Scottish justice or “due deference” to French-Zionist lobby? The Reynouard case hangs in the balance
On 21st September, a Scottish Crown prosecutor asked an Edinburgh court to show “due deference to France” and extradite a man who is accused of no crime under Scottish law. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton reports from the court. This article and related material also appears at Peter’s Real History blog and now also in Spanish by clicking on this link.
The revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard was appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for a full hearing of his extradition case. This was almost exactly ten months after his arrest in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther, where Vincent had been working quietly as a private tutor and completing his most important historical revisionist work concerning the so-called “massacre” at Oradour.
He was arrested in a raid by Scottish police, working with Scotland Yard detectives, at the request of French prosecutors who wish to jail him for revisionist videos concerning both Oradour and the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.
None of these revisionist works contravenes Scottish or English law, but the UK authorities were heavily lobbied by the Jewish charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and by the ultra-Zionist peer Lord Austin (formerly Ian Austin MP).
The sheer absurdity of this situation – the criminalisation of a scholar – was brought home to me by two incidents (one trivial, one serious) at the Edinburgh Court while waiting for Vincent’s case to be heard.
A sticker for the Edinburgh branch of the St Pauli supporters’ club was displayed in the lavatory at the Court. Supporters of St Pauli (a football club based in Hamburg) are notorious worldwide for their violent ‘anti-fascism’ and Marxism. It is impossible to imagine that a sticker promoting any violent ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ group (from, for example, supporters of a club such as Lazio, Chelsea, Millwall or Oldham) would have been allowed to remain on display at a court!
The other incident was more serious. Vincent’s case was being heard in a courtroom that specialises in extradition, which of course meant that more than two hours were taken up (before Vincent’s case began) by a long procession of procedural, pre-trial discussions of a range of unconnected defendants, including alleged gangsters from Eastern Europe.
By far the most serious of these procedural discussions involved a defendant appearing by video link. This was the notorious ‘Real IRA’ terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy (aka Anton Duffy), who in 2015 was jailed for 17 years for conspiracy to murder two ex-UDA members (Johnny Adair and Sam ‘Skelly’ McCrory) exiled in Scotland after their expulsion from the UDA.
Duffy is still serving this sentence in a top-security Scottish jail, but he is also now wanted by police and prosecutors in the Irish Republic, to face charges of murdering Denis Donaldson, an MI5 agent inside the IRA, who was killed in 2006. This is why Duffy was appearing on the same day as Vincent, in the Edinburgh extradition court.
H&D cannot yet comment on the latest specific charges – but it is beyond dispute (based on earlier convictions and years of police and MI5 covert surveillance) that Duffy is one of the UK’s most dangerous terrorists. Extradition procedures are designed for those accused of actual crimes: yet this week in Edinburgh (and in fact for the past ten months) Vincent Reynouard – a scholar, not a criminal – has been subjected to these same procedures.
As we have also seen with persistent abuse of the Terrorism Act by the UK authorities, those who simply seek to tell the truth about European history are persecuted by UK authorities who choose to follow the instructions of shadowy international lobbyists rather than UK law.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to be optimistic about Vincent’s case. He was very ably represented by his solicitor Paul Dunne and advocate Fred Mackintosh KC (who also practices as a barrister in England). It should of course be emphasised that Vincent’s defence is (rightly and properly) based on legal arguments, not on his historical and political views per se. As in any other such case, it should not be inferred that either Mr Dunne or Mr Mackintosh is in any way sympathetic to Vincent’s opinions, or indeed that either of them have any views or expertise on historical or political matters. They are experts on extradition law, not on historical revisionism or national socialism.
Due to Vincent having already spent ten months in jail (for something that isn’t even a crime in the UK!) the initial French warrant has been discharged.
This initial warrant was based on his having already been convicted and sentenced (in his absence) by a Parisian court. But he is no longer extraditable on those grounds, because that sentence has (in effect) already been served in Scotland, while Vincent awaited this extradition hearing.
Having dealt with the discharge of the first warrant, Mr Mackintosh proceeded to address the second.
Since it involves new charges (rather than a prior conviction) the ‘ticklist’ of the old European Arrest Warrant (now operating in revised form post-Brexit) doesn’t apply. Mr Mackintosh therefore pointed out that the traditional extradition principle of “dual criminality” operates in this case.
In other words, the Edinburgh Court must be satisfied that the conduct of which Vincent is accused would potentially be criminal in Scotland as well as in France.
The judge should (Mr Mackintosh continued) draw inferences as to Vincent’s “intent”, by looking at his overall conduct, and by studying the entire transcripts of his videos, not merely accepting the prosecutors’ interpretation of certain phrases taken out of context.
He highlighted one video, on which the prosecutors had based a large part of their case, and emphasised that the judge should study the full translated transcript carefully. This was a video published on 22nd February 2020, whose title translates as “The Jewish Problem – what solution?”
Vincent’s counsel did not dispute that his videos contain what has been termed “Holocaust denial”, that some of them address the “Jewish problem”, and that one in particular “denies” the historicity of the “Oradour massacre”.
But Mr Mackintosh’s central argument as to why Vincent should not be extradited began with a judgment in 2015 by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland.
The relevant aspect of this judgment (which involved a Turkish political activist accused of “denying” the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War), is that the European Court spelled out the very different laws among European states regarding “denial” of genocide.
Among those European countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court noted:
“there are now essentially four types of regimes in this domain, in terms of scope of the offence of genocide denial: (a) States, such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania, that only criminalise the denial of the Holocaust or more generally of Nazi crimes (Romania in addition criminalises the Nazi extermination of the Roma, and Greece criminalises, on top of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes, the denial of genocides recognised by an international court or its own Parliament); (b) States, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, that criminalise the denial of Nazi and communist crimes; (c) States, such as Andorra, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland, that criminalise the denial of any genocide (Lithuania in addition specifically criminalises denial of Soviet and Nazi crimes vis-à-vis the Lithuanians, but Cyprus only criminalises the denial of genocides recognised as such by a competent court); and (d) States, such as Finland, Italy, Spain (following the 2007 judgment of its Constitutional Court cited in paragraph 96 above), the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian States, that do not have special provisions criminalising such conduct.”
The European Court was clear, Mr Mackintosh said, that the UK had not chosen to make any form of “Holocaust denial” a specific criminal offence.
He added that in Vincent Reynouard’s case, the prosecution therefore had to satisfy the Scottish court that Vincent’s conduct (as alleged in the extradition warrant) met the test either for a S.127 Communications Act offence, or a breach of the peace (a common law offence).
The question of what behaviour can constitute a “breach of the peace” under Scottish law has been revised several times during recent decades – and is a matter on which Mr Mackintosh has special expertise, having for example written an article for Scottish Legal News on this very topic.
Such conduct must be serious enough to “cause alarm to ordinary people”, and it must “threaten serious disturbance to the community”. The relevant judgment was delivered in 2014 by Lady Clark of Calton, and Mr Mackintosh said that Lady Clark had reminded the lower courts that “for conduct to be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm there has to be something further than annoyance and distress”.
Mr Mackintosh explained that the test of whether conduct “threatens serious disturbance in the community” necessarily involves considering the full context. He quoted several cases in Scottish courts involving racial and sectarian abuse at football matches, where a crucial element was that this abuse had been directed at (or delivered in close proximity to) rival supporters, in the incendiary context of a football match attended by supporters of opposing teams.
In a 1981 case against communist activist Mike Duffield, the Sheriff Court had ruled that shouting pro-IRA slogans while selling the Marxist newspaper Fight Racism Fight Imperialism and the pro-IRA newspaper Hands off Ireland was a breach of the peace, despite this being carried out at the stadium of Glasgow Celtic, where many fans hold similar views.
And on the other side of politics, there had been a breach of the peace case involving a National Front activist selling the Young NF paper Bulldog outside the Hearts stadium in Edinburgh.
But in all these cases – and especially bearing in mind recent clarifications of the law in Scotland – it was essential to assess the wider context of the words used – in Vincent’s case, words used in videos broadcast online.
There were eight such videos referred to by French prosecutors in the present warrant. The first related specifically to Oradour. The second, third and fourth presented detailed arguments as to why (in Vincent’s considered opinion) there had been no homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, explaining that conventional ‘Holocaust’ history is based on specious evidence. The fifth and sixth discussed the “Jewish problem” or “what to do about the Jews”. And the seventh and eighth returned to the topic of Auschwitz, the ‘gas chambers’, and broader ‘Holocaust’ themes.
Mr Mackintosh emphasised that in the case of six of these eight videos, Vincent Reynouard had not been calling for any form of action. None of the content potentially qualified as personal abuse, and none of it could be seen as “threatening”. The videos amounted to a historical critique – which might well be controversial, but not illegal in Scotland.
In the case of videos 5 and 6, Vincent was responding to a correspondent. The prosecution had chosen to isolate certain phrases out of context, but Mr Mackintosh said that once seen in context it was clear that Vincent was stating his opposition to any policy of “exterminating” the Jews.
The test that the court had to apply was not whether “reasonable people” would reject Vincent’s views, but whether these views threatened “serious disturbance to society”. Were the court to accept the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to ruling that discussion of controversial arguments regarding the ‘Holocaust’ had become a crime in the UK. Mr Mackintosh said it was open to Parliaments in London and Edinburgh to make ‘Holocaust denial’ a crime, but they had (so far) chosen not to do so.
Therefore to be criminal, Vincent’s words would have to cross a further line, a further evidential test, in order to be regarded as a “breach of the peace”.
Mr Mackintosh then turned to the alternative test, S.127 of the Communications Act. For Vincent’s videos to be considered criminal in this context, they would have to be not merely offensive, but “grossly offensive”.
Prosecutors had rested much of their argument on the precedent of the Chabloz case, as tried in the London courts during recent years – not a binding precedent, but, they argued, very much a “persuasive” precedent in this case. [Chabloz has in recent years been excluded from British revisionist circles, due to her treacherous and malicious conduct in betraying Robert Faurisson’s final meeting to the ‘anti-fascist’ publication ‘Hope not Hate’. But her earlier actions have, as we predicted at the time, served as a precedent to threaten the liberty of Vincent Reynouard.]
On appeal, Chabloz’s conduct had been found to go beyond satire, having crossed the legal line into deliberate, malicious abuse. By contrast, Mr Mackintosh argued, the judge in the present case would find (if he examined the full transcripts of Vincent’s videos) that his arguments – even when highly controversial – were delivered as a calm, academic analysis, not as crude anti-semitic abuse in the Chabloz style.
Mr Mackintosh referred to the leading S.127 case in relation to interpretation of what is “grossly offensive”, namely the Collins case, and the judgment of Lord Bingham.
This had made clear that what is “grossly offensive” has to be assessed in the context of the standards of an “open, just, multiracial society” – a contemporary context that is “reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist”.
In other words, Mr Mackintosh emphasised, the words complained of had to cause gross offence, not simply “to people who care about the Holocaust” and who, for whatever reasons, hold different views to Vincent, but to broader society.
Were ‘Holocaust denial’ or disputing the historicity of Oradour to be deemed criminal per se, the question would necessarily arise – what about the Amritsar massacre, what about the Armenian genocide, and many other controversial historical subjects?
Mr Mackintosh concluded his argument by addressing the question of proportionality. An extradition court is required to consider whether the alleged offence is sufficiently severe to attract a custodial sentence. For example, recent instructions to the lower courts had emphasised that defendants should not be extradited for minor public order offences.
He noted that even in the Chabloz case – where the defendant had been convicted for gross offensiveness which was of a very different character to Vincent’s videos – this had not led to custodial sentences.
It would therefore, Mr Mackintosh argued, be both wrong in law and disproportionate for the Edinburgh Court to extradite Vincent Reynouard to France.
In his argument, the prosecutor (Advocate depute Paul Harvey) insisted that Vincent’s videos did pass the evidential test for the Court to regard his conduct as either (or both) a breach of the peace, and/or “grossly offensive” under S.127.
He invited the judge to consider Vincent’s words in one of the video transcripts, where he had stated that “there is a Jewish problem”, and that in his analysis of this problem he would “go further” than Adolf Hitler. “Naturally, the Jews exploit the situation: to dominate, even to subjugate us.”
Mr Harvey described these words as “the most appalling anti-semitism”, and asked the judge to view all of the videos complained of in the French warrant, in the light of this “anti-semitism”.
Questioned by the judge on this point, Mr Harvey said that (in the prosecutors’ submission) each video should be looked at as a separate breach of the peace offence, but should also be interpreted overall as a “course of conduct” by Vincent.
The mere fact that the UK had no special provision criminalising “Holocaust denial” did not in itself absolve the defendant. When expressed in the terms used by Vincent, Mr Harvey insisted that “Holocaust denial” could be interpreted as criminal under UK as well as French law.
Quoting the case of Rangers fan William Kilpatrick, who had posted on Facebook endorsing the sending of “bombs and bombs” to Celtic manager Neil Lennon, Mr Harvey argued that under Scottish law, intending or inciting a specific action was not necessarily relevant to whether certain words were a “breach of the peace”.
Mr Harvey maintained that some of Vincent’s words in the video could reasonably have led to his being charged with a breach of the peace under Scottish law, because they were calculated to provoke a disturbance of public order.
In fact, he argued that Vincent’s words were potentially a more serious crime than breach of the peace in a football stadium: because they could be viewed online at any time, anywhere in Scotland. Incitement to specific criminal action did not, the prosecution argued, have to be proven.
Mr Harvey added that Vincent’s “crimes” had to be looked at in the context of the very different cultural context in France, and the more serious risk of “anti-semitism being incited”. While the words Vincent used could, Mr Harvey argued, be prosecutable even in Scotland, the Court should take account of the fact that in a French context, they were even more serious.
Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor rejected the defence argument that Vincent’s words were calm, academic discourse. He said they were comparable to the Chabloz case, where it had been established that once a clearly anti-semitic motive had been established, espousal of “Holocaust denial” was ipso facto grossly offensive.
Mr Harvey accepted that (under UK law) not every instance of “Holocaust denial” was criminal, but he maintained that in the cases of both Chabloz and Vincent Reynouard, denying the “Holocaust” did amount to “gross offensiveness”, and therefore contravened S.127.
The prosecutor said the judge would need to apply the proportionality test very carefully. Unlike, for example, a drugs or theft case, Vincent’s criminal conduct was highly context-specific, where the appropriate sentence might differ enormously between Scotland and France. The judge should therefore “respect and give due weight” to French circumstances involving their history, and even present day “racial relations”, which meant that a French court “is justified in taking a severe approach to this”.
Given Vincent’s long and repeated record of “criminal conduct”, Mr Harvey concluded that a custodial sentence in France was not only possible but highly likely: “I urge you to show due deference to France and their different traditions.”
In a brief reply concluding the hearing, Vincent’s counsel Fred Mackintosh said that if the judge accepted the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to saying that any “racist” statement on Facebook or YouTube, regardless of context, would be a breach of the peace. He urged the judge to reject this argument and to recognise that “Holocaust denial” when expressed in Vincent’s terms, is not a crime in Scotland – neither a breach of the peace, nor grossly offensive.
The judge said that he aimed to have read all relevant material and considered the arguments fully, in time to pass judgment on 12th October.
Clearly, the Vincent Reynouard case has become a vitally important test of whether historical revisionism will be criminalised in the UK via a ‘back door’ route, without any honest and open discussion in Parliament.
We shall make a further assessment of the broader context soon. But it should be recognised by all concerned that there will be no surrender of the basic principles involved. In the UK, Spain and Canada, European traditions of free historical inquiry are under attack. We shall defend those traditions, by any and every method that proves necessary.
BBC Newsnight hatchet job on Patriotic Alternative
The BBC’s flagship show Newsnight will tonight (20th September) broadcast a long-planned attack on Patriotic Alternative, whose activists have been campaigning for many months against the abuse of hotel facilities across the UK to house ‘asylum seekers’.
Due to travel plans, H&D will not be able to publish an analysis of this programme until Friday.
But readers should check out the excellent response that PA have already published on their website.
Vincent Reynouard reports from his Edinburgh jail on the eve of his extradition trial
Scottish justice will soon decide whether to extradite me to France or release me. Knowing that, if I am extradited, I will probably spend years in prison, we can say that my fate will be decided on September 21st.
My lawyers are optimistic. Indeed, having served the entire prison sentence which earned me the first arrest warrant, only the second remains. Paris is asking me to judge me for several videos. However, to be extradited, these videos must constitute crimes in both France and Scotland. My lawyers’ argument is clear: my comments do not transgress UK laws.
My opponents invoke the precedent set by the conviction of singer A. Chabloz in 2018. However, A. Chabloz was convicted for having composed, performed and broadcast “grossly offensive” songs. In question here were the vocabulary chosen, the tone adopted and the criticisms formulated against the Jewish people in general. My videos are totally different. Although they may shock and offend, they are never grossly offensive and, therefore, remain within the bounds of freedom of expression as conceived in the United Kingdom.
Many of my relatives are therefore optimistic about the outcome of this hearing. For my part, I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic, because I have learned not to hope for anything and not to fear anything. The reason is always the same: I trust in Providence. So far, she has protected me in my mission. I am therefore convinced that the decision of September 21 will be the most likely to serve the revisionist cause. Certainly, for me, it will undoubtedly be the occasion for new trials, but the trials are there so that we improve by overcoming them.
I will therefore accept the final truth, whatever it may be, and will continue to place the revisionist cause above my personal destiny, because revisionism serves the Common Good and, as a National Socialist, I have always advocated the primacy of the common good over particular interests. Therefore, I will not back down now. My personal destiny is of no importance.
Some will call me a fanatic. However, when we see how the anti-revisionists treat us, we understand that only diehards can endure the fight on the front line. If I wasn’t one, I would have given up a long time ago. Providence raises up the right people where they are needed. Our adversaries being fanatics, She opposes fanatics to them. It’s in the natural order of things.
So I calmly wait for September 21st. In the calm of my cell, I continue my activities of reading, writing, meditation and drawing. After ten months, a daily routine was established. I hardly notice that I am in prison anymore. I’m like on a ship where life unfolds peacefully. For the past few weeks, I have been the oldest on my wing. I know the staff and the inmates know me, because I am a somewhat unusual prisoner.
I should have been released on August 10th, once my prison sentence was fully served. However, the Scottish justice system decided to keep me in prison on the grounds that I could take advantage of my release to escape again. Knowing what I have done since October 2021, this fear is understandable. I would add that, even if this extension of my detention were illegal, I would not claim any compensation, because I did not suffer – far from it – in Edinburgh prison.
Besides, in Edinburgh prison, the deprivation of liberty as it affects me is entirely relative. Certainly, my body is held in a penitentiary establishment, but my mind remains free. Here, I read a lot: I discovered authors like Denis Marquet (on spirituality) and Jacques Ellul (on technique). I corresponded freely with wonderful people. I was able to exercise every day, including three times a week in a well-equipped gym. I enjoyed an excellent diet that many people would envy. Finally, I improved my drawing techniques, especially watercolour.
In my eyes, I am much freer than the citizen forced to get up every morning to do an uninteresting job. My freedom is a thousand times greater than that of people without an inner life, glued to their screen and slaves to social networks.
As for the prison guards, they were very kind to me, probably because they think that there is no legitimate reason for me to be in prison. Not long ago, in fact, a guard told me: “You have been in prison for almost a year, because France does not respect the right to freedom of expression!” I think she was expressing the thoughts of the guards in general…
It is true that, from this vantage point in Scotland, we observe, incredulously, the climate of hysteria which reigns in France around real or imagined anti-Semitism. The causes of this frenzy are undoubtedly multiple.
First of all, I think a lot of Jews are worried. In this changing and crisis-ridden world, they fear a new persecution, even a new “Holocaust”, on the grounds that they would always have been the scapegoats. The associations which represent them therefore act to eradicate anti-Judaism from society. However, knowing that, in our part of the world, “racism” has become the capital sin, the government – whoever it may be – is obliged to support this action.
To this is probably added another fact: at a time when the Rassemblement National (RN – National Rally) is considered, rightly or wrongly, as a force capable of influencing politics, attacking the ultra-right induces Marine Le Pen increasingly to dissociate herself from the ideals of the national right. And as we always end up becoming what we say, whether by conviction or by strategy, then the more the government attacks the ultra-right, the more the RN becomes normalised .
Finally, I think that for some, hitting the ultra-right is another way of attacking the RN, with a view to preventing a possible electoral victory for Marine Le Pen. Indeed, when a government has no positive record to its credit, its only political strategy consists of presenting itself as the ultimate bulwark against the foul Beast. He can then say: “See, the foul beast is not dead. Don’t be fooled; the de-demonisation of the RN is only apparent. If Marine Le Pen comes to power or even comes close, the ultra-right will take the opportunity to resurface.” In my eyes therefore, these various causes contribute to the ambient hysteria.
As for me, I represent an intellectual danger for the government, because I demonstrate that the crimes attributed to the Foul Beast are propaganda lies. My action appears all the more dangerous to him because I denounced a particularly fragile myth: the alleged massacre of women and children in the church of Oradour by the ‘barbaric’ Waffen SS. Without denying the deaths of these people, I demonstrate that the circumstances of this tragedy were very different.
However, if the myth of Oradour falls, some might wonder about Auschwitz. The link will be all the more natural since, since 2017, the challenge to the official History of Oradour has also been repressed by the anti-revisionist law. People will then say: “The myth of Oradour was protected by the same law which prohibits contesting the existence of the gas chambers of Auschwitz; therefore, are these gas chambers also a myth?”
The guardians of Memory cannot therefore retreat: they must defend tooth and nail the myth of Oradour. Hence their interest in silencing me. This doesn’t bode well for me. However, here again, my personal destiny is unimportant. I don’t expect anything down here. The reward will come after this earthly life. This is my conviction (which I do not impose on anyone). Therefore, I am calm.
H&D will report further on Vincent Reynouard’s case and additional reports will appear in English at the Real History blog and in French at Vincent’s own blog Sans Concession.
Millwall – 30 years on (by Tony Paulsen)
16th September 2023 was, as many readers of H&D will know, the thirtieth anniversary to the very day of Derek Beackon’s remarkable win for the BNP in a by-election for the old Millwall ward of Tower Hamlets, at that time way back in 1993 the first victory for an overtly racial nationalist party in seventeen years, and arguably an even more impressive win than the two seats taken by the National Party in Blackburn in 1976, as Derek fought all three system parties, not merely two of them.
Happily, Derek, unlike many other veterans of the struggle in the 1990s, still marches in our ranks in body as well as in spirit, and took the place of honour at a dinner held (appropriately and not perhaps coincidentally) for thirty in a fine venue in South Essex to mark the anniversary. Particular thanks are due to Jane, who organised the function with military precision and did a marvellous job of work in finding the venue and selecting the variety of dishes on the menu.
The guests began to gather around 6.30 p.m., but disruption on the London Underground, especially the eastern end of the Central line meant that we began a little late, which slightly curtailed the speeches, more on that below. By 7.30 we were however all seated for dinner.
After enjoying the excellent food served in a grand old dining room, guests settled down to listen to three very different speakers give us their perspectives in two cases, on the way in which Millwall was won, and in the third, its significance for us to-day.
Chris Roberts, who chaired the proceedings with his usual skill and aplomb, first introduced Steve Smith, sometime BNP organiser in the East End of London (not to be confused with another fine nationalist and winning election strategist, Steve Smith, sometime BNP organiser in Burnley: I am told that there is a photograph of the two of them together, which I would love to see!).
Steve told us about the background to the BNP’s “rights for whites” campaign in the old East End, emphasising that the Millwall victory was not a bolt from the blue. Rather it should be seen as the culmination of a four year long campaign led by a fairly small but very committed group of activists who worked hard and long and applied real political intelligence to the situation to take the ward.
The cadre (to coin a phrase!) responsible for the victory had identified the weakness and complacency of a sclerotic Labour party and seen the potential for an electoral surprise, which they had pulled off in the teeth of violence from political opponents and vicious attempts at intimidation from the Metropolitan Police, by then already a highly politicised and vindictive arm of the state.
Paying tribute to Derek, Steve said that he had been the best councillor that the people of Millwall ward had ever had. While sadly the seat was lost in the “all out” election of 1994, the total number of votes cast for Derek in 1994 was much higher than in 1993, but the Labour party mobilised its London wide activist base to drive turnout up from 44% at the bye-election to an unprecedented 66% in May of 1994 and take the seat back. Nevertheless, that did not detract from the significance of breaking the taboo against electing candidates from outside the system and lighting a beacon, so to speak, for our movement.
Next up was Eddy Butler, who made his name as the BNP’s elections guru in this campaign. He spoke about the strategy and tactics deployed to convert raw electoral potential into a real win. We should not, he said, be coy about “borrowing” winning strategies from our opponents.
He made no secret of the fact that he had both studied and applied the strategy and tactics which the local Liberals had used (despite the misgivings of their national leadership) to progress from no seats at all on Tower Hamlets council in 1974 (when it was a Labour party fiefdom) to overall control by 1986.
The Tower Hamlets Liberals, he said, had used racist dog whistles thinly disguised as localism, notably their “sons and daughters” policy of giving council housing to the families of long standing council tenants, the implications of which policy were obvious.
The BNP learnt from and applied these methods, and also the campaigning skills of the Liberals, notably door to door canvassing, which led to real engagement with the electors.
Eddy paid tribute to the late Richard Edmonds, whose own electioneering skills are not always fully appreciated even by his many friends in the movement.
After Barry Osborne polled 20% of the vote in Millwall ward in 1992, most BNP activists were ecstatic, since the party had never polled so well in a council election till then. Eddy was not ecstatic. He wanted so much more and told Richard that the ward might have been won, had the campaign team found a way to work around the inaccessibility of many blocks of flats in the ward to canvassers by reason of the elaborate entry phone security systems by then already in place. The work around, by the way, was to canvass when the entry phone security system is disabled to allow the postman et al. to get in. Cracked it!
Richard listened, agreed and worked with Eddy to encourage the party’s London activist base to concentrate on a breakthrough on the Isle of Dogs, even if it meant temporarily scaling down activities in other areas of London. Eddy described this strategy as becoming a big party in a small area, on the premise that a localised breakthrough will win massive publicity, raise morale and boost recruitment, so that a geometrical not a merely arithmetical multiplier effect is produced. Reader, bear this tactic well in mind!
Unfortunately, the slightly late start meant that Eddy could not conclude his analysis by explaining what went wrong after the victory, and in particular, the troubles caused by the influence of Combat 18 in Tower Hamlets, culminating in death threats against Eddy and Steve Smith, amongst others. I hope that he will publish that analysis online in due course.
Our last speaker was Laura Towler, who had travelled all the way from Yorkshire with her husband Sam Melia. Laura said that she’d been surprised at being invited to speak, since she was literally a babe in arms in 1993 and was a Yorkshire lass to boot, asked to speak to Londoners about an election campaign in the East End when she’d been in her cradle.
For her, the significance of the Millwall campaign was that it taught a younger generation of nationalists to honour what those who had gone before them had achieved, and reminded her that we all stand in a tradition handed down by such men as Sir Oswald Mosley, John Tyndall and Jonathan Bowden to a new generation of activists. We will, she said, fail that tradition if we do not learn to work together or at least towards common goals. We can disagree about the best way to promote those goals, some will prefer community engagement, others the vehicle of a political party, but we should work towards the same ends, in that manner attainting nationalist unity, without which nothing can be achieved. Laura’s speech was very well received and concluded proceedings on a high note. On a personal note, I was very pleased to meet her and Sam, with whom I’ve corresponded but never met before.
Toasts were proposed to Derek (naturally) and to Gordon “Tom” Callow, a sadly departed veteran of the movement in the East End, who was one of Derek’s running mates in Millwall ward in the all-out election of 1994, after which we wended our ways home, making the wise (or lucky) decision to take the shiny new Elizabeth line back into town and avoid the worst of the transport chaos.
Video from 2023 H&D Meeting now online
Despite many loud threats from the ultra-left and their financial backers, the 2023 H&D meeting went ahead unimpeded, at a hotel in the Lancashire countryside, just outside Preston.
We are now in the process of uploading video from this event, courtesy of our media team who put in many hours of hard work on the day and during the following week.
The first video to be uploaded is this speech by Laura Towler, from Patriotic Alternative. Laura paid tribute to the political legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the four men honoured at this year’s meeting, 75 years after the foundation of Mosley’s postwar Union Movement. Some of us at H&D knew veteran Mosleyites, and we are certain that they (and especially Lady Mosley) would have been very happy to know that Laura, her husband Sam, and the PA team are advancing the patriotic cause in 2023!
We now also have the speech by PA’s founder and leader Mark Collett (which for technical reasons is only available in audio.
Mark spoke about his years in the BNP during the first decade of the millennium. As older viewers will remember, he was one of the most effective and hardworking BNP officers of that era, but his work and that of many other sincere patriots came to nothing, due to the corruption and incompetence of BNP leader Nick Griffin. In this frank and cogent analysis, Mark describes what was good about the BNP, and what went so badly wrong.
Also now online is this speech by Professor John Kersey, Vice-President of the Traditional Britain Group. Professor Kersey addressed the broken state of British politics and society, and emphasised that “musical freedom comes the moment you say it isn’t about the money or the fame, or about what anyone, powerful or not, thinks of it. It’s about the need to engage with our culture and community, to create, to communicate and to inspire. The reward isn’t money or fame. The reward is doing it and making your audience feel that you have connected with them in a way that nothing else can.”
‘Anti-fascist’ hysteria during recent days has focused on our European correspondent, Isabel Peralta, who spoke of her conviction that political faith, loyalty, honour and fanaticism can move mountains.
Isabel called on racial nationalists to show the spirit of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defending Europe at Thermopylae, and of the national socialist martyrs who fell in Munich in 1923, almost a decade before the triumph of their cause.
The true European spirit is alive in our hearts and will triumph: those H&D readers and European nationalists lucky enough to know Isabel Peralta will never doubt it.
The closing speech was given by H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton, who also writes the Real History blog. Peter explains who the real “terrorists” are, and exposes their connections to the same establishment and ‘antifa’ organisations that sought to impede this year’s meeting; the same sinister forces that pulled the strings behind UK border security to harass fellow speaker Isabel Peralta.
Paying tribute to the four men honoured at this year’s event – Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley, and Ian Stuart – Peter emphasised that our enemies’ fear is a sign that the flame of European nationalism burns brightly in 2023. As Sir Oswald Mosley told his followers: “Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.”
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, retired archaeology lecturer, Orangeman, and chairman of the British Democrats, based his speech around an analysis of Professor Nigel Biggar’s new book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – which was reviewed in Issue 115 of H&D.
Jim talked about the positive side of the British Empire, as well as slavery and how the British were the first of the major powers of the time to ban it. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics. Despite disappointing council election results earlier this year, they are presently the main electoral force on the British nationalist scene. And unlike the tragic rump of the BNP (which lives off legacies and does no serious political work), the Brit Dems do not pay any staff. All their funds are spent on building the movement and spreading information about the present crisis of our nation.
Stephen Frost, National Secretary of British Movement, acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – at demonstrations, election campaigns and at meetings such as this one.
Steve added that the task of all nationalists is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: whether old-school with hard copy leaflets and newspapers or by more modern means using the internet including social media. The propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values. Stephen Frost and BM have utilised these propaganda methods, via such means as the ‘Under the Sunwheel’ podcast. Colin Jordan’s political legacy continues to inspire new generations of activists.
Stephen Frost’s co-host at ‘Under the Sunwheel’, Benny Bullman, lead singer of the Rock Against Communism band Whitelaw, spoke in tribute to Ian Stuart, founder of Blood & Honour and lead singer of Skrewdriver, who tragically died 30 years ago this month.
Benny pointed out that Ian Stuart’s dedication to race and nation led him to turn his back on a lucrative career in ‘mainstream’ music (an industry controlled by the usual suspects). Ian achieved far more than the wealth and fame that was accrued by some of his contemporaries after they sold out. The legacy of Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver continues to inspire new generations of patriots throughout the White world.
Video from Ken Schmidt’s speech to our conference will be available soon.
Sam Swerling 1939-2023
H&D learned with great sadness of the death of one of our oldest regular readers, retired law lecturer and former Westminster city councillor Sam Swerling, yesterday at the age of 83.
In an era when Conservatives have been among the worst traitors in our political life, Sam Swerling was a rare example of fearless loyalty and commitment to patriotic principles: a stout defender of the Union, race and nation.
Nor was he a ‘Little Englander’: Sam had many connections to European nationalists, especially in France.
Educated at Repton and Trinity College, Dublin, Sam Swerling spent most of his career as a partner in a firm of solicitors in the City of London, and as a law lecturer and teacher at City University, London.
Sam became a Conservative Party activist in the late 1950s, and fought his first election campaign in 1959 as Conservative candidate for Newham North-West, in what was then the London County Council.
In February 1974 he was parliamentary candidate for Stalybridge & Hyde (coincidentally close to the home of H&D’s assistant editor, who was only 7 years old at the time and not yet politically active!). Sam polled 16,854 votes (32%). And in 1978 he was elected councillor for the Marylebone ward on Westminster City Council.
In 1965 Sam Swerling joined the Monday Club, which was then becoming the main vehicle for traditional patriotism inside the Conservative Party, and from 1972-1993 he was a member of the Monday Club’s Executive Council, editing several of its publications. Sam was chairman of the Monday Club from 1980-82.
After the Monday Club’s demise, Sam Swerling became an active member of three organisations which sought to carry on the fight for traditional conservatism, in both domestic and foreign policy: the Western Goals Institute, Conservative Democratic Alliance, and Traditional Britain Group.
The last of these is still flourishing, under the leadership of Gregory Lauder-Frost, and Sam was Vice-President of TBG until his death.
In 2017 he published his political memoir Sam Swerling – Nation, Tradition & Liberty, reviewed by Adrian Davies in Issue 82 of H&D.
A tribute to Sam will appear in the next edition of our magazine.
Remembering Four Great British Nationalists – H&D Annual Meeting salutes Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley and Ian Stuart
On 9th September in the Lancashire village of Samlesbury, just to the east of Preston, over 80 nationalists – mainly from the North-West and Yorkshire – attended the annual H&D meeting. Over the past fifteen years or so H&D have hosted cross-party memorial meetings in and around Preston and that tradition continued.
This year the meeting was entitled “Honour the Past – Conquer the Future” and we honoured four great British nationalists, Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley and Ian Stuart Donaldson.
Despite the best efforts of the Lancashire Post, the Preston Blog, Labour Party, SWP, Red Flare (a nutty online Marxist Republican group) and local LGBTQ+ loons to stop it, H&D‘s annual meeting went ahead as planned, with no serious problems. All credit to Lancashire Police who respected our right to hold a legal political meeting in our free and democratic society and did not interfere with it.
While we were holding our successful 80 strong meeting in a first-class hotel in the beautiful Lancashire countryside, the loony lefties could only muster twenty-one (yes 21!) to their pathetic demonstration on Lune Street, many miles away in Preston city-centre! How ironic the loonies holding their demo on Lune Street!
Chaired by former NF and BNP organiser, and longstanding H&D subscriber Keith Axon, the meeting got underway with the traditional one minute’s silence for all the H&D subscribers who had passed away since our last meeting in September 2022, including Mr Ian Lofthouse, Dr. Roger Pearson, Mr K.D. Russell, Mr M. Sharp, Mr Ken Stead and Mr. P. Trelawney.
For only the second time we had two women speakers. This was one of many aspects of this year’s meeting that both on the panel and in the audience (over 20% were female) showed the increasing diversity of European nationalism.
Also, for only the second time we had two overseas speakers; H&D‘s European correspondent Isabel Peralta, who overcame another detention by UK Border Force at Manchester Airport; and Ken Schmidt H&D‘s American correspondent, who thankfully entered the UK without any problems.
Our Spanish and American guests were delighted to meet so many excellent new comrades from all over Great Britain, especially the large delegations from the British Movement and Patriotic Alternative.
After Keith Axon’s opening remarks, he introduced the first speaker of the afternoon; Benny Bullman, a British Movement activist, and the lead singer of the RAC band Whitelaw. Benny gave a fine tribute to the founder of Blood & Honour, Ian Stuart, who was born 66 years ago in the Lancashire town of Poulton-le-Fylde. It’s 30 years now since his death in 1993, but Benny emphasised that great comrades such as Ian Stuart still live with us in spirit, and we are all determined to be worthy of their legacy.
Our second speaker was Professor John Kersey, educationalist and musician, who leads several international university-level institutions dedicated to bespoke professional education for high achievers, gave a cogent analysis of the burgeoning threats to traditional British values and freedoms – and to the Christian values that are the bedrock of British and European civilization. The dictatorial grip of the political establishment is at last being resisted: the forces of resistance are no longer marginalised – our agenda of maintaining and restoring British traditions is now at the centre of political debate.
Our third speaker was Laura Towler, deputy leader of Patriotic Alternative. Laura talked both about Sir Oswald Mosley – this being the 75th anniversary since he formed his Union Movement, after the end of WWII in 1948 – and Patriotic Alternative, which for the past four years has been fighting to get across the message that White Lives Matter – across a broad front of activities from demonstrations to leafletting, mountain hikes to tea retailing! PA has grown rapidly in its four years of existence. Despite the setbacks of the Electoral Commission constantly rejecting their applications to register as a political party, the PA has combined some of the best veterans of older nationalist parties with a proven ability to attract the best of the younger online nationalist community.
Just before the lunch break, Keith Axon and meeting organiser Mark Cotterill auctioned off a number of books, a George Lincoln Rockwell magazine, framed photographs, Ulster flags and a Whitelaw LP that had been donated by H&D subscribers. The auction raised over £300.
The meeting was then adjourned for a twenty-minute lunch break. An excellent buffet was provided by the BM’s Women’s Division, who as always put on a fine spread.
Keith Axon then opened the second part of the meeting and introduced the afternoon’s fourth speaker Dr. Jim Lewthwaite, an archaeologist and former Bradford city councillor, now chairman of the British Democrats. His speech was based around Nigel Biggar’s new book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – which was reviewed in Issue 115 of H&D. Jim talked about the positive side of the British Empire, as well as slavery and how the British were the first of the major powers of the time to ban it. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics, however their results at this year’s council elections were disappointing.
Our fifth speaker of the afternoon was Isabel Peralta (speaking in Spanish with an English translation being read by Peter Rushton): she explained that the NS revolution did not end with the defeat at Berlin in 1945, and that faith in the true European cause was capable of moving mountains. She spoke of the great Spartan army, led by Leonidas, whose 300 Spartans stood fast and fought to the death against the mighty 200,000 strong Persian Army at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The Spartans showed the true spirit of Europe that we again need now.
The spirit of unity in the real Europe which Isabel spoke about, will soon be reflected in stronger connections between European nationalists – keep checking our website and magazine for details!
Our sixth speaker was Stephen Frost: National Secretary of the British Movement, longstanding friend of Colin Jordan and author of the Colin Jordan biography ‘TWAS A GOOD FIGHT’! He acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – at demonstrations, election campaigns and at meetings such as this one. He said the task of all nationalists is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: whether old-school with hard copy leaflets and newspapers or by more modern means using the internet including social media. The propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values.
Just before the second break of the afternoon H&D Editor Mark Cotterill held the raffle, ably assisted by one of the young ladies who were manning the H&D merchandise stall. There were around thirty raffle prizes this year – again all kindly donated by H&D subscribers.
Keith Axon then opened the third and final part of the meeting and introduced the afternoon’s seventh speaker Ken Schmidt. Ken has been an activist and writer in the American nationalist movement since the 1980s. He writes a regular column in H&D entitled “From the other side of the Pond”. He is now a member of the League of the South, although he is now living back in the north – in New Jersey.
He spoke firstly about Donald Trump and the US presidential election and then about how the USA as a country is breaking up due to multi-racialism/culturalism. And then about the various movements who support secession and the break-up of the USA as the only long-term solution if White people are to have any future in North America.
Our eighth speaker was Mark Collett, the former chairman of the young BNP, director of publicity and editor of the BNP magazine Identity. Mark is the leader of Patriotic Alternative which he formed in September 2019. Mark has been an active nationalist since the turn of the century and is the most debanked person in the UK! The PA is the fastest growing nationalist organisation in Great Britain and holds regular activities and events every single week. Mark’s speech was about his ten years inside the BNP, working his way up from the very bottom to the very top – what the BNP did right and what they did wrong, and how modern-day nationalists can learn from their mistakes.
Be sure to check this website in a few days time so that you can see videos of our event’s speeches, including Mark’s excellent insight into our movement’s recent history, which conveys important lessons for a new generation of activists.
Our ninth and final speaker of the afternoon was Peter Rushton: H&D‘s Assistant Editor and webmaster, historian, author of the new Real History Blog, and TV commentator. In his speech concluding the event, Peter mocked those ludicrous fake leftists who (with lavish funding from the usual suspects) had set out to stop our meeting. They had pulled out all the stops to defeat us, not because they feared “terrorism”, but because they feared the truth. “Anti-fascists” and their useful idiots (some of whom call themselves “nationalists”) spend most of their time spreading foul slanders (including against some of our guest speakers), but we carry on regardless with the task of rebuilding the true Britain and the true Europe.
This is the legacy of the four men whom we honoured at this event. If the authorities or the anti-fascists wished to talk about terrorists, Peter said, we were very happy to do so. We are happy to talk about the Zionist terrorists who bombed London, one of the worst of whom is still alive in Paris and untouched by the British counter-terrorist squad, who prefer to carry out political harassment of H&D writers such as Isabel, Peter and Mark. And we are happy to talk about the IRA terrorists to whom Conservative and Labour governments alike have betrayed our nation.
We should be in no doubt, Peter concluded, that reactionary Conservative capitalists are an even worse enemy than the so-called “Left” – the Tweedledum and Tweedledee whom Mosley ridiculed decades ago. Soon after the arrival of the Windrush in the 1940s, Labour MPs had warned about the consequences of mass non-White immigration, using language that would nowadays lead to them being raided by police. Peter thanked Mark Cotterill and his colleagues who have to remain nameless, for making this excellent event possible. He said he was proud to be fighting alongside his fellow speakers and audience members – drawn from many different groups and tendencies within the racial nationalist family – confident in the ultimate victory of our race and civilisation.
H&D editor Mark Cotterill ended the meeting by thanking everybody who helped organise the event and those in the audience who had made the effort to attend, some travelling considerable distances, including two from the USA, Germany and Spain.
Before the meeting and during the two intervals our audience browsed the many literature/merchandise stalls. Apart from the H&D table there were stalls from British Movement, Candour, Patriotic Alternative, The Supplement, Historical Review Press and Yorkshire Forum.
The evening before the meeting we held a social in a nice city centre pub, and after the meeting we returned back to the very same pub, as the landlord (an ex-squaddie himself) was so welcoming the first night, we thought we would give him another evening’s business! Around twenty nationalists attended both socials, some staying until just after 1am on the Saturday – a few sore heads on Sunday morning were reported!
And finally, special thanks again to the British Movement Women’s Division who provided an excellent buffet; and to the British Movement Leader Guard who carried out security duties in their usual highly efficient manner to ensure that our speakers and audience were entirely safe from the loonies of Lune Street, had they been able to afford the bus fare up to Samlesbury – which of course they could not!
Hopefully we can hold another similar event next year, maybe in a different part of the country, but only time will tell.
H&D social media accounts updated
While H&D has always been (and will remain) primarily a printed magazine, we are presently updating our social media presence.
Editor Mark Cotterill has a Twitter account @HandD_Magazine – and assistant editor and webmaster Peter Rushton has a Twitter account @HistoryWarUK
(Peter has been away from social media during the summer but returns this week.)
The H&D Instagram account is also now back online here.
And of course our editor is still on Facebook here.
Our European correspondent Isabel Peralta has also updated her own social media pages (including new Instagram and Telegram accounts) and is beginning a Podcast. Regularly updated details of Isabel’s social media accounts will be maintained at this new website.
H&D Issue 116 published
The new issue (#116) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 32-page, September – October 2023 issue, has as its lead.
Community Politics and the Ladder Strategy are the answer says Ian Freeman
Issue 116
September – October 2023.
Contents include:
Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
Sweden Democrats and Israel – Is reconciliation possible – by Curt Roberts
Chairman, can you spare a Quid? – by Peter Rushton
Book Review – Transcendence of Being: The Life and Philosophy of Martin Heidegger – edited by Troy Southgate – reviewed by Ian Freeman
Spain’s electoral circus – Isabel Peralta reports on the latest charade
Loyalty before careerism: Italian nationalist stuns political establishment by standing up for his comrades – by Peter Rushton
Civic nationalist parties fail again to make any headway as Tories lose two safe Shire seats – by Peter Rushton
H&D interviews leading French Revisionist Vincent Reynouard – Part II – by Peter Rushton
Right of Reply – The Ladder Strategy and Community Politics are the answer – by Ian Freeman
From the Other side of the Pond – by Kenneth Schmidt
Russian Imperialism v Ukrainian Nationalism: or is there more to this War than meets the eye? – by Alec Suchi
Movie Review – Oppenheimer – reviewed by Mark Cotterill
Book Review – Homeland: Saving the English – by Frederick Dixon – reviewed by Michael Woodbridge
Two full pages of readers’ letters
Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton
If you would like a sample copy of this issue please send £5.00 or $10.00 to H&D, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, England, UK – or if you would like to subscribe please go to – http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/publications/journal/ – for full details or email – heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com
The Heritage and Destiny Annual Meeting 2023: “Honour the Past – Conquer the Future” – three days to go!
The Heritage and Destiny Annual Meeting – “Honour the Past – Conquer the Future”
now just three days away – will be held on
Saturday 9th September
in Preston, Lancashire, 1pm – 6.00pm
This year we will be honouring Derek Beackon and Andrew Brons,
and remembering Sir Oswald Mosley and Ian Stuart Donaldson.
If you wish to attend this year’s meeting – which is now only two weeks away – please call our office numbers – 07833 677484 or 07868 294749 or 01772 702047 – for full details and directions to the venue which will be in Preston, not too far away from the city centre.
Doors open at 12 noon and meeting will start at 1pm prompt. However, can you please aim to get to Preston for between 11.30am to 12 noon as we will have two redirection points (one for those coming by car and the other for those using public transport) in operation and we want to get everybody to the meeting venue in plenty of time.
Admission (pay on the door) will be £20.00 per person (not including speakers and Patrons). There will be a discount for couples, pensioners, under 18s etc. All those attending will receive a free 4-page souvenir meeting programme, raffle tickets, and a couple of nationalist newspapers.
Please note the venue bar will be cash only so you won’t be able to use your plastic cards to buy drinks etc, so please remember to bring plenty of real money with you!
There will be literature/merchandise tables from several different groups at the meeting. Some of the merchandise tables will also be cash only (a few may also take cheques) so please also bear that in mind if you are planning to buy books, magazines, badges, flags, shirts etc.
We also need more raffle prizes, so if you have anything you can donate to the raffle (or auction) please let us know – or just bring it along on the day.
There will be a complimentary buffet (including vegetarian) during the first break. The cash-bar will be open all through the meeting from 12 noon to 7pm. The raffle and the auction will be held just before the second break.
Speakers so far include (in alphabetical order) – Keith Axon (Meeting Chairman), Benny Bullman (Whitelaw & British Movement), Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative), Stephen Frost (British Movement), Prof. John Kersey (educationalist & musician), Dr. Jim Lewthwaite (British Democrats), Peter Rushton (Heritage & Destiny) and Laura Towler (Patriotic Alternative). Plus an overseas speaker.
Those of you are coming by train/coach, please book up well in advance, or else all the cheap seats will be gone. The closest train/coach station to the venue is Preston. Likewise, if you need overnight accommodation in Preston, book now to get the best deals (call our office for advice if necessary). We understand that several of the meeting attendees are staying in nearby Blackpool/Fylde coast this year, where there is a far greater choice of B&B and hotel accommodation, so you may want to bear that in mind. If you are flying in the nearest airports are Manchester and Liverpool, both have direct trains to Preston.
There will be two socials – one on the Friday evening for those arriving the day before – and one after the meeting has finished on the Saturday evening. We have a great venue, which serves real ales and great food at very reasonable prices.
If for whatever reason, you cannot attend the meeting, but would like to send a donation, to help with the meeting costs instead, that would be great. Please send cheques/postal/money orders (made payable to Heritage and Destiny) – only send cash if it’s sent by registered or recorded post – to Heritage and Destiny, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, or you can donate by BACs (Bank Transfer) to; Account name – Heritage and Destiny, Account number – 14144034, Sort code – 01 00 85: – Use your name and the words “H&D meeting” as reference.
Thank you all once again for your fantastic support and we look forward to meeting you – fellow-nationalists – in Preston on Saturday 9th September.
