Nick Griffin condemns BNP “dictatorship”: calls for leadership election

Former BNP chairman Nick Griffin has warned that the party is heading for disaster under the new leadership of Adam Walker, who succeeded him less than seven weeks ago.  In an interview with the long serving BNP radio host Lynne Mozar (click here to read full transcript) Griffin called for an Emergency General Meeting to “save the British National Party”.

“We don’t appear to have a leadership, we have a dictatorship,” Griffin complained.  “If you don’t agree, you don’t toe the line, you’re immediately out.”

“This really is a crisis which threatens the very existence of the British National Party, and certainly is destroying its claim to be a democratic party that listens to its members.”

“I don’t want the job of leader back, I think that what’s needed is an immediate leadership election where Adam Walker can stand if he wants.  But other people should throw their hats in the ring, and again let the members decide.”

Heritage and Destiny understands that former Stoke councillor Michael Coleman is preparing a leadership challenge, and is likely to be backed by many Griffinites as well as by ideological hardliners in the party, including many London-based activists.

Former Stoke councillor Michael Coleman is a likely challenger to Adam Walker for the BNP leadership after ex-chairman Nick Griffin denounced the “crisis” in the party.


New interview: Nick Griffin attacks BNP leadership

Tonight (September 12th) the latest BNP split escalated after an outspoken interview with former party leader Nick Griffin, broadcast on the Radio Britain station hosted by leading Griffinite Lynne Mozar.

Once regarded as a BNP star, Ms Mozar has been purged by the new party leadership, who will try to prevent members hearing the interview below.

Mozar: How did your very succinct and private report get out to the general public, and can you tell me your personal reaction on this?

Griffin: Yes Lynne.  I don’t know about succinct, because it’s a 36-page report, which as you know I sent to Adam Walker and all members of the Executive Council – and only the Executive Council – now some weeks ago in fact, saying to people this is an executive issue and it shouldn’t go any further than that.  And actually I’m pleased to say that there was enough discipline and it didn’t, for quite some considerable time.  It has now of course leaked into the public domain on Facebook and so on, which is regrettable in one way, that this should all have been dealt with by the governing body of the Party, which is the Executive Council.

Mozar: Immediately, at the time of course.

Griffin: At the time, or very promptly, a meeting should have been called.  Clearly, because there is a crisis, it’s blatantly obvious, and it was for the Executive – that’s the governing body of the Party, not the leader – and we should have had a meeting to thrash it all out and avoid this, where we are now.  Because that meeting was refused, I think it was inevitable that someone was going to lose patience and say: ‘Well then this has now got to be for the rank and file of the Party to decide because this is a crisis.’  I don’t know who leaked the report.  I think there is at least one person in the clique that has seized control who’s not just doing it for themselves, they’re actively out to cause trouble for some reason or another.  So the leak could have been from them.  It certainly wasn’t from me,  and I don’t know who leaked it.  However, it was certainly coming on for the time that this went wider, because you see when I said that this is for the Executive Council to decide, I was working on the basis of an Executive Council as constituted until recently, and without any intimidation or changes.  And as you know, that’s not now the case.

Mozar: No, that is true.  Which actually brings me on to my second question.  The various officials and members who have been, not sacked, but they’ve been removed from the Executive Council with obvious reasons in mind – what is your opinion on this as President of the Party?

Griffin: Well, I think that sacking is absolutely the right word for it.  Obviously there’s a growing wave of disciplinary actions and expulsions of various people.

Mozar: I know!

Griffin: And in terms of the sackings, of course you’re one of them.  It’s very significant that you’ve been replaced without warning as South West Regional Organiser, even though you were I believe aiming to hand over…

Mozar: Yes, I had an arrangement with Clifford Jones to actually hand over in January, which was between him and me.

Griffin:  Yes, but of course being removed now means that even if we get this promised Executive Council meeting…

Mozar:  I can’t sit on it.

Griffin: …some time in November, you can’t sit on it and neither can Chris Thornton, who very significantly is the North East Regional Organiser, appalled by what’s been going on, and has been removed for no good reason whatsoever.   And so straightaway you’ve got people being removed who happen to be the people who said: ‘Look, we need an EC and failing that (or as well as that) we need an Emergency General Meeting to let the members decide.’  And we don’t appear to have a leadership, we have a dictatorship.  If you don’t agree, you don’t toe the line, you’re immediately out.  And on top of that, we now know that they are not only refusing an Executive Council meeting, they’ve also said that there’s no chance, people can jump up and down all they like – the members, the people who pay their wages can jump up and down all they like, we’re not getting an EGM until some time in November.  And they haven’t even fixed a date for it yet.

Mozar:  No.  And apart from that I was actually speaking to Adam the week before, he rang me up and asked me when I was going to hand over, and I said January and he didn’t say a word.  He just said thanks and goodbye, sort of thing.  And the next thing I knew, I got a registered letter.  It wouldn’t have hurt him – manners actually – to say: ‘I’d rather bring the date forward.’  I would have said fine, yes, I couldn’t stop it.  But it was a done deal, and of course now he’s also appointed a regional chairman for the South West, which is unheard of because they do have to be elected.

Griffin:  Yes, indeed, all sorts of things are going on.  In terms of decency and common sense, how long have you been doing The World at 8?  I know you’ve got a very loyal and enthusiastic listenership of hundreds every single time – how long have you been doing that for, then?

Mozar:  I’ve been doing that for six and a half years.

Griffin:  Six and a half years: it’s three times a week, isn’t it?

Mozar:  Yes.

Griffin:  Three times a week, virtually without break for six and a half years.  Well, I think that says it all.  My guess is this will be the last one, and as you know we discussed what we should say here, and decided that this is not the place to wash the dirty linen in public.  There are plenty of problems that need dealing with, but it’s not for the public to listen into.  I’m doing this – we’re having this discussion – for the members, the activists, the officials to understand that this really is a crisis which threatens the very existence of the British National Party, and certainly is destroying its claim to be a democratic party that listens to its members and so on.  And the only way now to address this isn’t to get out and, he said / she said, all over the internet and so on, but is simply to say: we have to have an EGM, so people can say what’s being said, so people can be told what the score is, and so that the members – the people who actually make the Party tick and pay for it to exist and progress – the members decide where we go from here.  I don’t want the job of leader back, I think that what’s needed is an immediate leadership election where Adam Walker can stand if he wants.  But other people should throw their hats in the ring, and again let the members decide.  And if they’re happy when they see what – and it’s not really Adam Walker, it’s the people running the show – when they actually see what they’ve done, if they’re happy with that, with them axeing people right, left and centre; reducing the website to a shadow of its former self; among other things – if they’re happy with that, then let them elect Adam Walker.  But if they’re not happy, elect somebody else, and that will be my recommendation.

Mozar:  Well, I think the recommendation is actually very sound, and I think to have an EGM would be a far better move than having an EC.  Mainly because the EGM as you say includes all the voting members, the people that pay these people’s wages.  And in fact it does no good to really decimate the Executive Council if the idea is to make it a roomful of puppets, because it isn’t the way to run a political party.  It isn’t the way to run a corporation, let alone a political party.

Griffin:  Indeed not.  I can’t stress to people …we wouldn’t have done this, it’s going to cause enormous problems in the Party, this conversation will be picked up probably by people who wish the Party no good at all, but it has to be said – because as it is the Party is on a collision course, a crash course for total disaster.  And the only thing that can turn it around is if there’s an EGM where it’s thrashed out and the members decide.  And at that point some people, one side or the other won’t be happy but they will have to be bound by the constitution.  And providing there’s a free and fair discussion and then very promptly an election, then the losing side will have to – and certainly should, and everyone will know that it should – simply get on with it and accept the wishes of the majority of the Party.  But at present we’re not even being allowed that.  There’s this little group in charge, saying people can jump up and down all they like, we’re not going to do anything.  Meanwhile things go from bad to worse.

Mozar:  No to wind up, Nick, this very short but very succinct report, what final words to you have to say before we go off air?

Griffin:  Well, Lynne, I’m aware and you’re aware and all our people will know just how many, a huge number of people, within the party over years have sacrificed so much for the British National Party and for our cause.  You know, it’s not just money and it’s not just time.  People have had their windows put through by the far left, they’ve had their cars attacked, they’ve had their kids bullied at school.  People have been to hell and back.  People have been divorced because of their love for our Party and our cause, for their commitment to carrying it forward.  We can’t let that go.  We can’t go off and form something new.  We have to do everything we possibly can, using the constitution to save the British National Party and get it back on track.  And I’m not asking people even to make decisions on my report, although I know plenty of people are reading it, or what other people say about it.  I’m simply asking them to accept the blatantly obvious fact that there’s a crisis in the Party, and the only way to sort it out now is to have a really urgent, rapid Emergency General Meeting and let the members decide – and save the British National Party.

Mozar:  That’s right.  Thank you very, very, very much, Nick, and do have a good break wherever you’re going and a good flight.

Griffin:  I’m not on a break, Lynne, and I’m off on a nationalist conference.  There’s different levels to this: I know that a lot of people are going up to Rotherham on Saturday for the latest protest to keep up the pressure to sack the Labour creep who oversaw the institutionalised turning of a blind eye to the abuse of hundreds of our girls.  Rotherham is not the only place: it’s gone on in every single country, every single town and city in Britain with a population of those people.  People shouldn’t take their eye off the ball.  Whatever you think of what’s going on at present, get up to Rotherham and get active, get there and spread the word – because in the end the petty ins and outs of nationalist politics are nothing like as important as the cause and the thing for which we fight, which in Rotherham this coming weekend is justice for those kids and justice for their families, to make sure it’s stopped and doesn’t happen again.

Mozar:  Lovely.  Thank you very, very, very much, Nick, and good luck.

Griffin:  Thank you, Lynne, bye.



BNP Purge of Griffinites Begins

The new BNP power axis (left to right): Adam Walker, who has succeeded Nick Griffin as party chairman; Patrick Harrington, veteran political schemer aiming to survive as brains behind the new regime; Mark Walker, the new chairman’s brother.

All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52)

LATEST UPDATE: Click here for full text of Nick Griffin’s circular to BNP Executive Council

As reported in the current edition of Heritage and Destiny, Nick Griffin was ousted as chairman of the British National Party in a brutal coup at a meeting of the party’s national executive on 19th July.  It took only a month for a purge of his remaining followers to begin, following the pattern which Griffin himself established more than a decade ago when he similarly purged supporters of his predecessor, BNP founder John Tyndall – eventually proscribing JT from his own party!

Nick Griffin’s son-in-law Angus Matthys is the latest to be struck down by the terrible swift sword of BNP factionalism.  On 20th August he received this peremptory summons from newly appointed BNP staff manager Frank Hogarth, no doubt acting on the orders of new party chairman Adam Walker.  Some detect the hand of Walker’s éminence grise – Nick Griffin’s former friend, turned enemy, turned friend, now perhaps turned enemy again – Patrick Harrington.

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 [sic] 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

Further developments in the death of the BNP are expected soon.  What was once Britain’s best hope is now no longer a political party, but a business processing legacies from those misguided enough to leave bequests to the BNP in their will.


Nick Griffin Updates ‘Attempted Murder’

Best of enemies: Nick Griffin (left) and Adam Walker, the man who replaced him as BNP leader on 19th July. An increasingly bitter feud is sure to end in court.

Veteran nationalists will remember the tragic farce of the National Front’s collapse in the mid-1980s: the low point being Attempted Murder, an extraordinary booklet by Nick Griffin (then part of the NF’s leadership team) in which he accused a long list of senior colleagues (including future MEP Andrew Brons) of being state agents employed in a byzantine plot to destroy the party.

After his ousting from the BNP leadership in a coup by former cronies on 19th July, Griffin has – true to form – published another long and extraordinary factional diatribe denouncing his rivals.  We reproduce the entire text below.



Problems for the new leader – problems for us all


An urgent report for all members of the Executive Council by Nick Griffin, BNP President




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



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.



  • 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.



Adam told us on 12th 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.




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.




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.




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 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.



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 6th 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.




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.



The last time I heard from Charlie Wythe was over the woeful statement he put out about the handover on Monday 21st 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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.



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


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

Nick Thomas <>

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 5th.

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.




Appendix 3 – Emails with Frank Hogarth

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

From: “Accountant” <>

To: “angus matthys” <>

Cc: “Alwyn Deacon” <>

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


Alwyn’s reply


Sent: 11 August 2014 15:15

To: “Accountant” <>, “Angus Matthys” <>

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.


My reply to Mr Hogarth’s provocatively negative letter

Nick Thomas <>

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


Aug 12 (8 days ago)

to me

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your email.

I have noted your points.

Kind Regards



Emails from Angus Matthys to Frank Hogarth

—–Original Message—–

From: “angus matthys” <>

Sent: 15 August 2014 16:14

To: “Frank Hogarth” <>

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” <>

Sent: 18 August 2014 21:23


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


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 (20th 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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
  1. 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.

“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.

“…..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…..

Nick Griffin quits BNP leadership


After fifteen years of wasted opportunity, vicious factional cronyism and blatant corruption, Nick Griffin has stepped down as chairman of the British National Party.

The new BNP chairman will be Durham-based activist Adam Walker, whose own North East region has seen one of the party’s greatest catastrophes. At this year’s elections the BNP was unable to field a single candidate in any of the North East’s council areas, and the only nationalist campaigns in the entire region were fought by the rival British Democratic Party.

New BNP chairman Adam Walker (left) with Japanese nationalist leader Mitsuhiro Kimura at a 2010 conference in Tokyo.

Mr Walker has already been criticised by some BNP members for having a Japanese ex-wife, for his liaison with Japanese nationalists in 2010 and for the error of judgement which led to his suspended jail sentence and a lifetime ban from teaching, after he had pursued three schoolchildren and slashed their bicycle tyres with a Stanley knife.

Heritage and Destiny will report in its next issue on the latest developments inside the BNP and on the potential for a post-Griffin rebuilding of the British nationalist movement.

Nick Griffin defeated: BNP loses every deposit

Nick Griffin has lost his seat in the European Parliament, and the British National Party faces catastrophic defeat nationwide.  In 2009 (as well as electing two MEPs) the BNP polled respectably across the country, saving every deposit by achieving more than 2.5% in each region.  This year the party has lost every single deposit: a total of £55,000 adding to the sting of electoral humiliation.

Griffin’s vote in North West England fell from 132,194 (8.0%) to 32,826 (1.9%).

In Yorkshire & Humber the BNP vote has also collapsed from 9.8% to 1.6%, with UKIP gaining two seats and Labour one. The Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and BNP each lost one.

The West Midlands was the BNP’s next best region in 2009 with 8.6%, but here too the party slumped to 1.5%.

The grim roll call of BNP lost deposits continued through the night: down from 8.7% to 1.6% in the East Midlands; down from 8.9% to 1.7% in the North East; down from 6.1% to 0.8% in Eastern England; down from 3.9% to 0.7% in South West England; down from 4.4% to 0.7% in South East England; and down from 5.4% to 1.0% in Wales.

At 3 a.m. local time the result in London was finally declared.  Here again the BNP took a hammering: polling just 0.9%, down from 4.9% five years ago.  In Scotland (where the result was not declared until Monday lunchtime) Nick Griffin’s misery was completed when the BNP vote fell from 2.5% to 0.8%, beaten by his bitter rival and former business partner Jim Dowson’s Britain First party. (The BNP did not contest the European elections in Northern Ireland.)

Click here for news from other European countries, where in contrast to the UK many nationalist parties have scored significant victories.


Nationalist victories in Europe, but catastrophe for BNP

Results are being declared across the continent in elections to the European Parliament, and H&D confidently expects to report nationalist victories in Hungary, France, Austria, Belgium and Greece – perhaps even elsewhere.

Marine Le Pen’s National Front won the elections in France, with around 25% of the vote.  In Hungary the nationalist Jobbik party has polled around 15%.  The national socialist Golden Dawn party in Greece triumphed over far left terrorism and state repression, polling 9.4% to take third place nationwide and gain three MEPs.

Some of the best nationalist results were in Austria, where the Austrian Freedom Party has polled around 20% and should double its number of MEPs from 2 to 4.

In Germany the hardline nationalist NPD seems likely to have won a European seat for the first time, despite polling only 1%.  The German constitutional court had ruled that the previous “threshold” system, under which parties needed to achieve at least 5% to win any seats at all, was unconstitutional – and the court later ruled against even a modified 3% threshold.  Given that Germany presently elects 96 MEPs, this gave the NPD a strong chance.  To be truthful, if German nationalists had got their act together they would easily have won several seats under the new system.  But the movement in Germany is so chaotic that even minimal competence could not be guaranteed….

In Denmark the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party polled 26% and won most seats, but this is not really a nationalist party and would prefer to ally with David Cameron’s Conservatives – not even with UKIP, and certainly not with real nationalists.  Similarly in Germany the new anti-Euro ‘Alternative for Germany’ party has made strong gains, winning around 7%, but their new MEPs would again prefer an alliance with Britain’s Conservatives.  Another party of this ilk is in Finland: the anti-Islam but essentially conservative True Finns party who polled 12.9% (up from 9.8% last time).

In Sweden a more radical (though still mainly anti-Islamic) party, the Sweden Democrats scored one of the best results continent-wide, polling 9.7%, up from 3.3% in 2009 and electing MEPs for the first time.  They will be part of a projected alliance with Marine Le Pen’s forces.

In the Netherlands, Europe’s best known Islamophobic politician, Geert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party, had a difficult start to the campaign when several of his own party officials objected to his apparent efforts to shift the party’s agenda onto a broader anti-immigrant stance.  This internal party crisis over “racism” has led to Wilders’ party falling from 17% to 13%: they won 4 MEPs last time, but will drop to 3.  Though they will presumably ally with the French National Front in the European Parliament, there remain big questions over whether they are nationalists or merely anti-Islam.

In Bulgaria the nationalist ‘Ataka’ party was crushed, losing both their MEPs after their vote fell from 12% to 3%.  Bulgaria’s infant democracy – plagued by endemic corruption and economic crises – has seen several brief bursts of support for protest parties.  It seems that Ataka’s moment has passed, with most of the vote shifting to a new party – ‘Bulgaria Without Censorship’, who have taken 10.4% in their first campaign.

Similarly in Romania the nationalist Greater Romania Party, which in 2009 elected 3 MEPs including its leader Vadim Tudor, slipped this year from 8.7% to 2.9% and will lose all three seats, having again lost support to various independent populists and protest parties.

The political and economic crisis which has damaged establishment parties across Europe has also had an effect in Spain, which until recently had a predominant two party system.  Both the mainstream conservatives and the mainstream socialists suffered, but despite a lot of publicity the UKIP-style ‘Vox’ party has failed, polling only 1.6%.  The big winners in Spain have not been nationalists or right-wing Eurosceptics, but rather the far left.

In Italy the big winners were the ‘Five Star Movement’, a populist protest party founded by television comedian Beppe Grillo.  They took 25.5% in their first European election campaign, finishing runners-up behind the mainstream left Democratic Party.  The big losers were the mainstream conservative ‘Forza Italia’, led by former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose vote fell from 35.3% to 17.0%.  The regionalist ‘Northern League’ fell from 10.2% to 6.0%.  Italian nationalists have paid the price for years of splits, and have fallen behind the extreme left.  The strongest nationalist party, running a joint slate labelled ‘Brothers of Italy – National Alliance’, polled 3.5%.

Here in the UK the BNP were heavily defeated, with further progress for UKIP and an unexpectedly good night for the Greens. Every single result declared was a lost deposit for the BNP.

In the Yorkshire & Humber region the BNP lost the seat which was won by Andrew Brons in 2009. The BNP vote fell from 9.8% to 1.6%, a lost deposit and utter humiliation for a once proud nationalist party.

In the East Midlands region, which contains some traditional nationalist strongholds, the BNP vote fell from 8.7% to 1.6%.

In North East England the BNP vote has collapsed from 8.9% to 1.7%, which means a lost deposit for the party in that region. UKIP and Labour each gained a seat here, with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats each losing a seat.

Another lost deposit for the BNP was in Eastern England, where the vote for Nick Griffin’s party fell from 6.1% to 0.8%. UKIP topped the poll in this region, and gained a seat at the expense of the Liberal Democrats (who were again wiped out and this time finished behind the Greens).

In South West England the BNP vote fell from 3.9% to 0.7%, and the party finished bottom of the poll behind the English Democrats. Needless to say this was another lost deposit.

In South East England the BNP vote again collapsed from 4.4% to 0.7%: this was another region where the BNP finished behind even the English Democrats.

In Nick Griffin’s home region of Wales, his party’s vote fell from 5.4% to 1.0%: only a fraction ahead of the tiny Britain First party run by Griffin’s former associates Jim Dowson and Paul Golding, who polled 0.9%.

At 1.30 a.m. (UK time) we were still awaiting results from the London region, because Third World style chaos affected the counting of votes in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.  This was no surprise to those of us who know the area…  Eventually at 3 a.m. London’s results were declared, bucking the national trend by delivering a landslide victory to Labour and only modest gains for UKIP, who retained just one seat in the capital.  But in one respect London was in line with the nationwide results: the BNP vote slumped from 4.9% to 0.9%.

Finally in Scotland the BNP vote fell from 2.5% to 0.8%, beaten by Britain First on 1.0%.

We will update this page tomorrow as final results across Europe become known, and the next issue of Heritage and Destiny will reflect on the future for post-Griffin British nationalism, as well as the prospects for some form of meaningful alliance between the wide variety of more successful European nationalist parties.


Nationalism in 2014 – a Who’s Who of who (not) to vote for!

Marine Le Pen (leader of the French National Front) and Geert Wilders (leader of the Dutch Freedom Party) will form the key axis of European nationalism – though Wilders rejects almost all nationalist values, focusing obsessively on the supposed threat of Islam.

Elections to the European Parliament will be held across the 28 nations of the European Union between 22-25 May 2014. The big losers will be conservative and liberal parties. The big winners will be assorted socialist and centre-left parties, but also various groups that could be termed the dissident right, which can be broken down into three types of nationalist:

A) parties that are essentially conservative or neo-conservative in their social and economic policies, but which defy the mainstream post-1945 conservative project of European federalism;
B) parties that are radical nationalist rather than conservative, but which seek to dissociate themselves from mid-20th century nationalist traditions by avoiding anything that offends Jews, and often by explicitly endorsing Zionism and obsessively focusing on Muslims;
C) radical nationalist parties who choose not to go down the Islamo-obsessive route, and in some cases explicitly align themselves with mid-20th century fascist or national socialist traditions.

In this survey, and in our report on the European election results which will appear in H&D 61, we will attempt to indicate which European parties belong to which of the above categories, though as will be seen this is sometimes impossible, with several parties blurring the boundaries.

Austria – Category B
The political mould in Austria is influenced by centuries of religious and dynastic wars. The country’s very name derives from the notion of an eastern Germanic kingdom or empire (Österreich), and in modern times this was reunited in a single Reich for seven years from 1938 to 1945. It might surprise some readers to learn that of the three competing strands in Austrian democratic politics – conservative, socialist and liberal – it is the liberal strand which has traditionally been most in favour of pan-German unity, since conservatives were more strongly Catholic and hostile to northern German Protestantism.
Consequently after 1945, surviving Austrian national socialists and their sympathisers regrouped in the liberal Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), which became one of Europe’s most successful nationalist parties under the leadership of Jörg Haider after 1986. Haider broke away from the party in 2005 and was killed in a car accident three years later, but the FPÖ has revived and refocused on an anti-Islamic strategy.
Alongside the Flemish separatist Vlaams Belang, the FPÖ is a formerly radical nationalist party which has sought to reinvent itself by genuflecting to international Zionism. Though its ideological contortions might cause internal problems in the future, for the moment the FPÖ is again enjoying electoral success, winning 20.5% of last year’s general election vote. They are confidently expected to repeat this success at the Euro-election, returning to their mid-1990s peak support.
The FPÖ’s MEPs will be allied to the French FN and Flemish VB in the strongest nationalist bloc ever seen in the European Parliament. The rival BZÖ, which was formed by former FPÖ leader Haider in 2005 but has since adopted a more “moderate” strategy, will field a slate headed by MEP Angelika Werthmann who defected to the BZÖ from a now-defunct anti-corruption group and has been promoted to replace Jörg Haider’s daughter as number one on the party’s list. However the BZÖ has declined drastically since Haider’s death and is likely to poll only around 2%.

Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, expects to be toasting further success at this week’s elections.

Belgium – Category B
Of all the 28 countries in the European Union, Belgium is the most artificial state: French-speaking “Walloon” areas include the capital Brussels, an isolated enclave, entirely surrounded by Dutch-speaking Flemish. Flemish nationalists were once repressed by the Belgian state, and turned to the paramilitary and national socialist VMO. To some extent the Flemish nationalist Vlaams Blok grew out of the VMO, and was effectively banned by the Belgian courts for “racism” in 2004. The VB was reformed as the Vlaams Belang, and is now one of Europe’s strongest nationalist parties – allied to the French FN despite traditional cultural divisions.
Like the FPÖ, the VB has tried to shun its national socialist antecedents, and rebranded itself as an Islamo-obsessive, pro-Zionist party. Due to the peculiarities of Belgian politics their MEPs are elected in separate electoral colleges, and the VB only competes in the Flemish section, which elects 12 of the 21 Belgian MEPs.
After the elections, one would expect the VB to ally with the French FN and the Austrian FPÖ.
In the French-speaking half of Belgium, there are racial nationalists in a Belgian version of the FN (a Walloon dominated unitarist party), but these are not electorally significant and for legal reasons might not even be able to contest this year’s elections.

Bulgaria – Category C
The Ataka (Attack) party was founded by radical Bulgarian nationalist journalist Volen Siderov in 2005 and quickly achieved an electoral breakthrough. Siderov took 21.5% of first preference votes in the 2006 Bulgarian election, and although his party has failed to match this result in subsequent contests, Ataka still has two MEPs and is established as the country’s fourth largest party.
Siderov’s anti-NATO, pro-nationalisation stance – with his uncompromising criticisms of Zionism, international Freemasonry and his own country’s gypsies – will make it difficult for Ataka to cooperate in the European Parliament with more squeamish and self-consciously “moderate” nationalist parties, although Ataka was part of the short-lived “Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty” group which briefly united European Parliamentary nationalists in 2007.

Croatia – Category B/C
Having joined the European Union in July 2013, Croatia will be taking part in Euro-elections for the first time this year. The main nationalist party is the Croatian Party of Rights, which has cordial relations with mainstream European nationalist groups such as the FN but (partly due to a history of splits) has declined in support and currently has no MPs in the Croatian Parliament. It is most unlikely to win any European seats this year.

Cyprus – Category C
An EU member since 2004, politics in Cyprus is still dominated by divisions between Turkish and Greek sections of the island. The National Popular Front (ELAM) is a Greek Cypriot nationalist party which has links to the controversial and increasingly successful Greek national socialist party Golden Dawn. ELAM polled around 1% at the most recent Cypriot parliamentary and presidential elections, and is most unlikely to be winning seats in the European Parliament, unless Cypriot politics undergoes the type of seismic transformation that boosted their sister party in Athens.

Czech Republic – Category A
Racial nationalism in the Czech Republic is confined to extra-parliamentary and sometimes illegal groups: no radical nationalist party will contest this year’s Czech elections. A UKIP-style populist, anti-EU party – Dawn of Direct Democracy, often known simply as Dawn – was founded last year by a half-Japanese businessman who broke away from the main Czech conservative party. Dawn took almost 7% of the vote at last year’s Czech general election and might hope to win one or two European seats this year, in which case they would logically ally with UKIP.

Denmark – Category A/B
The anti-immigration Danish People’s Party (DPP) won two European seats in 2009 with 15.3% of the vote – their best result since the party’s foundation in 1995. The DPP is a virulently anti-Islamic party, but not racial nationalist: effectively a more hardline version of UKIP, similar to Geert Wilders’ party in Holland.
Denmark also has a Eurosceptic party with roots in leftist and green movements: the People’s Movement Against the EU, which has one MEP.

Estonia – Category A/B
The newly formed Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE), a merger of two earlier conservative parties, is a UKIP-style eurosceptic party, with an anti-immigration stance, but which also adopts some radical economic policies – including cooperative banks and even currency reform – which would be anathema to UKIP’s neo-Thatcherites. As with many nationalist movements in countries which were formerly part of the Soviet Union, the EKRE’s platform is influenced by hostility to Russian influence.
Given recent events in Ukraine, any EKRE success in this year’s election could have dramatic consequences, though for now the very best they could expect would be to win one of the six Estonian MEPs.
Martin Helme, son of the EKRE leader, recently told a television interviewer that the party’s immigration policy was: “If you’re black, go back. As simple as that. We shouldn’t allow this problem to emerge in the first place.”

Millwall fan Timo Soini would prefer to lead his True Finns party into an alliance with David Cameron’s Conservatives rather than UKIP and would definitely shun any nationalist alliance.

Finland – Category A
The Finns Party (previously known as the True Finns) – led by populist eurosceptic, Catholic convert and Millwall fan Timo Soini – has one MEP and might hope to win a second seat this year. They are allied to UKIP in the European Parliament, though Soini addressed the Conservative Party conference in 2011.

France – Category B/C
Marine Le Pen’s National Front (FN) will provide the big story of this year’s elections, and hopes to be the core of the largest nationalist group ever in the European Parliament. 2009 was one of the FN’s weaker results, when they won only three seats after polling 6.3%. This year they should gain at least an extra ten seats, and opinion polls suggest that they could become the largest French party, overtaking both conservatives and socialists. Marine Le Pen then hopes to negotiate a broad agreement between many diverse European nationalist and eurosceptic groups, though disappointingly she seems to be focusing on an unachievable deal to unite the most moderate and Islamo-obsessive parties, while shunning traditional nationalists such as Hungary’s Jobbik and the Greek Golden Dawn. Her big problem is that the FN itself (partly for reasons deeply rooted in French history and political culture) has aspects which the likes of UKIP or the Danish People’s Party will forever regard as too “extreme”.
France also has a UKIP-style, non-racial eurosceptic party – Arise the Republic (DLR) – but having achieved less than 2% last time, and only 2-3% in recent polls, the DLR is almost certain to win zero MEPs.

Germany – Category A
Since the decline of the Republican Party – which elected six MEPs in 1989, including party leader and Waffen-SS veteran Franz Schönhuber – no radical German nationalist party has come close to winning a European seat.
Last year the German political mould was shaken, though not quite broken, by a new eurosceptic party – Alternative for Germany (AfD) – polling 4.7% at their first general election outing and only just missing out on the threshold for election to the German Parliament.
Current polls suggest that AfD could poll around 8% this year, gaining perhaps seven MEPs, but for them even UKIP is too radical an ally.
The main radical German nationalist party – the NPD – is facing renewed state persecution, and will have no serious chance of winning seats, even if it hasn’t been formally banned. Similarly the Republikaner Party no longer has any realistic chance of winning MEPs, and neither does the Islam-obsessed PRO movement.

German nationalists have had no European Parliamentary success since the victories of the late Franz Schönhuber’s Republikaner party. Schönhuber (above right) is seen here with lawyer and (then) NPD activist Horst Mahler, who is currently serving a twelve-year prison sentence for daring to challenge the orthodox interpretation of German history.

Greece – Category C
The Greek national socialist party Golden Dawn provided Europe’s most surprising political headlines during the past two years, rising from the furthest margins of Greek politics to poll almost 7% in two general elections in May and June 2012, as the Greek economic crisis threatened to descend into civil war, destabilising the entire European Union project.
Last year the Greek establishment moved to proscribe Golden Dawn, arresting leaders, while in a parallel move to extinguish the national socialist challenge, far left terrorists murdered two Golden Dawn activists in a drive-by shooting at the party headquarters in Athens.
Against this background of legal and terroristic repression, it will be very surprising if Golden Dawn can match their 2012 election campaigns this year, but opinion polls suggest the party could achieve between 9% and 12%, which would give them perhaps four MEPs. In previous European elections the party had never achieved more than 0.5%.
Golden Dawn MEPs would find logical allies in Hungary’s Jobbik, but sadly will probably be shunned by other mainstream nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, pursuing more “moderate” allies.
Greece also has a UKIP-style party – the Independent Greeks, created as a breakaway from the ruling conservatives. They will probably win one or two European seats, but having finished slightly ahead of Golden Dawn in the 2012 general elections, they have since been overtaken by their more radical nationalist rivals. (Similarly the Greek far left have overtaken the moderate socialists.)

Golden Dawn supporters rally outside the Greek Parliament: the jailing of several party leaders seems not to have halted Golden Dawn’s progress.

Hungary – Category C
Alongside Greece, Hungary has Europe’s most successful radical nationalist party. Jobbik polled 14.7% at the 2009 European election, rising to 16.7% at the Hungarian general election the following year. For reasons deeply rooted in the history of Hungarian nationalist resistance to Bolshevism during the 20th century, Jobbik is unembarrassed by open criticism of Zionist Jewry (and earlier Jewish involvement with Communist parties). This has led some other European nationalists to shy away from alliances with Jobbik. There is also a potentially intractable problem of border disputes between Hungary and her neighbours, resulting from the injustices of the Treaty of Trianon after the First World War.
Jobbik looks likely to poll well at the Hungarian general election in April, and gain an extra European seat the following month, but will there be enough radical nationalist colleagues from other countries to form a viable parliamentary bloc?

Jobbik leader Gabor Vona speaking to Hungarian expatriates and press in London: his party is likely to lead a radical nationalist alternative to the Islam-obsessed tendency in European nationalism.

Ireland – none
The Republic of Ireland has no electorally credible racial nationalist, or even eurosceptic nationalist party. The big question in Irish politics will be whether Sinn Féin – political arm of the terrorist IRA – will recapture the seat they lost in 2009, and perhaps even gain a second. In the European Parliament, Sinn Féin MEPs ally with various far left groups, many of which (for example in France and Greece) will also increase their support this year.

Italy – Category A (?)
After the collapse of the postwar Italian political system in the early 1990s, some formerly radical nationalists allied with the corrupt tycoon and populist conservative Silvio Berlusconi in a cross-party alliance against the Left. This resulted in Gianfranco Fini, leader of the former neo-fascist party MSI, rebranding his party as the National Alliance (AN), and then merging with Berlusconi’s forces as the People of Freedom (PdL). Fini served for five years as Italy’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under Berlusconi, and then for another five years as Speaker of the Italian Parliament.
In recent years Fini broke away from Berlusconi over the latter’s financial crimes, but has if anything become even more politically liberal, and is now unrecognisable as the young neo-fascist protegé of MSI founder Giorgio Almirante back in the 1970s.
Fini’s ex-fascists split from Berlusconi’s coalition in 2010 to create a new “Future and Freedom” party, but this has suffered further splits over how far to embrace either (or both) social and economic liberalism, and has now been deserted by most of its founders.
In advance of this year’s elections, the most credible Italian nationalist party seems to be Brothers of Italy, founded at the end of 2012 and led by a former youth activist in the AN, Giorgia Meloni, and another ex-fascist, Ignazio La Russa, who was Defence Minister alongside Fini in Berlusconi’s government. They will hope to reach the 4% threshold to elect an MEP, a hurdle that is certainly too high for any of the more radical nationalist parties, such as Roberto Fiore’s Forza Nuova.
Despite its leaders’ fascist pedigree, Brothers of Italy is really a conservative party, as is its smaller rival The Right (La Destra), led by another former MSI activist Francesco Storace, who was President of the Lazio region around Rome from 2000 to 2005 and then had a year as Health Minister in a Berlusconi government.
The most radical challenge to the Italian establishment is from the populist comedian Beppe Grillo, whose Five Star Movement is polling around 25% and is in some ways comparable to the U.S. Tea Party. While he reflects widespread disillusionment, Grillo himself has no substantial nationalist programme.
The regionalist Northern League, which was a major force in Italian politics after 1993 and had some racial nationalist aspects (though alienating southern Italian neo-fascists) now seems in decline and could even fall below the 4% threshold, having lost many anti-system protest voters to Grillo.

Fratelli d’Italia leaders Ignazio La Russa, Giorgia Meloni and Francesco Storace at a campaign launch: their party (though far more ‘moderate’ than its predecessors) is at present the most successful to have emerged from the fragmented Italian fascist tradition.

Latvia – Category A
As with several nations that emerged from the former Soviet bloc, Latvia’s politics is complicated by the symbolism of 20th century anti-communism, with nationalists paying homage to political ancestors who were allied to national socialism seventy years ago, but whose modern politics have little or no radical edge.
The National Alliance is the fourth-largest party in Latvia, and has an anti-immigration and anti-Russian platform. It was formed as a coalition of For Fatherland and Freedom (which despite its radical sounding name was actually a free-market conservative party allied to Britain’s Conservatives), with the more hardline nationalist All for Latvia. They have one MEP, but are unlikely to join even the most moderate efforts to create a European Parliamentary nationalist bloc.

Lithuania – Category A
Order and Justice – the third-largest party in Lithuania – is allied to UKIP and has two MEPs. A potential wild card in Lithuanian politics is an anti-corruption party founded in 2012 – The Way of Courage – who gained 8% at the 2012 general election, and has some potential to rally populist nationalist voters. The national socialist Lithuanian National Union has no legal status and will be unable to contest the elections.

Luxembourg – Category A
In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg – one of the original pioneers of the European unity project – there are no serious nationalist parties, and the only significant eurosceptic party is the Alternative Democratic Reform Party, which polled 7.4% in the 2009 elections but would need more than double that support to win a European seat.

Malta – Category C
Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa is (alongside Golden Dawn) the most radical nationalist party contesting the European Parliamentary elections. Founded in 2000, Imperium Europa has frequently been subjected to legal repression, and would need a Greek-style political revolution to win a European seat. The eurosceptic Libertas Malta, which contested the 2009 elections, is no longer active.

Netherlands – Category A/B
Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV) is Europe’s most prominent anti-Islamic party. Though most of his party’s programme would be compatible with the likes of UKIP, his extreme Islamophobic rhetoric makes Nigel Farage nervous. The PVV’s closest allies are the Flemish VB and the Austrian FPÖ, and Marine Le Pen hopes that these three parties will ally with her FN after the May elections to form the most credible nationalist bloc in the history of the European Union. But will the policies of such a bloc amount to anything beyond Islamophobia?
The PVV currently has four MEPs, and might hope possibly to gain one more this year. Wilders will then have a difficult choice as to how far to pursue an alliance with Le Pen which would alienate some of his existing friends such as the Danish People’s Party.

Geert Wilders (right) in Jerusalem with Yishai Fleisher, a hardline Zionist propagandist and former Director of Israel National Radio (Arutz Sheva). They were in the Zionist capital for a showing of Wilders’ film ‘Fitna’.

Poland – Category A
The main Polish opposition party Law and Justice (which in the European Parliament has been allied to British and Latvian conservatives) will be fighting this year’s elections on a joint ticket agreed with “Right Wing of the Republic”, a socially conservative party focused on maintaining Poland’s Catholic traditions and opposition to abortion. If the British Conservative Party were to move away from euroscepticism, these parties would probably ally with UKIP but have little in common with radical nationalists.

Portugal – Category C
The main Portuguese nationalist movement is the National Renovator Party (PNR), which has forged links with other European nationalist parties including Golden Dawn and the German NPD. The PNR is unlikely to mount a substantial electoral challenge this year. As in Spain, surviving supporters of the pre-1970s dictatorship tend to support the main conservative party, and there is no UKIP-style challenge to this establishment.

Romania – Category C
There are two nationalist parties in Romania, which have been strong enough to elect MEPs, but have adopted maverick policies which put them at odds with potential allies in the European Parliament. Some of these problems are chronic, given the border disputes between Hungary and Romania, and the potential for Romanians to take offence at Western European anti-gypsy policies, which could be interpreted as anti-Romanian.
However part of the problem is related to the personalities of the two Romanian nationalist leaders. Vadim Tudor, founder of the Greater Romania Party (which elected three MEPs in 2009), built his political career as an ostentatious anti-semite, but then shifted towards a more pro-Zionist policy, hiring Jewish public relations adviser Nati Meir. A couple of years later Tudor sacked Meir and reverted to an anti-Jewish policy.
The rival nationalist New Generation Party (Christian Democratic) is led by the owner of well known football club Steaua Bucharest, Gigi Becali. Briefly allied with Tudor’s party in 2009, Becali’s organisation is regarded as even more anti-Jewish, and following in the tradition of the Iron Guard (whose leader Corneliu Codreanu was venerated by Nick Griffin’s NF faction during the 1980s). In May 2013 Becali was given a three year prison sentence for a fraud involving 1990s land deals, and though he has conducted football business from his prison cell, his party is unlikely to campaign substantially this year.

Gigi Becali – leader of the New Generation party and owner of Steaua Bucharest football club – was elected to the European Parliament but jailed by his country’s rulers.

Slovakia – Category A/B
The Slovak National Party (SNS – founded out of the break-up of the Soviet bloc in 1989) is a eurosceptic party whose politics are complicated by hostility to their Hungarian neighbours. The party is often accused of neo-fascist tendencies due to their support for the historic legacy of Slovak leader Jozef Tiso, who was allied to national socialist Germany, but realistically its 21st century politics are not very radical. The SNS has one MEP, who is allied to UKIP.

Slovenia – Category C
The Slovenian National Party (SNS) is an example of the post-Cold War tendency for nationalist parties in Eastern Europe to challenge the New World Order while adopting some semi-nostalgic policies of sympathy with the old communist bloc. For reasons linked to Balkan history, the party is strongly anti-Catholic. The SNS polled 2.9% at the 2009 European elections, and would need to treble this vote to gain an MEP.

Spain – Category A/C
After Gen. Franco’s death in 1975, almost all those who had supported his nationalist forces during and after the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 aligned themselves with the conservative People’s Party (PP). There are various nationalist parties – such as the national socialist National Alliance (AN), led by veteran lawyer Pedro Pablo Peña – but none (either of the radical or UKIP style) have had any chance of winning European Parliamentary seats.
At the start of 2014 dissident right-wingers broke away from the governing PP to form Vox, a new party that seems more eurosceptic and more hardline in its opposition to ETA terrorism and might manage the 2% required to elect a Spanish MEP. This is the third eurosceptic party in recent years to take its name from a Latin noun, after Robert Kilroy-Silk’s UKIP breakaway Veritas and the Irish businessman Declan Ganley’s Libertas. Each of these earlier parties sank without trace!
As in many other European countries, the only form of nationalist or traditionalist sentiment that is deemed acceptable is in a form which opposes the existing state: i.e. regionalist and separatist parties in Catalonia, the Basque country, Valencia, etc. Some of these join forces for electoral purposes and elect a couple of MEPs. In November 2014 the Catalan regional government plans to stage a referendum on whether to break away from Spain and create an independent Catalonia, but the government in Madrid has so far ruled this is unconstitutional.
Within Catalan nationalism, there is a growing anti-immigration and anti-Islamic party – Platform for Catalonia. Later this year H&D will publish a special feature on the relationship between ethnic nationalism and regionalism/separatism.

Spain has an excellent cadre of nationalist leaders – including veteran lawyer Pedro Pablo (above) – but most potential nationalist voters since the death of Gen. Franco have stayed with the mainstream conservative party.

Sweden – Category A/B
The Sweden Democrats – like the Flemish VB and the Austrian FPÖ – have trimmed their nationalist and immigration policies in the direction of Islamo-obsession, and have many Christian immigrants among their candidates. Having won no European representation in 2009 (falling just short of the 4% threshold), they made a breakthrough the following year to gain 20 seats in the Swedish Parliament. They are sure to gain one or two MEPs this year, and will be part of any negotiations to create a new European nationalist bloc, with or without Marine Le Pen’s FN.
The far more radical National Democrats, who have had ties to the BNP, sadly have no chance of winning a European seat.

United Kingdom – Category A
There will be no radical nationalists elected from the UK this year, with the BNP certain to lose its two MEPs (one of whom – Andrew Brons – has already left the BNP to join the new British Democratic Party but will be retiring from the Parliament this year, as he always pledged to do). No post-BNP party has yet established firm electoral foundations.
UKIP is certain to increase its support, and has a 50-50 chance of emerging as the largest single party – though it is highly questionable where its eurosceptic but multiracialist agenda can go from there.
In Northern Ireland (where three MEPs are elected under a different voting system) UKIP is standing for the first time, but in any case will be irrelevant. Sinn Féin will top the poll: the majority Protestant community remaining divided and without effective representation.

Soon after their election to the European Parliament in 2009, the BNP’s Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were attacked by ‘anti-fascists’ in Westminster. Andrew Brons retired from Brussels this year; Nick Griffin is certain to be defeated; and British nationalism is an a trough of depression five years after its greatest triumph.

The European Parliamentary system allows MEPs to form transnational groups reflecting a shared ideology: these groups gain an officially recognised status, extra funding, staff etc., if they can attract a minimum of 25 MEPs from seven different states.
UKIP-style parties (i.e. Category A above) currently form a group called Europe of Freedom and Democracy, while several more moderate eurosceptic parties choose to ally with the British Conservative Party as “European Conservatives and Reformists”.
At present nationalist parties (whether Category B or C above) have not managed to secure sufficient numbers to form a group. In the next H&D we will report on Marine Le Pen’s post-election efforts to do so.

UK Nationalist Line-Up

Just before this edition of H&D went to press, candidates’ lists for the 2014 European elections were confirmed. Nick Griffin will of course head the BNP list in North West England. The desperate state of the BNP in 2014 is reflected in Simon Darby’s inclusion on the North West slate – Darby is a former West Midlands councillor who now lives in Wales and has no North West connection.

Cathy Duffy – soon to be the last remaining BNP councillor – heads the slate in the East Midlands, where she is joined by the Rev. Robert West and Geoff Dickens, whose backing was crucial in Griffin’s narrow leadership victory three years ago.

In Yorkshire the BNP’s Rotherham organiser Marlene Guest – one of the region’s few remaining Griffin loyalists – will head the slate in a doomed effort to retain the European parliamentary seat won by Andrew Brons five years ago. Number two on the slate is former teacher Adam Walker, imported from the North East region due to the shortage of credible Yorkshire BNP candidates.

Former BNP councillor Chris Beverley: now the lead European candidate for the English Democrats in the Yorkshire & Humber region.

The English Democrat slate opposing Mrs Guest is headed by Chris Beverley, who works in the Andrew Brons European office and was a BNP councillor on Leeds City Council from 2006 to 2010. Two fellow ex-BNP candidates – Tom Redmond from Leeds and Ian Sutton from Barnsley – are also on the EDs’ Yorkshire slate.
Elsewhere former BNP and NF activist Gary Butler is an ED candidate for South East England. The lead ED candidate in the West Midlands is Kevin Sills, veteran of several nationalist parties including Ian Anderson’s NF faction, later renamed National Democrats.

In North West England the ED slate includes two BNP defectors from Merseyside – Paul Rimmer and Steve McEllenborough – as well as Anthony Backhouse, a former candidate for the UKIP splinter group Veritas.

Whereas there would once have been keen competition to become a BNP parliamentary candidate, by the start of March 2014 the party’s national elections officer Alwyn Deacon was reduced to advertising on the party’s website for any members willing to stand. In a desperate effort to cobble together full slates in every region, farcical nominations ensued such as the Preston based Tony Bamber standing at the opposite corner of England in the South East region.

At least two smaller eurosceptic parties will be fielding candidates this year. Nikki Sinclaire will be defending the West Midlands seat that she won in 2009, but having quit UKIP in 2010 in protest at the party’s alleged “far right” tendencies, she will stand this year for her new “We Demand a Referendum Now” party, whose activities will confined to the West Midlands despite unfulfilled boasts that Sun columnist Katie Hopkins would be standing for Ms Sinclaire’s party in the South West England region.

In a crowded West Midlands field another UKIP defector, Mike Nattrass MEP, is set to defend his seat under the label “An Independence From Europe”. Mr Nattrass’s party is also contesting the other English regions: bizarrely their lead candidate in the South East is the Dutch MEP Laurence Stassen, who had been leader of Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party group in the European Parliament but quit last month in a row over Wilders’ apparent move towards a “racist” immigration policy. Ms Stassen represents the liberal, non-racist faction who wanted Wilders’ party merely to oppose Islamist extremism and the EU.

Former Stoke councillor Michael Coleman, lead candidate for the BNP in the West Midlands region for the European Parliament.

The dying BNP – once a powerful force in the West Midlands region, which came close to electing an MEP in 2009 – has published a slate headed by former Stoke BNP councillor Michael Coleman, who was convicted of “racially aggravated harassment” in 2012 and given an eight-month suspended prison sentence. Second on the West Midlands BNP slate is Nick Griffin’s daughter Jennifer Matthys.

Meanwhile ex-UKIP activist Paul Weston is heading his own Liberty GB slate in South East England. Weston made a name for himself a couple of years ago when he briefly led the British Freedom Party, an attempt to create a political wing of the English Defence League. As H&D revealed at the time, Weston travelled to Canada for meetings with a notorious terrorist group, the Jewish Defence League. Also on Weston’s slate is former BNP student activist Jack Buckby and Enza Ferreri, the party’s Italian-born press officer.

Contrary to earlier promises the BNP will not be standing candidates in Northern Ireland at this year’s election, no doubt fearing humiliation at the hands of UKIP, who have been recruiting significant activists in the Orange Order including defectors from both the Democratic Unionist Party and the “official” Ulster Unionist Party. UKIP will compete for loyalist votes with Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), the party led by former DUP MEP Jim Allister.

Although claiming to be the political heirs of Sir Oswald Mosley’s pro-European Union Movement, the New British Union decided not to contest this year’s election. Neither the National Front nor the relatively new British Democratic Party will field European candidates, so the only European Parliamentary choices for most English nationalist voters will be between the BNP and the English Democrats, apart from in South East England, where they have the additional option of Paul Weston’s Liberty GB.

Jim Dowson’s Britain First party had been expected to run a spoiler campaign against Nick Griffin in North West England, but have instead taken the pragmatic option of spending their deposit money on slates in Scotland and Wales, which buys them television broadcast time (only viewable of course by Scottish and Welsh voters). Though now based in Northern Ireland, Jim Dowson was active in Scottish anti-abortion politics some years ago, so his decision to head the BFP’s Scottish slate makes some sense. Paul Golding’s candidature in Wales is less explicable: his only connection with the principality dates back to his years working for Nick Griffin. The BFP seems to be putting most of its efforts into street activities in a bid to seize the political ground once held by the EDL.

The uncertain nationalist scene in Europe is matched in the UK, though at a significantly lower level of electoral ambition. The BNP is likely to respond to electoral rejection by drifting further towards “extremist” fringe politics, but unlike in Greece and Eastern Europe this radical posturing will be essentially hollow, without any ideological core commitment at the top of the party.

Peter Rushton, Manchester, England

This article was first published in Heritage and Destiny magazine, issue #60 (May/June 2014). If you require a free sample copy, email us at –

BNP leader loses yet another case

Another legal disaster

The long drawn out employment tribunal case brought against BNP leader Nick Griffin by the party’s former administration officer Michaela Mackenzie has ended today in another comprehensive defeate for Griffin.

He must now pay the £25,000 he has long owed Ms Mackenzie, as well as her legal costs (estimated at more than £12,000) as well as his own legal costs (which will be considerably more).

Doubtless Griffin will dip into the cash provided by long suffering party members and donors, even though they intended this for political campaigning, rather than for subsidising yet more of Griffin’s petty factionalism and hubris.

Ms Mackenzie deserves respect and credit for her determination to secure justice against Griffin, through literally years of his devious evasions.


Court orders BNP leaders to pay another £22,500

Nick Griffin (left) and Simon Darby in 2006, before launching their disastrous legal action that has bankrupted Griffin and taken his party to the edge of extinction

This morning in Court 57 of the Royal Courts of Justice, Nick Griffin and Simon Darby faced another costs hearing, resulting from their long running and disastrous attempt to bring civil actions against several former BNP officials – Kenny Smith, Nicholla Ritchie (now Mrs Smith), Steve Blake and Ian Dawson.

Griffin and Darby lost the first stages of this case as long ago as April 2008, lost the final stage in December 2010, and lost subsequent appeals. A few days ago Griffin was bankrupted in Welshpool County Court following an action by his own former solicitors, whom he had failed to pay.

Griffin and Darby were also of course ordered to pay the other side’s costs, and characteristically they have tried to drag out the process, tyring to avoid the bill for their hubris. A first instalment of £45,000 was eventually paid.

Today they were ordered to pay an additional instalment of £22,500 within 28 days.

Yet another costs hearing in the case is now scheduled for Friday 21st March. This is to allow the Official Receiver, who is now in charge of Nick Griffin’s affairs, to make representations if he so wishes. The total costs bill in this case is likely to be more than £130,000 (in addition to Griffin and Darby’s own costs).

Anyone considering making a donation to the British National Party should be aware that – contrary to Mr Griffin’s assertions – party funds are unlikely to be safe from Griffin and Darby’s creditors in this and other cases. Remember that today’s long running case (though the largest) is only one of several legal liabilities confronting Griffin and his party.

Nick Griffin did not turn up to court today, though Simon Darby and Clive Jefferson did. Surprisingly Heritage and Destiny was the only media organisation represented!

Clive Jefferson on one of his many former court appearances. Today saw more bad news for the BNP Treasurer, since the party will ultimately be held to account for its leader’s foolish legal stunts.

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers