TIME FOR NICK TO GO?

Right. For better or worse I have to get this off my chest. Some of you wont like it, but hell, if
you can’t write what you think we might as well all give up and go home. The simmering
civil war I mean between what I will call the Bennett/Butler “dissenters” and the
Griffin/Dowson party leadership that shows no sign of abating.

Starting with Simon Bennett bringing the main BNP web site down shortly before the election
and Eddy Butler’s call for reform and new leadership shortly after. Questions about the
concentration of so much power within the BNP in one persons hands and questionable
decision making skills at the top. The recurring theme of the somewhat opaque accounting
procedures and always in the background, the (apparently) shady, Rasputin like Mr Dowson.

One thing I do know and what any reasonable person will clearly understand is that there is
ALWAYS another side to the story. It might not make much difference. Sometimes the other
side of the story adds very little. Sometimes it sheds new light on what initially appeared to be
rock solid truths.

You might not like to admit it but no matter what you think, if you are only reading one side
of the story you are not in a position to judge. It’s an uncomfortable thought for some but all
the questions now being asked about the party need a more reasoned response than is now
being offered.

If the truth shows the party leadership in a bad light, then so be it. Learn, take the necessary
steps and move on. If it definitely proves Bennett’s guilt, or that Butler is a fraud, or fully
vindicates the decision making process and probity in the top echelons of the party, and shows
Jim Dowson to be a saint, fine. End of story. No lingering doubts.

Simon Bennett. Petulant, stupid, arrogant, selfish, a prima donna: possibly. Or maybe just
pushed into desperate actions? Was he really left to face the music alone directly after the
Marmite gaffe? Was his web stuff really being stolen? His own version of events surrounding
the web saga is compelling.

He hardly covered himself in glory, it’s true. Releasing the address details of Green Arrow for
example (which, worse still, subsequently turned out to be those of his mother) hardly puts
him in a position to claim the moral high ground. It is a despicable act, surly one of the
“unforgivable curses”.

But it does not mean that everything he writes is wrong.

The whole BNP website saga of just before the election stinks. Simon Bennett admits that he
took the site down, but claims that he brought it back up again after 10 minutes. That much is
clear, but the events of the 48 hours after that are not clear. At least not to me.

As soon as I read about the site being down, the first thing I did, probably like loads of others,
was go to and see for myself. As far as I can remember the site was still up. In any case I
didn’t get directed to Bennett’s site, and as far as I can recall only later did I see the BNP
holding page. The article in the Times, which is where I first read about the site being down,
also indicates that the site was down for a short time before being brought back up.
Was it really that Arthur Kemp et al tried to migrate the site to a new server in the meantime
and failed? I don’t believe we have all the facts, so I don’t believe I can judge.

Innocent until proven guilty. That is one of the key principles of British justice and it applies
just as much, perhaps even more so, to people who are hated. Otherwise justice descends into
mob rule.

And one big, big, question: how the hell was this dispute ever allowed to escalate to the level
it did? Where is the conflict resolution? Is there anybody in the leadership that takes
responsibility for this sort of thing? And if not why not? Or is it automatically allowed to
descend to a scrap, and the man who can piss the furthest wins?

Since then there has been a storm of claims and accusations aimed at Bennett. One of the
latest being that he created the site and all the peripheries based on an off the peg Wordpress
design that cost two shillings and sixpence and he has been fleecing the members ever since.
If true it would surly bury Bennett. Ironically, if true, it also gives credence to those who
claim that the party’s financial and personnel management is seriously up the duff, because
how could this possibly be allowed to happen?. If it’s not true, along with other claims that
are being made...... well the consequences for the party are devastating.

As for Eddy Butler’s call for new leadership and reform: what’s so radical about that? It
happens in political parties.

And the BNP Truth Chronicles blog? Is this an official party response to Bennett/Butler?

Am I honestly supposed to believe that Eddy Butler is a Searchlight stooge? So, he once
switched parties. So did Winston Churchill, get over it, it’s a normal part of the intellectual
process. Is Bennett really mentally deranged and a far leftist collaborator? Where is the proof?
If Bennett was a crook and a swindler, how did he manage to get away with it for so long?
Same question regarding Eddy Butler and searchlight.

Are the people behind this blog also the same people we hope to persuade the British people
are capable of managing affairs of state? Is this blog to be representative of justice BNP style?
Jesus Christ people do me a favour, think of the bigger picture. PEOPLE ARE WATCHING,
AND WHAT THEY ARE WITNESSING IS NOT IMPRESSIVE.

Convince me in logical calm language, with reasoned arguments, not smears, rumours and
half-truths. Don’t shout at me, talk to me. I expect calm and dignified leadership. What I’m
getting is pre-pubescent crap. If I read one more article starting with “Simon Bennett, far left/
searchlight/ mental/ lunatic criminal.....” I’m switching off. It reminds me too much of the
articles in the mainstream press that start “Nick Griffin, Nazi/fascist/racist bigot....” They
have no content either.

As a relatively new member of the party, I’m now in my fourth year, it never ceases to amaze
me that in some circles this is still considered a normal way of doing business. If it wasn’t so
damaging it would be hilarious. Out there in the parallel universe that others call real life,
Britain is being murdered, the whole of Western Europe is going down the pan, and we are
still calling each other names.

I wonder if we’ll grow up in time?

I bet the reds (the real reds that it, not the imaginary ones lurking in the heads of some of the
party top) can’t believe how generous we are being to them. On their sites they are relaxing,
talking of a summer of football, beer, and “watching the fash ripping lumps out of each
other”. Or is it chunks, I can’t recall which?

We all have a responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen. Don’t wait for the other side to
blink first. Take some responsibility and do it now.

I won’t hold my breath on that one. Too many entrenched positions have been taken and
bridges burnt. Stupid. I sometimes get the feeling that some people within the party hierarchy
actually like being on the fringes of politics. It’s where they feel safest.

On the 28th May, Nick published the “New Model Army” article which I initially found to be
very reassuring. I say initially because the second, third and fourth readings give rise to some
questions. This is not unusual; you can do it with almost any text. Large parts of it are still
reassuring.

Nick wrote of professionalization. It has certainly gone a long way if you read about the
changes in working practices and the physical apparatus that has been put in place. This is to
be applauded. But professionalization also applies to management and leadership structures
and responsibilities within an organisation. The relation between the leaders and the led. The
party leadership currently has an inordinately strong position.

He also wrote of “airing concerns” and “open debate”. Unfortunately the recent response has
not convinced me that either is truly possible. A guarantee of a fair hearing would have been
nice. I accept that the BNP is subject to infiltration attempts that other parties do not face and
the party has to be mindful of that, but is everybody who falls foul of the leadership disturbed
or an enemy of the state or a red? It seems to be a common trend. And very convenient.

Nick has also announced his intention to stand down as leader in three years time, two years
of this is needed to push through the modernisation process. A fully modernised party will
then be handed over to the new leader who will then have a year or so to gear up for the
European and General elections. In principle not a bad idea, but even here questions arise.

Operation Overlord took one and a half years from inception to implementation and that was
the biggest invasion of its kind in military history. Why then does it take two years to
complete the modernisation process within the BNP, a relatively small political party?

If you know what you need to do, do it. Six months tops. Implemented by 1st January 2011. It
can be done, I’ve witnessed it in organisations far bigger than the BNP.

And why is it that Nick need to do this? Surly it would be better for the authority and
reputation of a new leader if he or she modernised and reformed the party on taking over,
outfitting it for the new challenges we face.

My own feeling is that Nick has taken the party as far as he can as leader. I’ll be generous and
say that the rather authoritarian leadership style was necessary to keep the party in one piece
and to get us to where we are now. I wasn’t involved, I can’t easily judge. Besides which we
can’t do anything about that now. And whatever is said about his leadership style, more than
half a million votes at a general election and nearly a million at the Europeans is not a bad
basis.

However as the party moves from small fringe, to medium mainstream the questions about
concentrating so much power in the hands of one person will not go away. This issue needs to
be addressed urgently, as does the question about financial transparency.

There are too many questions coming from too many people about the way the party is run.
Shouting down the “opposition” no longer cuts the mustard.

How easy is it for a power transition to take place? The constitution suggests that nearly all
the cards are in the hands of the current incumbent and reasoned argument is too often
interpreted as a hostile attack. Are good people being lost as a result?

Questions will also remain about the decision making concerning the ECHR case, where a
contempt of court case is still possible

Marmitegate could yet have a sting in the tail (I thought it was a great video but assumed that
they had somehow got around the rather obvious copywrite infringement issue).

Both of these cases still have to come to court, and might still go the BNP’s way. But if either
case (or both) goes against the party, and that result could have been reasonably expected,
then serious questions have to be asked.

OK. Nearly two thousand words. I really should try to bring this to a conclusion.

At the moment our biggest strength and also our biggest weakness is that Nick Griffin IS the
BNP. But the BNP is not (or should not) be Nick Griffin. If the party is to flourish is needs to
be bigger than any one person.

Nick has given the best part of his life to creating the BNP and in doing so has put himself in
harms way for us. We must never forget that. He has created enemies and collected baggage
on the way. I have no doubt that he is a brave man, and I also have no doubt that whatever
happens he will have a senior roll in the future of British nationalism.

The 2010 election was a watershed moment. It brutally exposed the strengths and weaknesses
of the BNP in its current state. Questions are being asked about the structure of the party and
the capacities of the leadership to deal with the next phase. These are often pertinent
questions, but are not being dealt with adequately, largely because the structure is not in place
to do so. If we can’t deal with ourselves, how can we possibly deal with our enemies? That is
a huge problem and needs to be addressed right now.

In any other political party the leader would have either stood down or at least sought to
renew his mandate by seeking re election. Staying on for another three years, no matter how
well intentioned, is neither one nor the other.

I do wonder if the real reason for the delay is if Nick Griffin doubts that the BNP can survive
without him. It’s a realistic question. The danger of factionalism is real, but that will not be
any less in three years.
It’s time for a new leadership. Now!