You are viewing blog items for May 2014.
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Thursday, 29 May 2014, 16:32
Much news in Northern Ireland today about the outrageous comments made by Belfast's Pastor James McConnell and then the support he received for his comments by the First Minister, Peter Robinson.
James McConnell described Islam as "heathen" and "satanic", during an address at the Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle Church over a week ago.
He told his congregation "a new evil had arisen" and "there are cells of Muslims right throughout Britain".
As fury about the comments spread across communities in Northern Ireland, First Minister Robinson backed the pastor, making some quite outrageous and bizarre comments of his own.
Well, it will come as no surprise to people who have followed the rise of Britain First that the leader of the street gang, Paul Golding, who turns up uninvited in Mosques to hand out bibles, is a regular attendee at the church. We've known for some time where Golding likes to go to church even if he recently refused to name where his church is to journalist Iain Dale who pushed him on the issue.
Although Golding no longer resides in Northern Ireland, when he was living there for nearly two years working under his paymaster Jim Dowson, he became something of a born-again Christian, but obviously not a very nice one.
Golding and Dowson have both attended services at the church, despite Dowson being a presbyterian. It is believed that Dowson would drive Golding to the church so that Golding could hear the blood and thunder of McConnell's regular sermons in a similar vain.
Britain First admit they have been to services at the church and fully back the Pastor's comments. "So what?" they barked when asked if it is true that members of Britain First attend the church.
No surprises there, really. Is there.
Posted: 29 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Monday, 26 May 2014, 17:01
Well, I did say there would be someone else to blame for the BNP's meltdown other than themselves.
Chris Livingstone was the BNP candidate for the East of England region.
Apparently it was the post office....
Alwyn Deacon however, the one responsible for most BNP electoral debacles appears to have other ideas. He blames a lazy regional organiser.
Let the fun begin
Posted: 26 May 2014 | There are 2 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Duncan Cahill | on: Monday, 26 May 2014, 16:39
Last night, as it became clear that Britain First had beaten the British National Party in Scotland, a rather unpleasant (if accurate) posting went up on Britain First's Facebook site describing Nick Griffin as a pig and a Nazi.
The author of the post is believed to be Jim Dowson, Griffin's former best friend. It was removed rather quickly, as BF had lost to the BNP in Wales, but not before BNP activists had texted threats to Britain First members.
There were threats and counter threats for a good few hours. A nervous Griffin conceded defeat before he even arrived at the count. Ever the idiot, he even called his last known ally in the party, Clive Jefferson, a "crip" in reference to him using a walking stick. It was of course, just more of that non-PC humour that Griffin loves so much. That it has been widely broadcast today will not help much.
Before the week is out, I predict open warfare.
Posted: 26 May 2014 | There are 2 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Duncan Cahill | on: Sunday, 25 May 2014, 20:41
A number of BNP candidates and activists are arriving at Manchester Town Hall. Still no sign of Nick Griffin.
Posted: 25 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Sunday, 25 May 2014, 12:52
Despite not standing in elections, the English Defence League (EDL) has decided to have another falling out, this time it's Hel Gower, Stephen Lennon's personal assistant, leaving the organisation.
Gower is one of the major shareholders in the group so what happens now remains a bit of a mystery. Gower claims she was pushed and everybody else in the organisation seems to have said "good".
With her boss Stephen Lennon up for release from prison next month Gower says she does not care for the EDL anyway, and will be joining Lennon in his new venture-not mortgage broking one assumes.
Gower also claims that the current leadership of the EDL has decided to break links with Jewish and LGBT groups. Both communities will argue that there never was ties with the EDL.
One wonders if this is because their current leader, Steve Eddowes is preparing to offer the EDL up to the splintering British National Party (BNP). Eddowes and those around him appear to certainly have less problem with the idea of working with the BNP now both groups are on their knees.
BNP leader Griffin could probably do with some help. Word from the North East is that Pete Molloy has begun asking questions as to whether he would stand a chance in a leadership contest.
The obvious answer is no, he would not, as Griffin has ensured that if he goes, so does the rest of the family business. It will probably comes as no surprise to Griffin to hear that it is the idiot Adam Walker whispering in Molloy's ear to make a challenge. Now out of work and unemployable, Walker has long held a grudge against the leader for excluding him from the redistribution of the BNP's wealth.
It's almost certain that if Griffin fails to achieve the impossible tonight and retain his European seat that Molly and Walker will move against Griffin. Molloy apparently holds bitter grudges against Griffin for his anti-Irish comments and in particular, for his pro-Loyalist sentiments.
Posted: 25 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Richard Halling | on: Thursday, 22 May 2014, 10:50
Despite making a public plea for his name not to be taken in vain for political purposes, the family of Lee Rigby have had to put up with a series of indignities inflicted by Britain’s far right. These began almost immediately after he was murdered when EDL leader Tommy Robinson and his balaclava clad EDL thugs took to the streets of London in a bid to exploit his tragic death.
Nick Griffin then tried and failed to score political capital by attending Lee’s funeral service when, whilst his presence was noted, he was studiously ignored by those who gathered to pay their respects on the streets of Bury.
Most recently Jim Dowson and Paul Golding’s laughable but dangerous Britain First included the Fusilier’s name on its ballot papers. That prompted not just an apology from the Electoral Commission but also anguished outrage from Lee’s mother Lyn who wrote ‘Well yet again can any more heartbreak be thrown at me and my family so heartbroken tonight…..Their views are not what Lee believed in and has (sic) no support from the family.’
The first anniversary of Lee’s murder falls this weekend. It seems that more intolerable heartbreak is in store for the family. The far right, including some of its more violent and deranged members, are heavily involved a series of so-called memorial walks taking place across the country.
In Newcastle the organisers of one such event include local EDL headbanger Steve Hewitt and Alan Spence, who is also a BNP activist and last year received a seven month jail sentence following his role in a violent attack by EDL supporters at Tyneside Irish Centre. Each of the six event organisers listed is involved in far right politics.
Further south an event titled Huddersfield Unite 4 Lee Rigby, due to take place today (Thursday May 22nd) has been organised by Derek Hemphill in aid of Help for Heroes for whom he claims to be a registered fundraiser. The charity has on countless occasions stressed that it will neither associate with or take funds from the English Defence League or other far right groups. They may then not be too pleased to hear that Del Boy is not only active in the EDL but was nicked at its Rotherham demo earlier this month.
Across the Pennines the weekly outing for the nakedly Nazi North West Infidels, National Front and BNP hangers-on takes place in Manchester, again under the guise of a Lee Rigby memorial walk. The organisers, who are not readily identifiable, have met with Greater Manchester Police who have allegedly noted - contrary to the positioning of the event on Facebook - it is a far right demonstration. They also acknowledge that the Rigby family are aware of but not associated with this event.
The Facebook page also demonstrates at the very least that the event is a magnet for various well-known far right activists and that the organiser named, an ‘Andrea Stone’, is relaxed about known racists and fascists attending. She is less relaxed about those who point this out by deleting their posts. This is curious to say the least, especially given she subsequently enjoyed a friendly dialogue with a Blood & Honour fan trading under the name of Curlito Boss.
Then there is the guest list to Andrea’s supposedly respectful event. This includes NWI and BNP flagwaver Lacette Brooks, a woman so obsessed by swastikas she sleeps under one – with her BNP Yorkshire Euro candidate Steve Harrison. She’s certainly not alone in enjoying a fixation with Nazism as her fellow NWI member Sean Binks demonstrates.
Another NWI stalwart Kym Wench, a care worker exposed last year by the Daily Star for targeting her neighbours with racist abuse, is also planning to attend along with the National Front’s Jock Shearer - a convicted drug dealer – and Dave Kirby.
The event is also receiving a helping promotional hand from Peter Casual Laffin aka Peter Hawley of Blackburn. Hawley is fresh out of jail having been convicted of violent disorder. The ageing hooligan was among seven members of the NWI given custodials following an attack on anti-fascists in Liverpool.
The hijacking of Lee’s name against the express wishes of the family by various far right factions is depressingly predictable but no less outrageous because of that. It undermines the desire of ordinary British people of all political persuasions and beliefs who wish to respectfully remember a man whose brutal and senseless muder shocked the nation.
Our thoughts this weekend are with Lee’s family and friends.
Posted: 22 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Tom Edwards | on: Thursday, 22 May 2014, 10:12
A candidate for the British National Party in today's elections has appeared in court this week for assault, it has emerged.
Your Worcester News can reveal how Ashley Bradley, who is trying to get elected to Worcester CityCouncil, pleaded guilty to assault by beating on Tuesday following an incident outside McDonald's at The Cross.
The 42-year-old's appearance before magistrates will be another embarrassment to the far-right party, which is standing a record eight candidates in Worcester today.
Mr Bradley, of Chedworth Drive, got into an incident with a man outside McDonald's back on Friday, November 22 last year.
The victim told police he got punched in the back of the head during the altercation, leading to charges being pressed.
Read the full story at The Ludlow Advertiser
Posted: 22 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Thursday, 22 May 2014, 08:22
Who knows what Nick Griffin was up to last night. One would think he’d be knocking on people’s doors and begging them to vote for him today.
Judging by his tweets however, I get the impression he was having a very mild Chicken Korma and plotting with Big Ted what miraculous conspiracies he and the gang will dream up to try and convince the world that he was robbed of his seat in Brussels by the democratic process.
If anyone knows what it is really like to lose elections it is Griffin and the British National Party. They’re masters of the art of it, but still have not got the message. In fact, according to them, it’s everybody else that is wrong. Or black.
So, here is a list of special updates/bulletins/tweets and newsflashes to expect Griffin, Big Ted, Little Ted, Humpty etc, etc to begin broadcasting some time very soon so that the conspiracy can begin before the post-mortem.
Ballot box tampered with: This normally gets tweeted once the BNP scrutinisers realise how few votes they actually have. Normally one of them manages to spot a Jew with his or her hands removing 93% of the votes but they manage to escape before the Aryan guard can catch them. Zionism is like that, apparently. Also, nobody else ever sees the mystery thief-further evidence of the protocols at work.
Ballot box stolen: This happens all the time, apparently. By Saturday morning the street markets of England will be awash with knocked off ballot boxes. You don’t hear about it because there is a conspiracy of silence by the people who own the press. These too are Zionists, obviously.
Sharia Ballots: White people were unable to vote because they lived in area dominated by Sharia patrols and Taliban militias.
Postal vote fraud: Doubt they’ll try that one, again
The gays done it: Never mind the pink pound, it’s the militant gayers up to their dirty tricks stopping Griffin getting his seat back. He did warn us about them, too. Hypocrite.
Fenians were “at it”: Never mind ballots, bullets and bombs. Who can forget Griffin’s long standing love of the Irish and their musical instruments? Griffin will declare the IRA made his votes disappear.
It will go on and on and on. The young BNP, in all their outstanding finery will be the ones charged with spreading the conspiracy theories. You’ll probably find them at a local playground reading the conspiracies from a cue card. One or two of the idiots will probably be dressed up as historical figure from Palestine too.
By all accounts the BNP were the last to leave the offices at the European parliament buildings. They savoured every last moment they had there, licking the windows and removing little keepsakes that will probably end up on their Ebay site in a couple of weeks.
To be fair to Griffin, he probably hasn’t ripped off the tax payer as badly as he could have or like we thought he would do. He managed to keep that “in house”, so all being well, he will return to the BNP and squeeze the very last remaining quid out of that before deciding what to do next. Perhaps a book? Maybe a cookery book? He could merge the idea with an accountancy for idiots guide.
A whole host of BNP staff are now out of work. The chances of them receiving parachute payments is in my opinion, minimal. For the BNP now the work has to begin on rebuilding the party.
Let’s make sure we totally destroy it at the ballot box today, then.
Posted: 22 May 2014 | There are 6 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Sunday, 18 May 2014, 20:18
Here was Nick Griffin in Bolton yesterday getting chummy with the National Front.
Not a brain cell, ounce of decency and very soon, a job between them.
The NF Griffin was with yesterday are open Jew haters and admirers' of Hitler. Griffin has always denied that he is too. No-one believed him.
Posted: 18 May 2014 | There are 11 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins and Simon Cressy | on: Saturday, 17 May 2014, 22:51
Nigel Farage was in Belfast last week, Wednesday to be precise. It was a quick visit where he found time to tell the Belfast Telegraph that he was not going to get drawn into the flag debate; Farage was there to remind everyone, including the nationalist community, to vote for the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP), and keep the Johnny foreigners out.
UKIP had arranged for Nigel to enjoy a pint in the famous Crown Bar surrounded by his nearest and dearest friends, but by all accounts, the bar had different ideas. The proprietors asked Nigel and friends to leave, as they would do any political party. Nigel then ended up across the road in the Europa Hotel, the most bombed hotel in Western Europe.
Nigel told his assembled friends to not "assume that every single voter who votes for Ukip comes from a hard-line Protestant, unionist position." Well said, Nigel. It may not actually be true, however. It most certainly would appear to be at odds with the party's local member of the legislative assembly who joined him at the Europa, David McNarry.
Mr Narry has been very vocal over the flag issue and even said he wanted it flown in Belfast every day of the year.
In fact, it seemed there was nothing but people from a "hardline unionist position" at the function. As well as McNarry there is Henry Reilly, the party's candidate for Europe. Henry is best known for notorious twitter rants normally about Communists and MI5. A quick sweep of google will give you an idea of where Henry stands on the issues that Farage will not be drawn on.
Also at the shindig was Bill Hill and Robert "Rab" Mckee. In their other guises they are not as Nigel would have you believe: Both of them are associates of the far-right leader Jim Dowson of Britain First infamy. You know, the Mosque invaders who recently offered to send soldiers and armoured cars to protect Farage. Both were indeed at the launch of the Protestant coalition of which Dowson was the founder. The group aims to ensure Protestants keep the "upper hand" over anyone, well, not Protestant. Even the UVF do not like them too much. Both Hill and Mckee were founding members of the group.
Mckee is alleged to be involved in some kind of split currently underway in the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). That's an illegal terrorist organisation, by the way. They tend to shoot Catholics and deal drugs. They also shoot each other. Last month Mckee claimed the UDA tried to run him off the road as part of the spat between the two factions. Mckee obviously claims he is one of the "innocent victims".
On Friday morning, two days after meeting Farage for a "pint", Hill was part of a gang of men involved in the brutal attack on senior UDA leader John Bunting by a UDA breakaway group. According to reports "Bunting and his sidekick Tommy Pearson were ambushed and beaten on the Limestone Road in the north of the city on Friday afternoon by a gang of renegades as tensions within the terror group threaten to spiral out of control.
The North Belfast brigadier was left bloodied and bruised after being repeatedly punched and kicked to the ground.
Within minutes of the daylight attack members of the UDA in the north and south of the city were mobilised with orders to track down Bunting's attackers, who have now been labelled as dead men walking."
This is heavy stuff. The UDA have a habit of killing people, even best friends, for overstepping the mark. The Sunday World, who is running a report of the attack tomorrow, identifies one of the leaders of the dissident gang as Bill Hill, who met with Farage last week.
Members of the Protestant coalition are very critical of both the UDA and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), both murder gangs, for "acquiescing" to the Good Friday Agreement. Both the UDA and UVF have split over the issue. For legal reasons, I am not able to expand further on the issue, sadly.
Whether Farage knows of the bloody involvement of the two men is not known to us. Obviously, UKIP are not keen on taking calls from HOPE not hate. What is questionable is how these two managed to join Farage for what was meant to a photo opportunity for UKIP's nearest and dearest in Northern Ireland.
If there is to be a bloody battle between terrorists, perhaps Farage should ask Londonderry UKIP candidate, David Malcolm.
Malcolm is another one with links to the UDA. He was the Londonderry regional organiser for the UDA's political "front" the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG).
As part of their five man executive, Malcolm and his colleagues announced on 'behalf' of the UDA that they were intending to decommission their murder weapons.
Posted: 17 May 2014 | There are 2 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Duncan Cahill | on: Friday, 16 May 2014, 15:35
The Michaela MacKenzie Judgement against Nick Griffin in full.
MICHAELA MACKENZIE v NICHOLAS GRIFFIN
1. Between January 2008 and June 2009 Ms Michaela MacKenzie was employed by the British National Party as an administrative assistant. In June 2009 she was dismissed, following which she brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. On the second day of the final hearing of that claim, 16 June 2010, a compromise agreement was reached in the following terms:
“Upon the parties reaching agreement as follows:
(1) The Respondents to pay the Claimant £25,000 (payable to the Claimant’s solicitors Renney and Co) on or before 14 July 2010 in full and final settlement of this or any claim that the Claimant may have against the Respondents
(2) There shall be no publication of the terms hereof by the Claimant or the Respondents or any servant or agent thereof
(3) The Respondent to provide the Claimant with a favourable written reference to be sent to Renney and Co on or before 14 July 2010
(4) The claim will be dismissed by 28 July 2010 on withdrawal by the claimant unless the tribunal is notified otherwise in writing if there are any problems in implementation thereof.”
2. One of the issues raised in those proceedings (indeed raised in these proceedings too) was that the British National Party had no legal personality and so could not properly be a party to litigation. For that reason Ms MacKenzie had joined various officers of the party as respondents to her unfair dismissal claim, among them Mr Nicholas Griffin, chairman and leader of the British National Party. Mr Griffin was one of the signatories to the settlement agreement.
3. Ms MacKenzie was not paid the £25,000 by 14 July 2010. She has still not been paid. She has brought proceedings in the county court against Mr Griffin for payment of that sum. Mr Griffin’s original defence and counterclaim has been replaced in its entirety by an amended defence of 22 October 2012. That abandons the counterclaim and raises two main defences. The first is that the settlement was discharged as a consequence of Ms MacKenzie’s breaches of clause 2 of the agreement, the confidentiality clause. The second is that, having given up attempting to enforce the settlement agreement, Ms MacKenzie elected to return to the Employment Tribunal where she sought to resume her temporarily stayed claim. In the event her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. In those circumstances it is submitted that she cannot now seek to rely on the settlement agreement. This defence is a form of estoppel.
4. The claim was allocated to the fast track. I heard evidence on 29 October 2013 from Ms MacKenzie and her witness Mr Lecomber, and from Mr Griffin. Ms MacKenzie was represented by counsel Mr Joseph, and Mr Griffin by direct access counsel Mr Price Rowland. Both counsel provided me with written and oral submissions, for which I am very grateful. The matter could not be concluded in a day and had to be adjourned so that Mr Price Rowland could provide me with copies of the various authorities he had referred to in his skeleton argument (and make his further submissions on those authorities) and for Mr Joseph to make his closing submissions. Mr Griffin subsequently sought and was granted a longer adjournment than would otherwise have been allowed, because of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, and the matter was not relisted until 27 March 2014. By this time Mr Griffin had been adjudicated bankrupt (2 January 2014). His trustee in bankruptcy informed the court that he did not intend to appear or make any representations, making the point that there were no funds presently available in Mr Griffin’s estate. But Mr Griffin wished to make further representations himself and did so via a firm of law costs draughtsmen called Forest Costing Services whom he instructed to send a copy of a revised skeleton argument prepared by Mr Price Rowlands dated 16 December 2014. In the event neither Mr Price Rowlands nor Mr Griffin appeared at the resumed hearing. Mr Joseph made his closing submissions. He also was put to the trouble of providing me with the copies of Mr Price Rowland’s authorities, for which I am very grateful.
5. No party wished me to exercise my power to stay the proceedings under section 285(1) Insolvency Act 1986 and there appeared to be good reason to proceed to determine the legal rights as between the parties, not least because that is what both parties wanted me to do.
6. Relating to the alleged breach of the confidentiality clause, my findings are as follows. For the avoidance of any doubt I explain that my findings are made on a balance of probability:
(1) The final hearing of Ms MacKenzie’s unfair dismissal claim began at 1.30pm on the afternoon of 15 June 2010 and continued to 4.30pm. I accept, in broad terms, Ms MacKenzie’s description of proceedings in her blog published on 14 July 2010. I accept that in the course of the hearing Mr Griffin’s barrister admitted that Ms MacKenzie had been unfairly dismissed, at least procedurally. I accept that the evidence of Mr Griffin, in particular his responses to the judge’s questions, would have given the clear impression that Ms MacKenzie’s employer had a poor case in answer to her unfair dismissal claim. All that took place in open court, that is to say, in public. A journalist was present. Some members of the public are also likely to have been present (as they were on the first day of this county court trial). I accept that Ms MacKenzie’s description of the afternoon’s proceedings is reasonably accurate and that the journalist and members of the public present would have got the clear impression that the employer’s case was a weak one.
(2) Settlement terms were agreed on the morning of day two of the hearing, 16 June 2010, following which the court made this order:
“Terms of settlement having been agreed, these proceedings are stayed to allow those terms to be put into effect, and will be treated as dismissed upon their withdrawal on 28 July 2010 unless the tribunal is notified to the contrary before that date.”
That order was also made in open court. A journalist and members of the public were likely to have been present
(3) Ms MacKenzie’s unfair dismissal claim and this settlement came at a time of a leadership contest within the BNP between Mr Griffin and Mr Ed Butler. The fact of the unfair dismissal and Ms MacKenzie’s successful claim, and the “waste” of party funds some members might have believed this to be, was information which assisted Mr Butler’s opposition campaign. Ms MacKenzie was a supporter of Mr Butler.
(4) The terms of the settlement agreement were known not only to Ms MacKenzie and Mr Griffin, but also to Phillip Reddall and Clive Jefferson, the two other officers of the British National Party who were also respondents to the unfair dismissal claim. The terms would also have been known by some of the BNP office staff, in particular those who worked with Mr Griffin, Mr Redall and Mr Jefferson and those who were responsible for organising the payment.
(5) Mr Griffin had left a copy of the settlement agreement lying on his desk at his home. It had been found there by Mr Lecomber, a house-sitter, who read it some time between 26-31 July 2010, and that he also saw there a demand by Ms MacKenzie’s solicitors dated 16 July 2010 for payment of £25,000. Mr Lecomber says he told “several others” “over the next few weeks” what the settlement amount was. I accept what Mr Lecomber says.
(6) There were rumours which came to Mr Griffin’s attention within days of the settlement agreement, that he had reached terms with Ms MacKenzie under which he was to pay her compensation.
(7) I accept Ms MacKenzie’s evidence that she was not responsible for these rumours. I believed her. In particular I believed her when she said that did not wish to jeopardise the agreement. She wanted to receive the £25,000.
(8) There were plentiful other sources from which those rumours may have come. Although Mr Lecomber was not a source of those early stories, the fact that others apart form Mr Griffin and Ms MacKenzie would have known of its existence and its terms, and the fact that the litigation and its outcome was of political interest to opponents of Mr Griffin, supports my finding that there were many potential sources within BNP of the rumours of which Mr Griffin spoke. The first afternoon of the hearing, open to the public, had not gone well for Mr Griffin. And when the parties reached terms of settlement on the second day, members of the public present and interested in the case may well have deduced that the BNP or Mr Griffin had probably conceded the claim and agreed to make some payment to Ms MacKenzie. It is entirely understandable how rumours may have begun to circulate.
(9) Ms MacKenzie held her fire until after the deadline for payment had passed and she had not been paid. She had checked with her solicitors to see if Mr Griffin had made the payment and she was told that he hadn’t. She believed that once that deadline for payment had passed she could talk about the settlement, although she was aware she should still not talk about the amount of the settlement. On 14 October 2010 at 5.07pm Ms MacKenzie published a blog on the internet (some 5 pages of A4) in which she gave a graphic blow by blow account of the employment tribunal hearing (the afternoon of the first day) and then of the settlement negotiations that followed, that afternoon and the following morning.
(10) In that blog, in her description of the settlement negotiations, Ms MacKenzie published the following:
- “day two of the tribunal began with a without prejudice doubling of the settlement offer made the previous day. This was politely declined. A further increased offer was made and again declined. .. A further offer ensued with the admission that I had been unfairly dismissed both procedurally AND substantively. .. I was also assured that the party would provide me with a ‘glowing reference’. My answer was that any reference from the party would be as valuable in finding a job as a reference from Osama bin Laden .. Griffin’s barrister then approached me just 2 minutes before the tribunal was due to re-convene and told her that Mr Griffin wanted to know what I would be prepared to settle for, to name my price. .. Griffin then made the only sensible decision of his life and completely caved in. .. As a postscript to this statement, I am now able to inform you all that Mr Nick Griffin MEP who gave a signed undertaking in court in front of three tribunal judges, his own barrister and a journalist, to pay the agreed settlement by 14 July, has reneged on his word. Further legal proceedings against him, and other party officers, to recover the amount of the settlement have now begun”
(11) This blog would have been read and was intended to be read by party members. It was published in the course of a leadership contest I have mentioned, in which Mr Ed Butler, whom Ms MacKenzie supported, was also running for election against Mr Griffin. The purpose of Ms MacKenzie’s blog – which is clear from other aspects of this long document - was to cast Mr Griffin in a bad light, both as an employer and as a waster of party funds. Her hope was that party members would support Mr Butler and not Mr Griffin.
(12) By her blog, Ms MacKenzie published the following material information:
(i) that Mr Griffin had agreed at the hearing of her unfair dismissal claim to pay her a sum of money by 14 July 2010 and had not paid it, and
(ii) that Mr Griffin had offered to give her a glowing reference, but that she regarded that offer as worthless.
I accept that Ms MacKenzie deliberately avoided revealing the amount of the settlement because she believed that that would put her in breach of clause 2 of the agreement, of which she was aware.
(13) In a video placed on You Tube by Mr Ed Butler on 31 July 2010, Mr Butler said that Ms MacKenzie “was supposed to have been paid today in the terms of the settlement. The amount of the settlement I know but it is a secret. Again, everything is done in secret so you don’t know how much of your money is being flushed down the toilet. They were supposed to pay her today and they haven’t. They have missed a payment deadline. ..” Mr Butler was one of the members of the public present in court on the first day of this (county court) trial. Under cross-examination Ms MacKenzie denied telling Mr Butler what the agreed settlement figure was. She challenged Mr Price Rowlands to ask Mr Butler himself where he got the information from. The challenge was not taken up. Ms MacKenzie might of course have been playing a clever game, calling a fine bluff. But I did not think she was. Having heard Ms MacKenzie’s evidence I am satisfied that the one thing she knew not to disclose, lest it jeopardise her settlement, was the amount of the settlement. I believe her when she says she did not reveal the amount, either to Mr Butler or to anyone else.
7. Against this factual background I consider the case for each side. Mr Price Rowlands submitted that Ms MacKenzie had, whether in conversation with Mr Butler and others, or by her blog, published the terms of the agreement. Mr Joseph submitted she had not, that what she had published was not “the terms”. Counsel’s arguments were developed in their written and oral submissions. My conclusions are as follows:
8. Telling people that Mr Griffin or his advocate had admitted that Ms MacKenzie was unfairly dismissed is not saying anything about the terms of the agreement. There is nothing in the agreement at all about any admission of liability.
9. Telling people that there was a settlement agreement is not publishing the terms of agreement. It is not a breach of clause 2. The order of the Employment tribunal itself begins with the words “Terms of settlement having been agreed ..”. The fact that there was a settlement was public knowledge.
10. Telling people that Mr Griffin agreed to pay a sum of money is saying something about the terms of the agreement. But clause 2 does not prohibit the parties from saying anything at all about the agreement. It states that there shall be “no publication of the terms hereof”. My interpretation of that is a literal one. The “terms hereof” means exactly that. It doesn’t mean “something about the terms hereof”. Nor does it mean “how the agreement came to be reached”. So, for example, if Ms MacKenzie were to have said “Mr Griffin agreed to pay me £25,000” that would be a publication of one of the terms. But to have said, as she in effect did, “Mr Griffin capitulated and agreed to pay me whatever I asked for”, is not. Indeed, Mr Griffin might well have responded to Ms MacKenzie’s blog by saying “I did not capitulate, I did not double any offer, I did not agree to pay what you wanted, my barrister did not ask your solicitor to name your figure, your description of how we came to reach the settlement agreement is quite wrong”. A look at the terms of the agreement would not have provided an answer to which of them was right. That is because these things are not terms of the agreement. They are merely part of the story leading up to the agreement.
11. Telling people that Mr Griffin offered to give Ms MacKenzie a “glowing reference” might have been a publication of one of the terms if Ms MacKenzie had indicated that she accepted that offer. But the content of her blog is to suggest that the last thing she was interested in was a reference from Mr Griffin, and that she did not accept that offer. I am not persuaded that there was a publication of clause 4 of the agreement in these circumstances.
12. Thus, I find that Ms MacKenzie was not in breach of clause 2 of the agreement. But even if I had found otherwise, that would not establish a defence. There are two further issues that would need to be considered. The first is whether the breach was sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiatory breach, that is to say a breach which entitles the innocent party to terminate the agreement. The second is whether, if it was a repudiatory breach, Mr Griffin accepted such breach as terminating the agreement and communicated as much to Ms MacKenzie.
13. If (contrary to my findings) Ms MacKenzie committed a breach of clause 2 by revealing the term which provided for a reference, I would not accept that such publication was a repudiatory breach. Mr Griffin’s remedy would perhaps be not to provide the reference. I am not deciding whether that is right or not – the question has not been argued before me. But I am quite satisfied that publication of the provision in clause 4 to provide a reference would not have entitled Mr Griffin to tear up the whole agreement. That would be disproportionate. And Mr Price Rowland accepted as much in his closing submissions, accepting, rightly in my view, that if such a breach stood alone it would not be a repudiatory breach.
14. If (contrary to my findings) Ms MacKenzie committed a breach of clause 2 by her revealing that Mr Griffin had agreed to pay her a significant sum of money, then I would still have found that this did not amount to a repudiatory breach. The court has to look at the seriousness of that breach against the circumstances as a whole. The circumstances would, I accept, include Ms MacKenzie’s motivation for writing her blog. But the circumstances would also include the fact that rumours, to the effect that Mr Griffin had agreed to pay compensation to Ms MacKenzie, already abounded, rumours which I have found were nothing to do with Ms MacKenzie. People already knew. And Ms MacKenzie was not responsible for those rumours. Neither had she published the amount of the settlement.
15. Moreover, such seriousness as Mr Griffin asserts is substantially mitigated by the fact that Ms MacKenzie did not write her blog until after the deadline for payment of the £25,000 had passed. The significance of this latter point is this. Mr Griffin having failed to make payment by the due date, Ms MacKenzie was free to bring proceedings against him to enforce the agreement - as she has done. The terms of the agreement were going to become public knowledge in the course of those proceedings – as they have done. There has been no application at any stage of these proceedings by Mr Griffin or by any other signatory to the settlement agreement to prevent the public becoming aware of its terms. There were several members of the public in court during the first day of this (county court) hearing. It has not been argued by Mr Griffin or Mr Price Rowland that the publication of the amount of the settlement (indeed of the precise, complete terms of the agreement) by Ms MacKenzie in the course of these proceedings puts her in breach of clause 2 of the agreement. Had it been submitted otherwise I would have held that such publication was permissible and did not involve a breach of clause 2. In other words, once Mr Griffin failed to pay the £25,000, such permissible publication of the terms of the agreement became a real possibility. The point has further significance when (as we shall see) Mr Griffin’s case, when the matter came back before the tribunal, was that Ms MacKenzie should take up her case in the county court.
16. Aside from all that, I find that Mr Griffin did not communicate his acceptance of Ms MacKenzie’s alleged repudiatory breaches as terminating the agreement. Communication within a reasonable period of time of the “innocent” party’s acceptance of the breach as terminating the agreement, is an essential part of the defence of discharge by breach: see Chitty on Contracts, Vol 1, General Principles para 24-002. Nowhere in Mr Griffin’s witness statements or in his evidence does he assert that he communicated his acceptance of the alleged breaches as discharging the agreement. Indeed it looks rather as though his counsel Mr Price Rowlands accepts as much (see his first skeleton argument, para 39). Whatever Mr Price Rowlands means by what he said there, however, he does not appear to be submitting that Mr Griffin accepted or communicated his acceptance of the breach by way of any specific communication. It is correct that, in a skeleton argument put before the tribunal in February 2010 Mr Griffin submitted that Ms MacKenzie should not be allowed to resume her claim in the Tribunal but should be left to enforce the settlement agreement in the county court where she would face “the issues .. concerning the enforceability of the settlement, the repudiation by the Claimant of its terms by breaching the confidentiality agreement ..”. But this is no more than an assertion of issues about enforcement and issues about the alleged repudiatory breach. It does not point to any communication by way of acceptance. Nor does Mr Price Rowland submit that it does.
17 Rather, what Mr Griffin appeared to be saying in his oral evidence before the court was that he considered himself no longer bound by the agreement and made his position clear by his non-payment. He appears to be saying that his non-payment was a sufficient communication.
18 But that is not an accurate reflection of the chronology. Mr Griffin had already ignored his obligations under the agreement before Ms MacKenzie published her blog. The £25,000 was to have been paid on or before 14 July 2010. Mr Price Rowlands agreed with me – and I find – that a proper construction of the agreement was that the £25,000 was to have been paid by close of business or office hours that day, i.e. by 5pm. That is because the objective bystander armed with the necessary information about all the relevant background circumstances, would have said the parties intended that the £25,000 was to be paid to Ms MacKenzie’s solicitors by conventional means (bank transfer or delivery of some bankers draft or some other recognised commercial method of transferring funds) something that would have taken place during business or office hours, and that it was inconceivable that, for example, a BNP officer would have dropped round a bag of cash to Ms MacKenzie’s solicitors after office hours. Ms MacKenzie did not publish her blog until after 5pm, after office hours. She waited until it was clear that Mr Griffin was not going to pay. And she checked with her solicitors that he had not done so before publishing her blog. Mr Griffin had already failed to pay in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement when Ms MacKenzie published her blog
19 Indeed Mr Griffin told the court that he had already decided not to pay the £25,000 some time earlier. I am quite satisfied that the reason why Mr Griffin decided not to pay the £25,000 on 14 July 2014 was nothing to do with Ms MacKenzie’s blog. The reason was, as he explained, a decision he had reached earlier when rumours had begun to circulate soon after the settlement terms had been agreed. But those rumours were, as I have found, nothing to do with Ms MacKenzie. Mr Griffin is not saying that he was going to pay all along, but that after he read Ms MacKenzie’s blog, he changed his mind. He is not saying that after he read the blog he immediately communicated with Ms MacKenzie or her solicitors and said the deal is off. He had already decided not to honour the agreement long before Ms MacKenzie published her blog.
20. In these circumstances I reject the contention (insofar s Mr Griffin or Mr Price Rowlands are seeking to advance it, if they are) that Mr Griffin communicated his acceptance of Ms MacKenzie’s breaches as discharging the settlement agreement, simply by failing to pay the £25,000 on the due date. This would be a further reason for rejecting Mr Griffin’s first line of defence.
21. For all these reasons I reject the defence that the agreement became discharged by breach.
22. In order to analyse Mr Griffin’s second line of defence, I need to set out the chronology and further findings of fact:
(1) 16 June 2010. Terms of settlement and employment tribunal order, as set out above.
(2) 16 July 2010, two days after the date Mr Griffin should have paid the £25,000, Ms MacKenzie served a statutory demand on him to pay the £25,000. She served a second statutory demand on him on 11 November 2010.
(3) 28 July 2010, Ms MacKenzie sought an extension of the date (the date contained in the tribunal’s order of 16 June 2010) for communicating withdrawal of the claim, to 25 August 2010. The tribunal granted that application on 4 August 2010, although (like Ms MacKenzie’s solicitor) described it as a “stay”.
(4) 17 August 2010. Ms MacKenzie requests a further “stay”, or extension of time, in response to which the Tribunal listed the matter for a hearing “to decide if proceedings are now dismissed and if not what directions may be appropriate”
(5) The matter took a long time to be listed. There was an appeal to the EAT by one of the other respondents to the unfair dismissal claim which may have contributed to this delay. And there was at least one adjournment.
(6) Meanwhile, on 17 February 2011 the Tribunal directed that the claim be “relisted for the hearing to be continued before the same tribunal” with a time estimate of 2 days. The order says it was made after hearing the representations of both parties. Mr Griffin’s solicitors had filed a lengthy skeleton argument (10 February 2011) submitting that the tribunal claim had come to an end and that Ms MacKenzie should take her chance at enforcing the settlement agreement in the civil courts where she would have to face the argument that she broke the agreement by publishing its terms. At paragraph 43 on page 440 of the bundle, we read this submission:
“These matters of dispute are matters that lie wholly within the jurisdiction of the County Court. By asking the Employment Tribunal to allow her to re litigate her employment claim, the claimant is seeking to avoid the jurisdiction of the county court and her liability for her own actions.”
I deduce from the order made by the tribunal, that Ms MacKenzie’s solicitor must have submitted that the tribunal hearing (left part heard on 16 June 2010) should continue and that Ms MacKenzie should not have to proceed in the county court. One might have got the impression from the order made on this day (17 February 2011) that the tribunal heard these competing submissions and preferred Ms Mackenzie’s arguments to those of Mr Griffin, but evidently the tribunal had not made a ruling at all, as a consideration of the order next made shows.
(7) A “case management discussion” took place on 9 August 2011. The Order made and some reasons for it are at pages 482-3 of the bundle. The tribunal gave directions listing what it described as “the resumed hearing” before the same tribunal as began hearing the case in 2010, to be heard on 7 to 10 November 2011. Significantly it went on to provide as follows:
“The following preliminary issues may be considered by the Tribunal, if it considers it appropriate, before recommencing the resumed Hearing:
i) whether the Tribunal ought to recuse itself from resuming the hearing;
(ii) the identity of the proper respondents to the proceedings ..
(iii) whether the proceedings ought to be struck out or stayed as an abuse of process, on the basis that the proceedings were (sic) claimant has sought to enforce the terms of settlement apparently entered into on 16 June 2010 by way of civil enforcement proceedings”.
The inferences I draw from this third preliminary issue are, first, that Mr Griffin was continuing to press his argument that Ms MacKenzie should be limited to enforcing the settlement agreement in the county court whilst Ms MacKenzie maintained her argument that the unfair dismissal claim should continue before the Tribunal, and, secondly, that the tribunal had still not yet ruled on these competing arguments.
(8) The order made on 9 August 2011 directed the parties to exchange skeleton arguments on these preliminary issues. Mr Griffin’s solicitors had already done so. If Ms MacKenzie’ solicitor served a skeleton argument for her client, it is not in the bundle, and no-one before me in these proceedings is quite sure whether the solicitor did so.
(9) A few days before the resumed hearing Ms MacKenzie’s solicitors wrote to Mr Griffin’s solicitors (letter 3 November 2011) proposing
“without prejudice to costs, and on the basis that it is agreed that the settlement terms of 16 June 2010 are effective as an enforceable agreement (albeit that the liabilities under it are in dispute) the Claimant is willing to consent to the Tribunal proceedings being stayed or discontinued on the terms of the compromise set out in the order dated 16 June 2010”
A copy of that letter was sent to the Tribunal. The offer was repeated in similar terms in Ms MacKenzie’s solicitor’s letter of 4 November 2011. No reply appears to have been received.
(10) The 7 November 2011 was a reading day for the Tribunal. On 8 November 2011, at the Tribunal hearing, the parties discussed matters, and put terms of a consent order before the Tribunal. The tribunal’s order reads as follows:
“Upon the claimant conceding by her counsel that these proceedings were dismissed in accordance with the judgment of 16 June 2010,
By consent no further order is made. .. “
(11) The order made by the tribunal on 8 November 2011 also gave directions for dealing with any application for costs, for wasted costs or for a “preparation time order”. A costs application was indeed later made on Mr Griffin’s behalf but was subsequently withdrawn.
23. Mr Price Rowlands submitted that a claimant in the employment tribunal who reaches terms of settlement has an election: she can either accept the terms and seek to enforce them; or she can proceed with her claim before the tribunal and try to obtain findings of fact and judgment. But she can’t do both. In particular she can’t press on with her unfair dismissal claim and, after she loses, seek to enforce the earlier terms of settlement. He submits that Ms MacKenzie elected to proceed with her unfair dismissal claim before the tribunal. She even did so in the face of Mr Griffin’s arguments that she should stick to her remedies in the county court. One might add to Mr Price Rowland’s submissions the point, arising from my findings of fact, that on two occasions (17 February and 9 August 2011) Ms MacKenzie must, through her solicitor, have told the court that she wanted to press on with her unfair dismissal claim and did not want to enforce the settlement agreement in the county court. Mr Price Rowlands suggested that Ms MacKenzie was trying to get more than she had obtained in her settlement agreement, or was seeking another opportunity or forum in which to make political points. Mr Price Rowlands develops his submissions comprehensively in his two skeleton arguments. He relies on various authorities, including Australian Commercial research and Development Ltd v ANZ  3 AER 65, Barber v Staffordshire County Council  ICR 379 and Lennon v Birmingham City Council  EWCA Civ 435. He in effect submits that Ms MacKenzie had a choice but could not choose both and is stuck with the choice she made, which was to try her hand once again before the Employment Tribunal. He submits that Ms MacKenzie is estopped – by cause of action estoppel or res judicata or issue esoppel or by her election – from reverting to the June 2010 settlement agreement and seeking to enforce it in the county court. And he submits that the election she made, to return to the Tribunal, was irrevocable.
24. Had the facts of this case been different, I would have had considerable sympathy with Mr Price Rowland’s submissions, based on the authorities he relied upon. There is merit in an argument that a claimant who, knowing she faces issues about breaches of a confidentiality clause were she to enforce settlement terms, chooses instead to press on with a part-heard unfair dismissal claim (hoping to get a judgment which she could enforce without the inconvenience of having to respond to arguments about breach), should not be permitted to fall back on the settlement terms after she has lost her unfair dismissal claim.
25. But that is not what happened here. What I am satisfied happened here is as follows:
26.1 Mr Griffin was continuing to argue – as his February 2011 skeleton argument showed - that Ms MacKenzie should not be allowed to proceed in the Tribunal and should seek to enforce the settlement agreement instead and face the defence of repudiatory breach. Ms MacKenzie had clearly been minded to submit the opposite.
26.2 But those positions remained submissions. The Tribunal had not yet ruled. The question was to be determined by way of a preliminary issue. If the parties had left the matter to the Tribunal they might have been two possible rulings, one which allowed Ms MacKenzie to proceed, or one which told her that her tribunal case had ended and she should enforce the settlement agreement in the county court. Nowhere do I see in Mr Griffin’s February 2011 skeleton argument the notion that Ms MacKenzie had made an irrevocable election to resume her unfair dismissal claim and was stuck with that. That is not what Mr Griffin wanted to say at all. He was saying the very opposite. And apart from the parties’ submissions, the reality was that the tribunal had not yet decided whether Ms MacKenzie could resume her unfair dismissal claim.
26.3 No irrevocable step had been taken by Ms MacKenzie, Not yet anyway. It might have been otherwise if the Tribunal had decided that Ms MacKenzie could proceed with her unfair dismissal claim and the case had restarted. But that point was never reached. That is because the parties reached a settlement (their second in the course of those proceedings) on 8 November 2011, put before the Tribunal in the form of a Consent Order
26.4 Underlying that Consent Order was the parties’ agreement that Ms MacKenzie would pursue her remedies in the county court, and face whatever arguments about breaches of the agreement the respondents might properly raise. I do not accept that the respondents to the Tribunal claim were saying that Ms MacKenzie could not even pursue her claim in the county court. Rather, the respondents were saying that she should pursue her remedies in the county court, the very opposite of what Mr Griffin is saying in his second line of defence.
Such are my findings.
27. This interpretation of what happened, what was agreed on 8 November 2011, what was intended by the parties, and what was meant by the Tribunal’s order, is consistent with the Tribunal’s use of the phrase “dismissed in accordance with the judgment of 16 June 2010” (my emphasis), which judgment refers to the parties’ earlier settlement agreement. It is consistent with the chronology of what happened after Mr Griffin’s failure to pay the £25,000. It is consistent with the overtures to further settlement made by Ms MacKenzie’s solicitors in their letters of 4 and 5 November 2011, ahead of the hearing. It is consistent with the fact that Ms MacKenzie herself consented to this order.
28. For those reasons I do not accept that Ms MacKenzie is estopped by election or otherwise from bringing her claim in the county court. In short I can see no unconscionable conduct on the part of Ms MacKenzie, or unfairness to Mr Griffin, to support an estoppel preventing Ms MacKenzie from pursuing these county court proceedings. Insofar as Mr Griffin may have been caused any wasted costs in the tribunal between July 2010 and November 2011 he was provided with a remedy under the express terms of the 8 November 2011 order.
29. If there is an estoppel at work here, it seems to me that it works the other way round. In the light of the order made on 8 November 2011 and my findings of fact, it is Mr Griffin who is estopped from preventing Ms MacKenzie bringing this claim in the county court.
30. Thus Mr Griffin’s second line of defence fails.
31. No other defences were relied upon or developed by Mr Price Rowlands in his closing submissions.
32. Mr Joseph sought in his closing submissions to argue that the compromise agreement of 16 June 2010 was a bill of exchange drawn and dishonoured by Mr Griffin and that there is no defence to a claim for dishonour of the bill. But that claim was not pleaded in the particulars of claim. It is not surprising therefore that Mr Price Rowlands did not address it in his submissions. I shall not address it in this judgment either, save to say that it was not pleaded.
33. In any event, for the reasons which I have given, the claim succeeds. I give judgment for Ms MacKenzie for the sum of £25,000
34. Mr Joseph submitted, at the hearing on 27 March 2014 that I should address the matters of interest and costs in this judgment in order to try to spare the parties further costs in returning to court. I shall accede to that invitation. Mr Griffin had the opportunity to attend at the hearing on 27 March 2014. The date was specifically fixed in order to accommodate his convenience. He chose not to attend.
35. As for interest I shall award the judgment debt rate. Although the settlement agreement was not a judgment debt, it was a settlement agreement made in the course of proceedings. In the exercise of my discretion I accept Mr Joseph’s submission and award interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 14 July 2010 to date.
36. As for costs, there is no good reason here to depart from the usual rule, that the loser should pay the winner’s costs. But I am not persuaded that there is justification for ordering indemnity costs, as Mr Joseph asks. The defences advanced do not to my mind put the conduct of proceedings by the defendants out of the ordinary or otherwise into the category of conduct justifying indemnity costs. The defendant shall pay the claimant’s costs of the claim to be assessed if not agreed, on a standard basis.
37. This was a fast track claim, but it lasted more than a day. The costs schedule is substantial. It seeks just short of £49,000. I am told that the schedule was served on Mr Griffin’s trustee in bankruptcy but was not served on Mr Griffin himself. So he may not have seen it. I shall order that there be a detailed assessment of the claimant’s costs. I shall however make an order under CPR rule 44.3(8) that the defendant do pay a sum of £25,000 by way of costs on account. I consider that to be a reasonable proportion of the sum claimed.
38. I shall hand down judgment on a date to be fixed as soon as possible. I release counsel from attending that hearing although any party or representative instructed may of course do so.
District Judge Watson
Posted: 16 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Duncan Cahill | on: Tuesday, 13 May 2014, 10:17
Well, it's been four months and so far 0 people out of the alleged 301,000 (190,000 bought from a company in India,) that follow the group on Facebook have taken up the offer to complain to the police about Golding's treatment.
Sometimes I guess the police do get it spot-on.
Posted: 13 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Monday, 12 May 2014, 15:24
Much has been made of the BNP's decision to continue with their protest against a non-existent Mosque application in Hemel Hempstead at the weekend.
According to the BNP it was "local activists" who went on the pointless exercise. I don't know about that, but there certainly were a few hardline Nazis there. Piers Mellor was there (from Australia) one hardline Nazi, and the ridiculous Eddie Stanton also turned up (he can't bear to be parted from Piers.)
Maybe the BNP were embarrassed to have Eddie there so they made him cover up and keep his right arm down. Does Paul Prodromou know that Stanton has obviously been robbing clothes off his washing line?
Stanton is on probation for nearly beating a former lover to death. He's such an "upstanding" member of the BNP family.
Also there was Rob Gray, the former C18 activist who was sent to prison for his activities.
What a desperate bunch these "locals" are.
Posted: 12 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Friday, 9 May 2014, 16:33
Paul Golding prepares for another Friday night propping up bars
Posted: 9 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Friday, 9 May 2014, 15:58
Paul Golding, apparently a resident of Comber, Northern Ireland, throwing his weight around. Expect him to start drinking lager at any moment to prove he is a "good Christian".
On the other side are followers of Anjem Choudary.
A plague on both their houses would allow all decent people to get on with life.
UPDATE: Paul Golding and three others have been arrested for criminal damage and breach of the peace
Posted: 9 May 2014 | There are 3 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Friday, 9 May 2014, 12:29
This promises to be a busy weekend. The English Defence League (EDL) will be defending their right to get drunk and arrested in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
According to the local paper, the cost for policing this booze fest is £500,000. With 1000 police officers on duty it will also work out to be something like five police officers for every drunken racist that bothers to turn up.
The National Front (NF), but not the officialNF, is holding an anti-Muslim demonstration in Newcastle on the same day. Interestingly, there has been a lot of sniping between the NF and the EDL over their rival demonstrations. There was a time, six months ago, when it looked like the entire far-right was going to kiss and make up. I guess this will not happen now and the NF's boneheaded brigade in the North East are determined to kill off the EDL. No doubt they'll all be passing each other on the motorway, both of them heading to tiny demonstrations.
It's been another not-too- busy week for the British National Party, too. Joy of the week, for me, was watching a twenty minute video where Adam Walker instructs people how to stand in a town centre shouting through a megaphone that the BNP is the fastest growing party in Britain. Make sure you follow Adam's instructions properly folks, doing it on your own, totally ignored by shoppers and the rest of the world.
Nick Griffin will be happy that he finally made the news, but possibly not too happy about the content. One of his lunatic rants about Jewish conspiracies was recorded by police officers and the content of it has just been released. These are desperate times for Griffin, what with him having to empty his office this week, but turning to the drug dealers, police grasses and animal abusers for help this weekend in putting out BNP literature shows how low the party has really sunk.
Britain First know a thing or two about sinking low. Last night they claimed they needed £500 to re-edit their election broadcast after the "fascist" BBC, according to Britain First, stopped it being broadcast. Not that it will make any difference to the idiots who at once gave them their money. But the BBC did not ban their broadcast at all. It seems the censors demanded that the children shown in the broadcast had consent forms signed by their parents before they could appear. So, here is the confusing bit: Did Britain First send a cameraman out to just film young children without their parents consent?
Or, how come the broadcast was deemed OK by ITV and shown after the news last night in the Borders region? And isn't it actually true, Britain First, that all the BBC wanted to do was actually, other than ensure the safety of those children, just synchronise the broadcast with other BBC regions?
So, people coughed up their monies that no doubt covered the £500 some amateur charges Britain First for half an hour's work. And what else did they get as well as that alleged £500? Paul Golding claims he spent four nights sleeping with "our young technical team". Maybe the BBC should look into that, also.
Posted: 9 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Duncan Cahill | on: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 12:13
Enough has been said already about the lies and dodgy dealings of Britain First. The group believes it is at war in places like Luton and the door steps of their factional rivals.
Their street leader, Paul Golding, has caused outrage and hurt to the family of Lee Rigby by using his name for his hate campaign in Wales. He has also raised the ire of military charities and people in Southend, Essex, by confusing them with a campaign to raise funds for his hate group but confusing people into thinking he represents a charity raising money for members of the armed forces, not his own gain.
Golding is standing in Wales at the European elections. He has given an address in Comber, Northern Ireland as his home address. HOPE not hate are aware of the address and can confirm the currently empty property is owned by Jim Dowson, Golding's mentor.
When Golding was arrested by anti-terror police in January of this year, Britain First reported that Golding was arrested at home, in Kent, England where he had once been a councillor.
In 2012 it was reported that Golding was flying to Northern Ireland to visit the "Flag Protests" there. And again, it was reported in November 2013 that Golding had once more travelled to Northern Ireland to address a protest meeting on behalf of Dowson, who cannot even go and get a packet of biscuits at the moment without the PSNI making sure he is not within 100 metres of decent, ordinary people.
It does make one wonder, if Mr Golding has been entirely honest about where he is actually living as there has been no actual sign of him actually living in Comber for nearly two years.
He does visit regularly, normally with a bucket as he and Jim try to con Unionist folk into giving them money.
Posted: 8 May 2014 | There are 6 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 09:48
Maybe it's because one of his candidates admires Nazi war criminals, but Nigel Farage seems to have attracted the support of one of Britain's most senior Nazis, the rabid anti-abortionist and former BNP fundraiser Jim Dowson.
Dowson has offered the services of his masked thugs to the UKIP leader to help him get into and out of meetings. In a statement issued on their website, Britain First say they are going to deploy "ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLES AND EX-MILITARY VOLUNTEERS TO PROTECT UKIP LEADER NIGEL FARAGE." And yes, they did shout it!
According to Britain First they and UKIP "are all patriots together" and UKIP may be "well presented in nice suites...but they cannot protect Mr Farage from the leftwing (sic) thugs who seem intent in intimidating him and perverting the democratic process."
Interesting that Britain First talk about perverting the democratic process. Dowson spends a great deal of his time like a dirty old man, harassing and intimidating young women going into family planning clinics. And his sidekick Paul Golding, another former BNP goon, likes to wear knickers on his head to remember Britain's war dead as well as raise money in what could be described as troubling circumstances.
Worryingly, Britain First boast they have "hundreds of ex-British Forces street activists and several armoured ex-army Land Rovers" to put at UKIP's disposal. A little bit of over egging there from Britain First, but it is true to say that they are spending a fair amount of time travelling the country in reasonable numbers looking for a punch up. They also like to stand with cans of lager outside of Mosques because they think that is what Jesus wants them to do.
It's unlikely that UKIP will take up the offer. Traditionally when Dowson "helps" somebody he also helps himself to the contents of their bank account while at it.
Last night there was a rather good humoured protest outside of one of Farage's meetings. The crowd outside were confronted by one of Dowson's kamikaze troops who offered to fight fifty people "one-on-one" around the corner.
Thankfully he was ignored. It turns out those cans of lager they go around offering, like everything else Dowson offers, are empty.
Posted: 8 May 2014 | There are 3 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 10:18
The BNP's Adam Walker has only a few days left in full employment as a staff member of Nick Griffin's Euro team. His legal bills are mounting up after the failed challenge to Michael Gove in the courts over this piece of stupidity. And he's also still having to pay former member Mark Collett monthly, over another disastrous legal episode.
It's panic stations for Walker. The BNP will not be keeping him on as a staff member once Griffin gets dumped. Aware of this, Walker has done virtually no party work in his capacity as national organiser, hence the lack of BNP candidates around the country where it was his responsibility to organsie them.
He's sulking. He's not even managed to get in on the "family business" side of things. All access to back handers and dodgy cash has been seemingly denied to him. So was the chance to be lead candidate in the Yorkshire and Humberside region for the Euros. Is it any wonder he throws his toys out of the pram over petrol money with the local branches?
It's unlikely with a CV that includes working for the BNP and banned for life from teaching, that anyone will employ him. He can't even get away with doing what Griffin's bodyguard has done, and just apply for jobs without mentioning the BNP at all.
Now the word is that Adam has put his house on the market in Spennymoor. Tough times for Adam. One caller to our office even claimed he has refused an offer on the property because it was made by a gay couple.
Surely, not. He would not be that stupid, given he knows fulll well how his luck is with the law. Must be some kind of misunderstanding...
Posted: 7 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Tuesday, 6 May 2014, 15:05
Today's Belfast Telegraph carries a very welcome condemnation and attack on the activities of racist gangs in Northern Ireland who continue to carry out violent assaults on people there.
Elsewhere the Ballymena Guardian announces that another racist gang, the British National Party (BNP) are to stand two candidates in the Mid and East Antrim 'super' council election.
The two candidates are Robert Bell and Steven Moore who will be standing in the Coast Road District Electoral area.
Moore is well known to us. He's like the 'Comical Ali' of both the BNP and stupidity in general. He's been keeping a low profile since his leader Nick Griffin ran into trouble over the non-payment of bills in Belfast and was even "put out" by representatives of the Progressive Unionist Party on one visit.
But, having not been blessed with many brain cells, Moore is back trying once more to convince the people of Northern Ireland that the BNP is not toxic and stupid.
Well, they are and he is no doubt still a Hitler admiring idiot who finds jokes about rape and racist violence amusing. And the BNP are still thieves.
Posted: 6 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Tuesday, 6 May 2014, 10:28
Over the weekend Nick Griffin was called a "lying imbecile" and described as "warped" by his former co-accused at their infamous rate hate trial back in 2006.
The comments were made by Mark Collett who went from working for the British National Party (BNP) leader, to designing pizza leaflets and also leaflets for the English Dems. Oh how the mighty have fallen..
Collett found himself given the boot by the BNP in 2010 after he was uncovered by the BNP's Gestapo to be involved in some kind of weird plot to have his former mentor murdered. It probably was not true, but it was just another brilliant way the BNP ensured their election campaign would collapse into dissaray and the general public would see them as a laughing stock. And laugh we did.
Collett has been very activce of late being chummy with a whole host of former BNP Nazis. All except that is, for the ones in the National Front. They once kidnapped him and held his hostage, putting the film on line for people to see.
As for lying, well, the BNP would do well to remember their lies. Back in 2011 Nick Griffin wrote angrily of devolution stating "Westminster puppets encouraged the breakup of the UK through devolution in Scotland and Wales." He was very angry about it, particularly as no-one in those two countries votes for his party.
"Our main message is the people of Wales should rule Wales.
"At the moment, parliament is ruled by foreigners, interlopers and the sons and daughters of those people and most of them are millionaires, they're not real people."
Looks like Griffin is not the only liar and imbecile.
Posted: 6 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Tuesday, 6 May 2014, 09:27
As well as Richard Edmonds standing in Sutton there's a few other candidates to watch for at these elections. Tess Culnane was dubbed the "Nazi Granny" when she worked for the British National Party (BNP). She's been in and out of the BNP and the National Front (NF) and is currently, like Edmonds, in the wrong faction of the NF so has to stand as an independent in the Downham ward, Lewisham.
Another former BNP high flyer, Michael Barnbrook, has reared his head to stand as an indepedent in Bexley in the Blackfen and Lamorbey Ward. Barnbrook is standing with the Bexley Action Group. He fails to mention on their website that he is a former member of the Nazi party.
And finally, for now, an interesting name popped up last week. That name was Graham Williamson who used to be a member of the Gaddafi worshiping sect of the NF led by Nick Griffin and Patrick Harrington. He was at the forefront of that sect's slip into oblivion and weirdness. I once stood next to him when we were in competing factions of the NF, selling racist newspapers at Brick Lane in East London. The front page of his paper, National Front News had the headline "It's a hard life being a dolphin". We assumed there had been a mistake at the NF's printers and it was meant to say "It's a hard life being Adolf.." Anyway, read what he's been up to here.
There is nothing to report from Barnsley, where Terry Hubbard is blaming Adam Walker for there being no BNP candidates this year. The English Dems seem to have most of the former BNP candidates standing for them instead, anyway.
Posted: 6 May 2014 | There are 1 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Monday, 5 May 2014, 11:40
We've always known the BNP is a nasty party. Vulgar, racist and stupid are just some of the things that spring to mind.
And dangerous. One of their candidates has even suggested throwing acid in the face of women previously.
The throwing of acid has raised its ugly head again in the guise of John Philips, one of the regular morons on BNP/NF and South East Alliance activities.
Philips is a member of Dagenham BNP and hangs around London with anyone as racist and stupid as him. Yesterday he took exception to the ditribution of HOPE not hate newspapers in Havering. The people distributing the newspapers were a mixutre of men and women of different ages and of course, young people who want to live in a society where people like Philips are stuck with the rest of the dinosaurs-in a museum somewhere.
Philips was hoping that someone threw acid at them. What a sad little man. Still, what do you expect of the BNP?
Posted: 5 May 2014 | There are 2 comments | make a comment/view comments
posted by: Matthew Collins | on: Friday, 2 May 2014, 11:00
Who’d be Paul Golding? His old mates in the British National Party (BNP) seem to be hell bent on doing whatever they can to help muddy his name. This is some thanks for him bailing out on his kamikaze attempt on unseating Nick Griffin.
The infamous “knickers on the head” picture finally surfaced of Paul paying respect to British war dead in the same week that he upset the family of Lee Rigby by forgetting to alter the name he was meant to be standing in the North West under.
Last night a series of discussions surfaced by disaffected former Golding ‘friends’ about how Britain First activists divide up the cash they have collected, presumably from pretending they are collecting for Help For Heroes.
The BNP has trouble of their own, anyway. People simply do not care what they think or do, no matter how hard they try. Yesterday they were bragging they had “the most watched party election broadcast in British history”. It’s probably the same thing OJ Simpson said about his car chase.
The lack of interest in the BNP’s fortunes will mean Nick Griffin and co will have to find another stunt to get into the news. I know I always mention it, but, let’s hope he doesn’t get excited over a curry again..
What they did not want, which happened last night, was someone to hack one of their Twitter accounts and broadcast to their 7000 followers some rather unsavoury things. Still, the BNP do say that they say what you’re thinking at home.
To keep themselves firmly inthe minds of the British public that they are backwards, stupid and moronic the BNP will be having a protest against a Mosque planning application that does not actually exist.
I don’t mention UKIP much, but one has to be amazed by the palaver yesterday when we published a list of all their and other far-right candidates. It seems some were unaware that this information was readily available! Wait until they discover their names and addresses are actually published online by the local councils and the names and addresses of their nominators too. Maybe this is so Bulgarians know where not to move when they arrive in the country looking for work.
They (UKIP) seem to be under the impression that there is a massive smear campaign against them. Perhaps they should also be told that it is not a smear when you did actually say the things you are quoted as saying. Bless them, they really are quite amateur at times.
Posted: 2 May 2014 | There are 0 comments | make a comment/view comments