Anti-BNP Court Cases: Does Anyone Really Believe They’re Accidental?
Special report by Nick Griffin MEP—Does anyone really believe that the slew of anti-BNP court cases are accidental? The truth is that they are part of a co-ordinated plan to break the party, says British National Party leader Nick Griffin, MEP.
Most BNP Internet users will be aware by now of the huge and co-ordinated campaign of disinformation and black propaganda directed against the British National Party and its leadership.
This operation clearly originates with the extremely well-funded far-left/Zionist front group Searchlight.
As large numbers of decent people have worked out, it involves lies and innuendo libel on a massive scale.
Its aim is to break the BNP, almost certainly to clear the way for the false flag English Defence League operation to mutate into a political party, thereby corralling nationalism in the UK into a safely controlled multi-cultural dead end.
While we expect to be viciously attacked from outside, some of our people are less able to recognise black propaganda and misinformation when it appears to come from within our own ranks. But that is what we are now facing, so it is time for people to learn the real facts.
The far-left’s concerted campaign of lies and false rumours is also being promoted by a clique of superficially ‘internal’ knockers (generally motivated by personal grudges or a liberal agenda, but no doubt also including the treacherous paid ‘moles’ who provide the detailed accounts of all significant BNP events to Searchlight and various well-informed Marxist blogs).
One of these people’s lines of attack at present is the allegation that I have recklessly involved the party in a string of ‘unnecessary’ court cases.
If this was true, it would be a matter for genuine concern. But, as is the case with all this black propaganda aimed at the naive and ill-informed, the truth is really very different, as a review of the cases involved quickly proves:
EQUALITY COMMISSION V NICK GRIFFIN, SIMON DARBY & TANYA LUMBY
This case was brought by the Marxist-led Commission and rushed into court even though we clearly signalled our willingness to discuss the issues they had raised in their pre-action letter and to seek a negotiated settlement.
In the face of this blatant bias and unreasonableness we changed our Constitution to remove the grounds they had for their direct discrimination claim.
Had this been done any way other than at legal gunpoint, if we had simply surrendered, the issue would have split the party. But I steered a course which took things to the wire but preserved our unity.
The response from Trevor Phillips and his seventy taxpayer-funded lawyers was shocking but not unexpected. Denied the opportunity to use direct discrimination as a club with which to bash us into the ground, they switched to the claim that our Statement of Principles stand against immigration (part of our Constitution since 1982) is indirectly discriminatory, because large numbers of people of immigrant descent are likely to disagree with it.
This attempt to claim the right to determine a party’s political stance is an outrageous attack on the freedom of every voter and every political party in Britain. And it is one that was not seen coming by any of those now trying to advance their own secret agenda by calling this case ‘unnecessary’.
This second round attack would have been thrown at the BNP whoever was in charge no matter how we might have responded to the Commission bullies’ original attack.
Far from being badly handled as the wreckers claim, the good news is that the specialist indigenous civil rights solicitors firm we employed to draft our new Constitution saw the attack coming – as did the members who voted virtually unanimously at last year’s EGM to approve the new draft and thereby give me the power “to turn on a sixpence” and change the Constitution again if and when forced to do so.
This flexibility maximises our chances of fighting off Trevor Phillips’ latest undemocratic, anti-British attack on our freedom and indeed on our very existence as a party.
Fortunately, our lawyers have worked tirelessly to become experts in race relations laws currently and pending, as well as in matters relating to injunctions and alleged contempt of court.
So the next hearing will see us counter-attack by applying to the court to have the orders declared irregularly obtained and unfairly oppressive and struck down accordingly.
Of course we would rather not be in court with these overpaid leftists, but they keep coming for us because we are a threat, and thanks to our handling of the case and a very skilfully drafted Constitution, we’re in with a fighting chance of beating them off.
This top-level professional defence has cost a large amount of money, but we had no choice. When the Establishment starts to use the full weight of its anti-British laws to try to crush an opponent, to respond as DIY amateurs as the knockers have recommended would be suicidal folly.
And, whatever happens, every time we’re dragged back into court, we get a further wave of publicity in which the public see us as the victim of politically correct establishment bullying. Long-term, that is publicity and positioning that no amount of money could ever buy.
BNP V SADIE GRAHAM, MATT SINGLE AND OTHERS
At the start of 2008, a small clique of former employees twice used the BNP’s membership list to send bogus Bulletins to our entire membership. Great efforts were made to negotiate a ‘deal’ with the clique. I made a whole string of very reasonable offers and sent Eddy Butler to try to settle them down and obtain their assurance that they would stop abusing our members’ right to privacy.
These efforts came to nothing. As a result, acting on behalf of our members, I sought and obtained an injunction to prevent them illicitly using our membership list. What else could have been done?
Surely no one seriously thinks that we should allow our members’ personal details to be used and abused by wreckers or people trying to raise funds under false pretences?
At any time up until the injunction was granted, the clique could have given an undertaking not to use the list and it would never have got to court.
We have made repeated efforts since to settle the matter with both sides paying their own costs, but all have been rebuffed.
As everyone knows, two of the defendants, Sadie Graham and Matt Single, went on not only to use the list for their own gain but, even worse, leaked it on the Internet causing huge suffering to BNP members and supporters.
This goes to show that I was right to fear that they would badly misuse the list, and was right therefore to try to stop them.
The actions of these traitors led to elderly members being terrified by threatening phone calls, to people losing their jobs and even to physical attacks on members’ property.
Yet, disgracefully, part of the stated programme of the latest generation of would-be wreckers is to let these people and their allies back into the BNP. Most normal people would rather see them hounded through the courts for their treachery.
More drivel has been written about this one than all the others put together.
The first thing to make clear is that it has not even been a “court case” in the traditional sense.
In the run-up to the election, Marmite ran a series of adverts showing the ‘Hate Marmite’ Party, which was a carbon copy of the BNP.
These adverts steadily piled on the pressure with the idea that we are ‘haters’, and went so far as to glorify the use of violence against our members.
This huge campaign posed a clear and present danger to us, both politically and physically, and all attempts to stop it through normal channels came to nothing.
The biggest part of the danger was that, for most of the public, the anti-BNP message would sink in at a sub-conscious level. It was an example of dangerous interference in the democratic process which the regulatory authorities should have stopped.
We decided it was essential that we get out into the open the fact that the adverts were an attack on the BNP, so both we and several freelance sympathisers responded in various ways which Marmite would be unable to ignore.
Unilever’s consequent legal threats produced a gargantuan wave of national and international publicity, shortly before the election, which we could never have dreamt of buying, or of being able to afford to buy.
Publicity that keeps us in the public eye is invaluable to us. Sometimes we get it by standing in a parliamentary by-election in which we know we don’t stand a chance. That costs money, but it achieves its goal.
Far more publicity was obtained by this calculated brush with the legal department of a multi-national company, and we also stopped a subtle but very dangerous anti-PR campaign against us. Perhaps the knockers would rather we’d sat on our backsides and done nothing?
Fortunately we did act, and it paid off. With our growing ability to access proper legal resources we were able to resolve the dispute professionally and satisfactorily. The following is the statement agreed with Unilever as to how both parties regard the resolution of this dispute:
“Unilever and the BNP have agreed confidential terms of settlement to the satisfaction of both parties, so no further comment can be made”.
So the knockers pushing their own or their masters’ agendas by spouting crazy talk of enormous payments are not only lying as ever, they are cynically exploiting the fact we made a proper and confidential legal agreement.
For us to breach this formal agreement – as troublemakers are trying to force us to do by spreading utterly false and alarmist rumours - would be improper and would indeed lead to us being dragged into court.
I must make it clear that the malicious lies of £170,000 in costs are utterly untrue and that the true costs are not even the tiniest fraction of this amount.
THE MICHAELA MACKENZIE CASE
Michaela Mackenzie was an efficient clerical worker for the BNP from home, but when put in charge of an office she turned out to be a disaster.
To give just one example, around six thousand European Election inquiry packs were dumped on the pavement outside a Post Office depot without the correct mailing dockets being obtained, and were lost and destroyed as a direct result.
Other people who have worked for the party before and since, but who have been found not be up to scratch have been sacked, and surely that’s the right thing to do rather than waste members’ money on sub-standard staff.
Others have accepted the position and done the decent thing, and have been willing to reach a sensible parting settlement. In the Mackenzie case, we made a real effort to reach a deal, sending Eddy Butler down to negotiate with her, as Simon Darby did successfully with two other staff members we let go at the same time.
For some reason or other, in this case the negotiations came to nothing.
Unfortunately, we found out too late that Michaela Mackenzie has a very long track record of suing for ‘wrongful dismissal’, and knew how to manipulate things to exploit our lack of experience in such matters.
Hence we had no choice but to reach a settlement. That, however, is now the subject of a counter-claim, hence our refusal to pay it.
Sacking any staff, even badly performing ones, is unpleasant and difficult. But strangely, the knockers who are backing a staff member who failed and who is trying to take money off the party, are also proposing that we sack good staff working from our highly efficient and profit-making Belfast administration and call centre (all of whom are BNP members and employees, contrary to the knockers’ black propaganda).
To break our lease and other contracts involved in this successful operation, and to sack efficient and loyal staff just because their faces or names don’t fit (even though they are BNP members), really would open up several legal cans of worms.
All of which shows how talk about ‘unnecessary court cases’ isn’t a genuine concern, but just another weapon in the armoury of the external opposition and their internal ‘useful idiots’.
We, however, have learned from this case, which is one reason we have now created a dedicated Human Resources/Staff Management team to ensure that from now on everything is done by the book by people who know all the ropes.
MARK CROUCHER v NICK GRIFFIN
Mark Croucher is a former UKIP Press Officer with known links to Searchlight.
During the European Election, he tried to get bailiffs to seize the Truth Truck in order to enforce a judgement he had got on the sly over the use of a photo of Nigel Farage for which he claimed copyright.
Ironically, this photo was posted on our website, against clear instructions, by one Andrew Edwards, a non-member who was doing volunteer work for us at the time but who now spends most of his time attacking the current BNP leadership over, among other things, ‘unnecessary court cases’. Pot, kettle, black!
We have since won a counter-claim and Croucher now owes us £1,000, but has managed to get the case continued.
Many in the Eurorealist movement look at Mark Croucher’ relentless attacks on both UKIP and the BNP and ask whose side he is really on? He poses as a Eurosceptic, but does nothing except attack parties opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU.
He was clearly desperate to drag us into court, and the ‘mistake’ by Andrew Edwards would have given him the opportunity regardless of who was in charge.
Following the appearance of BNP advertising boards on lamp posts in South East London during the European Election, the Borough of Greenwich launched a legal action and a claim for £2,500 plus costs of up to £15,000 against the party.
This is just typical of the kind of low to medium level harassment to which we are subjected by leftwing council officials, in circumstances when no action would ever be taken against any other party.
Fortunately, Lee Barnes took up the case on our behalf, undertook an extensive study of the relevant laws, and has now forced the council to drop the case. Thanks to Mr. Barnes it hasn’t cost us a penny.
So there’s one that we won completely, but it could have gone the other way. Cases like these are an unavoidable side effect of being involved in the struggle at all.
The ones that have actually got as far as litigation are in fact only the tip of the iceberg; over the last few years we have successfully fought off several dozen of these vexatious attempts to grind us down.
This has partly been because I have a law degree and huge experience in working with legal experts. It takes time, money and mental energy, but it has to be done.
The Establishment don’t like us, so why should anyone be surprised when they take every possible opportunity to try to bleed us through the legal system? It comes with the territory.
Let’s face it, if they weren’t attacking us, we wouldn’t be doing our job.