Monday 6 September 2010

The BNP Constitution Farce

Yet again this week the BNP will be in court because of the failure of Nick Griffin to ensure the BNP is in accord with the law.

We as a political movement may abhor that law, but a legal political party that respects democracy must obey the law until it can attain power in order to change the law.

Ignoring the law is not an option.

The story of the BNP constitutional changes and the EHRC legal case is a tale of hubris, greed and sheer stupidity.

It begins after the Sadie Graham cabal were discovered operating inside the party.

Under the constitution at the time of the Sadie Graham cabal, there were only two ways to remove the BNP chairman - by a leadership challenge or by a majority vote of the Advisory Council.

Griffin discovered that the Sadie Graham group had planned to expel him as chairman by a vote of the Advisory Council, of which they had a near majority and were hoping that the trouble they caused in the party would cause the Griffin supporters on the AC to vote with them.

At this point Griffin realised that not only could he be voted off as the chairman but that he would have no pay off, no pension and no income.

Seeing as the only skills Griffin has in the real world are a spell as shelf stacker in the co-op, and every business he has touched has collapsed into a mountain of debts, then he would have been left to face the rest of his life as a pig farmer in Wales.

For a man with an ego as big as Mount Everest, that was a total shock to his system.

So what was the first thing Griffin did after the Sadie Graham cabal were purged, he went and organised an EGM at the RWB to pass a constitutional amendment to award himself a twenty thousand pound pay off when he resigns or is sacked as leader of the BNP.

At that specific point in time, Griffin turned into a money grabbing monster and then into the orbit of Griffin walked the financial vampire Jim Dowson to satisfy his every greedy desire.

Having once experienced the power of being able to change the constitution for his own benefit, Griffin and Dowson saw that this was a superb way of enforcing total control over the party - and with immaculate timing the EHRC gave them the perfect excuse to change the constitution yet again by taking action against the party.

When the EHRC took action against the party I was asked to assist in drafting the new constitution up.

I was on the phone with Griffin at the time virtually five times a day debating with him potential issues etc.

My emphasis was on ;

1) We could not win the case with the EHRC simply as they had too much money and too many hot shot lawyers to throw at the case, so therefore our best bet was to simply comply with their requests and ensure we were in accord with the law

2) That whilst we complied with their requests we should insert into the constitution a series of protective clauses that would ensure that in the event of any infiltrators organising to destabilise the party internally, as Operation Black Vote had said they would do, that we would be able to remove them lawfully from the party

3) That the new constitution we should have drafted up should have enabled us to avoid the court hearings by complying with their demands before we got into court so as not to accrue legal costs for the party in the lead up to the General Election

4) That we could retain the ethos of the BNP as a party for the protection of our indigenous national community, but do so in such a way that we did not walk into the trap of imposing changes that were in breach of the law as being either Directly or Indirectly Racially Discriminatory. I gave a series of legal solutions to this problem to Griffin which he simply ignored, and if these solutions were used before the case came to court, we could have avoided the whole series of costly legal cases. These suggestions were passed on to other people on the AC and ignored by Griffin.

My emphasis was on ensuring the case did not come to court in the first place.

This was because I was aware that the aim of the legal action was to get us into court and drain us dry of funds that could have been used for electioneering in the lead up to the forthcoming General Election.

Therefore when you understand your enemies strategy and tactics, the idea is to turn them back on them and avoid the trap they are setting for you.

This was my advice to Griffin, but it was yet again ignored.

This was because Griffin had a plan to use the court case for his own self promotion in the party and to reinforce his status and powers within the party by using the court case to draft up a constitution that protected him and not the party.

I was then asked by Griffin to work with Jane Phillips on the constitution.

Now I have known Jane Phillips of the Iverson Holmes company for a long time.

She is a superb lawyer, but tends to shoot off into outer space with any new ideas she has.

Her work with Tony Linsell of the Steadfast Trust in a court case she undertook against the EHRC concerning the forthcoming census was described by the Judge in want can only be defined as deeply negative terms.

The case was lost and costs imposed.

I had once incurred her wrath for not answering her telephone calls quick enough and hence had not spoken to her for a long while, but I gave Nick Griffin her phone number as I valued any advice she may have given him on the legal case.

I was then asked by Griffin to work with Jane on the constitutional change.

After I pointed out a serious flaw in her legal strategy that would have allowed the court to undermine our case, she flew into a rage and refused to speak to me anymore.

I have the copies of the skype exchange if anyone wants to see it that detail why she got so stroppy.

Anyway, it was now apparent that the constitutional re-draft had been taken out of the hands of the BNP, the AC and myself and was now in the hands solely of Griffin and Jane Phillips.

No-one else was allowed any input into the constitution at all.

All my suggestions were ignored and we all just had to wait there until the new constitution was presented to us by Griffin.

Then came the day we were then given a glimpse of the new constitution they had spent so long drafting up between them.

At first we thought it was a joke.

I spoke to Eddy and he was in shock at the thing.

It was the product of a delusional mind, a document of unparalleled hubris and a plan to turn the party into a Griffin Dictatorship.

It was, and is, filled with the most embarrassing and demented ramblings one has ever had to read in a constitution for a political party.

The role of a constitution in a political party is simply to act as a contract between the members and to ensure the parties legal interests are protected. It is meant to be as concise and limited as possible in order to avoid potential legal complexities that would allow lawyers to tear it to pieces.

This thing read like a cross between War and Peace, a cryptic crossword puzzle and a Stalinist masturbation fantasy.

Griffin though was a cock a hoop about it.

He rang me and said he thought it was the best political document and constitution ever drafted, and that it was up there with the declaration of independence and would be regarded as the most important document in British Nationalism since the death warrant of King Charles the First.

I didn’t have the heart to disagree with him.

I just let him ramble on then put the phone down.

The first thing I realised when I studied it was that it revealed that Griffin did not intend to obey the law and change the constitution to avoid the court case, instead it became apparent that Griffin wanted to get the party taken into court.

As the constitution was supposed to protect the party, and save us the enormous legal costs that fighting the case would incur - then for him to want to get taken to court proved he was simply bonkers.

It is a feature of Griffins mindset that he actually wants to go to prison, as I suspect he thinks that by doing so it will do for him what it did for Hitler, in that it will propel him onto the main stage of politics.

This is why he constantly tells people close to him that he wants to go to prison.

The fact that he put the party into the position of being made bankrupt in order for him to satisfy his juvenile fantasy proves how unsuited he is for leadership of the BNP.

The role of the chairman is to protect the party, not to use it as a vehicle for their own ambitions.

The role of chairman is transient position, not a permanent position, though Griffin has said to me on three occasions that he would destroy the BNP rather than allow another leader to lead the party.

The rest is history.

The ECHR took us into court and this has cost us hundreds of thousands of pounds in wasted legal costs.

Every time we have gone to court the judge imposes more costs, the media can then call the party racist again as it still has a racist constitution and the BNP has to pay for the privilege of being given a good shafting by the EHRC.

I bet Trevor Phillips is laughing his bollocks off.

The constitutional changes the EHRC demanded still have not been complied with and so the BNP is back in court again this week.

This time though Griffin has to represent himself, as the party is so skint it cannot afford to hire a legal team to defend it.

The judge will not imprison Griffin for contempt as that is what Griffin wants.

The only reason why the Judge would bang Griffin up is to protect Griffins position in the party, as by doing so the Griffinite cult members will all rally around their dear leader.

If the court does imprison him, then this will be further evidence that the state is actively protecting Griffin.

There are though issues that have to be resolved that the cult members in the party refuse to accept, these being ;

1) The blame for the EHRC court cases lay squarely at Griffins feet. He chose not to comply with the law and instead decided to use the court case for his self aggrandisement. That was simply Gross Misconduct in office.

2) He created and imposed on the party a constitution that was unsuited for the role it was supposed to play, which was to protect the party from legal costs and legal actions by the EHRC. As he alone was responsible for the drafting up of the constitution, the imposition of the constitution and the changes to that constitution in each of the court cases - he alone is guilty of Gross Incompetence in office for the costs incurred by the party by the failure of the constitution to fulfill the role it was supposed to fulfill.

3) He has used the constitution as a way to enforce his own power and position in the party and damaged the party in the process, this is also Gross Misconduct in office.

4) His refusal to work with BNP officers and officials and take input from BNP members prior to announcing the new constitution was a breach of trust and his duties as an officer of the party, therefore his guilty yet again of Professional Misconduct.

But as the BNP is not a normal political party, but a cult of personality around Griffin, then none of these issues will be addressed.

As the cult members are unable to use logic and rationally analyse the situation, but instead simply bark and clap like idiot seal lions whenever Griffin throws them a rotten fish, they will see this constant series of defeats as validation of their leaders greatness.

You cannot argue with stupidity like that.

You just have to hold the people who profess loyalty to such a man in the contempt they deserve.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Open your eyes said...

Griffin is working for the state. There is enought hearsay evidence now that this is so.
Someone should put all this evidence into a book. Also Arafat was another Griffin, members should research Arafat and then draw your own conclusions.

John Fitzgerald said...

We'd be better off with an unwritten consitution.

Defender of Liberty said...

No constitution = a total dictatorship.

Griffin is bad enough without giving him unlimited power over the BNP and its members.

John Fitzgerald said...

Disagree. The convention would be that regional leaders can vote anytime on whether to keep or change the chairman.

Andraste said...

It seemed obvious that the constitution should be as simple as possible not as complex as possible! Surely the constitution's primary purpose should be simply to comply with the law and safeguard the party from subversion. The less pages that the constitution contains the better, not the opposite.

It seemed stupid in the extreme to introduce phrases into the constitution that are not only unnecessary but moreover were bound to invite legal challenge from the EHRC, specifically I am referring sections such as 3.2.3 that reads:

“We are pledged to stemming and reversing the immigration and migration of peoples into our British Homeland that has, without the express consent of the Indigenous British, taken place since 1948, and to restoring and maintaining, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the Indigenous British as the overwhelming majority in the make up of the population of and expression of culture in each part of our British Homeland.”

At the time I thought this a stupid inclusion: why include it at all as it is completely unnecessary and achieves nothing other than giving the EHRC an angle to attack us.

Everyone knows what the BNP stands for, it is not necessary for the constitution to contain the distilled minutia of every single concept that defines the BNP's concept of nationalism. S

However I do believe that it was necessary to make the process to challenge the leader more difficult, this to me makes sense otherwise infiltrators would be launching leadership campaigns continually and possibly succeeding - as it stands now it is impossible for this to occur. Hardening the leadership process is a successful deterrent - of course the consequence of this necessary action may well make the chairman's position a virtual dictatorship! I can't see any other alternative.

Defender of Liberty said...

The constitution is a contract that defines the rights of members as well as the powers of the chairman, each is meant to balance the other.

There is no need for a strong individual leader if we have a strong leadership.

pecill said...

The only constitution we need is one that enshrines the authority of the Leader, who is Nick Griffin, to prevent insurrection and agitation from those who envy him his office.

We would not have made Mr. Griffin Leader if we didn't trust him, as we trust him we need to leave him to get on with the job of leading the BNP and our country to greatness.

Too much agitation, disloyalty and stirring going on in the BNP. A shorter constitution emphasising the Leader's authority, within reason, and protecting him from unreasonable challenge from people who are unworthy is what is needed.

Total BNP said...

your a total c8nt barnes and a f8cking embarrasment to the nationalist movement. you are now one of the most despised people in england so f6ck off and die you druggie c7nt and leave the fighting to those of us who have the guts to do so. you worthless piece of lowlife sh1t who spreads lies about the leader and you know nothing you c6nt. offended by my swearing at you? you gormless pr1ck, well thats the way we speak round here. sauce for the goose and all that. you still getting handouts by the state to spread lies about the BNP? did they threaten to stop your benefits you c6nt? im now about to head off for a 10 hr night shift and i f8cking well hate the idea my taxes will pay the benefits of a sh9tbag like you who wormed his way into the BNP. just p4ss off and leave us alone you filthy f8cker.

Anonymous said...

Nick Griffin a leader - dont make me laugh.

Would a leader behave like a tongue tied whingeing pussy on the Country's premier political program - question time. Would a leader slouch in his chair trembling over Sayeeda Warsi and Jack Straw. Would a leader mimick another leader like Griffin does with his Churchill salute.

No Nick Griffin is no leader, he is a salesman and master manipulator. And has been exposed a such, a who is seriously lacking in the leadership department.

God I am still chuckling at that comment.

Defender of Liberty said...

I just had to post the comment from Total BNP, to show people how tragic these window licking muppets are.


'Filthy f8cker' - classic, total classic.

Its the old priest from Father Ted you 'fecker' !

Anonymous said...

The BNP in Scotland are now so brainwashed it is truely tragic. The site is pure propaganda - comments left by "anonymous" - ie Nick Teasdale (whoever the fuck that is - a Southerner, no less). Until the whole lot of them are sacked and replaced by true nationalists then all is lost. However, they have a couple of new wealthy donors in their midst so it will plod on - and fleece them of their cash. It's a pity, cos some of them are really nice people - just gullible and believe in "our Chairman" and Jimbo! Notice he's taking a back seat these days - or is that keeping a low profile. Why can't they see?

John Fitzgerald said...

A simlified constitution would eventually "be improved upon".
If members were given a choice between a written and unwritten constitution (the convention being members can change regional leaders anytime, regional leaders can change the chairman anytime), the latter might be their choice.

Britain First said...

Barnes quote:"The constitutional changes the EHRC demanded still have not been complied with and so the BNP is back in court again this week."

The letter of the law has been fully complied with but the SPIRIT of the law has not been complied with. Why is Nick in court? Because the BNP is still functioning and still about saving our tribe. Non whites are free to help us in that struggle, but the EHCR is frustrated and is saying we have to change and allow the party to be all about saying these non-whites are "as British as you and I".
It certainly is necessary to state that we are still for the indigenous British in the constitution because people increasingly DO NOT know what the BNP is all about and many members are civic nationalists. I am very disappointed in Andraste who I hitherto believed understood this.

Defender of Liberty said...

The letter of the law has been fully complied with but the SPIRIT of the law has not been complied with.

Oh yeah, you can be taken to court not on a point of law or because of breaking the law, but simply on the basis of you breaking 'the spirit of the law'.


Did you get that idea off a cornflake box ?

" Why is Nick in court? Because the BNP is still functioning and still about saving our tribe "

Err no - he is in court because the idiotic constitution he drafted up that was supposed to 'protect' the BNP didnt do the job it was supposed to do.

Its not rocket science is it.

Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your contention that Jane Phillips is a 'superb lawyer'. Wasn't she the one for ok'ed the infamous Marmitegate video? Even the most idle 1st year law student would have known that was a flagrant trademark infringement. I'd say she was is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Britain First said...

Nick is held to be in contempt of court for ignoring the spirit of the law. And yes it is like something out of Alice in Wonderland. That's how arrogant and idiotic the EHCR is. Hopefully they are going to be shown up and it won't be a kangaroo court. One day the hostile elite intends that thought crime will be illegal though, and they are nearly there now.