Griffin Exposed As State Agent ?

Every now and then one comes across something that is a WOW ! moment.

This was such a wow moment with Nick Griffin.

I think this is probably the best thing I have seen posted on stormfront for a long time.

Most of the time its just Hollywood Nazi shite, but this has a real point.

" The Police have refused to investigate the BNP fraud even at the request of an MP, three yrs ago.

There was more evidence last year that Griffin has state protection.

The Guardian newspaper applied to the CPS for a transcript of Griffin's race hate trial that took place in 1998. This was the trial in which he was charged with the crime of race hate for an article in The Rune which claimed the Holocaust was a hoax.

The CPS refused to release the transcript.

Did Griffin do a deal with the state in return for a suspended sentence? Halfway through the trial he sacked his legal team and conducted his own defence. Would he have done that if he hadn't known in advance that he was going to get off? The following year, Griffin became BNP leader and the party has now been wrecked.

The Guardian lodged a complaint after the CPS refused to release the transcript but nothing ever came of it. "



This is a brilliant point.

The refusal of the CPS to release the documents due to 'privacy' concerns under the Data Protection Act is total bollocks.

This was a public case in an open court involving a politician on trial for his opinions published in a magazine sold to the public.

The idea that any of that information was 'private' is laughable.

Therefore the issue is this - why has the CPS refused to release the documents ?

The only thing would be is that a deal had been brokered between the CPS and Griffin which meant the judge had been informed of the deal and this would be reflected in his sentence.

That information would have to be released by the CPS if it was recorded.

I am sure some people will say 'what about the Leeds Trial' ?

That was undertaken under a different CPS with different political priorities, a different Attorney General and for the sole reason that the BBC aired covertly filmed footage of Griffin potentially breaking the law, and therefore the CPS was forced to act.

If it hadnt acted to prosecute him, then that would have revealed and exposed Griffin.

I suspect that if Griffin had been found guilty in the Leeds trial a deal would have been struck to give him what he always wanted as part of his "Hitler Image", which was a short prison sentence to make him appear a free speech martyr and then mass publicity and his control of the BNP and the wider nationalist movement would have been assured forever.










http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/22/nick-griffin-race-trial-details


The Crown Prosecution Service is ­blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.

Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially ­inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.

The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.

Griffin has been widely reported as ­dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.

Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected an request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.

In a letter to the Guardian, which ­submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.

"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."

On appeal, the CPS last week ­reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.

Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.

Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the ­misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".

The Guardian is now lodging a ­complaint with the Information ­Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final ­decisions on FoI requests.