griffin's leadership is generally treated as some kind of divine right held by the pig farmer from Welshpool, that might explain it.

The point of Butler's email seems to be to attempt to persuade the more influential members not to sign Auty's nomination papers because he is a 'joke candidate' and a 'no-hoper' and that his frivolous challenge may give the Griffinites within the party enough ammunition to limit possible challenges in future. Thus he says;

'There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.'

Whether we take this to mean that he is trying to put off potentially hopeless challengers to avoid Griffin becoming even more entrenched than he already is or is just attempting to divert support from Auty is debatable, though we generally lean to the former. It's pretty well known that Butler doesn't want Griffin around forever and perhaps this really is an attempt, by subverting the BNP's peculiar internal version of democracy, to bring a more substantial and overt democracy to the party in future. However, we would welcome your views. Here is the emai from Butler - let us know what you think of it.

From: Edward. Butler.
To: ###
Sent: ###
Subject: Statement on the so-called Leadership challenge

Anyone in the Party who has more than five years continuous membership has the Right to stand for the leadership of the Party. The only limit to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained and for non officers a hundred signatures are required. This is to ensure that frivolous candidates do not stand.

As I said this is a Right that members have. And it is an important Right – it is a declaration of our Parties openness and commitment to democracy. However with Rights come responsibilities and duties. A Right without a duty is an abomination in any society. It is a recipe for chaos. Indeed in our modern society it is the incessant claiming of Rights by groups that shown no sense of duty or responsibility that is one of the key components of the undermining of the civic order of our country.

So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members. We as members should expect that a candidate would only put themselves forward if they were of sufficient stature and ability to potentially be able to lead the Party if they were to win. Otherwise why would someone wish to challenge for the leadership? It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender. That is the whole point of the requirement for signatories.

A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances. It is not there for disgruntled people to act out their personal bitterness about things – no matter how ‘justified’ they may think their grievances are. It is an abuse of the process to misuse it in that way. It is an abuse of their Constitutional Right.

And that is precisely what we are seeing this year. We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway and they admit that the sole reason they are doing it is to air their own personal grievances. In other words their sole aim is to raise issues which have already been fully aired and which could be raised at a variety of different forums such as the Summer School (where there is always a session for all participants where they can bring up matters they are unhappy about) or the Annual Conference.

What is the likely outcome of this leadership challenge? The challengers (there may in fact be two!) will be comprehensively defeated. The leadership challenge process as it currently stands in the Constitution will be brought into disrepute. There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.

I would not normally comment on a leadership election. It should normally be up to the membership to make their own minds up without non-participants trying to influence the process.

But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution. It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a legitimate way.

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate (who may in lother circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects.

Eddy Butler
National Elections Officer

Auty leadership campaign in rapid decline

Making a bid for the leadership of the British National Party is no easy matter. An ordinary member is required to have five years uninterrupted membership, has to obtain one hundred signatures from supporters (as opposed to a present officer who only needs ten signatures), is banned (or at least discouraged) from attending meetings to proselytize for him/her self and faces a barrage of criticism, accusation and misinformation, while the current leader Nick Griffin attends all the meetings he can and lays the propaganda on with a trowel himself and via his minions.

Not altogether surprising then, that the Colin Auty leadership challenge is in trouble. The major purge of members that took place after last year's leadership challenge is clearly making the membership wary of signing for Auty - a tacit admission that they are unhappy with the current leader. There have also been strong hints that if this challenge goes ahead, Nick Griffin will make it his business (with the help of an impotent and pointless Advisory Council) to change the system so that a challenge can only be made once every four or five years - a rumour that horrifies the dissidents within the party who have managed to persuade Auty to make the challenge in a doubtless vain attempt to see the former rebels reinstated and a few of the older members returning to the fold.

Although the result of the challenge last year was lauded as a mandate for Nick Griffin to continue his role as party dictator, it was clear that only 39% of the party membership had voted for him. Spin that as you will, 39% does not make a mandate. Nevertheless, Griffin's leadership was made more secure, and despite continually mediocre election results (just ten new councillors at the recent elections as opposed to the BNP predictions of forty) and with conditions as near-perfect as the BNP could hope, his position remains internally unassailable.

And unassailable it will remain, if Griffin and his acolytes have anything to do with it. Since rumours of Auty's challenge have emerged, the dirty tricks department of the BNP has been on overtime. Lee Barnes, the party's insane legal beagle, dashed out a letter to the membership as soon as the news became public, attacking Auty as being a 'puupet' for the machinations of the December rebel's group (or Voice of Change, as they call themselves). Certainly, they have openly given their backing to Auty though, as time passes, rumours of fragmentation reach us. Indeed, it was announced only yesterday that Steve Blake, one of the key rebels, has decided not to support Auty's challenge after all. Others, it seems, are following his example. Chris Beverly, former Griffin blue-eyed boy, has also backed off following pressure from above.

Barnes' letter was swiftly followed by another, this time from the party's National Elections Officer, Eddy Butler. Butler, like Barnes, made no bones about his contempt for the challenger:

'But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution. It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a legitimate way.

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate...'

We're told that the party has banned ALL discussion on the Auty challenge on its own forum, thus stifling the possibility of dissent and avoiding giving Auty the opportunity of presenting the reasons for his opposition to Griffin. Stormfront, the playground of the many nazis within the BNP, has been awash with anti-Auty propaganda - much of it instigated by a character calling himself 'Walk towards the light' (Lee Barnes), and other far-right forums are being flooded with anti-Auty propaganda.

Rumour also reaches us that branches have been warned via regional organisers that Auty is not to be allowed a platform under any circumstances. Apart from stopping him speaking on his own behalf (while Nick Griffin zooms up and down the country attending meetings with his entourage at the expense of the membership) this is putting a severe dent in Auty's musical career, such as it is. Auty, the BNP's answer to Keith Richards, was apparently booked to play his rubbishy songs at several branches over the coming few weeks. These have now, we're told, put him on hold. Whether this is because he is challenging Griffin or simply because he's crap, we don't know.

Insults aside, it has been reported that when Auty loses (as he certainly will if the challenge goes ahead) he will be kicked out of the party, as will his supporters. His campaign manager, Roger Robertson, the BNP's former South-East Regional Organiser, has already been told that he faces a disciplinary tribunal on July 6th.

Furthermore, there is another aspect of this leadership challenge that needs to be watched. Griffin has let slip that he is sick of being challenged - using the pretext that it interferes with election planning and electioneering - and that he intends to begin the process to have challenges limited to four or five-yearly as soon as humanly possible. Even less democracy in the BNP - that least democratic of political parties.

Auty's career is in decline and will end with his failure to become party leader. Like Chris Jackson last year, Auty will, if the challenge is allowed to go ahead and he manages to get enough signatures, only have three weeks to campaign. But to whom will he campaign? Griffin, we are told, is refusing to allow Auty access to the membership list on the dubious grounds that such access would breach the Data Protection Act. This effectively kills Auty's ability to reach out to the members who might possibly give him their vote if they know of his existence. A devious and surprisingly clever move by Griffin though the Data Protection Act doesn't seem to have stopped the Barnes and Butler letters being sent out to the entire membership. Interesting how rules can be bent, isn't it.

There is one further complication for Auty that will do him no good at all; the rumour that Chris Jackson intends to stand again. If this is true, the opposition to Griffin will have two people on which to pin their single vote, thus ensuring that neither of them get any respectable numbers in the ballot. This second attempt by Jackson will do nothing for anyone except Nick Griffin, and it has become clear that Jackson is generally regarded as a stalking horse, used last year to flush out the malcontents within the party so that they could be entertainingly purged and used this year to split the vote, thus ensuring Auty's failure, and to prop up Griffin's position in the party.

Open support for Auty is, to say the least, sparse. Just twenty-three members appear on his site under the banner 'We're proudly (and openly) backing the challenge!'. Of these, seven are suspended members, one has had his membership renewal rejected, two are about to be kicked out and Auty's position is itself looking increasingly precarious. If Griffin has his way, this leadership challenge will collapse before it properly gets started. Even if he doesn't, Auty will lose and Griffin will get the security of four or five-yearly terms in office. Either way, Auty's career with the Britsh National Party is over because he had, in Eddy Butler's curious phrase, the 'temerity' to wish to stand for the leadership of the BNP.