The nasty blog answered

 
MY ANSWER TO A COWARD
This is my answer to the latest piece of drivel to appear on the Nasty blog (Eddy Butler and Sadie Graham). Notwithstanding the nonsense that is written in it, I do still believe that the Party owes Nick Griffin a debt of gratitude for the work he has done to promote our Party over the years. When he is democratically removed as Chairman and the Party starts to move ahead again, I will make sure he is given an honourable position within the Party. However, he has completely run his course as is amply demonstrated by the fact that he involves himself in this rubbish.

The current Chairman’s latest tactic (and let’s be under no illusion as to who is behind the nasty blog) is to imply that there is a connection between myself and Sadie Graham. This is entirely based on Lawrence Rustem thinking out loud, at a bugged meeting, that it was a pity the Sadie business occurred. I will readily agree with that sentiment– so there you are Nick, make of that what you will! Also, I had been given Sadie Graham’s old phone for a while as my ‘Party’ mobile, and when I gave it back their resident techno wizard ‘restored’ the contact list so her name appeared on it. Amazing! Unfortunately they are all too thick to remember that I was only given the phone last November.

No parallels

Now he is desperately trying to draw parallels (and failing miserably) between Sadie’s actions and mine. This is what I did and there is no similarity:

• First, I was told about some very serious financial allegations made against the current Chairman of this Party - not against anyone else – against the current Chairman of this Party.

• Second, I resolved to raise this matter at the first Advisory Council meeting after the General Election, this being the correct constitutional process to follow.

• Third, this information was relayed to the current Chairman by Dave Hannam after Mark Collett spoke to him about it.

• Fourth, I was then removed from my positions as were the two other people who knew. This happened with no prior consultation or fact finding discussion.

• Fifth, I kept silent until after the General Election.

• Sixth, after the election I openly declared my intention to pursue the matter.

• Seventh, I gave the current Chairman the opportunity of either refuting the matter or coming clean and allowing an investigation – but he refused.

• Eighth, I openly declared my intention to challenge him for the leadership.

Mr Chairman – where is even the slightest similarity between my conduct and that of Sadie Graham? There is none, is there?

Hypocrisy and cowardice

It strikes one as hypocritical that the current Chairman’s behaviour in publishing his ‘anonymous’ blog, is precisely the same behaviour for which he so readily condemned the ‘Decembrist rebels’. Add to that the constant lies, the pathetic use of personal smears, the craven cowardice in hiding behind an anonymous blog and the illegal use of the Party’s membership list to float the current Chairman’s rapidly sinking ship.

The press haven’t covered my campaign, apart from one small article in the Times with information copied from my blog, as I didn’t give any statements. That is because they have an interest in keeping the current Chairman’s failing regime in power. This is becoming embarrassingly obvious to everyone.

I have not discussed whether it is the current Chairman’s intention that Paul Golding or his daughter will succeed him. Also, I did not begin this by pointing the finger at anyone else but the current Chairman. He has terrible difficulty in distinguishing between what I do and say – and what other people who may be opposed to him do and say. The current Chairman should try to assimilate this difference. What I say and think, I publish under my own name on my own blog. I do not hide like a coward behind an anonymous blog.

An incompetent employer

I am amused that the current Chairman now says that I resigned from my jobs ‘for a short while’ and then reneged on my resignation. How can anybody resign for a short while? If he wants to get rid of people who might speak out against him, then he should expect to have to dismiss them since they are very unlikely to do him the favour of resigning. This should not be difficult to comprehend, and it is high time (after the expensive lessons of recent cases) that he versed himself in the basics of employment law? It also exposes him as a liar for, not once, but twice, telling the officers’ attending the Easter Monday meeting, that I had resigned.

I have repeatedly warned the current Chairman and told his co-worker, Jim Dowson, that they should follow the proper procedures to terminate my employment, if that is indeed what they want to do. The fact that they have not shown themselves thus far to be competent to do anything of this nature is their fault and their fault alone.

I am waiting for the current Chairman to muster up a single word in contradiction of the thousands I have written in this blog exposing his rule. His retorts consist of personal abuse, nearly all of which are lies, and ‘evidence’ obtained by ‘secret’ tapes which are edited in a typically sly and despicable manner. The fact that I can aim a spotlight at virtually every aspect of what happens in the Party currently under Nick Griffin’s stewardship, shows what a bad regime he is now running. I will make no apology for the fact that I can range over the whole spectrum and expose wastage, stupidity and nonsense. That is why the current Chairman has to go and go quickly.

A point by point demolition

Just to demonstrate how pitiful are the other points Mr Griffin attempts to raise against me, I will dispose of them in short order:

1. I have pointed out numerous errors and lies about the financial information that has recently been presented to the membership. My remarks have not been countered. I intended to raise my concerns at an AC meeting but was removed from my positions to prevent me from doing so.

2. I am not hanging around with ‘Nazis’. The only ‘blogs on the internet to support Nick Griffin are the most extreme and pornographic ones.

3. If Nick Griffin, the all powerful Chairman, can sack a senior officer on the spot, then this clearly demonstrates why a separation of powers is needed. I was unable to initiate any such moves to separate powers after Nick Griffin blackmailed us all into ceding him yet greater powers at the EGM in February.

4. Yes, we need more internal democracy – but not too much – to save us from the sort of tyranny that has held back the development of our Party over recent years. Nick Griffin has brought in an appalling tyrannical constitution under the emotive guise of attacks by the Equalities Commission. He said he was willing to go to jail then as well. Remember those crocodile tears? They flow so easily, don’t they? I stopped Nick Griffin in 2008 when he tried to bring in a four year term for himself at the EGM held at the Red White and Blue. Our proposals to bring in a fairer constitution will be published for everyone to judge in ample time.

5. Yes we do need change – I will make no apology for using the word, even if Sadie Graham also used the word.

6. I will indeed aim to bring back into the Party the good people we miss, but obviously I will not allow back known troublemakers or people who are of no use to us. Nick Griffin’s personality has unfortunately driven many good people out the Party. To clarify again, as I can hear the sound of a poison pen filling up, Sadie Graham and Matt Single will not be allowed back. I have no desire to recruit the sort of Hollywood Nazis who are supporting Mr Griffin on the blogs, nor am I telling ‘moderates’ that I will be purging people. I am specifically not doing that, in fact.

7. I don’t need a ghost writer! Mr Griffin is a terrible snob who thinks he is the best at everything. He can’t stomach the notion that anyone else can write.

8. The lack of enquires (an all time low of only 6,500 for the whole General Election campaign which cost around £400,000), the lack of funds (Nick Griffin is making the Party literally insolvent this month due to the legal cases he has needlessly involved us in), the lack of electoral progress due to his stale rule and bad personal image – yes, I am extremely worried that if Nick Griffin stays for even one year longer at the helm then the Party will be destroyed.

Here’s one they lied about earlier

For the sake of completeness I missed one more outright lie. There are so many that it is difficult to keep track. However, although the current Chairman refuses to answer the points that I have raised that demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that virtually everything he does now is misguided, wrong or mistaken – every single time he lies I will point out exactly what it is.

In the previous rant on his nasty blog (amusingly entitled ‘Brothel Butler the Liar, Part 2’), there is a You Tube Video in which a caption states that Steve McCole, the Herts and Beds Sub Regional Organiser, Eastern Region Fundholder and Organiser of the highly successful Broxbourne Branch (he does all these jobs unpaid and without claiming any expenses) “was offered a job as National Treasurer by Sadie Graham if her coup attempt succeeded”. This is an outright lie.

Months before Sadie Graham launched her coup attempt, while she was Group Development Officer, she asked Steve McCole if he was willing to be considered for the post of Deputy Treasurer (which meant looking after the Regional finances - the role was occupied by David Hannam and he was failing in his job). Steve did not want to do the job then, just as he doesn’t want to do the job of National Treasurer now (another one of their lies).

I will not make a habit of writing pieces on this blog where I show my irritation at the Chairman for his ridiculous articles (specifically the one called ‘Eddy Butler and Sadie Graham’) but sometimes he has to be told the facts of life bluntly.

I repeat my earlier messages to him. Come out and speak in your own name. Do not hide behind the Party machinery. Stop hiding behind an anonymous blog. Come out and answer me properly. You like people to think you are a brave politician facing down our opponents. Act like a man.



THE NASTY BLOG CONTINUES

Deranged and desperate nonsense from the editorial team

The campaign to re-elect Nick Griffin as Party Chairman sunk to a new low depth when they revealed that they had sent an agent to secretly record a meeting to discuss the campaign strategy for a rival leadership bid. Nick Griffin’s campaign relies solely on edited tapes and films always made under the most dubious of circumstances. This is yet another example of the repellent tactics used by Nick Griffin’s campaign team to keep him in power at all costs. It exposes yet again the utter hypocrisy of the Party:

• The Party is exposed as running their own version of the surveillance state to monitor legitimate and constitutional opposition. This is one of the most repulsive and disgusting aspects of this. As they are prisoners of a paranoid bunker mentality they are totally unable to see that they are degrading the Party in the eyes of the public by these acts. Furthermore they are degrading and corrupting the people they subvert to carry out these little acts of betrayal and sneakiness. This sort of thing only leaves a legacy of mistrust within the Party with the culprits treated as pariahs.

• This is on top of the Party’s attempts to run ‘Punish the Pigs’ campaigns, attacking the establishment political elite for being corrupt when our own leadership refuses calls for financial accountability and transparency within the BNP.

• Their campaign is based on lies – quotes taken out of context. And they know they are lying.

Pathetic lie No 1

The morons claim that I entered Sadie Graham’s phone number in my work phone and I was in contact with her when she leaked the membership list. Trouble is I was only issued with that phone in November last year - a year after the membership list had been leaked! My phone was previously Sadie’s phone so when they cunningly restored the contact list they will have restored all her phone numbers which will also account for Sharon Ebanks being on it. The dunderheads and top level political strategists who make up the ‘editorial team’ wouldn’t be able to work that out – even if we accept it is true that they are techno-wizard enough to restore the contact numbers. I doubt they did actually restore the contact numbers as I actually transferred the numbers from my personal phone to it and I still have a contact for Sadie (as I never deleted it) which is down on my phone as just ‘Sadie’ (not Sadie Graham). Why don’t they itemise my phone bill and prove that I rang her and Sharon Ebanks on it? I can’t wait to see the ‘evidence’.

I also suspect that by November last year she would not still have been using realbnp e-mail addresses – although I have no way of knowing that for a fact!

Pathetic lie No 2

At the meeting I had a few weeks ago which they sneakily recorded, if they played their tape recording they would hear me say that there was no way that Sadie Graham would ever be allowed back in the Party. Numerous people have been told this. It is no secret that we will never allow Sadie Graham and Matt Single back in the Party due to what they did. Nick Griffin’s team know this as it was said at the meeting. You can hear me starting to say it when the tape is cut.

All Lawrence Rustem did was to point out that the Party was poorer without Sadie Graham, meaning it is a pity the row developed to such an extent that she left the Party, became embittered and helped leak the membership list . Before that it is fair to say she had done some good work for the Party. Lawrence was commenting on the wastage of once keen activists that regularly occurs in this Party.

Pathetic Lie No 3

Sadie Graham doesn’t back my leadership bid (as far as I know!) and as I said, I most certainly won’t let her back in the Party when we win.

Pathetic Lie No 4

No one has been offered the job of National Treasurer when we win the leadership contest this year. The matter hasn’t even been discussed and Steve McCole wouldn’t be interested in taking such an appointment.

Pathetic Lie No 5

Lawrence Rustem, while he is a very valuable activist, is not the Deputy Leader candidate and has never been suggested as such by anyone (even himself!)

Pathetic Lie No 6

They keep trying to claim that I am tied in with Simon Bennett and that this blog for example is designed by him - which it isn’t. I have strongly criticised Simon Bennett for taking the website down two days before polling day, but it didn‘t cost us many votes. Far more serious were:

• The pathetic murder story concocted by the leadership at the outset of the campaign and which they publicised to the media;

• The failure of Jim Dowson to get the leaflets printed on time;

• The Communications Department’s strategy of starving the press of BNP exposure, and refusing local candidates the possibility of talking to the local media;

• The Communication Department’s strategy of running that Marmite nonsense; and

• The mistake of putting Nick Griffin’s face with Churchill on all the leaflets. Nick Griffin is incredibly unpopular with the electorate. This fatal decision was taken at a meeting I was banned from, although I was supposedly National Elections Officer.

Also it is a lie to say that his bringing down the website had a knock on effect for the enquiries as they hadn’t been sent out then in any numbers, alternative e-mail addresses are available for the main organisers and in any case as we have seen there were 6,500 enquiries due to the election not 10,000 and only 3,000 at most were processed at that time.

So there we have it again. The current BNP leadership resorting to lies that they know are lies. This is the act of desperate men.



Nasty Blog again

Nick’s answer to my appeal for dialogue is clear. Three more postings to the Nasty Blog!

The first is yet another childish fairy tale which exposes their excruciating and laboured lack of humour.

The second is a classic Dowsonesque piece of prose – the sort of stuff we find in those appeal letters. One minute they want to parody Pinocchio, they next they want to exploit the slaughter of our soldiers in the trenches in order to peddle their pathetic lies. Interestingly the Dowsonesque piece reduces the accusations to ogling prostitutes.

Then they produce another snippet of film. I said they may show a bit more that shows a group of people talking, laughing and joking with each other after having drunk a certain amount of alcohol – and that is precisely what it does show. It also clearly illustrates that Clive Jefferson was manipulating and directing the episode. It also shows that the bar was right next door to the hotel we were staying in. The end of the film shows a montage of me, Lawrence Rustem and Sadie Graham. What Sadie Graham has to do with it is anyone’s guess – but it is a clear attempt to implicate those who wish to campaign for legitimate change in the Party (as Lawrence Rustem does for example) with people who betrayed the members in the past by publishing the membership list online.

The Nasty Blog proves yet again that Nick doesn’t have any arguments to put forward in defence of his continued Chairmanship and that he has to resort to petty lies and smear tactics. It is the sort of thing our activists have to put up with in every election campaign so we are used to dealing with these tactics. We expect it from Hope not Hate and UAF. It is sad when our own Chairman is unable to articulate a coherent argument and ends up spreading deliberate and obvious lies that only degrade his office.

Nevertheless we won’t be responding with personal attacks and we will not hide like cowards behind anonymous blog postings.


Nasty Blog Part X

Another fairy tale. It probably seemed funny to the people busy writing it. Now we know why the Media Skills Training Seminar planned for this weekend was cancelled. These blogs are very time consuming for the 'editorial team'.


Nasty Blog Part VIII

This is a statement said to be by Ian Kitchen. I have met Ian Kitchen a few times and although I don’t really know him at all, he seemed a decent enough sort of bloke. He was over with Nick Griffin in the European Parliament a couple of times acting as driver and security. This makes his account a little disappointing and I presume was made out of personal loyalty to Nick Griffin.

He is quite right in saying he woke me up when I overslept and I apologised to Ian for this – although I certainly wasn’t on the floor.

He didn’t pack my suitcase and he didn’t provide any assistance in me getting down the stairs. From when he woke me up to me getting to the coach with my bag packed was probably 5 minutes.

Nor did I mention any brothel to him. I presume it may be in his mind as Clive Jefferson was sitting with him and Clive Jefferson started his story telling from the moment he met people in the morning. Incidentally Clive also overslept and beat me to the coach by about 15 minutes, as I checked with several other people there.

The coach did not leave 90 minutes late. That would have meant we left at 10 am but we got to the European Parliament at 11 and it takes at least an hour and a half to get there.

I was not actually the last person to get on the coach. Four people were later – although I am not saying that to justify the fact that I was myself late.

Mr Kitchen was indeed helpful in assisting in directing the group to the Parliament building although the reason this was necessary was that I had to sort some paperwork on the coach. Clive Jefferson as a member of staff was supposed to be in charge however. I caught the group up and signed them into the building.

Clive Jefferson and Linzi Reynolds (who now appeared) where the staff members who were supposed to accompany the group on the remainder of the trip. Ian Kitchen, while he had been with Nick Griffin there before, hadn’t been in that part of the building which is quite separate from the rest of the European Parliament and is reserved for these visits.

I did not accompany the tour of the European Parliament because I had to wait to get paid our subsidy by the clerks there, and I also had to go into the main part of the building to sort some paperwork out relating to a training course that was talking place the next week. Ian Kitchen wasn’t to know that but I didn’t ‘disappear with Mark Collett’.

Nasty Blog Part IX

This shows that they are getting rather desperate. They quote this question and answer...

Question asked:
Are the story's about you true? I've seen a video of you in a strip bar in Brussells cavorting with a black hooker and was wondering as you are being so honest and claiming there is a smear campaign against you which smear's would they be?
Response:
I guess some stories about me are true and some aren’t. It is flattering to have stories told about oneself and I enjoy reading most of them as they are amusing - particularly the fictitious tales such as the one you mention. I know exactly who originated it and if/when it comes out I will take great delight in setting out the whole story.

I look forward to the ‘editorial team’ producing a film of me in a strip bar cavorting with a black hooker. Can it be that the ‘editorial team’ are relying on what Clive Jefferson has told them? Oh dear where is that film? Send out the search parties!

I am sure they will make the most of Clive Jefferson’s sneaky film – which in fact just shows a few blokes out joking around in a slightly boisterous way after a night out drinking in a couple of bars. That is their only trump card.

Then they mention that they have, I presume, recordings: “from his own mouth, in his own words, how Brothel deliberately made up the allegations of financial impropriety with which he has attacked the current BNP leadership.”

Again this will make fascinating listening.

WORTH WAITING FOR?

I didn’t post a rebuttal of the 6th instalment of the nasty blog (Eddy Butler’s Merry Men) – not just because it wasn’t really about me, but more because the personal attacks in it were so obnoxiously degrading for Nick Griffin MEP to be associated with it that it brought immense discredit upon the BNP as a whole.

Nasty Blog Part VII

Now we have the long awaited Clive Jefferson (real name Aitken) film. I have just settled down to watch it with my family and have to confess to being somewhat disappointed. Given all the hype I was expecting much worse and every time I have discussed recent ‘events’ with anyone from the ‘leadership’ they have threatened me with the everlasting disgrace which will fall on my shoulders when they release this film.

I mentioned this earlier in this blog as follows (see Nasty Blog Part I):

“As Nick knows Clive ‘repaid’ my encouragement by spreading false and malicious stories about me as he wished to undermine my position and get my job – as has proven to be the case. My mistake was in being too trusting. Official warning letters were placed on Clive’s personal file as a result of the lies he was deliberately spreading. I feel sure that these false and malicious stories will be appearing on this blog soon enough – they have already appeared on two down market discussion forums (in fact the only two discussion forums/blogs which openly support Nick in the leadership challenge). Nick knows that is the reason why there was a problem with Clive.”

The film shows me at the end of an evening when I had been out drinking with three other members in Ypres last December. We were part of a coach trip to Brussels to visit the European Parliament and stopped in Ypres on the way. We clearly had too much to drink and a degree of boisterous ‘laddish’ talk and behaviour took place, during which we went into a bar immediately next to the hotel we were staying in, had one drink and left. There was no one else in the bar apart from two other English people who came in just before we left and a black barmaid who disappeared after serving us a drink. There was no other females present. Rather foolishly, we all had too much to drink and overslept and regrettably kept people waiting the next morning.

This was obviously stupid and regrettable but in the scheme of things not big news. I hasten to add that it is not exactly typical behaviour on my part! You will notice that no one else features in this film and if they show more clips you will see more ‘under the influence’ laddish jokey talk – embarrassing for sure – but strangely no prostitutes of any colour or creed. I have heard of the pub with no beer. This was the brothel with no prostitutes, no strippers – nothing in fact!

Unfortunately one of the people present was Clive Jefferson, who I had foolishly befriended. He decided to film the evening for future use, and provided the film with a sly running commentary. Next morning he decided to tell everyone that I had been with black prostitutes and spread this story far and wide. Eventually I insisted that Jefferson be questioned about the lies that he had been deliberately spreading and an official warning letter was placed on his employment file.

Jefferson deliberately spread these stories as he wished to replace me as National Elections Officer. He conspired with Nick Griffin MEP over this. Nick Griffin MEP told Jefferson to keep the film for future use. Instead of telling Jefferson off for filming colleagues when off duty, and attempting to use the film for the purposes of blackmail as part of his plan to replace me as National Elections Officer, Nick Griffin MEP typically encouraged him.

Having been in Nick Griffin MEP’s Belgian house and in his car for many long hours, I can testify that the tone of conversation (which I didn’t join in) is exceptionally low and degrading. In the house at night, drunkenness is the norm. However it would have been despicable for me to have even considered recording it. Decent people don’t do that sort of thing to their Party comrades or even think of doing it. It is the sort of thing a disingenuous fake nationalist would do.

Nick Griffin MEP has been plotting to use this film for a short while. He sent a notification for a female operative of his who inhabits one of the vilest so-called ‘nationalist’ internet chat forums called VNN. Nick Griffin, a Member of the European Parliament and Chairman of the fourth (maybe?) biggest Party in Britain, sent this text to alert her. He actually accidentally sent it as a twitter. It was his instructions to her to put Jefferson’s film up as soon as I announced that I would be a candidate against him for the leadership of the BNP.

"Get it. Tell no one else. Thank her and ask her to do the same. Hold fire til the zulus are close enough to smell." - Posted to NG's Twitter feed @ 2:41 am, May 12th.


Nick Griffin MEP has been holding this film back, thinking that it was some sort of magic bullet to kill me dead politically – and even made an earlier ‘threat’ to use it to try and scare me off!

Nick Griffin MEP always uses the lowest people on the outer fringes of the nationalist movement. This in itself shows how unsuited he is to lead our Party any longer. What sort of legitimate political leader would stoop to such tactics? I am sure virtually every leading figure in politics has drunk more alcohol than is strictly good for them on the odd occasion – but few will have been filmed by a colleague for political gain.

Here is the hint that the story was about to be used – a screen shot from a blog known for short as ‘Covert’ (I won’t use its other name). This site has been ‘down’ ever since this appeared. The ‘Covert’ blog is easily the most disreputable and lowest around yet Nick Griffin MEP is happy to associate closely with them.


What is the story here?


Eddy Butler went and had too much to drink one night with a few colleagues and overslept a bit.


Clive Jefferson goes around filming his colleagues when off duty and uses the film for political gain.


Clive Jefferson adds a pack of deliberate lies about his colleague to make the story more interesting.


Nick Griffin MEP uses the film to undermine a colleague.


Nick Griffin MEP employs a number of Nazi extremists to spread these lies.


Nick Griffin MEP thinks this is a good tactic to use the film with Clive Jefferson’s lies in an attempt to defeat a leadership challenger.

Is Nick Griffin MEP a right and proper man to still be leader of our Party or does this episode just provide extra proof that he is no longer suitable for the job?




The Nasty Blog Parts III, IV and V

In the blink of an eye the nasty blog re-appears three times in one night. Or as Dick Dastardly might say, ‘Drat, drat and double drat’. Although I detect a different hand here – promoted no doubt by the series of embarrassing blunders emanating from Head Office lately. This will have led to the well know call ‘Muttley, do something!’ And this is the result, which has the ring of three consecutive abusive nuisance calls made late at night by a drunk.

Part III

The first offering is a confused piece about Clive Jefferson driving all the way down to London to attend a private discussion about how a leadership challenge would be mounted, to which, for obvious reasons he was not invited. There is a belief among the Leadership and that if any BNP members wish to meet and discuss something in private, then they have the right to either tape it or have an observer present. Maybe some extra clauses have been written into the Constitution to that effect using the Chairman’s prerogative. How lucky we are to be in a Party governed by a Constitution which grants unlimited power to one person. While stuck in London, Clive did eventually – the next day – go canvassing for a couple of hours. Well done! All assistance is gratefully received.

Part IV

The second piece is an attempted justification for the fact that I have not been dismissed by them from my employment, I have not had my contract terminated, and I did not resign or terminate it myself. Incidentally, at a propaganda meeting they held on Easter Monday to justify going to the press with their ‘murder plot’ revelations and the removal of various people at the outset of the General Election campaign, the current Chairman announced twice to the audience of about 100 officers that I had resigned. This was an outright and deliberate lie as I had not even met anyone by then and contractually it has to be done in writing. As in so many things, during the election people bite their tongues for the good of the Party. However as the election is over there is no requirement for this to be the case. This matter will no doubt develop further.

Part V

This posting is really an after thought to Part IV Probably Muttley posted Part IV and then remembered a bit more abuse.

Clearly the ‘editorial team’ is rattled, and are becoming more and more abusive. My prediction is that before the end of the week they will get even more desperate and wallow even deeper in the gutter. I very much doubt they will be exposing my ‘lies’ and demonstrating how I have got all my facts wrong. The simple truth they are unable to do this and have to resort to tactics which bring lasting shame on the entire leadership of this Party.


Nasty Blog Part II

Oh dear.

The ‘editorial team’ have been at it again. This time not only have they penned another – shorter – scandal sheet, but this time they have used the membership list to ‘broadcast’ it far and wide by e-mail. It is quite improper of course for the membership list to be misused in this way. As the membership list is kept at the Belfast office it would seem likely that someone there has illegally leaked it to a third party group.

Not only that but they seem to have delved into confidential staff records. These are the responsibility of the ‘paying agent’ – the person who has to handle payments with respect to staff who are paid from European Parliamentary allowances. The paying agent has to be an accountant. The accountant used as our paying agent is the same person who was recently announced as our ‘independent’ accountant, who provides ‘independent’ scrutiny. This person is called John Thompson and he works at the Belfast office. Is John Thompson aware that his confidential records have been handed over to the ’editorial team’?

The ‘editorial team’ are playing a very reckless game here. The European Parliament expects that MEPs behave responsibly with regard to their staff and their budgets. I have repeatedly brought to their attention that I have not been served with any notice to terminate my employment. I would suggest that instead of writing further pathetic articles on this blog site that they sort this situation out now. It is not for my benefit that I am saying this. It is for the benefit of all staff who work for both MEPs and indeed it is in the direct financial interest of both MEPs to apply themselves to this immediately.

I suspect they got the idea for notifying people by e-mail about this nasty blog from a Labour Party film they embedded in it. On the topic of that film, it takes truly breathtaking stupidity to imagine that we can jump from where we are now, with local units often not properly able to manage their own membership database, and where systematic canvassing only takes place in a handful of locations, to a nationwide integrated computerised central database of supporters.

The first step is to develop the potential within our units, by adopting the local organisation model pioneered in the United States by Obama’s team. Until we do that, and it will take a couple of years hard work, the Operations centre scheme is a non starter. It is putting the cart before the horse. We have precious few resources and what we do have we have to use wisely. If we do not put our resources into our front end then we are finished. This ‘back end’ scheme without a front end, is doomed to failure and is doomed to waste every penny given to it. It is designed to impress people who don’t actually know how we function with a lot of misleading talk about computer systems. Unfortunately that is all it is – a fundraising appeal idea. It isn’t a proper organisational or electoral strategy. It is a scheme set up by a group of people who between them have never so much as won a single election in their lives and wouldn’t know where to start.

About a year ago I discussed with Jim Dowson the possibility of databasing our canvass returns but the conclusion was that it would be a non starter at this stage in our development. We would not be able to keep up with sifting electorates and we would not have the staff necessary to enter that amount of data which would in any case not be reliable enough to meet any sensible purpose.

The lack of understanding about what can and what can’t sensibly be done at this stage in our development is evident in the sheer ignorance demonstrated in this smear article. Just as Nick always confuses the civil service with local government (I have lost count of the number of times I have told him this), so he (and Jim) does not know the difference between a database and a financial information system. He does not understand that excel is not ten years (or decades) out of date. It is continuously being updated.
But don’t take my word for it. Sit back and wait for the election victories which will surely follow. Don’t hold your breath.

Finally the election leaflets – again! I will return to this subject in depth to put it to bed once and for all. I will publish in detail the dates and notifications to show exactly what happened and why. Suffice it to say for now, the version of events published in the nasty blog is a total fairy tale. Many readers will not want to be burdened with this – too much information – but the current leadership clearly set great store with their wholly dishonest version of events – so it is only fair and right to demolish their nonsense.


Nasty Blog Part I

I am glad to see that the Party leadership has taken my advice and stopped using articles on the main Party website for their leadership campaign, and have launched a blog. It is a little flattering that my name was chosen, even if in a negative context, for the title of that blog. For those who have probably missed it, it richly deserves a wider audience so here it is:
For future reference I would like to provide some corrections for the ‘editorial team’ of this blog. I will try to skip the parts which deal in ritual abuse and will also avoid answering the regrettable personal attacks and merely focus on the political accusations and the few ‘facts’ presented. I fully realise that to most people this will be dull, but because the ‘editorial team’ have gone to tremendous trouble in raising an immense number of phoney issues against me, I feel it has to be answered, if only to be put on record.
I am accused initially of back stabbing and lying but I can’t find any examples to substantiate this in the article. They also fail to furnish any examples of my unpleasant temper (I will own up to shouting at a hapless co-driver due to their poor map reading skills – perhaps they ‘sneaked’ on me). I joined the National Front in 1980 but only moved South in 1982 to attend University. So they have their first ‘fact’ wrong.
Liss House?
Their next fact is also wrong. I didn’t attend any of the cranky Rising seminars at Liss House. I didn’t learn my local community politics and electioneering tactics from the cranky drivel spouted by his faction in the National Front. In fact I learnt it by contesting a series of local by-elections in the late 1980s and early 1990s, always refining the tactics used until we hit on a successful formula. The biggest influence was the tactics adopted by the local Liberal Focus team.
Asian Girlfriend?
I am afraid I have never had an Asian girlfriend and there was never a rumour that I did. The rumour is a recent invention, based on the tiny shred that a childhood friend of mine married an Indian woman and I attended their wedding. I told a few people at the time and that’s all there is to that little story.
Posh accent?
As for my accent – well what can I say? I probably speak ‘posher’ now, but in the 1980s apart from the handful of people who knew me well, most people assumed I was from the East End. I remember chatting to Joe Pearce when he spoke at one of our meetings and he was genuinely horrified when in the course of conversation it came out that I was from Surrey and not the East End. He was a bit of a working class snob, and accused me of being a traitor! Until quite recently Nick Griffin, in jest admittedly, used to refer to me as the product of some inner city concreted council estate as he didn’t realise I wasn’t really from the East End.
Probably everyone associated with the cause in the 1980s was under suspicion for being a plant at one time or another. However I was never accused of being one – perhaps this is evidence that I covered my tracks well.
Gary Gallo!
I remember Nick’s American friend Garry Gallo, who stayed locally for a while. His most notable contribution I recall was to leave a load of soft porno mags at the flat he was staying in – the by-product of a trip to France to meet nationalists over there. I remember an incident that he also repeated in an American publication many years later. We went fly postering one night (we used to do those sorts of things) and a car tried to run us over. He was wide eyed at engaging in that sort of activity. He was learning from us. Actually when some years later we got into local community campaigning, I made sure we stopped fly postering as it merely defaces the neighbourhood and makes us part of the problem.
Tower Hamlets and the 1986 split
Tower Hamlets NF and many other London NF members followed my example and joined the BNP in 1986. They did it of their own free will. Many were my close friends – such as Vic Clark and Steve Smith. It is flattering that the ‘editorial team’ concede that my branch was the pivotal one in the 1986 split. I was clearly a young lion to have achieved so much at such a tender age. Even though I was only 23, I clearly had the political sense to avoid the dubious clutches of Ian Anderson’s doomed Flag group and the even more appalling Third Position cranks. Subsequent history has shown the correctness of my actions. It is a little odd for the ‘editorial team’ to bewail the fact that I joined the BNP and helped to make it a success, while Nick wasted his time in various cranky outfits.
The ‘editorial team’ claim that my joining the BNP was the decisive factor in the growth of that Party and that might be correct. In fact it took only a couple of months for the BNP to totally eclipse both NF factions which rapidly shrank. There was no parity. Before 1986 the BNP was the poor relation. After 1986 the NF was nothing and the BNP grew by leaps and bounds – although compared to today the BNP was still small. Nick’s group was commonly known as the Loony Front and it soon split in two – and I think then split again and again. We lost track of it because the factions became irrelevant and miniscule.
Electoral success
Incidentally Ian Anderson was based in Newham, next door to Tower Hamlets and an area where there was also the potential for great support. Newham Branch went with the Flag group, so why didn’t the tactically astute Flag members ever get anywhere near winning a seat in Newham?
Just before we won in Millwall in 1993 I met Nick Griffin when he was addressing a meeting in Croydon. He mocked me for being infatuated with elections. He wasn’t a member then. Oh, the topic of his speech? It was on how he was the leading Holocaust Revisionist in Britain and David Irving was by comparison a sell out.
Plotting against JT?
John Tyndall didn’t commission Tony Lecomber to do his booklet on C18. Tony did it on his own initiative after I spoke to him at length about the issues involved. In any case that booklet didn’t destroy C18. The state effectively closed C18 down after it had served its purpose and after it had failed to subvert the BNP – due in large measure to my ‘arrogance’ in protecting the party from take over.
I wasn’t the driving force in the minor rumbling against John Tyndall around 1995. That was in fact Tony Lecomber. I frankly didn’t disagree as Tyndall had become very ineffective by then, and he failed to understand the nature of the local community campaigning that we were engaging in. Interestingly people who were later regarded as ardent Tyndalites were involved in this abortive spat – John Morse (who Tony Lecomber proposed as the challenger in a leadership contest that didn’t take place), Richard Edmonds (yes that may surprise some people) and Ian Dell. Older hands will remember Ian and I recall listening to him give JT a very accurate exposition at a leadership meeting on the nature of local community campaigning. I am afraid JT looked on with a blank expression of incomprehension. JT was actually a very decent and honourable man, but he couldn’t grasp what it was that we had to do to progress the movement. It was JT’s essential decency which had swung it for me in making up my mind who to support in 1986.
The Bloomsbury Forum
I left the BNP in 1996 but this can hardly be regarded as a split as I didn’t make any announcements. I just didn’t renew and resigned my positions in a private letter to JT stating my reasons. I did indeed set up the Bloomsbury Forum with some ex-Conservatives but they were not Thatcherites and weren’t cranks.
Minimalism in nationalist terms does not equate to civic nationalism.
Mark Cotterill never attended any Bloomsbury Forum meetings while I was in it. Around the late 1990s I believe he was a close associate of Nick Griffin’s. I don’t think I have met him since 1985.
I do agree with Mike Newland about the cranky ‘funny money’ creation theory. Quantative easing is something quite different though – it is a different banking mechanism. However I do not regard Nick’s ‘funny money’ theory a benchmark nationalist policy.
The Bloomsbury Forum did discuss the possibility of setting up a new party as it seemed impossible to remove JT. However as seen by my involvement with Patriot Magazine, I did retain contacts within the BNP and remained an influential voice arguing for internal change.
Nick takes over the BNP
Far from standing on the sidelines when Nick Griffin got elected to the BNP leadership in 1999, I immediately got involved and led the North End by-election campaign which provided the BNP with its best by-election result since I had left in 1996.
When soon afterwards the Party Treasurer and Deputy Chairman accused Nick Griffin of financial impropriety I backed out and set up the Freedom Party with some like minded people. However I didn’t ring a single BNP member or officer to persuade them to do anything. Nor did I make any public statements and I didn’t make any false allegations of theft against Nick Griffin. I did attend a meeting in Tipton organised by the Edwards’s. But I gave a very restrained speech as would be testified by anyone there. Tony Lecomber faced the hostile crowd, while Nick waited a short distance away. Simon Darby was not present. At the end Nick made a very undignified entrance and indeed got a very hostile reception, which given his performance that day was richly deserved.
The West Bromwich West by-election was in November 2000 not 2001.
The three sweep campaign technique was pioneered in Millwall not in 2003 when I rejoined the BNP. Nick won’t be aware of this as he never involves himself in detailed electioneering, which in any case soon developed into a four sweep, three re-knock campaign – but we are getting into details!
Paranoid accusations
The ‘editorial team’ then lapses into a series of ever more strident accusations. I am possibly a state agent or a Searchlight mole. I have stolen something (what isn’t mentioned), I have cheated (again no further details supplied), I am a bully (again no details) and a control freak. Then we get a lot of unsubstantiated paranoid rumours that I must have tried to encourage various previous leadership challenges, and the determined view that I must have also secretly supported Chris Jackson’s bid, with the rather sad observation that I didn’t help Nick in seeing off that rather minor threat to his crown.
Then the ‘editorial team’ moans that I was never sacked from my job. Well I am very sorry about that. Maybe it was because I was careful. I didn’t actually stand for election until the last few years. Despite me mentioning it in this blog the ‘editorial team’ still managed to get my job wrong, so clearly it wasn’t so well known to the rank and file. I did get generous holidays, but you do in Local Government (not the civil service) and I never went on actual holiday. I used all my holidays to do Party work, much to the disgust of my family.
I think if I had been a state agent or a Searchlight spy I would have demanded that they give me an income without having to go to work in an office in central London every day.
The Sadie Graham and Michaela McKenzie cases
Going on to the Sadie Graham case, I did indeed meet with them on Nick’s behalf to act as an honest broker. If Nick hadn’t acted like a fool in sending a gang round to rifle through her house when she was out then a lot of the bitterness may have been avoided but I was facing an uphill struggle. It is no shame on me that I tried to get agreement and failed. No one else bothered to offer to try and seek a compromise. If Nick wanted to avoid expensive legal cases he should have acted in a correct manner when dealing with people.
I half-succeeded in the Michaela McKenzie case as the Hancocks accepted a deal. Again I was the only one to offer to try. But as always I only find out about these things after Nick has already acted in an over hasty, aggressive and idiotic manner – when people have already become bitter.
I have had no contact at all with Kenny Smith. The last contact I had with him was via e-mail shortly after my attempt at mediation and it wasn’t friendly. Being a mediator is a thankless task as both sides invariably accuse you of acting in bad faith.
I certainly didn’t encourage Michaela McKenzie to take her case any more than I encouraged the Edwards’s to take their case. This really is paranoid stuff.
Electoral matters
Clive Jefferson it will be noted has never won an election campaign. The only region in Britain where our vote actually went down between the 2004 and 2009 European Elections was the North West, so his concentration on postal votes is not backed up by any record of success.
A request was never made that the by-election we missed out on by one vote be made a national target. The primary reason by-elections are lost is because the existing strategy is not applied. Clive doesn’t understand the existing strategy. This is despite me taking him under my wing and encouraging and promoting him. I say existing strategy – it isn’t the existing strategy any more as Clive is National Elections Officer so the proof in the pudding will be in the eating now.
The fact that we had two good by-elections on the same day caused a dilemma. Barnsley seemed more promising, not least because it was easier to mobilise activist there. Boston is an out of the way place. Nevertheless choices have to be made and sometimes they are wrong. That is life. Boston was fought by our well trained East Mids activists – who always follow the correct electoral plan. They came very close to winning while for some reason we were unable to capture the imagination in Barnsley. This is an occupational hazard. I have lost count of the number of times that Clive has talked up by-elections in Cumbria and we have shipped activists up there for us to receive 15% or something similar. He is keen but dreadfully inexperienced. He is also extremely ambitious.
I discussed the pros and cons of fighting the Norwich North by-election with Nick at length. The idea that I forced him to agree to fight it is ludicrous. The main reason we did it was to get practice in producing personalised election addresses. There were numerous problems such as the truth truck not being available, a lack of money, a house that we wanted staff members to stay at being switched (if I remember rightly the owner got cold feet). I had to scrounge every available standard leaflet and newspaper to get up there. They weren’t delivered late – I drove up with boxes of leaflets at the outset of the campaign. I never kept anyone waiting for an activity. I did drive up with two car loads of activists and had to turn back as no one would meet us with leaflets. However I readily concede that the campaign wasn’t a glorious success.
The ‘editorial team’ states that Nick was privately (read secretly) planning all along to replace me with Clive Jefferson. This is probably why I was excluded from the initial election planning meetings last November.
My paid role
Then the ‘editorial team’ deals with my paid role. For the record I was paid two days a week to act as a European researcher for Andrew Brons MEP, two days likewise for Nick Griffin MEP, half a day as National Organiser and half a day as National Elections Officer. My primary voluntary role was as Eastern Regional Organiser, although I obviously worked much more than the required hours in my paid roles.
This puts into its proper context whether I was in much of a position to bring in any organisational changes when I became a member of the paid staff (roughly last August). Even more so when every decision or initiative was vetoed by Jim Dowson (the real head of all departments), and a similar dead hand lay over attempts to improve our electoral performance. Jim Dowson effectively dictated our electoral strategy with Paul Golding.
A guest of Nick Griffin’s
On one slightly silly point the ‘editorial team’ says I stayed as a guest of Nick and Andrew Brons in Europe without so much as having to put my hand in my pocket. I went out there to work, not on a holiday to act as a guest. Furthermore when I went I stocked his house with food for everyone at my expense and also was the only member of staff who was expected to go and buy food and drink for the people there – and even a saucepan! I was the only member of staff who had the initiative to take other staff members out to Europe on Party business, funding it myself (although I did later claim most back).
The next silly point concerns Nick Erikson, who in an off the cuff conversation between me and Nick was briefly considered for a post as he had experience working in the European Parliament.
The Annual Conference
Then we come to last year’s annual conference. The venue had to be obtained at quite short notice as I was informed late in the day that there were problems with the usual Blackpool hotel. Frankly the catering this time was no better or worse than the previous year’s conferences. As the same venue is still used for North West Regional meetings it is a bit off the mark for the ‘editorial team’ to be so rude about the place. In any case the catering was negotiated with the owner by the North West Regional Organiser – Clive Jefferson.
Clive Jefferson
This was in fact an example of me encouraging Clive and giving him a greater role. I proposed him as North West Regional Organiser and as National Nominating Officer, and was involving him in many activities to give him experience. As Nick knows Clive ‘repaid’ my encouragement by spreading false and malicious stories about me as he wished to undermine my position and get my job – as has proven to be the case. My mistake was in being too trusting. Official warning letters were placed on Clive’s personal file as a result of the lies he was deliberately spreading. I feel sure that these false and malicious stories will be appearing on this blog soon enough – they have already appeared on two down market discussion forums (in fact the only two discussion forums/blogs which openly support Nick in the leadership challenge). Nick knows that is the reason why there was a problem with Clive.
The ‘editorial team’ fails to mention anyone that I have hounded from any office.
I did in fact back both Mike Howson and Walter Hamilton. As Nick knows, trying to expel people under the old constitution was a virtual impossibility so compromises had to be found.
Red White and Blue
I did not lose interest in the Red White and Blue. Up to my removal from my posts I was in fact actively arranging for it to be held this year in the same venue in Derbyshire with the correct permissions to allow caravans, music and alcohol sales. Nick knows this as I discussed the matter with him at length.
Booking venues
As for venue bookings I had found a very good negotiator (delegation is important if you want to get things done) who established a deal with a big national hotel chain for us to use a very good venue for the Annual Conference. This fell through as to build up a business relationship with them we used a hotel in their chain for a smaller event and they were not paid properly (there were embarrassing mix ups). Then we booked the same hotel for another small event and the bill wasn’t paid (it had to be paid in advance) and they cancelled on us and cancelled our Annual Conference booking as we were deemed bad payers. This was all caused by the incompetence of the Party Treasurer Dave Hannam. Hannam then panicked and quite improperly gave the volunteer negotiator the Party credit card details so future bookings wouldn’t be compromised.
A firm all inclusive booking for the November Annual Conference had been made with a very nice hotel, but this has fallen through due to the administrative chaos that resulted from my removal from post.
It was not my job to arrange Trafalgar Club venues. That is the job of Linzi Reynolds. I recall she booked a venue near York for next October’s TC dinner and it fell through, but that is an occupational hazard. I was looking at a different venue near York for the Annual Conference and that also fell through unexpectedly. A smaller venue was willing to take us in Scarborough and I provided Linzi with this information to be helpful (it was too small for the Conference but right for the TC). I happen to know for a fact that Linzi never got back in touch with that venue. I have no idea what hotel was booked for the abortive southern TC dinner – save that it was in the Oxford area. Earlier Jim Dowson hadn’t been confident that the southern TC event would take place (he was right in that regard) and had asked me if I could see if a suitable venue might be found. Through the good work of the volunteer negotiator several excellent venues were located that would take us in Portsmouth, and to be helpful these details were provided to Linzi. Portsmouth is of course the ideal TC location but the options were not taken up.
Paying Security
The ‘editorial team’ provide no evidence to show that I have ever said that we don’t need security. The reason I once said a security team would have to wait for their £20 travel expenses was that I didn’t have the money on me. I was not told I would need to pay them and so could not be expected to have the cash on me. This is yet another pitiful claim to make.
I did not set the mileage allowances. I know Jim Dowson was involved in the original decision.
PR events
I didn’t plan any PR events for the Equalities Commission case. I wasn’t told to leave anything alone by Jim Dowson. Jim is allegedly a Fund Raising consultant, so why would he be interfering in a PR event with respect to the Equalities Commission case anyway?
I have no idea what PR guidelines I objected to relating to a visit by Richard Barnbrook to Wootton Bassett, and I certainly didn’t ignore Paul Golding for a single week as I was unaware of any problem.
Stoke imprint
Regarding the imprint on the Stoke newspaper, it was the correct imprint and I was at pains to explain this to them at length and I also asked Clive Jefferson to take the matter up with the Stoke-on-Trent electoral services who were the cause of the confusion. I still have all the e-mails relating to this.
I did not plot to launch a pre-election coup. This is a pure invention.
Organising the Barking and Dagenham campaign
I did not organise the council campaign in Barking and Dagenham, although I assisted in both the Parliamentary and local campaigns there after my removal from my positions. I assisted with the leaflets for both these campaigns – which went on at the same time as each other. I am unaware that any of the propaganda was semi literate or sub standard. To confirm - the Barking and Dagenham local and Parliamentary campaigns ran in tandem. Although I helped after my removal I was in charge of neither.
Farage?
I had no involvement in the election address for Buckingham. Frankly however, an examination of previous election results showed that UKIP had no chance whatsoever of winning and I provided a wealth of evidence to Nick Griffin to back this up. Resources diverted into thwarting Farage in Buckingham would have taken resources from Barking and Dagenham. This was not practical or feasible and Farage’s end result fully justified this approach. Clearly I made no misjudgement. The South East Regional Organiser was also unwilling to divert attention to Buckingham
The Press Conference
Then we come to the press conference claim. At a planning meeting held in Brussels on 1st December we set the dates for two press conferences. One in Stoke was to be on 23rd April (St George’s Day). The other was to be on 20th April in Barking and Dagenham as it was the close of nominations and we could announce our total number of candidates which might have provoked a news story. This date was agreed by all present at the discussion, which included Nick Griffin, Jim Dowson and Paul Golding with no mention that it was also Hitler’s birthday (apparently). This is a desperate and truly pathetic claim to come out with and says more about those who make such a claim.
Provoking a fight?
I didn’t try to provoke a fight with Mark Walker – if I had I am sure I would have been given a reprimand and there were plenty of witnesses. It was not me that accused Adam Walker of taking his brother’s side against the Party – how would I have known that anyway.
Plotting?
Exactly what secret information did I leak to Jonathan Bowden? Details are not given.
I am not aware that Mark Collett (who is neither my special friend nor my co-conspirator) has admitted to stealing anything. If I was involved in a serious plot why wasn’t I arrested or even questioned?
I haven’t sent anyone as my personal representative to any secret meeting anywhere. Incidentally Michaela McKenzie’s case was not caused by me in any way. I tried but failed to clean up the mess caused by the actions of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson. I have no idea what the outcome will be.
The e-mail spat I had with Simon Bennett lasted one night and I did not make any threats. I do not have a close relationship with Simon Bennett and whatever the consequences were of his taking the website down, and whatever motivated him to do it is nothing to do with me.
My highly accurate and fair email bulletin was widely distributed and forwarded to members which is a very good thing. However I have not been ringing up members and officers nor have I been holding secret meetings. However there is nothing wrong with holding meetings, nor is there anything wrong if I do chose to ring up members and officers.
There are numerous interlocking reasons why we need a change of leadership. The contents of the blog I am reviewing here is another good reason as pretty much every paragraph is an outright lie. However the electoral failure (and the real causes of it), the financial mismanagement, the increasingly poor leadership, the leaders personal baggage – these are all factors. I would not leave any of them out of the equation.
Party Finances
Have I ever said the Party leader has access to a bank account? He does however have access to a credit card!
I have already published on this blog outline indications that the Party’s finances are open to question and need a clean bill of health. It is not necessary to repeat that overwhelming evidence here again. However, just to let readers know, the minutes of the AC meetings that are published on-line are ‘sanitised versions’. I could provide numerous e-mails and other evidence to show that AC members have frequently asked to see more detailed accounts and they have never been shown anything. One of the loudest moaners was Clive Jefferson! Jim Dowson has been saying that quarterly accounts would be presented to the AC for well over a year.
I have not been the beneficiary of Party wages and expenses throughout my career. Until I was taken on the payroll last August, I had never been paid a penny for anything and I never even submitted an expenses claim to the Party centrally or locally for a single penny.
I haven’t denigrated the AC. However many members are not independent as they are employees worried about their jobs (even more worried now due to recent ‘sackings’). All (except the councillor representative) are appointed and all can be removed by the Chairman on a whim.
Future elections
Cutting through the remaining paragraphs that are full of the usual paranoid accusations that any opponent of Nick Griffin is working for Searchlight, is one further silly remark – that all major elections will now be held under PR. They are fools if they think this. The London, Welsh and Scottish elections will be but it will be very difficult to get anyone elected under the system used. The European elections are every five years. As for Parliamentary elections, the Lib-Con coalition are talking about the AR system which is even more skewed against the chances of us winning a seat than the current system. Nick’s forward planning is based on a fake assumption. Local elections will remain as they are now and they will be (or should be) our bread and butter – so for us our major elections will not be held under PR.
I will sum up paraphrasing the ‘editorial team’s own words. By going down the route of lies, character assassination and bogus arguments, Nick has marked himself down now as wholly unsuitable to continue in the role as Party Chairman.
That this blog consists from beginning to end of outright lies shows that the ‘editorial team’ are desperate. If I am such an ogre then use the truth to expose me. This shows that Nick cannot be allowed to continue to rule for another three and a half years. It shows that he cannot be allowed to handpick his own successor.
This blog shows that if disaster happens and Nick continues to rule, then it is very likely that everyone who voted against him will be lied about, expelled or at best marginalised. If Nick wins the Party will be dreadfully split and almost destroyed.
The Party must come of age. This may mean electing a caretaker administration to amend the constitution and revitalise the Party to enable it to emerge again under clean new leadership. We need a leadership that embraces change and embraces the democratic process, instead of responding with lies and unfounded smears.

No comments:

Post a Comment