Vote No To The BNP

A question that I think many of the British National Party (BNP) Members and Supporters will now be asking themsleves considering the latest court costs they are now liable for after the latest hearing on January 28th where the BNP where ordered to pay yet another £12,500 in court costs (this excludes their own incured costs of course), but the question as to if the British National Party can actually afford to mount a strong 2010 General Election Campaign if all the BNP financial concerns and available facts are taken into account.

The last accounts for the year 2008 (available for download on the Electoral Commission website) clearly show that the BNP ended 2008 in a little over £162.000 in debt, the other documents filled with the Electoral Commission also show that the donations the BNP received during 2009 (quarter 1 to 3) show that they received just under £40,000 in donations which would still leave them in debt based on the 2008 acounts.

The BNPs staffing bill has risen to an extensive level now exceeding £200,000 a year, the BNP is a party that runs on an average income of around £1 million per annum, and seems going from it’s recent accounts to spend more than it takes in, it’s merchandising arm costs more to run that it takes in in terms of revenue (so it runs at a loss), for the financial years 2007 and 2008 the BNP has ended the year in debt which almost doubled in 2008 from the debt in 2007.

The BNP are currently awaiting judgement on how much in court costs they are going to be liable to pay for the first EHRC hearing back in October 2009 where they lost the case which makes them instantly liable for cocts so this needs to be added to the £12,500 they were told yesterday they would have to pay. Once the EHRC case is complete assuming it does finally end on March 8th 2010 (the next court date), the BNP are expected to be hit with the whole costs of the EHRC which currently looks to be around £100,000, which means that currently by early March 2010 the BNP are facing a bill of around £150,000 (estimated) to cover the EHRC’s Legal cost which under law they are liable for as they lost (conceeded) the case.

The BNP’s current financial state once you take into account the accounts they have recently declared and the donations they have declared throughout 2009 would suggest that the BNP would struggle to afford a decent Election Campaign without these extra costs they are mounting up, once these legal costs get added to the frame a clear picture comes to the fore that the BNP are heading toward financial bankrupcy (based on the figures I have seen), membership re-newals also seem to be on a downward spiral, and taken with the fact that since October 2009 they have not been able to sign up any new members un till the Constitution legal issues are resolved, which has now been extended un till the next hearing in March.

It would seem even to an untrained viewer like myself that the current BNP Membership and Supporters are simply throwing their money into the bottomless pit of BNP legal costs and none (or very little) of their money is actually being spent on wining elections, the coming 2010 General Election the BNP intends to field 200 candidates (their own figures) this is going to cost them £100,000 just to get these 200 names on the ballot papers, then you need to add the other election costs of “propaganda” material etc the bill would look to be around £250,000 to £300,000 to run a decent campaign for 200 candidates, so the BNP would need around the £400,000 mark just for the 2010 General Election Campaign.

Now take into consideration that the BNP have NO major donors the majority of their donantions come via small single donations from their supporters on a regular basis, how much longer can the BNP supporters keep paying these one off donations? how long are they going to be happy to continue to donate to the BNP when the vast proportion of their money is going into just paying off the legal costs.

The £12,500 they were ordered to pay just yesterday equates to 357 membership fees and with a declared membership base as of the end of 2008 just over 9.000 people at £35 pa means their membership income comes to just around £315,000 per year, most of this income is then spent on staff wages they currently according to the 2008 accounts employ 13 staff at a cost of around £220,000 per year.

So the question has to be asked if the accounts are showing what can only be described as a massive loss in terms of the size of the BNP as a party, membership fees that cover the staff wages bill, donations that will hardly cover the legal bills, can the BNP really afford a General Election Campaign this year?

I would suggest NO they can’t afford any form of extensive campaign, when the members/supporters find out the final cost of the EHRC case (all of which could have been easily avoided) just how long will the BNP faithful be prepared to keep on paying for staff and legal bills?.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

The British National Party (BNP) appreared in a Central London Court today in the continuation of the ERCH case which was won last year when the BNP where issued with a court order to change their constitution to allow non-whites to join the party, the BNP had failed to comply with the previous court order which expired today hence the return to court.

The EHRC has moved for the Judge to not allow the BNP any further time and to pass a judgement today rather than delaying the case any further, however the judge did allow the BNP an extension to get the motion passed by it’s membership to change the constitution by February 14th 2010 at it’s EGM to be held at a “secret” location in London.

The revised constitution was put before the court but the EHRC maintained that it was still discriminatory, although in a less direct manner.

They said that by making potential members agree that they supported the “unity and integrity of the indigenous British” would in effect bar some people from joining.

Deciding for an adjournment, Judge Collins said: “I’m going to give the BNP an opportunity to have its EGM and take into account what has been said today and get it right.

The Judge also ordered that the BNP must pay the cost of todays adjoured case costs totaling £12,500 the BNP members will now have to pay.

If we convert this latest cost into actual BNP Membership Fees it works out that at the British National Parties standard yearly membership fee of £35.00 that’s a total of 357 members fees wasted on paying out another lot of court costs that could have been avoided had they not made this decision to yet again delay the vote on the constitutional change, one would have to wonder just how many of the BNP faithful are happy to have their membership fee wasted in this way on not being spent on the 2010 General Election campaign, I wonder how they feel about that £12,500 which is now not available to fight the election campaign.

And consider that there will now be another hearing at which a final decision will be made, and as they BNP are more than likely going to be ordered to pay for that hearing as well that’s another potential £12,500 plus any other costs the Judge orders in his final judgement, which are expected to be the costs of the EHRC which could run around £100,000 as a conservative estimate and also consider then all their own costs they have built up with lawyers fees etc, the BNP are heading for another big bill right before the 2010 General Election.

So all being said the current constitution remains unchanged and the propossed constitution is still “questionable” and the BNP are now on their final chance to get this sorted as well as costing the party and it’s already cash strapped membership another £12,500, how happy are they now going to be when they realise the party leadership have cost them yet more money because of their failings?

How long will the members be able to support the party through this now continued membership ban as that also remains in place un till the constitution is changed and the judge rules it lawful?

Can we see more people walking away from the BNP now, will their members be so annoyed at having to cover yet another £12,500 legal bill on behalf of the party, we’ll have to wait and see what response we get from party members over the next few days.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

With the EHRC case due back in the courts on the 28th January Nick Griffin British National Party (BNP) Chairman and Northwest MEP has sent out his latest begging for money email, blaming the EHRC for “dragging” him back in to court, here are a few choice quotes from the latest email (the full email will can be found at the end of this article)

“We’ve got the taxpayers’ money, and we can do whatever we want!” That’s the message we’re getting from the latest actions of the Equalities Commission. Despite having been caught red-handed inciting members of its staff to make bogus complaints against the BNP, Trevor Phillips’ tax-eating monster organisation is dragging us into a totally unnecessary High Court hearing tommorrow.”

First things first here, Nick Griffin calls says “dragging us into a totally unnecessary High Court hearing” well that isn’t strictly true is it Mr Griffin? this date was set way back in November 2009 when the original court order was handed down, a court order that was handed out after Nick Griffin on behalf of the BNP decided to conceed the EHRC case and agree to make the required changes to the BNP’s Constitution, he originally made claims that this change was enforced by the EHRC and omitted to tell his members and supporters that he had actually conceeded the case and agreed to change.

And here are the list of excuses for non compliance that Nick Griffin is using for not complying with the court order:

“Because the harsh winter weather forced the postponement of several meetings with our lawyers.

Because of the sheer complexity of our Constitutional changes.

Because no Race Relations expert in the country would act for us

Because it’s very hard to get a hall for large numbers of people when the establishment’s UAF street thugs are allowed to threaten and intimidate venue owners at will, we ended up with no choice but to postpone our Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).”

“Now set for 14th February, this will be just 16 days past the date by which I first agreed to use my best endeavours to have the Constitution changed in order to comply with the forthcoming Equality Act.”

This is an interesting one as according to the EHRC the case was actually bought under the Race Relations Act of 2006 and not the yet to be introduced Equalities Act so it seems the BNP enjoy puling the wool over peoples eyes and trying to make them believe that the court order relates to an Act of Parliment that isn’t actually yet enacted in law.

“What is certain is that we have to pay a solicitor and barrister of our own to appear in order to defend against CEHR’s disgraceful demand for costs which are only being incurred on account of its own bullying and unreasonableness. It’s outrageous, but that’s the price we have to pay to uphold our rights.”

It seems here that Mr Griffin is attempting to say that the EHRC (he calls them CEHR’s for some unknown reason), is taking this action on a whim and that it wasn’t a pre planned and agreed date, which in fact it was and Mr Griffin knew the 28th January 2010 was the date by which he had agreed to have made the changes to the British National Parties whites only membership policy, so if this is what Mr Griffin is trying to imply them it’s frankly a blatent lie on his part. He also seems to be implying that this appearance is designed just to cost the British National Party more money which again isn’t true as again he was well aware as many other people where that the 28th January was agreed back in November 2009.

And here it comes:

“It’s a price we can only pay with your help, so please give us much as you can to help. I don’t mind going to prison over this if it comes to it, but I don’t want to have to do so without knowing that I’ve got your 110% support. Thank you.”

He waits right to the end to say they need more money in order to help pay for this court appearance, come off it Mr Griffin you knew this was coming so why are you begging for money to help pay for somnething at the 11th hour?

Here is the email as it was written for you to look over:

Equalities Commission in New Bias AttackFellow

British Patriot,

“We’ve got the taxpayers’ money, and we can do whatever we want!” That’s the message we’re getting from the latest actions of the Equalities Commission. Despite having been caught red-handed inciting members of its staff to make bogus complaints against the BNP, Trevor Phillips’ tax-eating monster organisation is dragging us into a totally unnecessary High Court hearing tommorrow.

Because the harsh winter weather forced the postponement of several meetings with our lawyers, because of the sheer complexity of our Constitutional changes, because no Race Relations expert in the country would act for us, and because it’s very hard to get a hall for large numbers of people when the establishment’s UAF street thugs are allowed to threaten and intimidate venue owners at will, we ended up with no choice but to postpone our Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).

Now set for 14th February, this will be just 16 days past the date by which I first agreed to use my best endeavours to have the Constitution changed in order to comply with the forthcoming Equality Act.16 days late, when it’s taken them 28 years to bring an action against us!

But CEHR’s ugly collection of anti-British bigots and neo-Marxist cranks are using this unavoidable delay as an excuse to drag us back into court, and to apply to screw another day’s court costs out of us. So tomorrow I have to appear in the High Court in central London to explain a self-explanatory delay.

In a story clearly planted by Labour/CEHR propagandists, The Times has reported that their intention is to sling me in jail for contempt of court. So I’ll turn up in the morning with my toothbrush in my pocket and we’ll see if they dare.

My hunch is that even this bunch of overpaid crackpots aren’t that daft, but one can never be sure. What is certain is that we have to pay a solicitor and barrister of our own to appear in order to defend against CEHR’s disgraceful demand for costs which are only being incurred on account of its own bullying and unreasonableness. It’s outrageous, but that’s the price we have to pay to uphold our rights.

It’s a price we can only pay with your help, so please give us much as you can to help. I don’t mind going to prison over this if it comes to it, but I don’t want to have to do so without knowing that I’ve got your 110% support. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin, MEPChairman, British National Party

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Yes you did read that correctly the British National Party is on just 1% of the popular vote according to the latest poll carried out by ICM for the Guardian Newspaper, the poll results are as follows:

Conservatives = 40%
Labour = 30%
LibDems = 21%
SNP = 2%
Plaid = 2%
UKIP = 2%
BNP = 1%

So going from this latest poll the BNP have’t made the increase they are spending so much time claiming they have, in 2005 the BNP polled just 0.7% of the popular vote, so if this latest poll is anything to go by then the BNP would have only had a 0.03% increase since 2005, so five years for a 0.03% increase, not the power house of British Politics the BNP seem to think they are really.

If this were to be translated in to Westminster Seats the BNP would still have NONE, looks like the British National Party need to return to the drawing board, all the media stunts they have pulled lately seem to be backfiring on them in a big way they have been losing votes since July 2009 after the European Elections in June, having won no new seats and lost two they did hold (one by the leaving of the BNP of Alby Walker).

It certainly doesn’t look like the BNP are going to sweep to any kind of major victory in the 2010 General Election going by this rather dismall showing in the polls.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP