Tonight's ruling. Shock and horror in the B.N.P.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:13 pm

Nick Griffin expelled from BNP - Telegraph

Oscar abstained.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:27 pm

NICK GRIFFIN ON TWITTER

@nickjgriffinbnp: Breaking news! I've just been 'expelled' without trial from the ª#ŽBNP¬! That'll teach me to tell a member of staff he's a 'useless, lazy twat'

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:36 am

Peter Lake;1465456 wrote: Nick Griffin expelled from BNP - Telegraph

Oscar abstained.

Nice timing, don't know if it will make an ounce of difference

Post by **Betty Boop** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:52 am

Although Griffin was a divisive leader and had alienated many people, he still had his supporters and his expulsion will weaken the party. It also once again shows up the sheer nastiness of the BNP’s senior officers, a bunch of petty-minded tinpot dictators who cannot work together and lose no opportunity to stab each other in the back. All that is to the good.

BNP expels former leader Nick Griffin - Searchlight Magazine

and 11 things Griffin did do, but didn't warrant ousting him apparently

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/1 ... eJxTHVNOBl

Was an interesting read. Will getting rid of Mr Nasty bring new members in who just couldn't stand him or will it be as stated above that his expulsion will weaken the party.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:53 am

Bruv;1465467 wrote: Nice timing, don't know if it will make an ounce of difference

Timing did go through my head along with, is this for real or a game plan :-3

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:15 am

Bit pushed for time again... will explain more later... believe It or not... I now have ex members to contact who have phoned HQ asking If they can come back to the Party having seen Griffin expelled In the news this morning.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:17 am

Betty Boop;1465477 wrote: Timing did go through my head along with, is this for real or a game plan :-3 No game plan.... It's been going on for months and I was put In an Impossible situation during those times. Adam did what he had to do last night... certainly no game plan.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:01 am

It needed to be done, and long overdue. Was a reason given for NG's dismissal ?

For the sake of the BNP hopefully the expulsion has not been left too late, but I think it won't help the BNP at the end of the day, neither will it hinder them ! Either way, it matters not to me - as has been said there are several iffy bods at the top of the pecking order in BNP, and I'm glad that I have nothing to do with them.

It is quite likely that they will get rid of one or two more before long - that could reduce the BNP to double figures, maybe !! Oops :rolleyes: :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:21 am

G#Gill;1465497 wrote: It needed to be done, and long overdue. Was a reason given for NG's dismissal ?

For the sake of the BNP hopefully the expulsion has not been left too late, but I think it won't help the BNP at the end of the day, neither will it hinder them ! Either way, it matters not to me - as has been said there are several iffy bods at the top of the pecking order in BNP, and I'm glad that I have nothing to do with them.

It is quite likely that they will get rid of one or two more before long - that could reduce the BNP to double figures, maybe !! Oops :rolleyes: :wah: Go on then Gill, entertain me.

The reasons for Nick's expulsion for once have been correctly quoted In the media.

Several Iffy bods ? Oh right. Who are those Iffy bods exactly and why are they Iffy ?

After all, for you state this here, must mean, you know every one of Adam Walkers newly appointed Admin team In Wigton... you do know them don't you ? You do know who Adam has appointed In order to make such a statement... so go on then... tell me who they are.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:08 pm

For some reason, you seem angry. Don't take it out on me though. When I say they are iffy bods, I feel they must be iffy as they took such a long time to remove Nick Griffin from the BNP ! After all how much damage did he do to the BNP? With their best efforts I doubt very much whether they can woo back the support that he caused to leave. I think you know that too.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:37 pm

G#Gill;1465500 wrote: For some reason, you seem angry. Don't take it out on me though. When I say they are iffy bods, I feel they must be iffy as they took such a long time to remove Nick Griffin from the BNP ! After all how much damage did he do to the BNP? With their best efforts I doubt very much whether they can woo back the support that he caused to leave. I think you know that too.

I am angry Gill because I am sick of people thinking they know what's going on Internally.

I'll tell you the reason I do know.

The leaked report the media are talking of by Nick Griffin Included me !!! His full report actually took almost two hours to read but one section was about my new promotion by Adam Walker, so Griffin dragged me Into It from the get go... Understand In that report, Griffin was not questioning my promotion but the fact that Adam had done It without vote and made me a king pin and Autonomous.... I was aware that I had been promoted without vote so to keep everything legal, I then set about getting votes from the needed people and they did give their endorsement... however, because It was flagged up by Griffin, I found myself In the middle of this turmoil which was just a small part of other accusations Nick made. Having then got the votes for my promotion, some of which were Griffinites, Griffin then e mailed me asking me to turn against Adam and back him... the bullying reported In the tabloids.

That's why I get angry... I was dragged Into It and no-one can possibly know what has been happening In the past few months.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:10 pm

This forum is rapidly becoming a BNP mouth piece.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:11 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465502 wrote: ....................................and no-one can possibly know what has been happening In the past few months.

Or care ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:12 pm

Bruv;1465503 wrote: This forum is rapidly becoming a BNP mouth piece.
Do you really want me to pull up every thread where you have brought the BNP Into It or how about I just link all the threads you yourself have posted on Nick Griffin ? hmmmmm

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:19 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465505 wrote: Do you really want me to pull up every thread where you have brought the BNP Into It or how about I just link all the threads you yourself have posted on Nick Griffin ? hmmmmm

I think I might be ignoring them in future but reserve the right to shite stir if needs be.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:22 pm

Bruv;1465507 wrote: I think I might be ignoring them in future but reserve the right to shite stir if needs be.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/scotl ... ching.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/inter ... iffin.html

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... slims.html

I can carry on If you like.

Ironically, this Is the one thread that will finally end your never ending hatred for Griffin and spare the forum from your rants.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:30 pm

I am sure you will continue to carry on.........the question is will I ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:35 pm

Bruv;1465510 wrote: I am sure you will continue to carry on.........the question is will I ?

So the one member who posts threads on Nick Griffin and the BNP Is now complaining about a thread on errrrrrrr .... Nick Griffin and the BNP

Have a word with yourself will you ?

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:46 pm

So, will this damage the Party or won't It ?

In all honesty, I went to bed last night extremely sad. I worked with Nick Griffin on campaigns and I know the man away from hostile media and camera's Is a very different man to the personna created by the media. At times, he actually Inspired me, he was highly educated, funny and quite charismatic. One thing that did always Impress me about him was how he had time for everyone In the Party, not just his team, even driving hundreds of miles just to speak to 5 people If they asked him to. Far from the dictator portrayed, he did always listen to you.

It saddens me so much to see his enemies on public sites today crowing about his downfall. Collett, Brons, Kemp, Golding etc etc

Adam had no choice last night. Nick was privately e mailing officials calling on them to vote against Adam on certain Issue's, not to do with leadership so much but the people Adam appointed. A divide was created almost by the country where Adam has full support In the North and Griffin In the South. Had Adam let his officials be bullied and this was passed on at branch level, It could have divided every member. He had to put a stop to the divide being created that saw us decimated by Brons two years ago. So as much as I did like Griffin and admired not everything, but a lot of what he withstood, I think Adam did the right thing. Yet, It Is with great sadness for us all.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:47 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465493 wrote: Bit pushed for time again... will explain more later... believe It or not... I now have ex members to contact who have phoned HQ asking If they can come back to the Party having seen Griffin expelled In the news this morning.
I can certainly believe it. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they've 'improved' in my opinion of them, but I think I can say that they've gone down a notch in my loathing of them.

I was looking at the feedback comments on the BNP site this morning & it seems that the majority of members agree with the decision, as well as quite a few who have said that he was the reason they left the party & that they are now considering returning.

I have never made any secret of my feelings toward the BNP, but I now admit that with him out of the way, there is a good chance of them being more than the previous no-hopers & if they were to change their image to that of a more civilised, less aggressive nature, then perhaps (God forbid) they might even win a seat in the commons.

Now, I doubt you ever thought you would see me admit that much.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:20 pm

FourPart;1465518 wrote: I can certainly believe it. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they've 'improved' in my opinion of them, but I think I can say that they've gone down a notch in my loathing of them.

I was looking at the feedback comments on the BNP site this morning & it seems that the majority of members agree with the decision, as well as quite a few who have said that he was the reason they left the party & that they are now considering returning.

I have never made any secret of my feelings toward the BNP, but I now admit that with him out of the way, there is a good chance of them being more than the previous no-hopers & if they were to change their image to that of a more civilised, less aggressive nature, then perhaps (God forbid) they might even win a seat in the commons.

Now, I doubt you ever thought you would see me admit that much. The problem we have with Nationalism Is ego's. I always make a point of saying to people to leave their ego's at the door when they come In.

The BNP website has come under critisism since last night for moderation and accusations are being made that the admin are censoring those In support of Griffin.

Nationalism Is so fragmented In this country but If you combined figures, the Far Right has around 2 million members and votes. Yet. It is fragmented and you have the BNP, EDL, NF, BF, ED and even Combat 18.

Going back a few years when we had Eddy Butler contest Griffin In a leadership challenge, people were saying what they are saying now but Butler never managed anything after that. Go back further to 1982 when Griffin ousted John Tyndall, they said the same but the BNP survived. Then just two years ago Brons lost the leadership challenge by just 4 votes and he went off to start a new Party which hasn't really done much. The same happened when Griffin fell out with Colette, Paul Golding and Jim Dowsen. Paul and Jim went off to start Britain First and we survived. Yet, unfortunatly, If you look for the common denominator In all these leadership challenges and bitter fallings out, that common denominator Is Nick Griffin. That's not to say, they were all entirely his fault, there were simply those who believed they could do a better job than him. The problem has always been that members then take sides and not only Is Nationalism fragmented but then the Party fragments. Adam had to stop that and he had absolutely every right to act In order to stop his officials being bullied by those loyal to Griffin. Adam would have been seen as a useless leader should he have allowed It to continue.

Only today, I've spent most of the day phoning back people who jumped the moment they heard that Griffin was gone. So for every Griffinite we lose, there are plenty more that left the Party because of him.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:25 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465522 wrote: Only today, I've spent most of the day phoning back people who jumped the moment they heard that Griffin was gone. So for every Griffinite we lose, there are plenty more that left the Party because of him.
Thank you. I respect the fact that you've accepted that (seriously).

As an outsider, I see it as being the best thing they could ever have done for themselves & could now be cause for concern.

You say that it / he has split the party between pro & anti Griffin. You get this much in any party. There is now more chance of any Anti Griffins that may have formed into splinter groups possibly returning to the fold. As you are aware, to me, this is not a favourable outcome, but I can, at least, see the potential reality of it.

I would be interested in seeing the outcome of some Independent Polls (not ones commissioned by ANY Political Party, which are more likely to be biased one way or the other - I really am trying to be Neutral here) as to any change of the General Public's viewpoint as to the Credibility of the BNP & whether or not they believe it will make no difference, improve the party, or make it worse, and such surveys should be made on a National basis from an acceptably representative selection, as opposed to individual regions which have known issues, one way or the other.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:42 pm

FourPart;1465532 wrote: Thank you. I respect the fact that you've accepted that (seriously).

As an outsider, I see it as being the best thing they could ever have done for themselves & could now be cause for concern.

You say that it / he has split the party between pro & anti Griffin. You get this much in any party. There is now more chance of any Anti Griffins that may have formed into splinter groups possibly returning to the fold. As you are aware, to me, this is not a favourable outcome, but I can, at least, see the potential reality of it.

I would be interested in seeing the outcome of some Independent Polls (not ones commissioned by ANY Political Party, which are more likely to be biased one way or the other - I really am trying to be Neutral here) as to any change of the General Public's viewpoint as to the Credibility of the BNP & whether or not they believe it will make no difference, improve the party, or make it worse, and such surveys should be made on a National basis from an acceptably representative selection, as opposed to individual regions which have known issues, one way or the other.

Many of those loyal to Griffin joined during Griffin's 15 year reign so to them, the Party Is Nick Griffin and they can't see any other way but him because they have never had any other leader but him. Yet, we have seen It all before and we know whatever happens, the BNP will survive.

During the Brons split, to be honest, he took those with the brains of the Party and the most electable, people like Arthur Kemp and Martin Wingate. The Brons Party has done nothing since and I would not be at all surprised to see some of those drift back. It can not be denied that the BNP had It's finest hour under Griffin but I have always found Adam, who was deputy to Griffin an extremely good organiser and I have always liked him. He also was the one who set up the Union 'Solidarity' to protect members facing the sack for their political leanings. We just have to wait and see but for us, we carry on as usual.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:02 am

The thing is that with the way the electoral system works the more there are of the underdog parties that all share the same sort of policies, the better it works out for the leading parties. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of Proportional Representation, but I find the system in NI interesting, where if the leading candidate doesn't have an overall majority of all votes cast, then the other candidates can allocate their votes to whoever they choose (although I'm not sure if that's 100% of their votes or if they can specify proportional percentages).

As you know, I think UKIP surprised everyone (even themselves) back in May, but after having seen the length of the Ballot form, with about 20 candidates, most of which were basically on the same sort of policies of UKIP, I'm sure that if we had a similar system UKIP's storming victory would have been raised to the level of a total whitewash.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:34 am

FourPart;1465547 wrote: The thing is that with the way the electoral system works the more there are of the underdog parties that all share the same sort of policies, the better it works out for the leading parties. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of Proportional Representation, but I find the system in NI interesting, where if the leading candidate doesn't have an overall majority of all votes cast, then the other candidates can allocate their votes to whoever they choose (although I'm not sure if that's 100% of their votes or if they can specify proportional percentages).

As you know, I think UKIP surprised everyone (even themselves) back in May, but after having seen the length of the Ballot form, with about 20 candidates, most of which were basically on the same sort of policies of UKIP, I'm sure that if we had a similar system UKIP's storming victory would have been raised to the level of a total whitewash.

I've had people phoning today full of doom and gloom and I like to think I tell them the truth. They tend to be people who can't see a way forward without Griffin.

Yet, I've always said, that the Bron's split was so damaging, we will not make great gains In May's election and we'd be fools to think we would.

Like I said, Bron's took a lot of the brains with him, for example Kemp, an International renowned author.

It's no good just chucking the odd knuckle dragger up for election. All we do Is lose the deposit. They must have a reason to stand, not just 15 minutes of fame.

I've have told all my people, In all honesty, we won't make great gains In 2015. Apparently, I am the best hope for getting an MP Into Parliament In the South and South West and they are throwing all sticks and stones at It In the opinion It's better to promote one real prospect than several no hopers.

Having said that, we'd be fools to think we will return to our Glory Days of 2009 In May.

I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that Nigel Farage will not win as many Seats as he predicts. I think It will be far less but he will not have a clear majority. I envisage a Con/UKIP pact coalition. For us It's more long term. Farage has stated publically that he's going to resign In 5 years and he's only In It to disrupt Parliament. With more and more Tories defecting to UkIP, the electorate may just notice they are nothing more than the Tories mark two.

We tend to be In general agreement that by 2019 General election, Farage will have crashed and burned. He will be forced Into U turns and back down on policies If he's In a coalition. By 2019 the electorate may just see It was all hot air.

However, we will rebuild under Adam, and we'll be waiting In the wings.... ready.

As someone said the other night... we just need one MP returned....

:sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:47 am

Adam Walker speaks on Griffin's eviction today.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:16 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465502 wrote: I am angry Gill because I am sick of people thinking they know what's going on Internally.

I'll tell you the reason I do know.

The leaked report the media are talking of by Nick Griffin Included me !!! His full report actually took almost two hours to read but one section was about my new promotion by Adam Walker, so Griffin dragged me Into It from the get go... Understand In that report, Griffin was not questioning my promotion but the fact that Adam had done It without vote and made me a king pin and Autonomous.... I was aware that I had been promoted without vote so to keep everything legal, I then set about getting votes from the needed people and they did give their endorsement... however, because It was flagged up by Griffin, I found myself In the middle of this turmoil which was just a small part of other accusations Nick made. Having then got the votes for my promotion, some of which were Griffinites, Griffin then e mailed me asking me to turn against Adam and back him... the bullying reported In the tabloids.

That's why I get angry... I was dragged Into It and no-one can possibly know what has been happening In the past few months.

Wow, what sort of way is that to run a party! Why wasn't it done properly in the first place?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:16 pm

Was this the thread I was keeping out of ?

Seems like another good reason not to vote BNP

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:55 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465551 wrote: I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that Nigel Farage will not win as many Seats as he predicts. I think It will be far less but he will not have a clear majority. I envisage a Con/UKIP pact coalition. For us It's more long term. Farage has stated publically that he's going to resign In 5 years and he's only In It to disrupt Parliament. With more and more Tories defecting to UkIP, the electorate may just notice they are nothing more than the Tories mark two.

We tend to be In general agreement that by 2019 General election, Farage will have crashed and burned. He will be forced Into U turns and back down on policies If he's In a coalition. By 2019 the electorate may just see It was all hot air.

As far as a Central Government is concerned, I would agree, but I'm sure they will greatly increase their number of seat, possibly by 5 - 10 times as many, but certainly nowhere enough to form a Government - or even to be the leading opposition.

However, when it comes to Local & European Government, I think they will greatly increase their support, having already demonstrated that they are more than an 'Also Ran'.

As for forming a Coalition, personally I doubt it. Love him or Loathe him, I think you have to admit that Farage is not stupid & it's been proved over the last few years what contempt the Tories have for coalition 'partners', and have all but destroyed the Liberals altogether.

Farage has already promised that UKIP would not be interested in forming a coalition with either the Tories or with Labour - although I think we are all well aware of the value of a politician's 'promise'.

Now, Oscar, I have a few things to say here, and I'd like you to read them carefully & consider them carefully before making a response.

First of all, shall we call a truce on the campaigning? We are both aware that our political views are poles apart & that neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise.

The following is NOT intended to start a dispute - far from it, and I can assure you that it is given with the very best of intentions, and that the same could be applicable to many other parties.

I think you have already accepted that the expulsion of Griffin is probably the best thing that could happen to the party, after having said yourself that there are more wanting to rejoin the party than there are leaving because of his expulsion. Regardless of anyone's politics, I honestly believe that Griffin was the BNP's biggest liability. I'm not arguing the fact - that is just my personal opinion.

Now, think of the party as a tree / bush, whatever. This division has been a major pruning / coppicing, with all the deadwood gone & looking as if you've killed it. However, the following year you get to see that the more sever you are with the pruning, the better the plant flourishes the following year. The BNP has just been pruned & the twigs that have also gone are the Griffinites.

I know, from other things, that when on the inside, looking out, it is all too often difficult to see what others are seeing from the outside looking in, so I'd like to offer a few observations. Take them as you will, but I emphasise that these are given from a neutral standpoint.

You have said that the party is not about the voters, it's about the members, and I said that this is not the case - an opinion I stand by. The members themselves are only a very small proportion of what makes or breaks a party. The real thing a party has to be about is the voters. They are the ones that make or break a party, and in the event of gaining a seat, they are the ones that have to be represented - not the members.

You often talk about all that you see as good about the party. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but this is the perfect time to look back & see what is WRONG with the party. No party is perfect. That is impossible. They will always have flaws & ways they can be improved. Look for those flaws & fix them while you have the opportunity.

As I said, it is often difficult to see things clearly when looking from the inside out, so I'm now going to give you a few points that I see as a typical "Joe Voter" as an outsider looking in. Remember, this is not an issue about what the BNP is or isn't about - it's about how the electorate SEEs it as being about.

1. Racism.

You have claimed on many occasion that the BNP is not racist. However, you must accept that wherever you go the terms "BNP" & "Racism" are synonymous with each other. This is something that needs to be fixed.

2. Extremism.

As we are all aware (at least, it's how it comes across to me - a typical voter), the BNP is an extremist party focussed on a crusade against Muslims. Even if they have leanings towards agreeing with with the policy, the very act of aggressively ramming it down their throat turns them against it, thus having the opposite effect of the intended outcome.

3. Varied Policies.

As with 1 & 2, a political party cannot develop on a single policy which, to me, comes across as being the eradication of Muslims from the country. I have even asked you on several occasions on what the BNP's policies were on the economy, which either ignored altogether or, most recently, told me to go & find out for myself. Ask yourself how that would come across to a potential voter. As far as I'm concerned it's a perfectly valid & important question, and one that should be addressed as a foremost concern by all parties, rather than being side stepped. A manifesto which covers as wide a range of subjects needs to be formed that can be produced to answer a constituent's questions (as opposed to making an answer up on the spot).

4. Image.

Once again, you have previously stated that the Image of a Party or its Leader is nothing to do with a party, which I totally disagreed with. In a perfect world I would agree with you, but this is far from a perfect world & image is everything. You have said that Griffin is actually a highly intelligent man & a very likeable person socially. Both of these are quite possible. I don't know, but in this matter it doesn't come into the equation. Obviously a degree of intelligence is key, but his IMAGE has always been that of an oily, arrogant, aggressive, racist playground bully boy, more interested in saying what he wants to say, rather than listening to anyone else & answering the questions he is faced with. If you watch Question Time you may have noticed how it's the ones that say least & listen most that come across best. For a party to have credibility their leaders & other representatives have to come across as calm, upstanding diplomats.

5. Listen.

As I have said before, any MP / Councillor is there to represent his / her constituents, not just the members of their party. As far as they're concerned, you're preaching to the choir. Rather than telling the public what they want & what they should want & what they are going to be getting, they should be asked what THEY want, and this would be the perfect time to do so. Consider going out on the streets & instead of promoting / campaigning the party, make sure the public are aware of the situation that you are looking to rebuild & looking for input on what the public wants from the party. However, even if you do this, it is imperative that you ACT on it, not just brush it under the carpet if it isn't what you want to hear.

Now is the perfect time to reform. You may not approve of Tony Blair, but you have to admit that when he first came to Government he had everything going for him. Personal Image, a move from the previously extremist party policies by moving to 'New Labour', and a much wider range of policies. Look to the points that brought about his success & learn from it.

As I said, these are independent observations, as seen from my personal perspective & not intended as an argument - just well meaning input, and I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it is given.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:35 pm

Betty Boop;1465581 wrote: Wow, what sort of way is that to run a party! Why wasn't it done properly in the first place? During Nick Griffin's Chairmanship, he amended a clause In the Party Constitution that enabled him to promote who he liked when he liked.

When Adam Walker took over Chairmanship, he used this clause to promote me because It was a matter of urgency that It was done. Reasons I'm not going Into here.

Mr Griffin mentioned this Is his dodgy dossier that was leaked onto the Internet... a certain Irony, given that Mr Walker had used the clause, the very clause that Griffin had created In the first place.

However, as Mr Walker had done this and not consulted others above me, I felt uncomfortable and to avoid further friction In the Party and those others feeling they had not been consulted, I set about getting their endorsement, which I got.

So, you are wrong. It was done properly as Mr Walker had every right to do that under the constitution. Following my getting the endorsements from others, It was then Mr Griffin critisized Mr Walker's actions to do something that he created the constitution to do himself.

Why didn't we go through a voting process In the first place ? Because It was a matter of urgency and needed to happen quickly.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:46 pm

Fourpart, Thank you for your concern that I, as a mere woman, may not understand how politics works, how Nationalism politics works or how we should market our Party.

Having spent many years In sales as a Marketing manager for a large company, I may not know It all, but I do know how my Party Is run and I do know how to carry out an advertising campaign.

I shall respond In full later.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:50 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465593 wrote: During Nick Griffin's Chairmanship, he amended a clause In the Party Constitution that enabled him to promote who he liked when he liked.

When Adam Walker took over Chairmanship, he used this clause to promote me because It was a matter of urgency that It was done. Reasons I'm not going Into here.

Mr Griffin mentioned this Is his dodgy dossier that was leaked onto the Internet... a certain Irony, given that Mr Walker had used the clause, the very clause that Griffin had created In the first place.

However, as Mr Walker had done this and not consulted others above me, I felt uncomfortable and to avoid further friction In the Party and those others feeling they had not been consulted, I set about getting their endorsement, which I got.

So, you are wrong. It was done properly as Mr Walker had every right to do that under the constitution. Following my getting the endorsements from others, It was then Mr Griffin critisized Mr Walker's actions to do something that he created the constitution to do himself.

Why didn't we go through a voting process In the first place ? Because It was a matter of urgency and needed to happen quickly.
That's something I can relate to. Rules made to make actions easier to take, then cry out when the actions taken using those rules work against you.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:06 pm

FourPart;1465589 wrote: As far as a Central Government is concerned, I would agree, but I'm sure they will greatly increase their number of seat, possibly by 5 - 10 times as many, but certainly nowhere enough to form a Government - or even to be the leading opposition.

However, when it comes to Local & European Government, I think they will greatly increase their support, having already demonstrated that they are more than an 'Also Ran'.

As for forming a Coalition, personally I doubt it. Love him or Loathe him, I think you have to admit that Farage is not stupid & it's been proved over the last few years what contempt the Tories have for coalition 'partners', and have all but destroyed the Liberals altogether.

Farage has already promised that UKIP would not be interested in forming a coalition with either the Tories or with Labour - although I think we are all well aware of the value of a politician's 'promise'.

Now, Oscar, I have a few things to say here, and I'd like you to read them carefully & consider them carefully before making a response.

First of all, shall we call a truce on the campaigning? We are both aware that our political views are poles apart & that neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise.

The following is NOT intended to start a dispute - far from it, and I can assure you that it is given with the very best of intentions, and that the same could be applicable to many other parties.

I think you have already accepted that the expulsion of Griffin is probably the best thing that could happen to the party, after having said yourself that there are more wanting to rejoin the party than there are leaving because of his expulsion. Regardless of anyone's politics, I honestly believe that Griffin was the BNP's biggest liability. I'm not arguing the fact - that is just my personal opinion.

Now, think of the party as a tree / bush, whatever. This division has been a major pruning / coppicing, with all the deadwood gone & looking as if you've killed it. However, the following year you get to see that the more sever you are with the pruning, the better the plant flourishes the following year. The BNP has just been pruned & the twigs that have also gone are the Griffinites.

I know, from other things, that when on the inside, looking out, it is all too often difficult to see what others are seeing from the outside looking in, so I'd like to offer a few observations. Take them as you will, but I emphasise that these are given from a neutral standpoint.

You have said that the party is not about the voters, it's about the members, and I said that this is not the case - an opinion I stand by. The members themselves are only a very small proportion of what makes or breaks a party. The real thing a party has to be about is the voters. They are the ones that make or break a party, and in the event of gaining a seat, they are the ones that have to be represented - not the members.

You often talk about all that you see as good about the party. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but this is the perfect time to look back & see what is WRONG with the party. No party is perfect. That is impossible. They will always have flaws & ways they can be improved. Look for those flaws & fix them while you have the opportunity.

As I said, it is often difficult to see things clearly when looking from the inside out, so I'm now going to give you a few points that I see as a typical "Joe Voter" as an outsider looking in. Remember, this is not an issue about what the BNP is or isn't about - it's about how the electorate SEEs it as being about.

1. Racism.

You have claimed on many occasion that the BNP is not racist. However, you must accept that wherever you go the terms "BNP" & "Racism" are synonymous with each other. This is something that needs to be fixed.

2. Extremism.

As we are all aware (at least, it's how it comes across to me - a typical voter), the BNP is an extremist party focussed on a crusade against Muslims. Even if they have leanings towards agreeing with with the policy, the very act of aggressively ramming it down their throat turns them against it, thus having the opposite effect of the intended outcome.

3. Varied Policies.

As with 1 & 2, a political party cannot develop on a single policy which, to me, comes across as being the eradication of Muslims from the country. I have even asked you on several occasions on what the BNP's policies were on the economy, which either ignored altogether or, most recently, told me to go & find out for myself. Ask yourself how that would come across to a potential voter. As far as I'm concerned it's a perfectly valid & important question, and one that should be addressed as a foremost concern by all parties, rather than being side stepped. A manifesto which covers as wide a range of subjects needs to be formed that can be produced to answer a constituent's questions (as opposed to making an answer up on the spot).

4. Image.

Once again, you have previously stated that the Image of a Party or its Leader is nothing to do with a party, which I totally disagreed with. In a perfect world I would agree with you, but this is far from a perfect world & image is everything. You have said that Griffin is actually a highly intelligent man & a very likeable person socially. Both of these are quite possible. I don't know, but in this matter it doesn't come into the equation. Obviously a degree of intelligence is key, but his IMAGE has always been that of an oily, arrogant, aggressive, racist playground bully boy, more interested in saying what he wants to say, rather than listening to anyone else & answering the questions he is faced with. If you watch Question Time you may have noticed how it's the ones that say least & listen most that come across best. For a party to have credibility their leaders & other representatives have to come across as calm, upstanding diplomats.

5. Listen.

As I have said before, any MP / Councillor is there to represent his / her constituents, not just the members of their party. As far as they're concerned, you're preaching to the choir. Rather than telling the public what they want & what they should want & what they are going to be getting, they should be asked what THEY want, and this would be the perfect time to do so. Consider going out on the streets & instead of promoting / campaigning the party, make sure the public are aware of the situation that you are looking to rebuild & looking for input on what the public wants from the party. However, even if you do this, it is imperative that you ACT on it, not just brush it under the carpet if it isn't what you want to hear.

Now is the perfect time to reform. You may not approve of Tony Blair, but you have to admit that when he first came to Government he had everything going for him. Personal Image, a move from the previously extremist party policies by moving to 'New Labour', and a much wider range of policies. Look to the points that brought about his success & learn from it.

As I said, these are independent observations, as seen from my personal perspective & not intended as an argument - just well meaning input, and I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it is given.

Nope, sorry, read everything you have to say. You are absolutely missing the point of everything that has happened within the Party.

Let me reInterate as you seem unable to grasp this.

In terms of politics, the Party Is relatively young and still evolving. The situation we are In today Is because of Internal factions and Nationalism becoming fragmented. I have given you prior the Info you need to understand the factions but clearly, you don't grasp It.

In 2009, the Party was at It's Zenith, Ironically under Griffin. 112 Council Seats and two MEP's. Andrew Brons then launched a leadership challenge and the Party split Into two camps as It did In a previous leadership challenge. The Party then becomes fragmented. Nick Griffin then falls out with Golding and Dowsen. Brons goes off taking half the membership with him and Golding and Dowsen go off In another direction, taking more members with them. ie fragmenting an already fragmented Party.

All the problems within the Party were due to leadership challenges and members taking sides.

We don't need to be advised on how to campaign, advertise or appeal to the electorate... we already did that In 2009 under a leader deemed toxic. We do not need to be advised about going out on the streets given we are the most active Party In the Country. We are out all the time... It just doesn't get covered by a biased media. For example, did you know Walker has been to Burnley this week over proposed Traveler sites? Or Griffin last week In Dover ? Or out In Newton Abbott last week? Truth Is, you have no idea of what we do... you are merely guessing.

The truth Is, you have absolutely no Idea of how our Party Is run, why It's run that way or even who runs It that way. We are Nationalist politics and until you can grasp that It Is a world away from what you think of Tony Blair, then you'll never understand and I'm flogging a dead horse.

Sorry to be harsh here, but we do things our way, not the way some Leftie thinks we should. It's our Party.

We will not reform.. why should we? We will carry on as we always have because that's what our voters and members expect of us... The moment we go soft, we can kiss goodbye to our Nationalists and that's what you fail to grasp. We are a Far Right Nationalist Party... not mainstream try to appease everyone Party

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:22 pm

Oscar Namechange;1465597 wrote: Nope, sorry, read everything you have to say. You are absolutely missing the point of everything that has happened within the Party.

Let me reInterate as you seem unable to grasp this.

In terms of politics, the Party Is relatively young and still evolving. The situation we are In today Is because of Internal factions and Nationalism becoming fragmented. I have given you prior the Info you need to understand the factions but clearly, you don't grasp It.

In 2009, the Party was at It's Zenith, Ironically under Griffin. 112 Council Seats and two MEP's. Andrew Brons then launched a leadership challenge and the Party split Into two camps as It did In a previous leadership challenge. The Party then becomes fragmented. Nick Griffin then falls out with Golding and Dowsen. Brons goes off taking half the membership with him and Golding and Dowsen go off In another direction, taking more members with them. ie fragmenting an already fragmented Party.

All the problems within the Party were due to leadership challenges and members taking sides.

We don't need to be advised on how to campaign, advertise or appeal to the electorate... we already did that In 2009 under a leader deemed toxic. We do not need to be advised about going out on the streets given we are the most active Party In the Country. We are out all the time... It just doesn't get covered by a biased media. For example, did you know Walker has been to Burnley this week over proposed Traveler sites? Or Griffin last week In Dover ? Or out In Newton Abbott last week? Truth Is, you have no idea of what we do... you are merely guessing.

The truth Is, you have absolutely no Idea of how our Party Is run, why It's run that way or even who runs It that way. We are Nationalist politics and until you can grasp that It Is a world away from what you think of Tony Blair, then you'll never understand and I'm flogging a dead horse.

Sorry to be harsh here, but we do things our way, not the way some Leftie thinks we should. It's our Party.

We will not reform.. why should we? We will carry on as we always have because that's what our voters and members expect of us... The moment we go soft, we can kiss goodbye to our Nationalists and that's what you fail to grasp.
Suit yourself. I made it patently obvious from the start that I was making independent observations - nothing more, and that I was not looking to argue the issue & asked that you do the same. You are clearly not willing to accept this & in so doing have proved my point entirely. The BNP have no interest in their constituents. They only seek to serve themselves, not those who they can con through the incitement of hatred to vote for them, before they realise their mistake. This has surely proved that it is a party not to be trusted & totally unrepresentative of their constituents. You say you are an evolving party, yet you also ask why you should reform. Two things which totally contradict each other. Evolution is based on change & adaptation. Those that don't change die.

I tried to call a truce & offer you input - note I say INPUT, not advice, and rather than taking the input in the manner in which it was offered you have, true to form responded, in a way typical to the BNP attitude in an arrogant & aggressive manner. I suggested you look at what was wrong with the party, rather than looking at all the pretty paintwork & ignoring the crumbling brickwork beneath.

No problem. You are clearly set on destroying the BNP - Good luck with your campaign in doing so.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:35 pm

FourPart;1465600 wrote: Suit yourself. I made it patently obvious from the start that I was making independent observations - nothing more, and that I was not looking to argue the issue & asked that you do the same. You are clearly not willing to accept this & in so doing have proved my point entirely. The BNP have no interest in their constituents. They only seek to serve themselves, not those who they can con through the incitement of hatred to vote for them, before they realise their mistake. This has surely proved that it is a party not to be trusted & totally unrepresentative of their constituents. You say you are an evolving party, yet you also ask why you should reform. Two things which totally contradict each other. Evolution is based on change & adaptation. Those that don't change die.

I tried to call a truce & offer you input - note I say INPUT, not advice, and rather than taking the input in the manner in which it was offered you have, true to form responded, in a way typical to the BNP attitude in an arrogant & aggressive manner. I suggested you look at what was wrong with the party, rather than looking at all the pretty paintwork & ignoring the crumbling brickwork beneath.

No problem. You are clearly set on destroying the BNP - Good luck with your campaign in doing so. Stop acting like a petulant child. You went to a great deal of trouble to write your Input In the hope I was going to say ' wow, you've been right all along. We'll change the Party'....

The advice as you put It, would be suited to a fledgling political Party mid way between the loony left and the right. Yet we are not. That's the part you are simply not grasping. We are not and never have Intended to be a Party that suits all. No-where In the history of the BNP have we done U turns or changed policy. If people vote for us, It's because In essence, they agree with our policies. I suggest you actually visit the web site and read In detail, very lengthy and In depth policies under Education, Foriegn Policy, Finance, Enviroment etc etc. etc... If we changed now, we would not appeal to voters... we would just be another Party. We are not. We have been for decades, the Country's Nationalist Party.

Of course we care about the voter... we are always In the streets finding out what affects people locally... you just won't see It In print In the media.

Can you not see, your advice Is rather akin to telling the UAF that they must becoming more Far Right. Please grasp this... Nationalist politics Is there for Nationalists and like minded voters... we are not nor ever have been there to appeal to the masses.

When the Labour Party was born, It was born out of the Union movement to represent the workers.... we represent Nationalists In the country which combined, fragmented Orgs and Parties equals around 2 million of the population. So do you think the Labour Party will change the way they do things In order to attract Nationalists ? So why do you think we need to attract Blairites?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:40 pm

I didn't say anything about attracting Blairites. I was describing how he had things going for him & how he got the vote.

The Nationalists, as you put it, are still the minority (and hopefully will stay that way), but regardless of who they are, if they get voted in, even if be 1 seat among hundreds, their duty is still to represent their constituents, regardless of how the individual constituent voted. The candidate is not there only to represent paid up party members. That much I'm sure we can agree on.

You say that you are not there to appeal to the masses. That much is true. That's why you will never get anywhere. It's the masses that have the vote.

Incidentally, what happens to all the money you lose from your lost deposits?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:16 pm

FourPart;1465616 wrote: I didn't say anything about attracting Blairites. I was describing how he had things going for him & how he got the vote.

The Nationalists, as you put it, are still the minority (and hopefully will stay that way), but regardless of who they are, if they get voted in, even if be 1 seat among hundreds, their duty is still to represent their constituents, regardless of how the individual constituent voted. The candidate is not there only to represent paid up party members. That much I'm sure we can agree on.

You say that you are not there to appeal to the masses. That much is true. That's why you will never get anywhere. It's the masses that have the vote.

Incidentally, what happens to all the money you lose from your lost deposits?
But we do represent our Constituants... Just because you don't see It In newspapers, doesn't mean we are not doing It... Why do you think Ms Charlton took 42 % of the vote In Maryport and decimated a Labour stronghold? Because during the run up to the election, Labour got lazy but Dawn was out there In all weathers on the streets listening to local people. She does represent all her constituancy and does a damn fine job.

The money for elections If lost, Is lost. The same can be said of any Candidate for any Party.

If the masses had the vote Fourpart, we would never be In a situation where we have a Prime Minister In Number 10 by default. We would not have the leader of a Party trounced In the 2009 General Election, spirited In as Deputy Leader because he sold out his grass roots for jobs and Quango's for the boys. The result of the 2009 election should Indicate there were no masses as you put It, the vote was split. We on the other hand won 2 MEP's and 112 Council Seats.

Polls thus far also Indicate that there may be the possibility of a Hung Parliament or future Coalition In May.

You can't say we won't get anywhere when we did make great gains In 2009 and had It not of been that the Party fragmented three ways, we would have been In a better position for May.

Don't forget that most Nationalist factions are Orgs, not Political Parties so we get their votes In elections also. You say the BNP won't get anywhere. Yet look no further than Jean-Marie Le Pen. They also said the French National Front would never get any where and they won Paris...But do you think she compromised to attract a wider range of voters ? No

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:52 pm

"Two World Wars & 1 World Cup". The call that goes up every time England play Germany. The World Cup in question being back in '66 - Ancient History. Is subsequent years England has been trounced, yet we still harp on about '66.

Yes, in 2009 BNP did better than expected, but that was mainly because all the others did so badly & the share of the vote was spread so diversely. As I have said before, you are always revelling in previous victories & ignoring the more recent defeats. I don't hear you talking much about 2014, for instance. Do you really think you were victorious then? How many seats were gained there & how many seats were lost? We are talking RECENT results here - not historical ones.

At the next election I predict that both Tory & Labour will suffer from the UKIP vote, although nowhere near enough to even give UKIP a chance of getting into power, but I reckon that it will be Torys who will suffer most, due to their recent performance. UKIP will benefit because they have proved themselves to be credible, with a good, overall balanced policy. The BNP, on the other hand, have a single policy - Pakistanis & Islam out. OK - then what? Quite frankly, an Islamic Pakistani would stand more chance of getting a seat in the Commons than a BNP candidate ever would.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:21 pm

FourPart;1465622 wrote: "Two World Wars & 1 World Cup". The call that goes up every time England play Germany. The World Cup in question being back in '66 - Ancient History. Is subsequent years England has been trounced, yet we still harp on about '66.

Yes, in 2009 BNP did better than expected, but that was mainly because all the others did so badly & the share of the vote was spread so diversely. As I have said before, you are always revelling in previous victories & ignoring the more recent defeats. I don't hear you talking much about 2014, for instance. Do you really think you were victorious then? How many seats were gained there & how many seats were lost? We are talking RECENT results here - not historical ones.

At the next election I predict that both Tory & Labour will suffer from the UKIP vote, although nowhere near enough to even give UKIP a chance of getting into power, but I reckon that it will be Torys who will suffer most, due to their recent performance. UKIP will benefit because they have proved themselves to be credible, with a good, overall balanced policy. The BNP, on the other hand, have a single policy - Pakistanis & Islam out. OK - then what? Quite frankly, an Islamic Pakistani would stand more chance of getting a seat in the Commons than a BNP candidate ever would.

No Fourpart, It Is you who Is not listening. Let me say again. Following 2009, Andrew Brons launched a leadership challenge. He lost by just 4 votes... that Indicates half of the Party voted for him. When he left the Party and resigned as MEP, he set up a new Party decimating the membership, taking many with him. The Golding and Dowsen fell out with Griffin and left setting up Britain First taking even more members. This meant the membership was decimated.

You can not stand candidates If you don't have sufficient Party Funds to do so at £500 a time. The membership subscriptions fell dramatically after the Brons split. It was not a case of the BNP lost Council Seats, but the Party not having the membership funds to use to stand them. Every Party works the same.

The victories In 2009 were pre Brons split.. hence we had funds to stand Candidates all over the Country.

There Is every possibility that with Griffin gone, the memberships will swell again and the funds will be there again to regain those victories In 2009. What you are missing Is that we did win 114 elections Including the two MEP's In 2009 so we know we have voters out there all over the Country.

I have said many times on this forum that we will not make great gains In 2015. There's a possibility we could take 2 Seats but I nor anyone else pretends we are going to do that. We are rebuilding after the damage caused by Brons and that will take time.

As for single Policy... sorry Fourpart, this Is where you show your complete Ignorance of our Party. I have already told you to go and look at our website and look under policies. You'll see every catagory, Education, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Environment, Crime and Justice, Democracy, Health, Housing and Welfare, Immigration etc Under each of those titles Is a wide range of further policies under each catagory. We are a registered Political Party so why do you Imagine that we don't have a Manifesto as every Party must ?

Sorry, I really don't mean to be unkind but when you come across so Ignorant of what we actually represent, It explains why you make It up as you go along. For goodness sake, read our Manifesto first

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 1:57 am

I have asked you on several occasions on the BNP's policy on the economy. Every time you have either side stepped or ignored the issue altogether & have even told me to go & find out for myself. Why is it that on not one of these occasions did you not do so much as reply with a single URL?

I never said that you only HAD one policy. I said that you only ever CAME ACROSS as having one policy, as this is the only policy that is ever promoted.

You call me ignorant for not being aware of all these other supposed policies. Is it any wonder when that is how you portray yourselves. I am the typical man on the street. It is not up to me, as the man on the street to have to go searching for all these policies. That's your job & something you have not been doing a very good job of.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:55 am

I would like to thank FourPart for taking on Oscar, as I am completely Oscared Out

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 7:27 am

Bruv;1465635 wrote: I would like to thank FourPart for taking on Oscar, as I am completely Oscared Out

Fear not! Still the result of Jet Lag!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:41 am

FourPart;1465631 wrote: I have asked you on several occasions on the BNP's policy on the economy. Every time you have either side stepped or ignored the issue altogether & have even told me to go & find out for myself. Why is it that on not one of these occasions did you not do so much as reply with a single URL?

Why should I ?

Given the bile written In the past re: Griffin, Peter thought those who do so would be Interested that he had been expelled and posted the thread.

You have been more than active at stating your opinion on the BNP In previous threads and the reason I have to keep quoting you, Is because you make It up as you go along and I won't have my colleagues and friends libelled on this forum. It's akin to poking the bear with the stick through the bars of the cage and then whining because the bears got out and mauled you.

We are still waiting for Gill to come back and explain who these ' Iffy bods' at the top are, what with her having Inside knowledge. :rolleyes:

This Is a public forum... If I enter Into a topic of which I know bugger all about the topic but I am Interested, I take 15 minutes to google and source the Information I need. I do not demand that the poster of the thread writes chapter and verse just to give me the Information I am too bone Idle to get myself. What I certainly wouldn't do, Is write a post complete Ignorant of the subject and make It up as I go along.

You can google Fourpart. You are more than capable of entering Into your search engine, BNP Offical Website. Look at the top and you'll see the catagories of Policies.

Why shouldn't you go and find It yourself? You libel our people on this forum and then expect me to do the work for you !

Even more Ironically, the man who In the past has posted threads on the BNP and Griffin then whines about a thread on the BNP and Griffin.

One moment I am being accused of using this forum as a soundbite and the next you expect me to write up BNP policy... you couldn't make It up !!!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:48 am

Thank you. You have just proved my point exactly.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:59 am

FourPart;1465642 wrote: Thank you. You have just proved my point exactly.

What ? That you can't be arrsed to go and look yourself?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:22 am

Oscar Namechange;1465593 wrote: During Nick Griffin's Chairmanship, he amended a clause In the Party Constitution that enabled him to promote who he liked when he liked.

When Adam Walker took over Chairmanship, he used this clause to promote me because It was a matter of urgency that It was done. Reasons I'm not going Into here.

Mr Griffin mentioned this Is his dodgy dossier that was leaked onto the Internet... a certain Irony, given that Mr Walker had used the clause, the very clause that Griffin had created In the first place.

However, as Mr Walker had done this and not consulted others above me, I felt uncomfortable and to avoid further friction In the Party and those others feeling they had not been consulted, I set about getting their endorsement, which I got.

So, you are wrong. It was done properly as Mr Walker had every right to do that under the constitution. Following my getting the endorsements from others, It was then Mr Griffin critisized Mr Walker's actions to do something that he created the constitution to do himself.

Why didn't we go through a voting process In the first place ? Because It was a matter of urgency and needed to happen quickly.

One can only hope that the clause gets removed then, as that is no way to 'promote' people who are supposed represent the majority.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:33 am

FourPart;1465642 wrote: Thank you. You have just proved my point exactly.

What point? That you, throughout threads drop in the B.N.P. and Nick Griffin without ever doing any research first and coming across to members here that you are an authority on the subject of nationalist politics when the evidence is here that you know very little and assume an awful lot.

Oscar is right in that you can search for the policy yourself. You also seem incapable of understanding that given this is a public forum, Oscar is entitled to a personal opinion as was Nick Griffin, yet you seem to confuse personal opinion in threads with party policy which it appears, you don't even have the knowledge in order for you to distinguish between the two.

Your reply to Oscar is a get out because you can't answer her and you think you can fool us into believing you can. You make it up as you go along in the hope that possibly some of it may be true when everything you have ever written about the party is not only erroneous but at times libelous.

Yes, i'm coming up the rear again but you are the one who repeatedly attempts to take on someone very much involved in the party and it's internal workings and then cries when he gets slapped down time after time.

Asking Oscar to call a truce and then offering what you perceive to be valuable advice on how her party should progress when they have survived more set backs than any other party, was actually asking Oscar to agree with you. Yet, you are unable to see that if what you have written is guess work in the first instance, then your advice is flawed in the first instance.

In all frankness, if you take on Oscar especially on something she is more than involved in, including inside knowledge, you deserve all you get. She's quite happy to debate politics but if you throw guess work into the mix, you'll never get very far with her. My advice to you, is do your research thoroughly on the party and policy before you try to be the clever clogs and out wit her.

Gill, i'm also waiting for you to inform us on who these iffy bods are.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:00 pm

Betty Boop;1465646 wrote: One can only hope that the clause gets removed then, as that is no way to 'promote' people who are supposed represent the majority.

As I said, at the time, It was a matter of urgency, however, those who should have endorsed It, did so anyway, albeit soon after the event. There was added complications of those In a position to vote, being replaced. Walker did what he had to do In the best Interests of everyone at the time. If we had waited, a certain part of the Country would have ground to a standstill. Regardless, he was quite within his rights to use the clause created by Griffin for his own ends In the Constitution. There are to be changes to that Constitution which the legal team are looking Into now. One thing Is for certain, Walker will do things professionally and within the best Interests of all members as he has always done. For me, It makes no difference, I have the endorsement from past and future voters, that Is not In question.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:56 pm

Round Two.... Jefferson answering Griffin's allegations... bit long and tedious to those looking In.

The "Dodgy dossier" exposed

eta.... scroll right down past video for Griffin's tweets ... his Intentions were clear.

End of video, Clive talks of ' Peanutgate '

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:51 am

I did watch the entire interview through & didn't skip to the end & I think you might be surprised by my comments on the matter.

Obviously the interview was very biased, which is only to be expected (not a dig whatsoever - the same would be true of any party's own publications). However, from what I see he put himself across pretty well (apart from the creepy constant looking into the camera), and if they continue to put that image across in the future I think things could improve.

I can't pretend to know what the business about the wills is. Clearly the whole interview was directed at BNP members who would already know what it was all about, so there's no real reason I would know, but from what I can extrapolate from content of the interview, he has been accused of getting members to name him personally as a beneficiary of their wills, as opposed to the party funds (?) and he is making a public denial of this - and quite rightly so. If there's any doubt about that it's only right & proper it should be investigated, which seems to be what's happening. If the claims turn out to be true, then they should throw the book at him & make it public in a big way. If it proves to be false then it demonstrates what a libelous toe rag Griffin really is.

This is something that puzzles me, though. Despite my loathing for him, I have never denied that Griffin is not lacking in intelligence, and it is this that sows the seeds of doubt. As previous Chairman he would obviously be aware of certain facts & know where the bodies are buried, so to speak, so the question has to be asked as to why he would set himself up for a libel case by putting such claims in writing if he knew they could be proved to be false.