BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY Problems for the new leader – problems for us all AND THE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS

BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

Problems for the new leader – problems for us all

AND THE SIMPLE

SOLUTIONS

 

 

 

An urgent report for all members of the

Executive Council by

Nick Griffin, BNP President

 

 

CONTENTS

Summary of Key Problems ………………………………………………..……… Page 3

The Missing Minutes and Adam’s Incorporation Plan …………….……….…….. Page 4

Constitutional Reform Process …………………………………….……………… Page 5

Transparency and Probity in Wills ………………………………………………. Page 6

Deputy Leadership Elections …………………………………………………….. Page 9

The Plan to Sack James Mole ……………………………………………..……. Page 10

BNP Publicity as a Private Business ……………………….. ……………..…… Page 11

Staff Members Refusing to Respond to EC Members …………………….……. Page 12

Charlie Wythe and his P.R. Blunders …………………………………………… Page 13

Website Problems ……………………………………………………………….. Page 15

EU Money Issue ……………………………………………………..………….. Page 17

Bankruptcy Trustee Attack on the Party ………………………………………… Page 19

Wigton/Nuneaton – A One-Sided Factional War …………………………………Page 20

Inefficiency at Wigton ………………………………………………….……….. Page 22

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. .  Page 23

 

Appendices

Appendix 1. Letter from Adam Walker to Nick Griffin …………….…………. Page 24

Appendix 2. Various emails ……………………………………………………. Page 26

Appendix 3. Frank Hogarth, the non-nationalist axeman ………………………. Page 30

Appendix 4. Charlie Wythe’s Leadership Handover Statement Shambles ……… Page 35

 

Electronic Appendices attached

Web Comments; EU Money Problems; Trustee Threat to Party; Wigton Hoax; Angry Member.

 

 

 

KEY PROBLEMS

• The persecution and illegal hounding out of members of staff and key former workers

 

• The rapid dismantling of much of our organisational capacity

 

• Power grab by an overworked and under threat Wigton office

 

• Adam Walker’s unexplained plan to turn the BNP and/or its governing body into a Limited Company, “quickly”

 

• Unjust attempts to dump party financial obligations on individuals

 

• Appalling errors of judgement and failures by the Publicity and Website Departments

 

• Proposal to sack James Mole and centralise the handling of regional/local bank accounts

 

• Failure to notify Executive Council members of a serious and present legal threat to the party as a whole and possibly to them as individuals

 

• The extreme lack of transparency over the large number of Wills the party has secured in recent months

 

• Party debts, incurred primarily by Clive Jefferson and Adam Walker, now being reclaimed by the European Parliament are preventing former members of our EU team receiving their redundancy and other payments

 

• Refusal of the Chairman and Treasurer to discuss pressing matters with other Executive members

 

• The new Acting Leader’s ‘hands-off’ approach has transferred effective running of the party from a named, known and elected leader to whom concerns could always be taken, and put it in the hands of a small, self-selected and uncontactable clique.

THE MISSING MINUTES & ADAM WALKER’S “BNP Ltd” PLAN

 

Adam told us on 12^th August that the minutes would be ‘ready by the end of this week’.  More than a week has already passed but we still don’t have the minutes. Given that draft minutes are always a contemporaneous record of what happened, it is wholly unreasonable for there to be any delay at all.

Adam’s letter reflects one reason why I and others want to see the minutes, because his recollections are clearly faulty. The Executive Council never even discussed ‘incorporating itself’, and most definitely did not discuss – let alone vote in favour of – having such a power.

We did of course agree to remove the Chairman’s power to incorporate the party, not least because I pointed that the power had been inserted purely as a last ditch defensive measure while under attack from the Equality Commission and appeared no longer to have any possible value.  Neither Adam nor anyone else at the EC meeting gainsaid me on that.

I, and other EC members like me, would appreciate the Acting Chairman elaborating on why he thinks that the EC voted to do something it didn’t and why he believes this “can be done quickly”. Clearly from his wording it is something to which he and his advisors have considered since the meeting, and have perhaps even agreed it should be done, ‘quickly’. If there is a good reason for this fair enough, but it needs to be put to the EC properly and not bounced through with a faulty recollection of a vote that did not take place.

After all, with several large bequests either in or about to ‘drop’, I am sure we will all agree that, collectively, we have to ensure that the party’s (i.e. the members’) money, must not only be handled correctly but must also be seen to be handled correctly. Turning the EC into a Ltd Company just as the party finally gets a good cash reserve would certainly look rather odd unless explained carefully in advance, first to the EC and then, on its agreement, to the members as a whole.

 

SOLUTION: Adam should instruct Chris Barnett to send out the draft minutes of the EC meeting as taken on the day, immediately.

Convene an EC meeting at which Adam can explain to us why he believes that we need ‘quickly’ to turn the BNP’s leadership body into a Limited Company; then have the decision to do so or not made by the party’s democratically accountable governing body.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS

At the start of the last Executive Council meeting, while I was still leader, Adam proposed various moves to limit the Chairman’s powers and enhance those of the EC. We all trust that these proposals will still be in the minutes and will be carried out as promised.

A true set of minutes would show that the people the EC agreed would be going through the constitutional reforms were Adam and me – neither Clive Jefferson nor Pat Harrington were even mentioned in that regard, although of course any constructive proposals they have should be put to a fresh EC meeting as soon as possible.

Having given careful consideration to possible and necessary reforms I can say that in addition to removing the now obsolete surplus powers of the Chairman it is also necessary to positively strengthen the powers of the Executive Council.

Further, since powers which cannot be exercised would only be window-dressing for those actually running the show, a system should be put in place to make it practical for the EC to wield its powers.

The good news is that there are now sophisticated but very affordable teleconferencing systems available, complete with online project management software. Such a system can allow regular Executive meetings by phone and Internet. Our friends in the America First Party (you will remember Tom Sunic from our last Blackpool Conference) use such a system to allow their governing body to ‘meet’ once a week even though they live thousands of miles apart.

While the EC would still need to meet physically every few months, such regular contact would mean that the weekly meetings would be very much shorter yet still allow all concerned to play a full role in key decision-making. This would enable decisions on vital issues such as staff management, remuneration, publicity and the effective use of social media to be made transparently.

The Treasury would be required to provide management accounts every fourth meeting, thus giving the EC a monthly overview of the financial realities that inevitably constrain plans for the future.

While such an advance is now absolutely vital in the light of the problems of the last month, I would add that I had been pressing Clive for the best part of a year to agree to give me a budget to set it up, though he has stone-walled any action.   I will, however, bring detailed proposals for these and related reforms to the next Executive Council.

Finally on matters constitutional, I note that Adam has taken to referring to the EC as the ‘”Executive Committee”. The proper title is of course “Executive Council” and I find it worrying that an inaccurate and lighter-weight title is being used. The Executive Council is the BNP’s governing body.

SOLUTION: Continue and conclude the debate about the necessary changes at an early, full meeting of an unchanged Executive Council. Move to holding short, scheduled, weekly electronic EC meetings, in addition to the traditional quarterly meetings in person. Use Project Management software to monitor progress on carrying out the decisions of the Executive.

 

TRANSPARENCY AND PROBITY IN WILLS

I asked at the EC meeting for an update on the position with Wills remembering the party. Clive’s response was, from memory (I’m sure the minutes will record his answers faithfully) that he has about 25 actually in his file, with about another 20 in the pipeline and more steadily trickling in.

From his own account to me (before he started dodging issues and then stopped talking to me) I am aware that several very major wills are about to ‘drop’ – if indeed one or two have not already done so.

At a likely (going on recent experience) average of £200,000, some fifty Wills would equate to £10 million. Not all due in next week, but representing a statistically predictable income stream the bulk of which can be realistically expected over the next ten years. That’s a lot of money.

In the run-up to the EU Election, when Clive and I were still on speaking terms, I complimented him on doing such a good job pushing to get all these wills in. Then I went on to say that the actual set up whereby no-one but him had any oversight of them would, if more widely known, put him at risk of being accused of stealing or preparing to steal large amounts of money.

Clive told me that he agreed and that it was something we should put right after the Election. Not long after that conversation, however, he effectively cut off contact and became extremely negative.

Accordingly, I wrote to the head of the Financial Scrutiny Committee and also to Adam (Appendix 2) shortly after the changeover, setting out my concerns and the outline of a solution to ensure financial probity.

“Dear Geof

 

I write to you in your capacity as head of the Financial Scrutiny Committee to draw your attention to a party finance matter which has the potential to cause very serious problems, though fortunately it can be rapidly rectified.

 

You may recall that at the EC meeting I asked Clive how many wills the party now has and that he replied slightly vaguely but along the lines of 26 fully in hand, and a total of about 45 nearly sorted and a few visits to make about other will-writing requests.

 

Now around fifty wills at a likely average of £200,000 each is £10 million. With more to come that could in due course yield getting on a million pounds a year.

 

About six weeks ago I spoke with Clive about this and told him that examining this and putting in checks and balances was a vital post-election job. Now I am of course a power- and money-crazed paranoid but it now strikes me that his sudden switch to not talking or working with me, and his very disruptive and unfounded fantasy of me wanting to close down Wigton started from then on.

 

Be that as it may, the facts are these:

 

Calls or letters about wills arrive on Clive’s desk. Clive goes to see the prospects and writes their wills. He is often named as sole Executor.

 

Once we have a will in the bag, the only person other than Clive who knows is his long-term girlfriend who calls the will authors every couple of weeks to keep them happy.

 

When someone dies notification of that is sent to Clive and Clive alone. In the case of wills with other executors, payments are sent to Clive, potentially in his personal name. Where he is Executor he has the power to vary wills without consulting or informing anyone.

 

If money comes in to the party from Clive wearing his wills hat, it is then accepted and recorded by Clive as party treasurer. No one else sees the will, probate details or the accounts of the legacy.

 

I believe that, in terms of temptation, opportunity for wrong-doing, vulnerability to even unjustified allegations and damage to the confidence of potential legators, this situation dwarfs the one of bank account signatories which you very properly raised on Saturday and which, as you know, I addressed immediately you drew it to our attention.

 

The answer to the wills risk is, fortunately, very simple:

 

1) Anyone securing a will mentioning the BNP should be under a duty to pass the original to you or the leader for safe-keeping, with a copy to the other;

 

2) All material advertising for wills should say that on receipt of one the legator will receive a personal letter of thanks from the party leader;

 

3) The next EC should be notified of the will;

 

4) The job of calling legators to keep them sweet should be shared between two ladies alternating calls. At least one of them should have no relationship to the will writer;

 

5) When we receive notification that one of the legators has died, the FSC should have oversight of the entire probate process and report to the leader and EC on all developments.

 

You may well be able to add to this list of basic safeguards.

 

While writing, there is an actual financial impropriety of which I was made aware last week which also requires your attention and Adam’s action and/or a rapid EC decision:

 

When we launched the Enoch Bulldog mascot, Alwyn was immediately contacted by people wanting to buy models. When he asked Charlie Wythe for the artwork so Excalibur could rush it into production he was told that it does not belong to the BNP but is Charlie’s personal property.

 

Needless to say, no such agreement was ever made and would never have been tolerated. He has been very well paid for several years by both me for EU work and the party for BNP work.

 

Alwyn, by contrast, receives a pittance from the party and was passed Excalibur specifically to subsidise his party work.

 

I am sure you will agree that this situation needs to be rectified very quickly and that Charlie’s claim is yet another example of a judgement that is so immature or self-centred that his ‘powers’ need curbing very rapidly.

 

I ask you to investigate these points and to inform Adam and, when you deem appropriate, the EC of your recommendations.”

 

Geof Dickens replied immediately asking how the situation had come about and saying that he was aware of charities having triple safeguards when it came to probity in bequests, and that this is not complicated to ensure.

When Adam replied to me some days later he fobbed me by ignoring my specific points and saying that he has checked the wills and is happy with their wording and the entire situation.

Well, as BNP President I am not, and I urge all EC members to give particularly careful consideration to the fact that, as sole Executor, Clive is able to VARY wills, at his sole discretion. That means, in layman’s terms, to take a will made out to the BNP and give it to someone else – without any of us knowing.

I recently found out from Angus Matthys that on several occasions when he (in his role as trigger man on Treasury payments) didn’t have enough money in the normal party accounts to pay absolutely vital bills, Clive made transfers of thousands of pounds from a secret account into which he had paid money from a Will he had varied to avoid death duty liabilities – and about which Clive never consulted or informed me as elected party Leader.

Strangely, such variation to avoid tax is, I was told a long time ago by Clive in connection with the Robson will, entirely legal, so I am certainly not criticising that specific decision. But I do flag up the risks in a situation where a Treasurer has so much power and where he saw fit to exercise that power without even telling the party Leader or the Executive Council. Clearly that money was handled honestly and I am sure that it has been accounted for.

But is it really possible to accept one man having a complete stranglehold on information about bequests totalling millions of pounds, and so much say on where money goes and who gets to know about it? Are we happy not knowing if the BNP really IS ‘brassic’ or if a major bequest has not already fallen into Treasury’s lap?

We have no way of telling, of course, because now Angus has been removed from all the accounts the finances are handled by Clive with limited oversight only from Frank Hogarth, the non-nationalist, the non-member Adam has promoted to Staff Manager and is using to remove Alwyn Deacon and others.

Even if we were happy about this, I can tell you that our members and most potential testators would not. If this were to get out before it is put right (and, to be fair to Clive, we are rather victims of our own success here because most of these Wills have only come in over the last few months) then it would devastate the party’s existing Wills base and put off future possible legators.

SOLUTION: The EC should, as a matter of urgency, debate and adopt as decided appropriate my safeguards together with proposals from the Financial Scrutiny Committee based on knowledge of standard best practice among charities.

DEPUTY LEADERSHIP ELECTIONS

 

One immediate reform which I proposed and which was unanimously agreed was the rapid holding of an election for a Deputy Leader. As all who were present will recall, the EC concluded that this should be set in motion immediately. I am sure that Adam will have given further thought to this so we need to know why the principle of this has not already been announced and how the operation is to be run.

This is particularly important given the Acting Leader’s own, unavoidable, lack of any democratic mandate. I know that the delay is bothering Pete Malloy in particular, and am sure that he is not alone, although Clive and Charlie’s plan to make Dawn Charlton their Deputy Leader is not likely to please a lot of people who think they have far too much power already.

 

SOLUTION: Adam should set out his proposals so the EC can consider, modify and adopt them as seen fit. It must be up to the members to choose the Deputy Leader under a system that is scrupulously honest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PLAN TO SACK TRUSTED REGIONAL TREASURER JAMES MOLE

The head of the Financial Scrutiny Committee, Geof Dickens has expressed his shock and dismay at Clive’s new proposal to axe James Mole as Regional Treasurer.  Everyone else who has heard of it has had the same reaction.

James is universally trusted by local Fund-Holders and Organisers to keep their money safe and ring-fenced. The good working relationships he has built up over years with all the Fund-Holders is absolutely crucial to our having all the figures available to enable prompt and accurate completion of the accounts for the Electoral Commission.

Logically, if this appalling decision is bulldozed through, James’s work will be taken over either by the now un-contactable Clive Jefferson or by the non-nationalist and largely unknown book-keeper-turned-heavy-handed ‘Staff Manager’ Frank Hogarth (see page 20 and Appendix 3). In either cse, the essential safeguard of the separation of power over central and regional/local funds would be destroyed.

To sabotage in the way proposed such a vital part of our organisation and of the party’s collective confidence in transparent accounting is an insane proposal. But, as with the other issues raised here, such an important decision (in advance, not grudging ratification of a fait accompli) must in any case be made by the Executive Council.

If unavoidably drastic financial cuts have to be made, they should be identified and formally proposed by Treasury, but such delicate decisions should not bulldozed through on the whim of the very same people who would gain power as a consequence. All such decisions must be made by the EC after proper discussions and taking into account not just short-term financial arguments but also longer term political considerations which may trump them.

 

SOLUTION: Leave James Mole in post and preserve the separation of powers checks and balances that we have worked so hard to establish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLICITY DEPT AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS

For most of this year, I was continually pressing Charlie Wythe to produce a proper range of new national leaflets.  He continually promised them and we worked on concepts and draft content together on a number of occasions, but each time it came to nothing. The same delays have also been common with Freedom and even with BN.

From part way through the Election campaign until the day I stepped aside, Charlie’s excuse was that he was “too busy promoting our Facebook ratings” to produce the leaflets for which our activists were screaming, while Clive repeatedly put off even getting reprints of existing out of stock leaflets. The resulting shortages, of course, were conveniently blamed on the party leader and, with hindsight, I should have been much stricter with them – perhaps a bit of ‘micromanagement’ would have been a good idea!

As soon as the Election rush was over I stepped up the pressure for new leaflets. On 6^th July, for instance, I asked via Viber “Is new leaflet (an anti-Islamisation one we had worked on) finished. We must get it and another to press this week. One linking the massive Westminster paedo scandal with privatisation fraud. Your detergent bottle (clean up British politics) on our positive side. Our folk will love it”.

We’re still waiting, although at least the first leaflet that Mr. Wythe and I worked on several months ago is – according to an email bulletin that has just arrived – now under production. So returning to looking ahead, I ask now formally on behalf of other EC members whose activists are desperate for leaflets but also now dismayed by the virtual abandonment of the Facebook operation, three simple questions:

1)         Exactly what has Charlie Wythe been doing over the last month? Belatedly finishing off one anti-Islamist leaflet that he and I worked on two months ago really doesn’t count!

2)         When are the other new leaflets on which he and I worked after the Election, but which he refused to finish and failed to bring to the EC meeting as instructed, finally going to appear? When, for that matter, are the leaflets agreed at Conference two years ago and for which he took away all the notes of ideas put forward by our activists finally going to appear?

3)         Given Charlie’s recent poor judgement in publicity matters and tendency to be out of touch with our grass roots and with public opinion in Britain, will the draft leaflets be put to the EC for approval or improvements before being sent to print?

It was only a few days before the changeover that I learnt to my amazement and shock that Charlie Wythe has been charging local units £50 a time to adapt their election leaflets. Considering he at the same time has failed to deliver the long-promised online adaptable leaflet system which would allow them to produce their own master copies for free, this is a completely unacceptable situation.

Coupled with his refusal to hand the ‘Bulldog Enoch’ design over to Alwyn to put into production for sale, on the grounds that design work done in our time and with our members’ money somehow nevertheless becomes the personal property of Mr Wythe, one has to see uncomfortable parallels with Mark Collett here.

SOLUTION:  The whole issue of the Publicity Department must be urgently considered and decided upon by the Executive Council.

 

STAFF MEMBERS REFUSING TO RESPOND

 

Adam tells us all to speak to Department Heads and not to expect him to ‘micro-manage’ such relationships. He tells me and others to ‘mend’ the bridges that they have burnt. Unfortunately, a number of Executive Council members, members of staff and others are finding that Clive Jefferson and Charlie Wythe have made themselves un-contactable.

Whatever Adams intention in this matter, it means that in practice Treasury and Publicity – despite being paid with members’ money to be available and to sort problems out – are completely unaccountable and unchallengeable over the problems they are causing.

When the Acting Leader refuses to take action to call his department heads to account when they make mistakes and treat other EC members and loyal activists like dirt, this means that leadership passes by default into the hands of the very clique who are to blame for the problems in the first place. In the absence of fair and decisive leadership, the party has within a month moved to being an unaccountable and short-sighted dictatorship of shadowy, backstabbing cowards, who hide behind the non-members they appoint to do their bidding.

 

SOLUTION: An Executive Council meeting at which the Department heads in question have a chance to explain themselves and the EC is able to set down procedures for Department heads to follow. Messrs Wythe and Barnet should bring their work logs so these can be examined by their employers on behalf of the members who pay their wages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLIE WYTHE & HIS P.R. BLUNDERS

The last time I heard from Charlie Wythe was over the woeful statement he put out about the handover on Monday 21^st July. This was either a shocking misjudgement by him or a cynical attempt to give the mass media an opportunity to paint a picture of a divided party in order to highlight the leadership change as part of a ‘rebranding’ exercise.

If it was a mistake, then Adam’s decision to give Mr. Wythe total control of our publicity output was also a grave error. If it was deliberate, then it involved Charlie going way beyond his remit. The EC clearly wanted to put across the image of a ‘united party’ moving forward as one – something which my very well-received statement helped to achieve, although it has of course all been sabotaged since.

The appallingly arrogant and wrong-headed diktat Charlie sent to me, together with shutting Jennifer and others out (Appendix 4) would in itself have sparked a public row in the party and turned a completely amicable transition into a civil war with virtually anyone other than me. But I kept my anger private for the good of the party.

If Charlie didn’t know how dangerous his diktat was, he clearly lacks the experience to be entrusted with the power he at present has. If he knew, but went ahead anyway, then all EC members should give some consideration as to why he (and presumably others) felt willing and able to risk a flare-up that would have shattered party morale and utterly crushed fund-raising efforts at a critical time, and torpedo an otherwise completely amicable handover?

As with the proposed sacking of James Mole, if we are really as hard-up as we have been told (and lacking management accounts we have no way of knowing) then why would anyone in their right minds sanction a course of action that is liable to reduce normal income to practically zero?

As a matter of fact, I do not think that the Charlie Wythe terse statement was a mistake, because other members of the new leadership, principally Clive and Adam, spent the whole day stonewalling me and helping Messrs Wythe and Barnett avoid publishing my statement on our website until after most of the following days newspapers would have been written. This suggests that they had between themselves decided that newspaper headlines screaming “Griffin axed in BNP coup” would for some reason or other be a good idea.

The two different sorts of reports resulting from the very different Wythe/Griffin statements are shown well by the two pieces of press coverage in Appendix 4.

Maybe Charlie and a couple of others think that the results he achieved were better than those secured by my statement. It is certainly notable that no reference was made to my statement in the last BN, despite the hugely positive reactions it got on our website and the fact that, objectively, it would have been good for the morale of our older members who are not online.

I suggest that its omission from the subsequent BN was an error, but that is for the EC to decide when they consider whether or not to leave Charlie Wythe in charge of our entire PR operation.

Charlie has passed us some very good graphic design work, but his political judgement is immature and will lead to more trouble in the future. Not so long before the elections he nearly provoked a major rift with key members of BNP Youth and BNPtv by taking it upon himself to try to censor the very moderate, mainstream nationalist, criticism of the militant ‘gay’ lobby in the hugely popular BNP Youth video.

Our apparent but unconfirmed web editor Chris Barnett is of course quite entitled to cite homosexual computer geek Alan Turing as his personal hero, but neither he nor anyone else is entitled to use their power to manoeuvre for a watering down of long-standing party policy of open support for the heterosexual family and the institution of marriage. He did the party enough damage with his ‘Alfred’ failure, without now being allowed to mismanage the website.

Charlie Wythe and I argued a number of times in the run up to the Election over his opinions that the party should ‘soften’ its attitudes not just on defending marriage and childrens’ rights from the militant homosexual lobby, but also on issues such as criticising immigrant criminality and future trials for the present political elite. as he says that such things “frighten the public”.

From comments by Adam on the website recently, I am pleased to see that he agrees wholeheartedly with the traditional BNP position on homosexuality and with trials and justice for the criminal elite. I also have no reason to doubt his wholehearted defence of our traditional ethno-nationalist principles.

The problem is that he has put in charge of the website (our most powerful educational, as well as publicity, tool) a pair of individuals whose views on these subjects and what we should say about them are at odds with those of the party majority.

 

SOLUTION: The question the EC needs to decide is whether Charlie Wythe and Chris Barnett are the best people to be making BNP policy and Public Relations decisions. If not, they should be replaced forthwith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEBSITE PROBLEMS

The shocking impact of the new ‘team’ on our website and Facebook operation is self-evident.

From having several up-to-the-minute topical news-related stories per day, and fresh articles of various sorts going up every few hours, the site spent weeks reduced to little more than frequent recycling of old articles of mine (without attribution) and rehashings of “Adam’s” email messages. While a couple of new writers now appear to have come forward, news items (the things that really draw traffic because people want to see what the BNP has to say on current affairs) have effectively ceased to appear.

The collapse of comments on articles clearly reflects the resulting slump in readership, although this is also influenced by the fact that whoever is now ‘moderating’ the site (attempts to find out who have been stonewalled by Chris Barnett) has barred large numbers of commentators from the site.

There does not seem to be any coherent pattern to these bans, which create serious amounts of ill-will. Members of very different ‘wings’ of the BNP’s traditionally ‘broad church’ have been shut out, usually without explanation or warning. Yet despite this there are many appalling and politically dangerous and organisationally divisive comments being allowed through (Appendix File Web Comments)

What on earth is going on when the EC discusses and broadly agrees proposals to ‘modernise’ the party but the supposedly pro-‘moderate’ web editor and head of publicity then allow moderators to post comments favourable to the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler, together with links to the thoroughly anti-BNP Western Spring website.

Other comments allowed through have been sympathetic to links between the BNP and the EDL, plugs for Paul Weston’s equally Zionist Liberty GB and calls for a BNP Friends of Israel, while also allowing through disgraceful neo-con attacks on President Putin.

To allow the proliferation of both pro-Israel and pro-Hitler posts on the BNP website would appear to take a special sort of stupidity, guaranteed between them to offend virtually everybody. Taken as a whole, while there are still some good articles written by volunteers, the website is now a disjointed mishmash of simultaneous extremism and liberalism.

If someone was trying to make it deliberately off-putting to normal people coming to it, for example, to see what the BNP had to say about the murder of James Foley, they couldn’t do a better job. The answer, by the way, is ‘nothing’, because topical, popular news comment has effectively ceased.

Adam maintains that such things will be dealt with in due course and that I am wrong to describe them as ‘urgent’.

Well, since the Acting Leader thinks that the collapse of our website and the proliferation of politically poisonous comments is not urgent, while the President who made him Deputy and hence Acting Leader believes it (together with other issues) is very urgent,  it is surely time for the Acting Chairman to heed the calls of other EC members including Pete Malloy and Alwyn Deacon, and hold another Executive Council meeting rapidly so that the EC can decide who is right.

I draw to the EC’s attention my offer to Adam within 48 hours of his becoming Acting Leader that I was, and remain, willing to take on the job of editing the website and managing the writing and moderating teams.

The only condition is that Chris Barnett should be returned to doing purely technical work, at which –  his ‘Alfred’ fiasco notwithstanding – he has some ability, and that Charlie Wythe should be put back to work providing leaflets, Facebook images and other publicity items, rather than attempting to direct overall publicity policy. They’ve both had their chance, and failed dismally.

The current publicity department fiasco, of course, does not end with the decline of the current website. For months before stepping aside, I had a running battle with Charlie Wythe over his refusal to prioritise the production of leaflets or Freedom. At first his long-running excuse for never having the time to produce the recruitment leaflets that are the BNP’s lifeblood was that he was “too busy working on the new website”.

He and Clive have supposedly been working on a new website for more than two years, paying (so I was told) three different companies many thousands of pounds to do a total redesign on a completely new and more user-friendly platform than Chris Barnett’s Drupal system. Yet the party has seen nothing for all that investment of time and money, despite it coming at the expense of the non-appearance of the conventional publicity material that is so important to our members’ morale and to new recruitment drives.

Meanwhile, the huge potential of our Facebook site, explored very successfully by Charlie Wythe and myself during the later stage of the Election campaign, is now once again being left undeveloped. Clive’s unethical practice of buying Facebook likes cannot conceal the actual regression of the party’s page in recent weeks.

The pattern is the same as with the Social Toaster Online Activists’ system – initial enthusiasm and effective involvement from Charlie Wythe, big publicity puffs for our success and then, having marched our people to the top of another hill, it is simply abandoned. The same is true, of course, of the disjointed slash’n’burn fund-raising appeals in which the BNP asks for money for specific items – digital duplicators, for example – and the Treasurer then refuses to spend any of the money raised for the purpose for which it was given. No wonder morale is low in many areas.

 

SOLUTION:  The EC should discuss the whole question of website and publicity department problems, together with social media and fund-raising issues, and appoint whoever it sees fit to sort them out along guidelines that it sets.

 

Project management reviews are needed to ensure that we are consistent and that promises and opportunities are followed up.

 

 

 

 

 

EU MONEY ISSUES

As a result of Tina Wingfield’s complaints to the European Parliament (EP), an investigation by the Anti-Fraud Squad OLAF has now resulted in a number of claims from the EP for money back.

The total being claimed by the EP is £21,145.48. As is shown by the attached sheet (Appendix File EU Money Problems) only two of the items being reclaimed relate in any way to me personally. These are the £3,524,23 spent through the English Fair Fund (a sum I dispute on grounds of Parliamentary rules) and a total of £691.25 paid to my younger daughters for databasing petition info and doing the donkey work of huge MEP Christmas card mailings.

The rest, a total of £16,930, is all directly down to decisions made by BNP Treasury. Several of the sums are open to dispute/negotiation and for several months prior to recent events I was imploring Clive to discuss the issues with me and help to minimise the actual amount that is going to have to be repaid.

I have been in negotiations with the EP bureaucrats and it is entirely possible, for example,

In addition to the sums shown on the OLAF sheet, also note from the other attached sheets that the EP is seeking to recover “all Mr Walker’s travel expenses” and wages claimed from the EU by Adam Walker and Clive Jefferson for work that was actually done for the BNP, totalling £2,371.50.

It may be possible to argue successfully that nothing should be paid back for Clive’s wages as his work logs clearly shows a large amount of unpaid overtime on EP work, but Adam’s work log for me clashed so badly with the one he submitted for Andrew Brons that his account has zero credibility. The simple fact therefore is that either Adam or the BNP should repay the £1,323 in wages wrongly taken by Adam.

Likewise, Clive’s selling and reselling of equipment between the BNP and my Euro office has produced a non-negotiable claim of £8,050.

The problem that this dumps on me and my EU staff is that the EP is now withholding many thousands of pounds of redundancy payments for staff members, out-of-pocket expenses payments for me personally and my closing office budget, until this problem is addressed.

Clive’s response has been to refuse to discuss the problems that his actions caused. Adam’s has been to pass the buck to Pat Harrington, who has produced a short ‘holding letter’ but otherwise no response for the EP as was agreed. And, in any case, what can actually be said when a fraud investigation has taken place, problems have been uncovered and the investigatory body has pinned most of the blame firmly on the BNP Treasurer and demanded the money back together with a fine?

On behalf of my former staff as well as myself, I therefore have to ask that the EC as a whole sets aside time to examine this issue and to come up with its collective decision as to where we go from here.

I note in closing on this point Adam’s recent commendable comment that “the BNP looks after its own.” I have always believed the same thing, which is why I argued that Adam should, as soon as finances allow, be repaid the £17,000 he was left out of pocket after his unsuccessful action against Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education. Clive Jefferson and Pat Harrington were adamant that this money should not be repaid to Adam by the party on the grounds that he had allegedly been advised by them not to bring the action.

I took the view that Adam had acted on behalf of nationalists everywhere by making a personal stand against Gove. To fail to support a leading and long-standing member in such as way would, I believed, have drastically undermined the party’s moral standing and the confidence of all our members, so one of the last decisions I made as leader was to instruct Clive that Adam would be paid that money as soon as the first of several expected wills came in and made it possible.

I will be asking the EC to take a similar view in favour of those who have been left unable to receive money to which they are entitled as a result of this set of problems and of other legal actions. Simon Darby, for example, remains out of pocket over his settling of the final Smith case bill and – I believe – payments he made for the party while Treasurer as the Brons trouble was brewing. It would be monstrous if individuals who have been taken to hell and back – and paid the bills – for this party were to be left high and dry on the grounds of expediency.

While I do of course appreciate that the party needs all the money it can secure, we must at the same time understand that honour and doing the right thing by our people is of even higher value – not least because being seen to do the right thing, every time, will encourage others to leave the party money in the future.

 

SOLUTION: The Executive Council should be presented with a full list of who is out of pocket on behalf of the party and to what extent, decide who is to be repaid what in due course, and provide the guarantees that agreed monies will be repaid when the receipt of bequests makes it possible to do so without endangering the party’s financial stability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ATTACK ON PARTY

This is an issue of critical importance to all EC members personally.

When I was bankrupted – exclusively over BNP-related legal bills – it was clear from the writings of the Freedom Party founder Adrian Davies that in due course the plan was to use the indemnity clause in the BNP constitution to go for the party.

Appendix File Trustee Threat to Party is the letter from the Trustee’s solicitor (a big corporate firm, I might add) which has more recently confirmed that this is indeed the case. Whether this will be in terms of the winding up order against the party often discussed by Davies, or an attack on individual members of the Executive (the Leader in particularly), is as yet unclear.

I have for months been urging the Treasurer to release funds to take proper legal advice before the problem hits us, rather than waiting until the last minute and doing a shoddy job in an urgent panic. Nothing, however, has been done. More recently I have put the problem to Adam but he has refused to discuss the danger with me.

He and Clive appear to believe that the bankruptcy is my problem and that if I can simply be driven out the debts will go with me. This is not only immoral, it would also set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for the future. Worse, it is a legal nonsense – the entire party and the EC in particular are at grave risk of being dragged into another disastrously expensive and uncertain legal action, yet our new ‘leadership’ either has its head in the sand or for some reason just doesn’t care.

There is a good defence to the indemnity issue, because the problem was foreseen even as the constitution was changed. The problem is that Clive appears to have lost the waiver that I signed at the time, or at least for some reason of his own is refusing to supply a copy plus the copies of previous constitutions to the Trustee’s solicitor. And, as is now routine, he refuses even to talk about the problem.

If they are supplied promptly with these documents, the Trustee should see that it’s a dead-end and make a commercial decision to resist the politically motivated demands of the main creditors for action against the party.

But if all they get is continued silence, it is inevitable that they will assume that the party is vulnerable and launch a fresh legal assault. That is likely to cost at least £100,000 to defend, let alone the hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be claimed if the action succeeds.

It is no exaggeration to say that the party has rarely faced such a grave financial and organisational danger, but Adam has said that there is no urgency and that EC members – despite their potential (though fortunately remote to the nth degree) personal liability – need not be told about it.

 

SOLUTION: An urgent, full Executive Council meeting to which Clive Jefferson is instructed to bring all the paperwork required to block the Trustee’s attack, and at which everyone can hear and discuss the whole situation and decide how best to deal with it. Seek proper legal advice.

 

WIGTON/NUNEATON – A ONE-SIDED FACTIONAL WAR

There never was a plan to close the Wigton office, despite the month or more of relentless negativity from Clive Jefferson when he was telling all and sundry that there was. Appendix File Wigton Hoax provides the documentary evidence that Clive deliberately lied not just then, but also to us all at the last EC meeting, having set Angus up as the fall-guy in an attempt to hide his own culpability for the landlord’s decision not to renew the office lease in Wigton.

Whether or not it is possible – as Clive has claimed – to get the landlord to change his mind remains to be seen. But for Clive, who has a clear personal interest in having everything under his control, to set about closing the Nuneaton office without so much as a by-you-leave to the EC is a serious abuse of power. And to close the one office where the party definitely has security of tenure, at a time when the future of the other is, at best, extremely uncertain, is nothing short of grotesque.

This is particularly true because the shocking way in which Nuneaton is being shut (Appendix 3) means we will not merely lose an efficient unit complete with experienced and reliable volunteers.

Responsibility for the long unexpired lease is apparently being dumped on Alwyn personally, while both Alwyn and Angus have received disciplinary letters from the new non-nationalist Staff Manager, Frank Hogarth, who among other things objected to their doing a mass mailing for Croydon BNP’s anti-mosque campaign.

From the latest email bulletin sent out from Wigton, it also appears that the Burnley office is to be shut. If this has been agreed in advance with Burnley and BNPtv then it’s fair enough, but if it is another heavy-handed, penny-pinching diktat then it’s just another example of the short-sighted or destructive decisions of the newly empowered Jefferson regime.

Their axe man Mr Hogarth has now accused Angus Matthys of theft for the ‘crime’ of someone else having used his personal credit card to pay Wigton bills and has called him to a disciplinary hearing for allegedly ‘not working’ when Pat Harrington, also acting on Clive’s behalf, had previously put him on “gardening leave” because “it’s better to keep Angus away from Clive at present”. (Appendix 3)

Such heavy-handed provocation and injustice makes it likely that Adam and the party will face Employment Tribunal claims from formerly key workers who are being abused and provoked beyond endurance.

It also makes it certain that we will lose entirely the capacity to run a full-on election campaign, because Alwyn and his volunteer team have been at the heart of all such operations for years. Their experience and goodwill, once so carelessly cast aside, cannot be replaced by the overworked and already overstretched skeleton staff in Wigton.

Appointing Dawn Charlton head of administration when the quality of data coming out of the already overworked Wigton office is guaranteed to lead to trouble in future. Dawn is a tremendous activist and is brilliant on the phones, so to take her off things she is good at and to put her in a position where she will be out of her depth, is cruel as well as stupid.

For that matter, putting all the party’s eggs in the Wigton basket when Clive Jefferson faces two major operations or the loss of his leg, and when the strains of Treasury – and charitably that is the root of the problem – have already turned him into a foul-tempered, paranoid recluse, is foolish beyond belief.

Appointing Frank Hogarth – non-member and  previously merely our very much part-time book-keeper – as Staff Manager, without discussing such an important post, remuneration for the work or its terms of reference with the EC, is clearly beyond the terms of the Chairman’s newly restricted powers as proposed by Adam Walker at the start of the last EC meeting.

Politically, one also has to ask how our teams in the West Midlands will react once they learn what has been done to Alwyn? Rather, I imagine, as our people in the East Midlands will react if the decision to sack James Mole is followed through, and as people all over the country will react if Adam falls into the habit of appointing new organisers over the heads of Regional Organisers, as he did last week in Bristol.

Quite simply, if Adam and the Executive Council do not come together to make a stand against the hounding out of individuals who are for some reason now regarded as surplus to requirements (in several cases because the BNP owes them considerable sums of money and in all cases because they are not part of the current ‘in crowd’) then why would anyone in their right minds ever again put themselves out, or in the firing line, for the party?

The whole situation is particularly foolish from Adam’s point of view because the clique he is allowing to use him as a front-man actually hold him in contempt. A matter of weeks ago they were, as already noted, all for refusing to pay his Gove action bill. The minute he is no longer useful they’ll turn on him as brutally as they already have on Alwyn and others.

 

SOLUTION: An independent member of the EC who clearly has no axe to grind (I suggest Geof Dickens) should be given the phone number of the Wigton landlord so we can be told the truth about prospects there when the lease expires next month. The Executive Council can then make an informed decision on the future of the party’s entire administrative structure.

In the meantime, Frank Hogarth should be instructed to stay in his home doing the part-time book-keeping work for which he was taken on, and to keep out of internal party matters. Yes, economies may well be needed, but if Clive or anyone else wants to sack colleagues under false pretences, they should do so face-to-face, so that the EC can subsequently hold them to account for it.  Sensibly, of course, decent people should not be sacked by anyone, and the EC should take control of the management of party changes.

 

 

 

 

 

INEFFICIENCY AT WIGTON

Wigton’s overstretched inefficiency is already known throughout the party. However the individuals involved may huff and puff to the contrary, the database and related systems have not worked properly since Jennifer went on maternity leave and her enormous weekly workload was shared out between the Call Centre staff, one of whom then left.

These problems are the reason I attempted to hold a meeting with Wigton staff and others early in July, and why I tried to have the whole issue of job allocations discussed at the last Executive Council meeting, only to have it blocked by lies from one member of the Wigton group and near hysteria from another.

The inability/refusal of people in Wigton even to return calls from core members and officials is already notorious and the problem will explode if on top of everything else they also take over Alwyn’s and Angus’s workloads.

Already, as a result of the current self-destructive purge of loyal and experienced members, we have the Call Centre staff and the new party Leader all scrambling to do (badly) a mail out that Angus has for several years now done routinely and without fuss on his own. No wonder there is no time for fund-raising calls!

On top of that, there is the large amount of web and data tidying work that Jennifer was still doing voluntarily while on maternity but from which she was shut out without even being told by Charlie Wythe and Chris Barnett just one day after I stepped aside.

The scanned letter in Appendix File Angry Member gives just one example of the sort of loss of goodwill that the overwork/arrogant disregard for members that is becoming all too common in Wigton is now producing.

Of course, no-one is perfect and complaints will always be made about all Departments and offices. This is why I came to the last EC meeting with a proposal to raise under Any Other Business that we should appoint a dedicated and independent Complaints Officer. The fact that the proposal was not, under the circumstances, put forward, does not mean that it should not be done quickly now.

 

SOLUTION: The Executive Council needs to have the rational, informed discussion about staffing and the allocation of core jobs which was blocked at the last meeting.

An independent Complaints Officer should be appointed, with the authority to press for problems to be dealt with and a slot to report on any which are not near the start of each EC meeting. Lynne Mozar has volunteered to do this and as her voice and contribution are well-known as a result of years of World@8, she would I suggest be ideal for the job.

 

 

CONCLUSION

What at first seemed to be mistakes are now forming so much of a pattern of grotesque mismanagement that several of the very limited number of people who so far know about it are asking if it is not in fact a deliberate ‘wrecking job’.

Perhaps there’s so much Wills money in the immediate offing that a little group of people have decided to carve it up amongst themselves and that they can afford the organisational collapse they will cause by purging the party of anyone who might object?

Perhaps one or two have now been suborned or coerced into following another agenda? Certainly the errors and unprovoked gang warfare of the last month are on a scale without precedent in the long and troubled history of British nationalism.

I make no judgement on the question of why the things I have outlined above are happening, I merely point out that the very fact such speculation is now taking place shows just how much damage has been done already by the mismanagement of the last month.

Whenever something provocative and unnecessary has failed to produce the open outrage that it deserves, the clique running the show behind the shadows of Adam’s name immediately roll out something even worse.

They seem to be spoiling for a fight, so I urge every EC member to show restraint, to keep this document confidential, to discuss the problems only amongst ourselves and to work together to do our utmost to resolve all these issues through the proper channel – namely an urgent meeting of the Executive Council, as constituted a month ago, and with everyone aware in advance of the serious nature of what is to be discussed and decided at that meeting.

I ask you to give this very serious consideration and to call me about it straight away.  Together we can urge Adam to do the right thing and let the Executive Council sort it all out for the benefit of our party and the Cause we all hold so dear.

 

 

 

APPENDIX 1

Email from Adam Walker to Nick Griffin, to which this dossier is in turn in part the response.

 

Dear Nick

Thank you for your recent e-mail.

The draft minutes of the last Executive meeting should be with all Executive members by the end of this week. There is no need to make special, individual requests for minutes as these will be sent out at the same time to all Executive members. These will be read out for approval at the next Executive meeting.

I understand that you and Alwyn feel that I am not responding to your queries and complaints quickly enough. I am busy with a number of different tasks, however, which I am sure you will understand. You can both rest assured, however, that you will be answered and that any problems will be resolved. Just calm yourself and exercise a little patience in the meantime.

My recollection is that you stepped aside because you decided, wisely, that it was better to accept the role of President than face a vote of no confidence in you as Chairman. It was clear from the opinions expressed that such a vote would have been passed if called.  I don’t accept that there were any strings attached to your resignation or conditions that had to be met.

It is quite true that the Executive will be given a much greater role in decision making and that the Chairman will have a more restricted role. It is also true that Departmental Heads (who are themselves members of the Executive) will not be micro-managed by me and that proper lines of authority will be enforced. Gone are the days when anyone with a gripe could use special pleading with the Chairman to undermine officials. That includes you, by the way, Nick!

You have used the expression ‘urgent’ in several of your e-mails but I want to tell you that I will exercise my own judgment as to what is and isn’t urgent and what is and isn’t a priority in the performance of my proper duties. I will also take time to find out the facts in each case before reaching any judgment.

There was certainly a ‘democratic deficit’ in the past and I will be addressing that. It is early days yet so perhaps you should give things a little time and not make premature assumptions? I hope to have your support as that is what you promised. I want to make it clear now, however, that I will not allow anyone to undermine me in my new role or cause division and disunity.

I suggest that you mend your bridges with other Executive members, as best you can, and adopt a more constructive and friendlier approach. I urge others to do likewise. If you need help with that there are people who can assist  (Geoff and Pat for example). I also suggest that your use of phrases such as ‘new regime’ is inappropriate for an Executive member and our President. Unjustified or poorly expressed criticism of key officials by other officials will make it more difficult for us to move forward as a united Party. I want everyone to remember that they are part of a collective leadership and certain responsibilities accompany that. Let me caution everyone that I will enforce proper standards of behaviour if I need to. You are not children so I hope that I don’t have to lay down the law!

As I recall the Executive decided that Clive, Geoff and yourself would input their ideas about necessary Constitutional changes. I await to hear from the three of you. The Executive also voted to take the power to incorporate itself. This can, I believe be done quickly. Changes to protected parts of the Constitution could be made in November so you, Clive and Geoff need to get working. I look forward to hearing that you have arranged a meeting to discuss these matters and getting your first joint report.

As to the website, moderation of comments has been a problem for some time as it is a time-consuming process and mistakes can be made. Of course, casual extremism, hasn’t just been a problem on our website but also in posts by officials and candidates on Twitter, Facebook etc. It is something that will be addressed as a whole. Rome wasn’t built in a day and we have a lot of work to do. I intend to address these problems one by one in a planned and responsible way.

Yours faithfully

Adam Walker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2. Various Emails showing the build-up of problems over the last month

 

Email from Lynne Mozar to Adam Walker

Dear Adam,

 

First of all congratulations and the best of luck in your new position as our Chairman.  I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I feel I must make this formal complaint on behalf of the W@8.

 

It is against Charlie Wythe and his handling or rather ‘mis’ handling of a delicate situation yesterday (Monday) following the EC meeting and its outcome the previous Saturday.

 

The treatment that Dale and I were subjected to by ‘proxy’ from Wythe who was and still is out of the country – has been appalling – especially by normal standards of business practice let alone towards fellow Party members and activists.  Apart from the debacle in which poor Chris Barnett was made the ‘fall guy’ and Dale – who hadn’t a clue about the action to ‘take all Dale’s abilities to post the W@8 in a timely fashion’ – the final nail in the humiliation coffin was that ‘everything for the W@8 had to be run past Wythe before being posted by Chris’.  I was told by Chris this action was across the board.

 

Wythe may be a passable graphic designer but his mishandling of power, shocking man-management and political misjudgement show he is clearly not yet capable of being safely left with the ‘final say’ in publicity matters and that action is needed immediately to sort this problem out.

 

 

The first we knew about this ‘affirmative action’ was a phone call to Dale (who suffers from acute deafness) by Chris – who had sent an email which Dale had not yet seen.  To cut a long, sad story short, we spent the entire day, apart from doing the news, to sorting this out.  We had to send the text plus all the ‘postings’ to Wythe who was in mid air at the time and poor Chris ended up the fall guy for this spectacularly bad effort at ‘smoothing troubled waters’ and it was Chris who had to liaise with everyone over this disaster!

 

Apart from being a ‘photo fit f….k up’ from start to finish – the rotten first bulletin (which a child on meth could have done) to the lack of consistency with the news – Monday on the web through no fault of Chris – did not herald a new dawn of leadership but a mad scrabbling of bad timing!  In short the public and our enemies – until Nicks brilliant article – must have been lost in all the ‘uniformity’ or rather lack of!

 

In Wythe’s own admissions at the EC he doesn’t have the time to breathe after his efforts at the world wide web and FB – so how can he have the ability to scan and/or correct  long texts in a timely fashion? This would be difficult enough if he was on site but virtually impossible when up in the air.

 

He has put us, Chris Barnett and you in an impossible position – and it is clear that despite all the waffle from his salutary dictates – nothing was carried out in a timely or polite fashion and in fact reminded me that we are living in a Marxist Big Brother state.  At no time in the history of the news has any mention been made of fellow BNP personalities or their actions – let alone any ‘leakage’ of vital information – there was no need to install such a draconian, ill advised and indeed rude action against the W@8 and not have even the decency to be in the country to take the flac!

 

I would ask that you confirm that Dale can have his posting abilities back again as we are hardly ‘enemies within’ and we can work to getting the news back on track with Chris.  There is no need for this ‘uniformity’ crap as the news is just that, the news and not a blog to be overseen – moreover Wythe hasn’t even replied to me sending the text and posting from yesterday. In fact since being on board, Wythe has never had the courtesy to include me or reply to me on any matter that I may have had a professional interest.

 

I hope I have presented the facts in a calm manner and I am sure that you will reach the right conclusion as a sensible albeit – new leader.  Sincerely,   Lynne

 

 

 

 

Email from Nick Griffin to Adam Walker on July 25

 

Dear Adam

 

When I made you BNP leader by first appointing you as Deputy and then standing aside, I did so in good faith and on your confirmation that you would accept from the word go your own recommendations for the transfer of overall powers from the Leader to the Executive Council.

 

I am very worried about the fact that, in practice, you seem, either by abdication of responsibility (not even replying to key officials who have written to you to raise urgent concerns) or complicity, to be allowing a process whereby core leadership powers are being transferred, without any EC consultation and in clear breach of the entire spirit of Saturday’s EC meeting to Clive Jefferson, Charlie Wythe and Chris Barnett – who are now predictably abusing those powers.

 

You must be aware of how wrong this is on moral, political, organisational and financial probity grounds.

 

As BNP President, on behalf of those currently being constructively dismissed by the new de facto leadership (which does not appear to be you) and speaking for the party loyalists as a whole who would be appalled to know what is going on, I repeat my previous and still unacknowledged request for you to get a grip on this dangerous situation before it spirals out of control and you preside over the destruction rather than the renewed advance of the party which you now hold in trust for the members and activists.

 

I look forward to your urgent response.

 

Best wishes

 

Nick

 

PS Since there are very clear questions of financial probity involved in some of the developments and decisions made since Saturday, I have as you see copied Geof Dickens in on this email.

 

 

 

Email of 29^th July to Adam Walker, copied to Pat Harrington and the solicitor acting for me against the Trustee in Bankruptcy

 

Nick Thomas <nickjgriffin1959@gmail.com>

Jul 29

 

to Adam, Mark, Patrick

Dear Adam

 

I write to you in your new position as Acting Chairman of the British National Party to ask for your urgent attention to, and assistance with, a pressing matter that affects both me and the party.

 

You will of course be aware that on 2nd January this year I was declared bankrupt as a result of alleged legal debts accrued as a result of various politically-inspired cases during my time as BNP Chairman.

 

You may also be aware that this means that my financial affairs are now handled by the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

 

The Trustee has required me to supply him with copies of the several BNP Constitutions in operation in the period in question (I think that 2008 – current should cover it) together with any and all documentation relating to my waiving the right to an indemnity which may have been granted in the Constitution adopted as a result of the Equality Commission attack on the party.

 

I have been asking Clive Jefferson for these documents for weeks but he refused to supply them to me, or even to discuss the matter properly. This despite the fact that the Trustee can, and if necessary no doubt will, simply apply for a Court Order against the party for delivery, which I would anticipate will lead to costs being awarded against the party, or at least added to the overall bankruptcy bill.

 

Further, the circumstances may well arise under which the Trustee has to work through the alleged debts, removing those which are unsubstantiated. This would potentially reduce the overall liabilities very substantially and to stand the best chance of success this would require co-operation between the BNP Treasury and the Trustee – something which would surely run more smoothly if their first point of contact is not an unnecessary legal spat?

 

I therefore ask that you as a matter of urgency to discuss the matter with Mr Jefferson and Pat Harrington, who is very much aware of all the facts of this case and has met the Trustee, and shares my opinion that the documents should be provided promptly as required. I hope that you will come to the same conclusion, but, whether you do or not, I am under a duty to ask that you instruct Mr Jefferson to hand over the documents as required, and I hereby do so.

 

Whatever your decision, the solicitors (Mark Skinner of Farleys) acting for me in this matter and I would appreciate being notified as to what it is at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nick Griffin

 

 

 

Email to Adam about the Croydon anti-mosque mailing. Aug 5^th.

 

Dear Adam

 

1) Clive and Charlie have still not replied to my emails about the proposed mailing for the New Addington mosque.

 

Should I simply go ahead with getting the mailmerge done for them in Nuneaton or should I tell them that Head Office isn’t willing to help?

 

Either way, they need an answer straight away so I look forward to receiving your instructions asap.

 

2) You are I am sure aware of the issue with the AENM, the party’s own contribution towards it and the fact that there are still monies outstanding to the party, but additionally a breakdown of trust between the Hungarians and us, particularly Clive. My own position as President of the BNP and Vice-President of the AENM is problemmatic under these circumstances and I am therefore inclined to resign from the AENM. Before doing so, however, I wish to give you the chance to reflect on the matter and advise me if you take a position on this from the party’s point of view.

 

3) Despite Pat’s efforts, I still am receiving no co-operation or contact from Clive with regards to the information requested by the Trustee in bankruptcy, particularly the missing waiver. If this is not resolved satsfactorily, and quickly, then far from my bankruptcy making me the convenient scapegoat for the party’s legal debts, the Trustee will simply attack the BNP (i.e. you and possibly other members of the EC, personally). Even if his case can be resisted, the court costs incurred in doing so would be huge, so it really is a road we con’t want to go down, especially with the substandard case that is going to result from Clive’s inexplicable and thoroughly childish refusal to work with me on it.

 

I ask that you press Clive for an urgent face-to-face meeting between the three of us within the next seven days. If you are unable to do so, I believe that a fresh EC meeting should be called so that the entire leadership can collectively what is likely to be one of the most important decisions in the party’s history.

 

4) While we are at it there also needs to be an urgent and serious collective discussion over the increasingly erratic editing and moderating policy exercised over the website by two politically inexperienced members of staff. To have, as they now do, both the ‘soft’ and the ‘hard’ wings of the party screaming about their heavy-handed attitudes, is a piece of folly. Rumours are growing that the party’s traditional pro-family stand against the aggressive militant gay lobby is being abandoned, and one of our major former contributors has been told that he shouldn’t write anything referring to Zionism, neocons or the blatant push by those forces for conflict with Russia and Putin.

 

If such policies are yours, then you of course have a right to promote them, and to argue for such a radical change of direction at the Annual Conference. But no-one has the right to make such changes unilaterally, not even you. And if, as I suspect, you knew nothing about them, then you have a duty to uphold the Constitution and tell those responsible to cease and desist.

 

I look forward to hearing from you on the above urgent matters shortly.

 

Thanks

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3 – Emails with Frank Hogarth

 

 

Disciplinary tone email from Frank Hogarth to National Elections Officer Alwyn Deacon

 

From: “Accountant” <accountant@bnp.org.uk>

To: “angus matthys” <a_jm@hotmail.co.uk>

Cc: “Alwyn Deacon” <alwyndeacon@yahoo.co.uk>

Subject: Sundays Mail out

Date: Mon, Aug 11, 2014 14:18

 

Dear Alwyn and Angus,

 

I understand that you did a mail out this Sunday, for Croydon/New Addington.

 

Could you please let me know who authorised this and how it was funded; as I understand that Nick emailed Clive about the mail out, and Clive stated that we could not help out in this case.

 

Yet it would appear that contrary to the Treasurer’s instructions the mail out was carried out.

 

I would appreciate your comments, at this stage, to get an understanding of what has taken place.

 

Many thanks

 

Frank

 

 

Alwyn’s reply

 

From: alwyndeacon@yahoo.co.uk

Sent: 11 August 2014 15:15

To: “Accountant” <accountant@bnp.org.uk>, “Angus Matthys” <a_jm@hotmail.co.uk>

Subject: Re: Sundays Mail out

 

The mail out done on Sunday was done by me and Angus, I did this as National Elections officer, Angus came to help me stuff the envelopes on the machine. The cost was nothing, they are putting them out by hand and we did it on a Sunday in our own time. I already had my own paper and the envelopes where the ones left over from Mike Jones mail merge, and I pay for electric so it cost nothing for the party.

It was just a pity the party couldn’t help a BNP branch out.

 

Alwyn

 

 

My reply to Mr Hogarth’s provocatively negative letter

 

Nick Thomas <nickjgriffin1959@gmail.com>

Aug 11

 

to Accountant, Alwyn, angus, clivesworld, Adam, East

 

Dear Frank

 

The Acting Chairman told me to organise it, so I did. Clive let it be known that there would be no money available for postage, so I organised it without there being any postage cost. Since the Treasurer won’t speak to me I was unable to tell him the arrangement and, unless I now need advance permission to use my initiative for the good of the party, I saw no need to do so, knowing as I do that he is under enormous stress.

 

To have let down one of our hardest working and most resourceful groups of volunteers would have been most unfortunate, so I made an executive decision (seeing as the post of President was specifically created as an executive position, and since all Executive Council members are now regarded as equal and have an equal right to involvement in decision-making) to take action to ensure that this didn’t happen and that the people whose money pays staff wages were kept happy.

 

While writing, I do not know the extent of whatever supervisory powers you have been given, but if they extend to website staff I ask that you urgently contact whoever is actually responsible for moderation these days and tell them that allowing comments such as:

 

“Perhaps Hitler had the right idea after all ??”

 

is utterly unacceptable. Neither is this a one-off. The standard of moderation since the new regime took over is a disgrace, despite the fact that many perfectly good commentors have been barred, resulting in a crash in the number and quality of postings.

 

Adam – please get a grip on whoever is responsible for such cretinous decisions. In fact, as a member of the EC, this is a formal request to be told who is running what on the website, what they are being paid, and what, if any, guidelines you have given them.

 

Thank you both

 

 

Hogarth’s reply

 

Accountant

Aug 12 (8 days ago)

 

to me

Dear Nick,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I have noted your points.

 

Kind Regards

 

Frank

 

Emails from Angus Matthys to Frank Hogarth

 

—–Original Message—–

 

From: “angus matthys” <a_jm@hotmail.co.uk>

Sent: 15 August 2014 16:14

To: “Frank Hogarth” <accountant@bnp.org.uk>

Subject: RE: Party Van

 

Dear Frank

 

 

A few issues to be covered here;

 

I would like a mileage expenses for to be sent/ emailed to me for returning the van to your house please.

 

I would like to make you aware that I am still outstanding my fuel expenses for the last time I used the van.  I did this trip on the 9th June. On this occasion it was to empty the office in Edinburgh that Pat and our Scottish members used. Although this was an EU work exercise, the party office in Wigton and staff there are the only ones to benefit as this was where I unloaded the entire van, therefore I am holding the party responsible for my expenses incurred as I am currently £160 out of pocket for fuelling the trip there and back. I would like you to help me here please. Nick tells me that there is no realistic chance of this being reimbursed from EU funds as these are frozen because of unpaid monies which the party owes OLAF and, in addition, the funds even theoretically available are all spoken for.

 

I emailed the Party details of my outstanding debts – both to the Financial Scrutiny Committee and then later to Pat (who offered to mediate in view of the Treasurer’s refusal to speak to members of staff). Now 19 days have passed since I sent this email and I have had no reply. I am facing a situation where I am left with approximately £3,500 of Party debt on my personal credit card; the minimum payment has not even been honoured and charges are being incurred as the direct debit has been cancelled. I am becoming more than a little uneasy about this situation now.  All of the re-occurring payments that accrued this debt will have been emailed to you at the time they were set up so I do not understand the cancellation of the direct debit nor the absence of alternative plans to reimburse me this money.

 

With regards to the British Gas direct debit, I have no financial records in my possession to check. However had I set up the direct debit I would have attached a print out of the DD instruction to the bill and sent it to you. There is no record of an expected payment noted in my diary. It is possible that the direct debit could have been set up without my knowledge; the bank details needed have always been available to anyone in Wigton in the bank paying in books and it is possible the required details, including my signature, were entered on the paper part of the bill and returned by someone other than myself.

 

I have no passwords for parcels2go.

 

While collecting passwords and logins please may I ask that you look at my role as director or general secretary of Heritage Publications Ltd (registered to Clive’s address) and find a person to replace me. Similarly, if I am a registered director or secretary on any other Party companies I would request to be removed from them also.

 

You also need to find a new person to take on the liability of the lease on 3A; I categorically will not sign for another term of tenancy. This is due to the way that party debts I am currently personally liable for are being ignored, and due to the fact that I have been accused of trying to shut down the party operation in Wigton; this has never been an intention, plan, discussion or otherwise, and I have tried to explain this yet my word is not trusted. You of course will understand therefore that although I continue to work for the party in an operational capacity, I do not want the lease, or anything else with financial responsibility, in my name at this time.

 

 

From: “angus matthys” <a_jm@hotmail.co.uk>

Sent: 18 August 2014 21:23

To: accountant@bnp.org.uk, clivesworld@aol.com

Subject: FW: RE: Party Van

 

 

Dear Frank

 

I have not heard back yet?

 

Further to the party debt that is already on my credit card a fine has been charged as you have cancelled the direct debit for the minimum payment. This charge is for £12.

 

Recently new payments have been taken at £120.80, which is for cloud flare and £530.80 for pantheon for which you have been provided the login details so could have made other arrangements should you so desire.

 

Please make me aware of how the party expects to manage this increasing debt. I am becoming anxious and distressed at the situation I am beginning forced into.

 

Would you like me to cancel the payments so that when they chase the party you can organise alternative future collections?

 

I do not understand how these have been allowed to go out from my card as you have lists of all previous monthly payments that I made. The list was last provided to you again in September.

 

I will supply you again with an updated list of the party debts owed to me by the end of the week.

 

I wish to make it clear that I do not authorise anybody to use my card for any further party transactions.

 

Thank you

 

Angus

 

 

Neither Mr Hogarth nor anyone else from Adam’s team bothered to answer any of these specific points, instead Mr Hogarth, newly promoted to Staff Manager, yesterday (20^th August) sent Cllr Matthys this summons to a disciplinary hearing:

 

Dear Angus,

 

I am writing to clarify your employment position with us. We have been contacted with information that you are working for another employer. Please clarify when this employment began and what your contractual hours are with this employer. If you wish to resign your employment with us please notify of this in writing.

 

If you intend to continue working for us I have to tell you that we will be taking action against you for misconduct.

 

It is with regret that I have to notify you that there are serious allegations of misconduct against you which may constitute gross misconduct.

 

These include:

 

1. Theft or fraud – Here we would refer you to the setting up and payment of Direct Debits without the specific authority of the Treasurer, and in respect of the payment to British Gas of £ 596.30 not responding to our emails requesting details of the payment. Whilst not in itself a “Theft or fraud” it is a fundemental breach of trust in operation of the financial affairs of the Party, which could leave us open to an accusation of misuse of Party funds.
2. Serious misuse of an organisation’s property – I would refer you to the issue of the Van, which you have in your possession, and your failure to respond to my email asking for the return. However more seriously you did not consider the fact that the Party might require the use of that vehicle, and have made no attempt to return it, until recently.
3. Serious insubordination – Whilst various attempts have been made to engage you in correspondence or meetings, for example I would refer you to my email of 25th July, you have refused to co-operate, and have carried out no work for the Party since 24th July.

 

I would like to invite you to an investigatory meeting at my home on 29th August, 2014.  You may bring a work colleague or Trade Union representative with you. You will be given a copy of the minutes of that meeting and my conclusions.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Frank Hogarth, Staff Manager

 

 

Letter from Frank Hogarth to National Elections Officer Alwyn Deacon

 

 

20th August 2014.

 

Dear Alwyn

 

Due to the closure of the Nuneaton office a possible redundancy situation has arisen. You are aware that the Nuneaton office has become financially unviable. I want to explore alternatives to redundancy with you including but not limited to relocation to our office in Wigton, Cumbria. Please contact me this week to arrange a date within the next seven days when such a meeting could be held.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Frank Hogarth

Staff Manager

 

 

 

Appendix 4  The Leadership Handover Statements Shambles

 

Email diktat from Charlie Wythe on day after changeover

 

Dear Adam and Nick,

 

We are very close to achieving the seemingly impossible — a smooth transition — and avoiding the fractional war that the usual suspects are desperate to see.

 

On Saturday we showed a political maturity that I was proud to be part of, and in my role as Head of Publicity is to ensure the following:

 

1. All parties be treated with the same fair and even manner
2. Ensuring the Party and the individuals receive the maximum benefit from the evolution of the British National Party

 

It is essential that we conduct all proceedings in a professional logical manner, which after consideration overnight I have decided to implement the following measures to not only ensure the above but to also protect the staff from coming under pressure from anyone.

 

I have taken these steps for the good of the Party and all concerned.

 

They are as follows:

 

1. Today at 11.00 am a neutral statement of fact will be published on the BNP website. It is our duty and responsibility to inform our membership people of the steps taken.

 

2. The Chairman and President are invited to work with me to prepare their personal statements and disseminate them through the Party’s various media platforms, no earlier than 24 hours after the Party’s official announcement. To ensure that staff do not suffer unfair pressure from anyone during this period no one will have direct publication rights on any of the Party’s publication platforms. As of now.

 

1. All web site staff are to carry on as normal with the only difference being articles will go into editorial queue to be reviewed by the Head of Publicity before publication.

 

2. The Streamsend (Email service) will have access only to me, as social Toaster and Facebook. Anyone wishing to publish on the Party’s media systems over this period please submit the communication you wish to impart and the media method of transmission, together with any graphics or pictures associated with the publication to the Head of Publicity at publicity@bnp.org.uk

 

3. I have also decided that through this transitional period the Twitter feed of Nick Griffin, our President, will be replaced on the main website by Party’s Twitter feed. This will cause some delays but at this stage I judge the delays acceptable. My aim here is simply to help everyone to continue their jobs without the inevitable pressures and the natural personal relationships between everyone concerned causing difficulties.

 

The Chairman Adam Walker requests that no one is to make any statement if approached directly and to respond with no comment, and that the people involved will respond shortly in due course. Please ensure that those approached record the contact details of the media enquirer.

 

I thank you all in advance for your co-operation and patience.

 

Charlie Wythe

BNP Head of Publicity

 

 

 

Press coverage reflecting Wythe statement.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-griffin-deposed-for-banned-schoolteacher-as-bnp-founders-9619893.html

 

“Nick Griffin quits as BNP leader: Banned schoolteacher Adam Walker appointed as chairman as party founders

 

…The change of leadership was announced in a terse statement on the BNP website, which added that Mr Griffin would take on a new role as party president.

 

The statement said: “Recently appointed deputy chairman, Adam Walker, has accepted the role of acting chairman of the British National Party after Nick Griffin stepped aside at a meeting of the BNP national executive… The full national executive are united in their support for Adam in this role…..”

 

 

Press coverage reflecting Nick Griffin’s statement once belatedly published by Chris Barnet.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28408039

 

“…..In a statement on the party’s website, Mr Griffin said he had stepped down voluntarily at a meeting of the party’s national executive committee on Saturday.

 

He insisted he would remain an “active” member of the BNP and be on hand to offer advice to Mr Walker and whoever was elected leader in a leadership ballot due to take place next year.

 

“The decision was mine and mine alone, though it involved a lengthy and constructive discussion between the entire collective leadership,” he wrote.

 

He suggested the party was in a more stable financial and political position than it had been for some time.

 

“I had initially hoped to hand the responsibility over several years ago, but when a concerted effort was made to destroy the BNP from both outside and within, I decided that it was my duty to stay and steer our movement through the storm,” he said.

 

“The leadership team is united as to the way ahead and, once again, the BNP – for all that there are many improvements to be made – is the only effectively functioning, genuine nationalist game in town…..