Friday, 26 August 2011

Richard Barnbrook: “If only they’d listened ….”

From what was once a total of over 100 councillors, the BNP now only has a meagre 9. And from having been in credit to the sum of some £2.3 million, the Party is said have debts of £700 000. Sad to say, back as far as the autumn of 2006, I saw that there were problems which eventually led to the difficulties that are now besetting the Party and that have resulted in its regression.

But be warned, this is not just a brief write-up but a good 30-minute read! I’m putting it up, because we need to look at what went wrong for the good of our country, so that we can hopefully put things right. But above all, we need to forge a new way forward involving all nationalist/patriotic groups. Because there are so many like-thinkers out there, from all colours of the political spectrum- disaffected Labour supporters, Conservatives and others- nationalists who need to find a voice.

In 1999 when I first joined the Party it was due to Nick Griffin winning the leadership challenge. At the time he had the charisma, the flair and the vision.

I had left the Labour Party in 1986 because under Kinnock, the values that I then adhered to were saying nothing to a new Britain, a Britain where education had become worthless, a Britain where the health system was overloaded and already showing signs of cracking and inability to cope with an increased population. At the same time, there was a decline in Britain’s economic and fiscal soundness. It was a nation that not even Enoch Powell could have predicted would have emerged with such velocity and speed. This was the mid 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had started to bring the incompetence of the unions, with their lack of vision, under control which I give her credit for. But she widened the doors to the immigration crisis and sealed our fate with the cheap gimmick of clawing back pennies from Europe, rather than expelling the Brussells bureaucrats from our shores. She should have kicked the EEC out of Britain when she had the chance. Because the majority of the problems we face today, together with the inability to do anything to counteract them, stem from our accursed membership of the EU.

Having left the Labour Party, I then decided to go about the continuation of my career both in the arts and education. While in the secondary education system of London, working on short-term contracts in failing schools, I was brought into schools across London as a trouble-fixer prior to OFSTED inspections, in such areas as Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexleyheath, Newham, Neasden and Tower Hamlets amongst others.

It wasn’t until 1997 and the election of a Labour government that I saw within the following three years a total desperation and despondency amongst the communities in London that felt dejected and let down by seeing their desires and aspirations being dashed once again. I thus felt I had to take up the political cudgel. It took me three years to determine where best my voice could be heard by representation through a political party. After several attempts and deep deliberation, I finally got in contact with the BNP of the nearest branch and group to where I lived in Lewisham, which was the Bexley branch. The reason I finally decided to go to the BNP meeting was that Nick Griffin had won the leadership challenge. Marching through the streets of London was not the way forward at that time.

At that meeting I put forward comments and proposals for development and electioneering. The Chair of the meeting requested that I stayed behind to meet a fellow nationalist who knew about the potential for Downham ward, in south Lewisham. I met the bus driver and he said to me ‘Right, if you’re that keen are you free to leaflet Downham, tomorrow?’ Over the next four weeks, the two of us leafleted every single house in Downham! I wasn’t even a member! But right from the start, I showed the commitment and hands-on perspective that I would lead from.

Four weeks later I was asked to meet Nick Griffin in Blackheath. I explained my position and background as an artist and a teacher.
Then I was asked to help out in a by-election in Northend in Slade Green where I started canvassing. I still had not yet received my membership card.

In early 2000, Nick appointed me as the Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and several weeks later I was issued with my membership card. By the end of the year we had 80 members in Lewisham, and an additional 40 in Bromley! I then spearheaded the parliamentary election campaign in Lewisham East where the BNP candidate attained 1005 votes which was an unprecedented result for south east London. And that was the start of patriots coming from across the country to assist in election campaigns. What is more important is that at that stage, the whole design of leaflets changed. I made sure that the wordiness went and the visuals came in.

It is quite clear that the approach that I was taking was being recognised as a valuable campaign strategy for others to emulate: that it’s not sufficient to rely on just leafleting and marching through the streets of Britain. What was needed was a more structured and solid campaigning approach involving interaction door-to-door with the electorate and general public, dealing head-on with issues that related to local communities ward by ward, rather than just pushing a ‘one size fits all’ national programme. I should say that this was also the approach used in the campaign which won the Party’s first council seat the early 1990s in the Isle of Dogs.

But my enthusiasm and persistence in getting things resolved and chasing people up when the work they undertook was not carried out, made waves. Also, some decided that once the good seeds had been sewn they wanted to take it over themselves. Granted, I used to make telephone calls to branch administrators late at night, which may have caused irritation, but I saw that the fate of our nation was at stake and in politics there can be no 9-5 approach to the job. Consequently I was removed as Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and the position was passed on to somebody else. Three years on from there, the branch membership collapsed. Under my watch we had rocketed straight to branch status without ever having been a just a group. Today, Lewisham and Bromley is barely a group.

In 2002 I continued with leafleting and canvassing throughout south east London and occasionally helping in other areas of the capital, but I spent a great deal of my time dealing with my career in education as well as national Queen’s Golden Jubilee projects.

In 2003 I was asked by the then national organiser to start giving speeches nationwide and at the Red White and Blue festival and also to assist in the canvassing at by-elections and elections across the country. I was also having an input into the basic design of the Party’s new leafleting strategy. At the end of 2003 I was made the co-ordinating officer for London. By this time I was also part of a think-tank, visiting the Chairman at his country retreat and then created ‘Special Projects’ which was set up to enhance the public’s perception of the Party by way of working on frontline community activities. It was at this time that I suggested that the Party create a small booklet containing a summary of our manifesto for members of the public and it was eventually produced… four years later! I also asked for an activists’ handbook and this again came out some four years later, but on-line only. Also an elections handbook that still hasn’t materialised. I suggested that there be a manual for councillors as well, to give guidance and an outline of good practice, but as far as I am aware this hasn’t as yet been produced either.

In 2004 I was made London Organiser, and was involved in the majority of the activities across London and played a major part in co-ordinating the 2004 GLA campaign, where we achieved an unprecedented 4.71% of the London vote, only missing a GLA seat by just 0.29%!

However, at this stage, the opposition started to attack me both in the press, verbally, and also daubed the front door of my house in Blackheath. Not having a driving licence, I travelled across London and up and down the whole country using public transport, with no security and one year into wearing my beige suit, fully aware that I was sticking out like a sore thumb. That same year, I won the coveted George Flaxton Memorial Award as activist of the year, and gave speeches and video recordings across the nation, getting by on a salary of just £600 per month. At this stage, I had given up teaching to put all my efforts, 7 days a week, into the nationalist cause.

The irony behind my giving up teaching is that each time it became known that I was standing for election, the teaching agencies informed me that there were ‘no positions at present’. And yet a month or so after my not being elected, they would call me requesting I took on a position at a then failing academy prior to OFSTED being called in. I was somewhat bemused at these sudden changes of circumstances and said that my politics had not altered and asked why I was wanted back. The answer was that it was because parents and staff believed I did an outstanding job in correcting failing classes and pupils.

In 2004 I was made Barking and Dagenham Branch Organiser, working alongside the then National Elections Officer. That year, there were three by-elections in Barking and Dagenham. The results achieved were as follows and the figures speak for themselves:

15 July: Valence 31.5% BNP SECOND
16.Sept: Goresbrook 51.9% BNP FIRST!
7 October: Village 38.5% BNP SECOND

Following the momentous Goresbrook victory, I was the secretary and events organiser for the wining Goresbrook councillor and assisted him with his daily activities after he was elected.

During 2004, the Chairman requested me to have a private meeting with the founder of the Party offering him the position of life-long president. He refused it.

In 2005 it was as a member of the Advisory Council, that I started to notice, after the nation-wide success of councillors being elected in parish, town and borough, the start of the frustrations and discontent (which later became apparent at the 2005 Red White and Blue). Prior to the RWB there was a conference of the Regional Organisers and Advisory Council. The then head of security had made statements that were deemed to be too innovative and above his station to the Chairman and some of longstanding Head Office officials. Several months later, he was removed from his position.

In 2005 I stood for the parliamentary seat of Barking against Labour’s sitting MP, Margaret Hodge and I received 17 % and achieved third place, only missing second place, which was taken by the Tories, by a mere 28 votes! This was and is still the highest nationalist vote for a parliamentary seat ever achieved in this country.

At an AC meeting in Wales I brought to the Chairman’s attention the fact that the National Elections Officer and the then National Organiser were putting in place parallel systems and appointing officers into positions in London without informing me what they were doing. This was consequently interfering with my role as London Organiser and the development of London, because it meant that there were two separate London operations in place, one effectively being carried out without my knowledge. This was the first sign of the hole in the heart of the BNP, where cohesion, communication and continuity did not exist. I was concerned too that there were also key locations in the south of London that needed assistance and some possible financial help, and that these were being neglected. This led to a confrontation between the Leader of the Party and myself in the summer of 2005. Subsequently, the Leader displayed poor judgement by taking the line of least resistance in undermining my position. He sacked me as London Organiser, basically for being too pro-active, and attaining positive results! It clearly was a case of nepotism over ability.

Prior to the RWB in 2005, one national organiser had been replaced by another and from then on started the true problems.
At the RWB I went past one tent that contained certain high ranking individuals who were conniving to undermine both the Party and the Chairman. (Indeed, some were kicked out of the Party later for being alleged infiltrators). They asked me to join them but I refused. The following day I informed the Chairman and said that we had to bring in a polygraph test to filter out infiltrators, for those at regional organiser level and above. (Remember that at this point, I had been sacked as the London Organiser). Some time earlier I had had a conversation with an ex SAS information officer who said that he would have been more than happy to carry them out at £1000 per test. Nicks’ reply was that it wasn’t practical at that time.

I also told the Chairman that chain of command was falling apart due to poor communications. And that the public’s perception of the Party was all important and that every effort had to be made to improve it.

Then, a month after the RWB, I was asked to resign my position as Barking and Dagenham Organiser. The excuse given to me by the Chairman was that I needed a rest!! Of course, I refused- and so I was sacked! This was my third sacking! The position was given to one of the 2004 Barking and Dagenham candidates who after only two months stated that he could not do the job and asked me to take over from him. So I did, but without the authority or knowledge of Head Office. Because I couldn’t just stand back and watch things stagnate.

In 2006, I was continuing my work on the ground in Barking and Dagenham. I pushed ahead, making sure that the BNP were there for the people where the problems were. We went out in hi-viz vests, collecting rubbish and clearing up graffiti. Because of the efforts of individual BNP activists at ground level, Barking and Dagenham was becoming a visibly better place.

In 2006, due to my input, a new professional format for leaflets was brought in. The design was upgraded and combined with the selection of a striking and forceful message, in A3 full-colour finish. And at the same time as canvassing we were continuing to work away in the parks, cleaning graffiti, picking up litter and clearing brooks, leaving the perception in people’s minds that we had already been elected and were going about our council work.

I was eventually formally asked by Head Office to take control of the forthcoming borough elections of 2006; by that time I had already put things in motion anyway! Of course, I agreed and was given back the membership list of Barking and Dagenham and then started a national assistance strategy, which we now know as the national and regional Days of Action.

Between myself and just three key activists in Barking and Dagenham, we began the election campaign that led to the BNP’s ground-breaking result in the council elections. Come submission of nominations time, we had 21 candidates. Due to the thorough vetting and appropriate analysing of the candidates it was deemed that four were unsuitable and 13 were chosen. A further four were by one means or another indebted to the council due to disability which would have left them out of pocket if elected, which was too much of a burden to expect individuals to shoulder. Hence only 13 candidates stood and as is well known, 12 of them were elected.

However, it was at about this time I was told by the National Elections Officer to ‘forget Barking and Dagenham because at best you will only get four or five elected.’ If we had had a full slate of candidates, I’m sure now that every one of them would have been elected! If I hadn’t been sacked as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser and also as London Organiser, I would have had a fighting chance of getting the 51 candidates that we needed. But with just five months left to the elections, we could only get 13 together. Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham, said that if we had fielded a full slate of BNP candidates, we would have taken the whole council. That was after Margaret Hodge, the sitting Labour MP, had made comments that inadvertently promoted the progress of the BNP, not only in Barking and Dagenham and London, but nation-wide.

The scale of the unprecedented victory in Barking and Dagenham was achieved by hard work, tenacity and a deliberate decision to act contrary to the view of the then National Elections Officer. Twelve out of thirteen councillors were duly elected which made us ‘the official opposition’ to the Labour-run council. This was the first time ever that such a thing had happened, and all from a standing-start of zero councillors! This unprecedented success led to my winning two awards:

2006 Best Campaign Organiser
2006 Most New Councillors (Barking and Dagenham)

Following the success at Barking and Dagenham, it was deemed appropriate by Head Office to bring me back on to the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer, as I was now the leader of the Barking and Dagenham Council official opposition. But plots were fermenting prior to the RWB 2006, as I was approached by four leading officers of the Party and asked to stand against the Chairman on isues of bad management and financial improprieties. I refused and had a lengthy conversation with the Chairman at the RWB, again emphasising the need for stronger security checks for key officers, including and above the position of regional organiser. I also brought to the Chairman’s attention that it would be a wise move for him to distance himself from any involvement with financial matters and suggested that he should consider introducing the process of electing regional organisers, rather than undemocratically appointing them. It was also by this time that certain key people who were coming up from the south, south west and south east, were suddenly disappearing, while at the same time yes-men were being kept in place over and above those who displayed obvious talent.

Also, as the Councillors’ Liaison Officer, I was seeing at first hand the disillusionment at coal face, with sole councillors in particular not being supported. Councillors were promised an internet set-up where they could debate and contact each other and share knowledge, (so they did not have to use their councils’ internet systems), but it was constantly being put off by Head Office. This meant that having worked hard to get councillors elected, once in post, they were steadily being demotivated by the lack of resources and assistance given to them, leaving individuals in an isolated, vulnerable position, and causing them in many cases to stand down through disillusionment and lack of support. Even in my own council of Barking and Dagenham, with some of the less able councillors, it was difficult to keep them up to speed, causing our stronger councillors to battle with the extra case-studies and mountains of bureaucracy in a struggle to make sure we did not look incompetent.

As leader of the opposition I was at this time on a gross salary of £14 000 for which I was working 7 days a week.

In a private meeting in 2007, I mentioned to Head Office that there were problems. My prediction was that we would possibly get the GLA seat the following year, and if sufficient work and electioneering took place there was a good likelihood we would get a European seat in 2009, but my concerns were that if we kept running ahead too fast without supporting the existing elected councillors, we would look back over our shoulders and see the basic foundations crumbling. Unfortunately this has now come to pass as we have lost all the ground-work it took to get win our 100 plus council seats at county, borough, district, town and parish levels.

2007 saw the sacking, for one reason or another, of key members who questioned Head Office or the leadership on its financial irregularities, poor judgements on national campaigns and faux pas to the media. Also the accounts were being submitted late to the Electoral Commission. The bigger the Party became, the more Head Office tightened its control. Yes-men were continuing to be appointed at the expense of those with ability. Councillors, especially sole councillors were becoming despondent. It was more and more difficult to keep up the momentum, given that the grass roots were being starved of resources. And there was still no Party back-up provided to councillors. Councillors started resigning due to the pressure and lack of support.

At the end of 2007 I did not put my name forward again for the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer. My requests for assistance for councillors had fallen on deaf ears, so I decided instead to focus my efforts on the following year’s GLA/mayoral election campaign.
It was in 2007 that I received the Party’s award:

Best Councillor of the Year (runner-up)

2008 saw the GLA elections. A staggering one million leaflets were delivered by hand all over London, comprising of 600 000 full colour A3 and 500 000 black and white A4, which were double dropped in some key areas. This was an unprecedented campaign in nationalist politics which I co-ordinated and managed with just seven other key London activists, together with the support of the majority of London activists as well as hundreds of others from across the nation. But it wasn’t until the last six weeks of a nine month campaign that the National Elections Officer and the National Secretary felt the need to exert themselves! Throughout the months preceding the elections, I was working flat-out, seven days a week, which took a toll on my health and my domestic circumstances. The press were still attacking me and the door of my house was vandalised. A lot of the time I was travelling across London on public transport with no security (and in many cases having to carry the maps).

During the London campaign there were also other frustrations going on, as organisers from the south east were having problems with Head Office and were therefore reluctant to come across and work on the west side of the London campaign. The decision had to be made to focus all key efforts on London, which was the only high profile election that was taking place at that time. London was winnable and so deserved the best possible resources. But it wasn’t until the last months of the GLA election campaign that money started coming in thick and fast from the then National Fundraiser. However, with or without this increase in finances, the GLA seat still would have been won.

On the day of the election, when it came to the count, many of the boxes had been tampered with, and the new electronic counting system had glitches. Three hours prior to the results being declared, I asked one of the key officers of London Elects what percentage we were at, regards the PR London-wide vote and he said that the BNP was at around 7.5%. I then asked him where this percentage would ultimately level out at, and he said ‘7-7.1%’. This would have resulted in a contest between the Greens getting two seats and the BNP achieving two seats. In fact, we ended up with only 5.3% or 130 000 votes for the top-up candidacy! So what was the explanation? At least I was elected- another BNP first! But to drop from a predicted 7% plus to 5%plus seems somewhat inexplicable! So much for electronic counting systems…

I was at the same time also the mayoral candidate for London and won 198 000 votes. I had been out every single day- canvassing, leafleting, attending hustings, as well as spearheading the campaign, while at the same time still acting as the Leader of the Opposition of Barking and Dagenham Council which was also a seven day a week job. This put inevitable pressure on my domestic life. In spite of all this frenetic activity for the Party, it transpired recently that the closer it came to the elections and the more likely it seemed that we would win a seat, Head Office were having second thoughts about my being the candidate!

Yes, I like a drink at the end of a long hard day but I’ve never drunk to excess or allowed it to affect my judgement. However, the Left don’t miss a trick at our expense, and saw this as a stick to beat me with. I would like to make clear I have never sought assistance from any AA group, nor have I needed to. Having a drink has never affected my work or professionalism. For those of you who feel that my speeches are somewhat ‘poetic’, that is just my character. Having said this, it has secured every success I have achieved for the Party, for my own area and across the nation both at branch meetings and at the RWB and throughout the country in canvassing campaigns.

When elected to the GLA it was agreed that I would give 10% of my net earnings to the Party. However, I decided voluntarily to donate all of my net wage from Barking and Dagenham council which was £500 a month. This was in fact over £100 per month more than 10% of my GLA salary and this money went directly into the Party treasury with the intention for it to be used for the Party’s development.

Success inevitably attracts attention and opposition. During 2008, having been elected to the GLA and while also a councillor in Barking and Dagenham, I was constantly under attack, both having my house damaged again and being brought before the Standards Board through complaints initiated by Labour councillors. After I was elected as a member of the GLA, I passed the leadership of Barking and Dagenham BNP councillors on to the deputy leader of the opposition and became the deputy myself. By this time I was dealing with not only my own ward but with several other wards, as well as representing London on the GLA.

The elections of 2006 and 2008 were run on what was actually a pittance, (compared to the vast amounts spent by the main parties), of £50 000. With all the big money that has come in to the Party subsequently, I ask the simple question, where did it all go?

At the end of 2008, any campaign strategy had fallen through the floor, with people permitted to contest seats that were clearly not winnable. This includes unlikely areas such as Camden, Tower Hamlets and Hampstead. These no-hope campaigns were run at the expense of winnable seats like Hainault. Here again, Head Office had lost the plot. The subsequent poor results demoralised individuals, and brought down our national average, which gave ammunition to the press and achieved nothing beneficial.

It was also in 2008 that they stopped the annual awards for achievement and thus turned the RWB into a low key non-celebratory non-event. Yet this was at a time when the Party needed to praise and encourage individuals for achieving things beyond the normal expectations of any main-stream political activists. Unlike the other parties, the BNP was the only political entity that was being attacked from all directions, every day of the week. As tangible, positive recognition within such a negative political climate, people valued those awards so much. And the more successful we were, the more our opponents turned up the heat and the more difficult it became. But of course, as with everything else, Head Office knew best!

It was at about the end of 2008 that people began to have growing concerns about money. I told the Chairman repeatedly that he should distance himself from the financial affairs of the Party and also that he had to get an independent auditor. I also pointed out that the begging letters, which were coming from Northern Ireland at an almost indecent rate, had to balanced out with letters requesting practical help and activity from those who could not afford to pay. The response to this was that ‘people should be embarrassed into feeling that they should pay up’!

Also at this time, on a monthly basis, key leading activists and administrators were complaining to me about issues that I could clearly see that were arising within the structure of the Party, and were asking me to bring them to the Chairman’s attention on the basis that I could not be sacked from my position and that they could! I duly did so and the result was that I was sacked as Barking and Dagenham Organiser- again!
From that point on, support at meetings in Barking and Dagenham started to dwindle. And not only was attendance at branch meetings falling off, but the number of ward news letters going out was diminishing. As early as late 2008, the overall picture in Barking and Dagenham was that the borough was starting to slip away. And Head Office was becoming ever more remote.

The decline slowly continued. The then Barking and Dagenham Organiser had too much to do. Some councillors were struggling with personal attacks, not to mention the mounting pressure of the bureaucratic side of council work coupled with their ward work, and still there was no support from Head Office, and no let-up in sight. And this was happening UK-wide. Yet the money was still coming in thick and fast to Head Office. No doubt it was all going into the Northern Ireland set-up.

2009 saw more complications in the working structure of Head Office. Even though more finance was coming in to the Party than ever before, we were losing seats we had won previously and even more discontent was being passed on to me by grass-roots activists to pass on to the Chairman. This was becoming more and more frustrating because he clearly wasn’t listening! No doubt he was basking in the success of the European elections which saw two MEPs successfully elected.

Yorkshire and Humberside had been seen as a secondary consideration and yet Andrew Brons got a higher vote than the Chairman. But Head Office was more concerned with getting money into seats where key officers were candidates, rather than looking at where the most votes were likely to come from! By this time we were into an annual income of something like £2 million and yet branches and groups had to give up money to finance the European elections. Head Office should have paid for it and left the branches and the groups to conserve their finances for local elections. The Party had lost the plot with its misjudged priority of pumping millions into the Northern Ireland office. It was if we were about to be a key player in government. And yet we hadn’t won over-all control of a single council- or even a parish.

In mid 2009 I said to the Deputy Chairman that things had to change because key activists’ complaints were falling on deaf ears and if this continued I would have difficulty in retaining the whip at the GLA, because these issues had to be addressed. At the same time, rumours were passing around that I would be deselected to stand for the Barking parliamentary seat. As it turned out, the rumours proved true, and it came to light in the winter of 2009 that I would not be selected to stand for the constituency of Barking again and that some one would be parachuted in from outside London. This approach was also to take place in Stoke, Thurrock and other key strongholds, with local activist candidate hopefuls being replaced by outsiders with no links or affiliation with the constituencies in which they were to stand. Yet another ingredient was being stirred in to the mix in the recipe for disaster!

In 2009, with the stagnation of activities in Barking and Dagenham, I asked the Chairman to reinstate me as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser. Even so, it took an unbelievable five months of time wasting and petty discussions for me to be given the post again! I formulated a campaign which this time had the necessary number of candidates that would allow for two thirds coverage which would have given us control of the council had they been elected. Notwithstanding, this was all left to the last minute, because I didn’t have access to the Barking and Dagenham membership list and previous election canvassing sheets. The campaign was run in only five months! In this time we had to leaflet the whole borough five times over and partially canvass it. Having said that, the glitches in the campaign itself made no difference, because what I did not predict was the amount of corruption that went on during the election with each Labour councillor getting an additional 1000 or more votes on top of what they had attained 2006!

Just look at these figures and draw your own conclusions:

Whereas the BNP vote largely held up to what it had been in 2006, the Labour vote consistently more or less doubled! Even those former Labour councillors who had been deselected and had stood as independent candidates were complaining to us about what had been going on. These were individuals who had worked hard and been popular within the wards that they had represented- people we thought that we would have found it difficult to beat. Following the election, we made door to door enquires, knocking on doors of houses with multiple voters listed on the electoral roll, only to be told in many cases by neighbours that in fact only one or two people lived there. But by this time the entire activist team was totally exhausted; we just didn’t have the resources or the energy it would have needed to launch a full scale investigation. We reported our concerns to both the police and the Electoral Commission but nothing came of it.

After the elections of 2010, where we lost everything on the council and got a derisory vote in the both the parliamentary seats of Barking, and Dagenham & Rainham, it transpired that the then National Elections Officer, the Chairman and possibly other key national head office officers had made the decision to deselect me from Barking, not for my alleged ‘drinking’ nor for dyslexia, but because they could not allow someone of my high profile to take the possibly only parliamentary seat in the country. In other words they didn’t want me to become the number one person in nationalism in the Britain. Pathetic!

During the last 3 months of the Barking and Dagenham campaign, otherwise known as the Battle for Barking, there were massive splits in campaign team. Certain people who supported the Chairman would not work in a team with the sacked National Elections Officer! Maybe it’s time to look back to former times in Barking and Dagenham, to see how the situation had degenerated:

During the second weekend in March in 2005 we had 85 people leafleting and canvassing throughout the borough.

In 2006 in the council elections in the same weekend in March we had around 150-160.

In 2008 in the GLA and Mayoral elections in the same weekend, we had 240 people out in the borough of Barking and Dagenham.

But in the same weekend in March 2010 we had a pitiful 60-70 people turn out.

At the same time, in 2010, we were over the £2 000 000 fundraising mark. I had myself donated £1000 to the national elections. And at the same time paid out £500 for lifelong membership. Yet parliamentary campaigns across the country were being paid for by branches and individuals and not by Head Office. Granted, I have to say with some humility that Barking and Dagenham, primarily Barking, had all its funds supplied by Head Office- after all, it was where the Chairman was standing. But what is also very concerning is that branches and groups had to donate a large percentage of their hard earned reserves to fund the national campaign. So once again, I have to ask, what became of the £2 million? Who’s been eating into the pie?

Following hard on the heels of the 2010 elections, came the Goresbrook by-election in July. This came about because a Labour councillor did not declare that she was working for the council which disqualified her from standing. I fought long and hard to get Labour to concede the point, which eventually led to the councillor resigning, thus forcing a by-election. But these efforts were all in vain, because when it came to the campaign for that by-election, hardly anyone turned up- maybe 3 or 4 canvassers a day! There were again massive splits between those who supported the National Organiser who had been given control of the campaign by Head Office, and those who followed the ex-National Elections Officer. Both factions would have nothing to do with each other and would even not be seen canvassing in the same road! The situation was so bad that it led to us losing the seat again, only this time we polled even fewer votes than we had in the preceding month- this in Goresbrook, the once flagship ward which had previously polled some 52%!

It was more than clear to me then that in-fighting and personal ambitions had started to take precedence over the good of the Cause itself and the situation was getting seriously out of control, so much so that it was detrimentally affecting our election outcomes. Goresbrook was a seat which we should have been able to win back easily! However at the time I myself was totally exhausted by the effects of the election campaign and the subsequent wipe-out, support was dwindling in all directions, factionalism had distracted and split the activists and supporters, members were not re-joining and morale was at rock bottom. Also the RWB annual event had been abandoned.

Since then, it’s been one tale of unmitigated woe for the Party, due to the horrendous mismanagement of the finances by Head Office, resulting in outstanding printing bills, numerous and largely avoidable court cases, changes to the constitution, mass expulsions… dissatisfaction was becoming so bad that many councillors were resigning the whip in despair.

At this point, I had come to the conclusion that something had to be done; the Chairman had to be replaced. I attended a meeting with the ex-National Elections Officer to decide which of us would mount a leadership challenge and which would be seconder. The vast majority of the activists at the meeting were in favour of the ex-National Elections Officer. However it subsequently transpired that the meeting had been loaded in favour of the then ex-National Elections Officer; also that derisory comments had been made about me, behind my back at that meeting. I therefore then decided to distance myself from the challenge in disgust at the antics of the number one challenger. It wasn’t until some weeks later that a collection of independent national activists requested that I stood, as in their view, neither the Chairman nor the number one challenger was able to take the party forward. I would like to make it quite clear that I was not asked to stand by the Chairman.

The situation which led to my resignation of the whip has been well documented elsewhere on my blog. Suffice it to say here that following the leadership contest in summer 2010, in which the Chairman was successful, I could see clearly that after his re-election, the Chairman was unlikely to implement any of the changes that I and so many others had been calling for. So I reluctantly resigned the BNP whip at the GLA by way of protest. But instead of taking my concerns on board and formulating a plan for acting on then and thereby saving the Party from disaster, Head Office took the opportunity to expel me! (Please note, I have never resigned from the Party). Maybe it was because I had been seen as a thorn in the leadership’s side. After all, with my previous success record for getting things done and achieving groundbreaking results, perhaps I was seen as being just too pro-active, like all those others who had been culled over the years just because they showed too much ability. Perhaps given the number of times I’ve been sacked for no good reason, I should have seen it coming! But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Having been expelled, I wrote to Head Office requesting an appeal hearing, which I was entitled to. At least I would then have had the chance to put my case. But even this was denied to me. In fact the reason that I was given for my expulsion was that having resigned the whip I had in effect resigned from the Party, which is utter nonsense. But it seems that they were determined to get rid of me once and for all, come what may.

Looking back, 2010 was a horrendous year for me personally. I received numerous death threats, had my bike damaged and wheels slashed on a number of occasions. I was physically attacked in the streets when wearing my suit, had liquids thrown over me and was punched in the face. No police action was taken, even though I reported each incident. And then there was that altercation with Billy Bragg where at least I managed to get him to concede that Labour wasn’t representing interests and concerns of the people of Barking and Dagenham. There was certainly never a dull moment!

In 2011 the Party started attacking me publicly with inflammatory and libellous statements. It also subsequently came to my knowledge that the Chairman had intended to falsify information with intent to bankrupt me in an attempt to evict me from the GLA. There remains the possibility that I may face legal proceedings over unpaid printing bills relating the Barking and Daghenham elections and incurred by Head Office, which I had been specifically led believe had been paid and consequently signed off in good faith as party agent. All this is hardly the sort of behaviour one would expect from the leadership of a national party which is supposed stand for the principles of honesty and integrity.

At the end of 2010 I attended two English Defence League meetings to see how the organisation could be incorporated within a political party and to look at its political intentions for the future. In January 2011 I attended a meeting of the English Democrats council in order to discuss possible affiliation and to talk over their manifesto and political aims. Neither of these avenues progressed further. In April, I wrote to all four leaders of the main nationalist/patriotic parities and group, suggesting unification.

Now you tell me if you don’t think I’ve tried to do my best for the Party and the country over the last decade?

So that’s why I’m where I am today. I still wear the beige suit- it has become a trademark. Because of it, wherever I am, people know exactly who I am and what I have done to assist this country. Let’s hope I don’t have to hang up the beige suit for good in the near future, but who knows?

So where to we go from here?

The BNP is no longer fit for purpose.

The Party has to be dismantled and re-named, while at the same time it should work towards unification with the other patriotic/nationalist parties and groups. This would ideally include UKIP and the English Democrats, and also the English Defence League, as well as other smaller groups where feasible, reaching out to all British/English patriots right across the political spectrum of nationalism to establish a single unified fighting force fit to take on the corrupt political establishment in today’s Britain.

The new party has to be restructured as soon as possible. And in order to progress unification with other like-minded organisations, all the key officers of the nationalist parties should be invited to come together for a conference to bring this about.

Joining together would give us sufficient power and resources to make the new united party of nationalism a real force to be reckoned with in the 21st century. Some may call it a ‘new model army’, working together to overthrow the tyranny of the British liberal elite.

We have been sliding backwards for long enough. Now is the time to move forwards.
Having foreseen the problems within the Party, readers may well ask what I did to try and resolve them. Well, I didn’t just sit on my hands - I did my best to point them out. Here is some of the correspondence I sent to Head Office in an attempt to persuade them to change their ways. Unfortunately my petitioning fell on deaf ears:

June 2010

Dear Nick

I am to say the least, like everyone else, extremely disappointed by the results in Barking and Dagenham. But I hope that this will afford the Party the chance to turn a corner, because there are some things which need to be said, and unless these matters are sorted out now, once and for all, I do not see that the Party is going to progress; indeed its implosion is inevitable.

Firstly, to say I saw it coming would be untrue, but in hindsight, we were up against an unprecedentedly hostile and well-resourced campaign from our opponents. In the light of this, some facts have to be faced by the present leadership.

I have been saying for a long time that there needs to be far more support and resources given to the grass roots from HQ. At the moment things seem to be operating in the opposite direction. HQ should be there to assist the ground forces and not the other way around. I made this clear in a letter I sent to you Nick about a year ago and my advice has only just begun to be heeded. We have to move forward in this area as a priority.

Also, the Party finances have to be sorted out now, once and for all. Public perception is the big issue here. The employment of any individual on a six figure salary is wholly unacceptable. You could get at least 3 good people for this figure! It would be bad enough if this salary were being funded from investments, but no, this money is coming directly from donations- and as we all know, the Party gets its money from supporters who are either elderly or working class. No rich bankers or businessmen are forking out to help the BNP, I’m afraid. So although donations might well be up as a direct result of an individual’s efforts which on the face of it might be said to justify this level of remuneration, the salary is coming directly from our supporters and unfortunately there has been proven to be such a thing as ‘donation fatigue.’ Once we lose the memberships goodwill, the income flow will dry up and it will be very hard, if not impossible to restore it.

Again, it’s a fact of life that it’s the public perception that matters. What sort of message does this put out? -the fact that we can afford to pay a single individual this much? Also, I would have thought that one of the tests of loyalty of any employee of the Party is that they are prepared to come and work for us at less than the going rate! The situation has to tackled, and it has to be addressed as a priority, if not by the Leader than by the AC. To spell it out clearly, the national fund-raiser’s position has to be radically pruned. Because until this happens, questions will continue to raised throughout the rank and file about the Party’s finances which need to be far more transparent.

The question of European expenses is another bugbear that needs to be taken in hand. I hate to sound self-congratulatory, but I have never taken any of the expenses that I have been entitled to whilst on the GLA or the Council, with the exception of a travel card. I don’t take taxis, I don’t go on foreign jollies, I hardly take what I’m entitled to so there’s absolutely no chance of anyone ever being able to accuse me of swinging the lead. This has paid off dividends in the form of peaceful nights’ sleep while the MPs’ expense scandal was raging. We must not allow ourselves to be put in the position of attracting criticism. So I strongly suggest that the European expenses have to be cut right back.

I have to say that at times like this, with all this conflict over the leadership, words fail me. The secondary blogs, like ‘Butler Exposed’ and comments like ‘Barnbrook’s gay,’ have to stop! The lack of principle and individual loyalty in this Party is horrifying. I stand aghast as I watch all around me people putting themselves and their petty grievances, personal ambition and naked gain before the good of the Party and the country. This is not why I joined the BNP. We have to be the people of principle. We will only succeed through decency, sincerity, honour and self sacrifice.

I am wondering where I go from here. I can’t bear all this bickering, sniping and back-stabbing. At its best, it’s galling and at its worst it’s interfering and wrecking our ability to fight a decent campaign here in Goresbrook. All hands should be concentrating on winning back the seat and I shouldn’t have to waste my time in writing this. Believe it or not, and it’s incredible but true, I had to try to attempt tp mediate between the 2 factions of supporters whilst running the campaign! One lot of activists support the ex-national elections officer and the others under the national organiser, are loyal to you. So I was going to have to keep them separate in east and west Goresbrook which would have left me on my own canvassing in the middle of the ward so that the two groups didn’t meet!! In the end, only 4 people bothered to turn up! This cost me my 4 day holiday and remember, I have not had a break since well before elections. THE PARTY NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IN INPUT FOR THE GORESBROOK CAMPAIGN. WE NEED TO RETAKE GORESBROOK IN ORDER TO PARTIALLY REDRESS OUR RECENT FAILURES. And yet people are putting their petty grievances before the Party- as usual. This is such a lamentable state of affairs, because indications up until now show that we are on course for a win, but we have to put the work in.

Nick, I’ve followed you to date without question, so much so, that I moved aside for you in Barking, but now I want to see some action on the points I’ve raised not just for your own good as leader, but for the good of the Party and the country.

Unless there are some significant changes along the lines I’ve mentioned, I think that it’s regrettably quite clear that the 2000 signatures needed for an election challenge will be forthcoming.

Believe me, I have always and continue to have the good of the Party and the cause at heart. We have to move forward now, otherwise we are simply doing the enemies’ work for them. I’m making these points for your own good as well as everybody else’s. You have to look for a successor that is not tied or tainted by the existing set-up. The Party cannot be led by ‘yes-men,’

Nick, I would like a response to this if not today then tomorrow, and then maybe we could talk.

Dear Richard

Many thanks for your long and carefully considered letter. My apologies for not replying sooner, but there was no time with a parliamentary session combined with party-running work and the very significant time currently being taken up with major staff restructuring and forward-planning (much of which, incidentally, is intended to deal with several failings that you rightly raise).

Anyway, I am now in a position to reply, so will do so one issue at a time in the order raised by you:
1) You state that HQ should assist our "ground forces, not other way around." In principle, I agree, and action is being taken on this. For example, starting on July 1st, for the first time in the history of British nationalism, local units will be allowed to keep every penny of every new membership they sign up. This will be for an experimental period of three months, but as long as it produces the major increase in recruitment that such an incentive should, I would hope to extend it.

But, and here's the point, this is only affordable because we (or, more precisely, Jim Dowson) set up a proper call centre, which allows the party centre to work on upgrading new members, which is what will make this financially possible. Your belief that our contract with Mr. Dowson is some kind of problem that should be brought to an end could not be further from the mark.

That said, I am mindful of the point you raise the perception can matter almost as much as substance. You will therefore be pleased to learn that Jim is now working on the next phase of the plan we designed for the party’s radical organisational upgrade, and that this involves a co-ordinated effort to raise our game at regional and local level. The aim of this is to help our front-line become more effective at recruiting and fund-raising, in order to provide sustainable funding for local staffing and campaigning.

Additionally, there is much of what has been done centrally over the last two years which, having got things right there, can now be used to provide the support for the front-line that you rightly point out is needed. Crucially, our Elections
Department will over the coming months be rolling out the knowledge and software needed by our frontline to run effective voter contact and databasing campaigns. Here too, we would be unable to make this absolutely vital step forward were it not for what Mr. Dowson has already done for the party centrally.

2)  I agree that central support for local elections, and our councillors, has been woefully weak in the past. Our Elections Department, for example, promised to produce an elections handbook for six or seven years, but never did so. Clive Jefferson will have one (covering far more innovative and advanced techniques than have ever been used before) by the end of the summer.

As already pointed out above, we are also working on creating for the BNP the voter targeting database and online campaign support mechanisms that the other parties started to develop years ago. This will be a huge step forward and it is indeed overdue. Here too, I refuse to accept lectures on past failings here which originate with the man who was in charge of our election machine and is overwhelmingly to blame for its lack of drive and ambition. My fault is not having replaced him earlier.

What I do promise is that your well-founded concerns about past lack of emphasis in this field is already agreed with and being acted upon, and will be seen to have been addressed in the very near future.

3)  On the related question of councillor support, I likewise have to say that I have never turned down a single, concrete, realistic proposal for training events, newsletters, online support or similar, from any one of the several individuals who have been elected as Councillors' Representatives to the AC. I created the post to encourage initiative and progress in that area, so again, my fault is not having taken action to remedy the omissions of others, but I am not super-human, and I try to avoid being a control-freak.

Some of what Clive's team are looking at will help to fill this gap, but overall this will remain a weak point for a little while until a group of current and especially former councillors step forward with proposals I can back to sort it out. That said, Cllr. James North is doing more in this field than any of his predecessors, so if you have any concrete proposals, he's the man to contact.

4) From a big picture point of view, when I decided to take Jim Dowson on at the end of 2008, we concluded very early that the organisational improvement side of his work would have to start at the party centre, on the basis that until that was sorted out and updated from amateur shambles to professional level, any significant growth from below would overwhelm our ramshackle system completely.

The downside was that having to put so much attention and investment into the centre has inevitably led to the perception that the volunteer base has been neglected. Well, since the centre is essentially full-time, I cannot see how it would have been right to leave it pottering along, wasting members' money and holding things up, while pressing our volunteer rank-and-file to work harder and (especially) smarter.

As discussed above, that part of the process is now just beginning, starting with a significant upgrade in the amount of practical and back-up support we will from now on be giving to ROs and their regional teams.

5)  Thus far, I imagine you will have been generally pleased with what I've had to say. That will not be the case with the next point.

Jim Dowson is not on a six figure salary. He has never been paid that much. He is well paid, although please note that when one hires an independent contractor such as his operation, his bill includes services provided by other people he brings in to advise. Over the last two years I have seen this in action time and time again, as Jim has bounced organisational problems of ours on to experienced contacts of his, and come back with answers that work. This has been a good investment.

As for value for money, not only has Jim raised a huge amount more than he has charged us, his cost-cutting efforts on everything from print jobs to mobile phone contracts have literally saved more than we have paid him. Meanwhile, the call centre makes a profit every single month, as well as making our members feel they belong (it is one of the things that has reduced our membership turnover loss from 70% to 17%, do you really want to go backwards on such things?)

6)  You suggest that we shouldn't raise funds from appeals. I have to ask, what alternative do you propose? A machine the size of the BNP costs huge sums of money to run. Our surplus income from memberships, subscriptions and unsolicited donations wouldn't begin to cover the costs of running the party's essential services.

If we stopped running appeals, what should we cut? Who should we sack from our paid staff? Which offices should we shut? Which publications or services should we scrap? How much should we increase membership fees?

You are right that there is a risk of donor fatigue among some, which is why Jim Dowson has taught us the importance of collecting and approaching the largest possible number of new names and addresses. It is why he, more than anyone else, is pressing ahead with measures designed to help us get to the 20,000 member financial take-off point.

Basically, a party of 2,000 members can be run on a largely voluntary basis, but one of 10,000 cannot. But a party of 20,000 can be run with the same infrastructure as a party of 10,000, which is why we - having got the central infrastructure right - we are now moving on to concentrate more on the membership growth that is the only thing that will allow us to scale back on the intensity of our appeals operation.

7)  To move to your next point, you suggest that Mr. Dowson should work for us for less than the going rate. Well, firstly, he does. For the amount and effectiveness of his work, he is actually a bargain.

Secondly, if you would care to go out and find us a fund-raiser, a despatch centre chief, a management consultant, a budgetary control advisor and a skilled trainer, then if you can find those skills in a person or group of people who will perform those duties for the BNP - standing up to all the hate from Searchlight, the mass media and the time-servers and petty crooks who they expose and deal with - then when Mr. Dowson's contract expires I will consider taking on your fortuitous find. Do you have any suggestions to start with?

8)  You say that finances need to be more transparent. The reality is that the BNP's internal systems are now, thanks to Jim Dowson's advice, full of checks and balances to prevent funds being stolen or misapplied. We are audited to the same level as a multi-national company. Any member of the A.C. (and please do not insult its members by even hinting that they are all 'yes-men') is at liberty to inspect any aspect of our accounting system and to ask any questions they wish. Then everything is checked by the hostile bureaucrats of the Electoral Commission - a second audit carried out by Establishment placemen. Where is the weak point?

You cannot call for more transparency without pointing out what it is at present that is not transparent. Nor can you do so without proposing sensible, workable and troublemaker-proof proposals to make further improvements. The ball is in your court, Jim and I have spent the last two years working on getting our accounting systems up to the required standard (not easy with a turn-over rising so fast, and lack of experienced staff), so we would be delighted if someone else would come up with some even better ideas to bolt on to what we have already achieved.

9)  Still on money, we come to the question of European expenses. As I have already pointed out to you, I am at a disadvantage here, because despite my asking for it last week, you still haven't given me a shred of detail as to what is supposed to be wrong.

Are Andrew Brons and I accused of stealing? Of living high on the hog? Or of not breaking the law by ripping off the taxpayers to subsidise the BNP? Of employing too many staff? Or too few? Of using parts of our office and communications budgets? Or of not yet using them all? 

You say there is a bugbear, but where is it, and what does it look like? And what. expenses do you think should be cut back? The District Line doesn't go to Brussels or Strasbourg and we don't get Oystercards like you anyway. Should we hitch-hike, or continue to drive, thus enabling us to take assistants and security with us at no extra cost to the taxpayer or to the party?

Should cut our Attendance Allowance payments by not bothering to attend, thus allowing the media to characterise us as 'do-nothings', losing our right to find and expose the sort of injustices and dangers which we are now uncovering frequently, and incidentally depriving our Community Funds of thousands of pounds of extra income, donated by us from our own money?

Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Communications Allowances to put out huge numbers of constituency newsletters or for postage for direct mail to constituents from their MEPs? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?

Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Office Expenses budgets to rent and equip our offices? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?

Or should we refuse to hire staff with the £180,000 a year we each get for that purpose? Should you close your offices at the GLA, stop employing your staff and give the money back to Boris? I ask, because those are the only measures that would reduce the amount of what our enemies and the ignorant call our "expenses claims".

Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even listening to the recycled Searchlight smears that Butler and his little gang of cronies keep coming out with on this issue.

10)  I am, however, very much more sympathetic to your request that the party take responsibility for the Goresbrook by-election.  Indeed, as you know by now Clive Jefferson has done just that. The whole of the Election Department is at his and your disposal. Every effort will be made to roll out our early experiments in telephone canvassing and other improved electioneering techniques.

So there are your answers. I hope that you like some of them and appreciate the facts and plain speaking in the others. Now I strongly recommend that you simply tell the smear-mongers to go away and leave you unmolested, and that you get on with Goresbrook and then your GLA duties, and leave the worries and cares of running the party to me.

Yours sincerely


29th June 2010
Dear Nick

Thank you for your long and detailed letter which I have now had the chance to read over carefully. It must have taken you a considerable amount of time and effort and I am grateful for the frankness of your answers.

In the light of all you have said, and given your over-all perspective as leader, it now seems clear to me that you know best. At least, I’m prepared to accept that you do. I have taken on board your comments about the National Fundraiser. Save with the proviso, that when all the focus is on financial considerations and marketing tools, there is inevitably a tendency for the personal side of things to suffer. I mentioned to you in a letter of over a year ago now, that the mail shots asking for donations should be alternated with requests for activists. Because not everyone can afford to keep giving donations and I feel that many people may find this aggressive repetitive badgering for money unwelcome and off-putting. Our party has to be seen as not only different from, but superior to all the rest, both in terms of principle and idealism On this point, I recall that Lee Barnes made an interesting comment a couple of years back when he suggested ways to re-invigorate the nationalist working class consciousness by organising outings and educational events as a means of cementing new members to the Party by social activities. It’s this human side of things that I feel may well get neglected as I have an almost Luddite revulsion to such new-speak terminology as performance indicators, targets, achievable and measurable aims and objectives and the new nonsensical vocabulary which is the pride of the paper-pushing MBAs which have done so much to cripple businesses and wreck this country with their money grabbing, one-size-fits-all methodology. So what I am asking for is that we do not lose sight of the doorstep activism side of things. Because what really matters above all is the personal touch.

With regard to European expenses, again it is the public perception that matters, as you rightly agree. What I have heard, and no doubt you will castigate me for having listened to anti-party propaganda, but what I have heard is that you attend in order to claim the attendance allowance and then beat a hasty retreat back home again. Somewhat reminiscent of what has been going on the House of Lords. Apparently they get over £300 for just turning up, sign in and then attend to their London business outside the House. If you have not been guilty of this sort of thing, then what it does show is that you need to be far more aggressive in rebutting all the whispering and lies that are in the ether and indeed, promoting your virtues.
After the Goresbrook by-election, which I hope will be successful, and I don’t necessarily think that it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be, given the huge lack of support and activity that I have received from across London, no doubt because they are all siding with Eddy and I have resolutely refused to nail my colours to the mast until I had spoken with you, you need to come down here and speak to all the London organisers and key members with your vision for the future to try and get them back on board. I think that if I win Goresbrook, your job may be a little easier. But you will need to confront them, nevertheless.

The only thing that keeps me going in the midst of all this misery and disappointment is that my intentions are sincere and that it is not so much the end result, but the quality of the fight that matters. Because that is ultimately what we as individuals will be judged on. At least I can console myself with having fought a good fight for the last 6 years with Barking and Dagenham consistently returning the highest national percentages, and I have done this for what I feel are all the right reasons.

Sincerely yours,

29th June 2010
No further communication from the Chairman led to:
Press statement 13th August
Official Statement From Richard Barnbrook AM.

Over the last few months allegations of serious wrong doing concerning senior British National Party officials have been spread both within and outside the British National Party.

I do not know the truth or otherwise of these allegations.

These allegations have the potential to cause major political damage to the party’s future electoral prospects unless they are investigated and revealed to be false.

I was elected as a London Wide Member to serve the constituencies of Londoners who feel that the establishment political parties do not represent them or their interests.

I have a duty to put their interests and the interests of the British National Party first.

For over a decade I have been a loyal member of the British National Party.

This is why I have decided to take this course of action.

The serious nature of these allegations are such that they must be the subject of an internal independent and transparent BNP investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.
I have decided therefore that until these allegations are investigated fully by an independent panel of British National Party officers and members and are revealed as either true or false, that I cannot continue to represent the BNP in the Greater London Assembly.

I am therefore resigning the BNP whip with immediate effect and will now sit as an independent member of the London Assembly. 

I am not resigning my British National Party membership.

I remain a loyal British National Party member and continue to serve the party and its members that I hold so dear to my heart.

Once this internal and independent British National Party investigation reports back its findings, and I can go back to my constituents and fellow party members and report that the allegations are not true, then I will immediately recommence representing the British National Party on the GLA.

I will not be making any public comment on the nature of these allegations to the media as they relate to legal issues that must remain confidential in order not to compromise the investigation.  

I still am one of the most loyal and dedicated members of the British National Party.

I will not be making any further comments to the media on this issue, or any issues related to the investigation, until the independent and fully transparent internal BNP investigation has reported back its findings.

Richard Barnbrook AM.
Independent member of the Great London Authority. 

13th August. 2010

Why I resigned the Party Whip:

The inescapable issues that must be addressed

Sent to the Chairman prior to publication on my blog 17th August 2010
The leadership challenge gave Nick Griffin a clear and decisive mandate; hopefully the Party will be able to move forward. But in order for this to happen, concerns that came to light in the course of the campaign must be addressed. We cannot progress as a party if things are simply swept under the proverbial carpet.

I have spent over a decade working the streets of London and across the nation, to support the principles and ideals of this Party, while at the same time, working tirelessly as most of you know, getting our members elected to local and regional levels of government. I am a nationalist, heart and soul, and always will remain so. I have not made the decision to resign the Party whip lightly. Nor have I produced this document with the intention of having a go at head office, the leadership or indeed, any individual. Any retribution is for the membership to determine and not me.

I honour my membership and respect the position that I was elected to. I deeply appreciate the work of those members of this party whose tireless efforts enabled my election, and am grateful to every individual that voted for me. It is only because of this that I feel that I have a duty to now speak out and hope that the wisdom and good sense of the Party’s management will be able to rectify these problems within the next two months. I am not prepared to allow things to drag on any longer than that because the damage could be irreversible. Those who have been active members for as long as I have will recognise that this cannot be allowed to happen.

We have gone, apparently, from £2.3 million in the black to owing something in the region £600 000. Nick himself admitted publicly on the night of the leadership challenge that the Party is £500 000 in the red. The Party’s books, therefore, need to be looked into by a small group to see what has gone wrong and where and how this can be remedied. I would suggest no more than 4 individuals- two from within the Party hierarchy who can offer explanations and two members with an accounting/investigative background, who can be relied on to be totally independent and fair. The findings need to be published.

Leading on from this, we were late again submitting the books to the Electoral Commission and the Party was fined as a result. This should not have happened as it could have been avoided and has cost the Party money. It is another indication that the accounting side of things needs scrutiny and overhaul.

The large scale sackings and suspensions have to stop. In particular, the individuals sacked from the Advisory Council should at least be given reasons for their dismissal. Those members suspended over the past few weeks ‘pending investigation’ should be re-admitted if there is no good reason for their exclusion. The investigation itself should be made by independent assessors and not by party officers. We cannot afford to lose good people. The effect on morale of these unexplained exclusions is devastating. If individuals need to be disciplined then so be it. But the procedure needs to be clear, transparent, and above all fair.

Once affairs are back on the straight and narrow and in order to ensure that matters do not regress, I would like consideration to be given to implementing the following measures:

Polygraph tests for anyone at Regional Organiser level or above, which includes non members These tests are expensive but very effective at rooting out infiltrators and they have to be prioritised. We cannot afford to let in any more moles into positions of authority from which they can wreck our Party’s future. The tests should be undertaken compulsorily, from the Leader downwards.

A new internal party structure needs to be set up to protect employment rights of BNP staff members. This committee would be required to check and authorise suspensions before they are issued.
This would ensure that sackings are fair and lawful and the Party is not left open to defending expensive legal proceedings.

Regional Organisers should be elected by the members of that region eligible to vote and should only be dismissed from office by the voting regional members, or by their peers on the Advisory Council.

The whole communications mechanism and accountancy and recruiting departments must be removed from Northern Ireland and brought back to the mainland. The present location is inaccessible and therefore not cost effective or practical.

As I have said, these issues have to be addressed within the next two months, before the political scene hots up again at the end of September. We cannot allow them fester any longer, because they are pulling this Party apart from top to bottom. When they have been resolved, I will resume my position as a BNP representative of the GLA. Until that time, my position will technically remain as independent, but rest assured that my political views have not changed.

Richard Barnbrook, BNP Member
London Assembly Member

25th August 2010

Changes that have to take place

I have always maintained impartial over the recent months after the elections, if not all the way through my political career with the BNP. Maybe the term impartiality should be replaced with that of professionalism.

Yes, I did stand for the leadership and yes, I did shake hands with Eddy Butler. That was before I saw what a moronic level this party and its structure has descended into, all crying out in the name of Britain and in the name of the BNP. What a fool I have been! It has now come to my attention that old friends, the first that I ever met when I joined the Party in 1999, that do not hold any status other than that of true activists, have been bullied and threatened not to work with me in any capacity. I may have resigned the whip, but for good reason. I am still a loyal member of THE PARTY. Managements come and go, as do leaders, but the stakeholders always remain the same.

I have never attacked anybody personally or made statements
to undermine the party, let alone its ability to function. While I am still a member of the GLA I will do my damndest to make sure that a member of the party that I belong to will be re-elected to the GLA in 2012, but that is a long shot at this moment in time with these divisions and factions taking place. As I said before I will resume the whip once the perceived current problems have been tackled This is not a selfish act or reprisal, it is simply what the party has to do now in order to survive.

Clarity, Communication, Cohesion and Continuity:

It’s due to the perception of a total collapse of communication from Head Office down, along with possible improprieties in the financial governance of our party that has caused the discontent of recent months We need an overhaul. Once again, this is what I suggest:

1)Our Chairman, Nick Griffin, MEP, be made life-long president of the party, a similar position that was offered to John Tyndall.

2)That Nick Griffin, MEP, be given all necessary resources to fight to regain his seat in future European elections.

3)That all expenditures over £500 are made open to party scrutiny in addition to that of the Electoral Commission.

4)That auditing and accounting functions are carried out by a scrutiny committee of 2 independent party members as well as independent professionals who have had to tender for the contract in order to secure the most competitive rate for Party

5)That all communications and activities based in Northern Ireland be brought to the mainland immediately and downsized to fit within the Party’s realistic structural capability and budget.

6)A full explanation of why the Party has gone from being £2.3 million in credit to a deficit of £600 000 in the past year.

7)All Regional Organisers and above, including national management, to undergo a polygraph lie detector test within the next 6 months.

8)All Regional Organisers to stand down and be elected by the regional members and to be paid £1000 per month, plus travelling expenses and communications. This is based on getting our donations and membership fees up again.

9)A Cabinet should be set up to include the Chairman, and Deputy Chairman. The Treasurer and the other 3 members to be chosen by the Advisory Council from among themselves.

10)All day to day decision making should be discussed and voted on by the Cabinet.

11)Regional Organisers can only be dismissed by the members of that region, or by the Advisory Council.
Dear Richard

A loyal member of the party would not let down our activists and voters by resigning the party whip. Nor use the patently absurd black propaganda put out by a group of over ambitious egotists, crooks and plants as the opportunity to try to blackmail the party into giving you another five years in a job in which you have failed.

You do at least have the sad distinction of being the most hated man in the BNP, since both the Butler clique and party loyalists now detest you. If you continue on your present course any longer your situation will be totally unfixable.

All you need to do, howver, is to stop kidding yourself that your walking away has or will achieve anything other than giving you a threadbare excuse to renege on your pledge to give 10% of your salary to the party in London. Knowing that you are, at heart, a good and an honourable man, I cannot imagine that you really take any pleasure in the assorted addictive substances that you are buying with that stolen money.

Please, please, take a deep breath and get back in touch with our man from Alcoholics Anonymous. There is still time to save yourself from two years more guilty excess followed by a short lifetime of unemployable dereliction in the gutter. We still could sort something out that would give you the chance of a job in the Cause after someone else is elected in your stead (as now has to be the case) in 2012.

I am sorry to have to be so blunt, but the time for misplaced politeness has passed. You are a sick man. Your sickness has hurt many close to you and it has damaged the Cause for which you have sacrificed a great deal. But the others and especially the Cause will go along without you. It is you that you are killing.

Your genuine friend


From: Richard Barnbrook]
Sent: Wed 8/25/2010 4:39 PM
To: GRIFFIN Nick; BNP North West
Subject: 2012 GLA Elections
Here is the email I said I would send you. There will be another following, either today or tomorrow.


The internal difficulties which are dogging our party should not and cannot be allowed to affect our election chances for the Greater London Assembly here in London in 2012. It is imperative that we all start working towards this campaign now!

I realise that many of you are feeling demoralised. And the 2012 elections may seem to be a long way off. But, the one thing I do know is how to run a successful GLA campaign. And make no mistake, if we are to have any chance in getting a BNP assembly member in to the GLA in 2012, we have to start our action now!

I may have resigned the party whip, but I am still a member of the BNP and I intend to remain so. Indeed, once the issues of concern have been ironed out, I will be more than happy to return to the fold. I am also fully committed to getting a person (whoever it may be that is eventually nominated), and hopefully more than one, elected on to the Assembly. But to do this, we have to create a forceful nationalist presence in London. We have to get the message out to the voters. WE HAVE TO PUT OUT A MILLION LEAFLETS JUST TO EQUAL OUR EFFORTS IN 2008. This is a huge feat in itself. Hopefully, we can better it. BUT IF WE SIT BACK AND WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR IN THE HOPE THAT BY THEN, EVERYTHING WILL HAVE SETTLED DOWN AGAIN, IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

Nick Griffin is now the London Organiser. But Nick is also MEP for the North West with an office in Brussels and a home in Wales. He can’t be everywhere at once.

All I want is the success of this Party. I will not sit back and surrender London or the South East. I, along with other longstanding activists, have the experience and the public profile to lead this campaign. But to do it, we need your help.

Forget all the gripes and the infighting. Let the party big-wigs play their power games if they want to. The future of this country is the only thing that matters.

If you can help, please contact me:

Subject: RE: 2012 GLA Elections
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:05:31 +0200
From: nick.griffin
To: richardbarnbrook
Dear Richard

Since you have let all our voters and activists down by resigning the whip, no-one either wants or needs to hear from you. London BNP will be out and active in a big way on and from 18th September with the Bring Our Boys Home campaign. If you want to take part please contact me to discuss coming back into the fold. Our door will remain open for a little longer.


To: Richard Barnbrook,
From: Clive Jefferson,
British National Party
26th September 2010

Dear Mr. Barnbrook,

When you resigned the Party whip in August it was decided to give you time to understand that such an action was disloyal and unacceptable. Our Party wanted to give you every opportunity to consider the significance and effect of your actions and to do the right thing by all the Londoners who voted for the British National Party, and the activists who worked so hard to get you elected, either by resigning your seat and so letting another British National Party list member represent the party in the GLA or by reapplying for the Party whip and rejoining the struggle.

You have in fact done neither. It is now clear that your break with us is final and that you feel no obligation to BNP activists or voters. A Party list seat, as you are fully aware Richard, is not a seat you yourself won, people voted for the British National Party not for Richard Barnbrook.

Even before you left the Party there were concerns about your increasingly erratic behavior. In fact we intended to offer you help and counseling as we were concerned for your mental and physical wellbeing. Many members have urged us, on the basis of your behavior, not to allow you to retake the whip even if you requested this.

Sadly I am now left with no alternative but to assume that you have resigned from the Party. Alternatively, if you maintain that you have not, I hereby notify you that, under Section 9.8 of the British National Party Constitution, you are expelled from membership of the British National Party. The reason for this is that by resigning the Party whip and issuing statements to the media relating to this action you contravened Section 4 of the Code of Conduct.

If you indicate to me in writing within fourteen days that you have not resigned your membership and wish to contest your expulsion a disciplinary tribunal will be arranged for you.

Yours sincerely,

Clive Jefferson
National Organiser.
Dear Mr Jefferson

Thank you for your communication.

Please take notice that I have not resigned my membership of the BNP and I have no intention of doing so.

I will of course be appealing the matter.

This hotmail account has been corrupted and this the first time I have been able to access it over the last fortnight. .


Yours sincerely
Richard Barnbrook AM

From: richardbarnbrook
To: elections
Subject: RE: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:29:27 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferson

Further to my e-mail informing you of my intention to appeal against my expulsion, I look forward to hearing from you in writing, addressed to me at City Hall, information as to the following:

Who will decide who will be sitting on the appeal panel?
Who will be on the appeal panel?
When is the hearing likely to take place?
What the procedure for the hearing will be?

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM
City Hall
The Queen's Walk
London SE1 2AA
From: richardbarnbrook
To: elections
Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:51:42 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferson

I have not had a response from you to the e-mail below either by e-mail or to my GLA address.
I am forwarding you a letter by post to the Spennymore PO. I would be grateful if you would confirm safe receipt and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM

7th October
Dear Mr Jefferson

To date, I have not received a reply to any of my e-mails, nor to my letter dated 6th October.
I would be grateful for an immediate reply, informing me of the proposed arrangements for my appeal hearing.
If I do not have a response by the end of this week, I will be forced to assume that you are deliberately prevaricating with the specific intention of denying me my entitlement, and will consequently be seeking legal advice.

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM
From: richardbarnbrook
To: elections
Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:26:49 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferseon

I have still not had any response from you, either on this account or at the GLA.
Please reply to the GLA in writing by post as a matter of urgency.