heaven above
11-11-2004, 12:55 PM
Mr. GRIFFIN MOVES THE GOALPOSTS – AGAIN!
Those receiving this circular will probably be aware of the recent move by the Griffin/Lecomber leadership of the British National Party to suspend me from party membership pending the hearing by a disciplinary tribunal of thirteen – yes, thirteen! -- charges against me.
This suspension and notification of charges came in September, very shortly after I had announced in July that I intended to challenge Mr. Griffin in an election for the party leadership.
I have examined the charges, and all but one of them relate to alleged misdeeds by me taking place not later than May this year. Of those, all but two occurred not later than February this year. In other words, of thirteen charges, ten relate to events that occurred in or before February 2004 – a full seven months before the charges were issued and the suspension made!
All of which invite the question: if I am supposed to have done wrong in respect of these ten charges, why were they not made and I not suspended shortly after February 2004?
The answer should not need spelling out. It was not until July that I announced the intention to stand against Mr. Griffin!
But that is not all.
Mr. Griffin has now made another move. In the latest (November 2004) BNP general members’ bulletin it is announced that a number of changes are being made to the party’s constitution, to take effect from publication of the bulletin. The most significant of these reads as follows:-
Section 6, Discipline: Insert a new Sub-section 2: "Once the constitutionally defined internal disciplinary mechanisms of the party as outlined in this Section are exhausted in regard to the disciplinary procedures and proceedings, then the decision of the disciplinary tribunal is final and binding on the member concerned. As such, members (including those who have been disciplined or expelled) legally affirm and agree that they will not seek any external legal (or non-legal) review of any disciplinary tribunal or its procedures (JT emphasis). They also agree and affirm that they will accept the decision of any disciplinary tribunal as final and binding."
It is blatantly obvious that this new clause is being inserted to prevent me seeking legal redress against the almost certain expulsion that it is intended will result from the hearing of the new charges against me, which has been fixed for December 4th. It will be recalled that following similar charges against me last year, and my subsequent expulsion, I took the matter to law. My solicitor had applied to the High Court in London for a review of the case, having advised me that the court was likely to find in my favour, annul the expulsion and order my reinstatement. At the last moment Mr. Griffin, presumably having been thus advised by his own solicitor, made an out-of-court settlement with me and agreed to annulment and reinstatement. I was reinstated, but the cause of nationalism was rendered over £12,000 the poorer by the costs of the action (which would of course have been immeasurably greater had it gone to court). As it was, this was a high price to pay for Mr. Griffin’s paranoia.
Mr. Griffin knows very well that if I am expelled on his latest charges I shall be forced to do the same again, and bring the matter to law. His latest constitutional manoeuvre is clearly intended to prevent this.
My own case aside, the move is also clearly intended to give the party leadership licence in the future to kick out any other member upon Mr. Griffin’s personal whim if that member happened to meet with his disapproval. All that would be needed would be another kangaroo court appointed by Mr. Griffin or on his authority, which would be comprised of lackeys who could be relied upon to deliver the verdict that he ordered, and against which the victim would have no legal redress.
What is somewhat amusing in the quoted constitutional amendment is the passage which says that members … "will legally affirm and agree…" In what way agree? Perhaps when sitting in a disused warehouse tied to a chair with a pen thrust in their hand and electrodes being held close to their most sensitive parts!
I shall straightaway be placing the matter of this constitutional change in the hands of my solicitor to seek his advice as to whether such a new clause can ever be legally binding – which I suspect it cannot.
JOHN TYNDALL
PO Box 2471
Hove
East Sussex BN3 4DT
Those receiving this circular will probably be aware of the recent move by the Griffin/Lecomber leadership of the British National Party to suspend me from party membership pending the hearing by a disciplinary tribunal of thirteen – yes, thirteen! -- charges against me.
This suspension and notification of charges came in September, very shortly after I had announced in July that I intended to challenge Mr. Griffin in an election for the party leadership.
I have examined the charges, and all but one of them relate to alleged misdeeds by me taking place not later than May this year. Of those, all but two occurred not later than February this year. In other words, of thirteen charges, ten relate to events that occurred in or before February 2004 – a full seven months before the charges were issued and the suspension made!
All of which invite the question: if I am supposed to have done wrong in respect of these ten charges, why were they not made and I not suspended shortly after February 2004?
The answer should not need spelling out. It was not until July that I announced the intention to stand against Mr. Griffin!
But that is not all.
Mr. Griffin has now made another move. In the latest (November 2004) BNP general members’ bulletin it is announced that a number of changes are being made to the party’s constitution, to take effect from publication of the bulletin. The most significant of these reads as follows:-
Section 6, Discipline: Insert a new Sub-section 2: "Once the constitutionally defined internal disciplinary mechanisms of the party as outlined in this Section are exhausted in regard to the disciplinary procedures and proceedings, then the decision of the disciplinary tribunal is final and binding on the member concerned. As such, members (including those who have been disciplined or expelled) legally affirm and agree that they will not seek any external legal (or non-legal) review of any disciplinary tribunal or its procedures (JT emphasis). They also agree and affirm that they will accept the decision of any disciplinary tribunal as final and binding."
It is blatantly obvious that this new clause is being inserted to prevent me seeking legal redress against the almost certain expulsion that it is intended will result from the hearing of the new charges against me, which has been fixed for December 4th. It will be recalled that following similar charges against me last year, and my subsequent expulsion, I took the matter to law. My solicitor had applied to the High Court in London for a review of the case, having advised me that the court was likely to find in my favour, annul the expulsion and order my reinstatement. At the last moment Mr. Griffin, presumably having been thus advised by his own solicitor, made an out-of-court settlement with me and agreed to annulment and reinstatement. I was reinstated, but the cause of nationalism was rendered over £12,000 the poorer by the costs of the action (which would of course have been immeasurably greater had it gone to court). As it was, this was a high price to pay for Mr. Griffin’s paranoia.
Mr. Griffin knows very well that if I am expelled on his latest charges I shall be forced to do the same again, and bring the matter to law. His latest constitutional manoeuvre is clearly intended to prevent this.
My own case aside, the move is also clearly intended to give the party leadership licence in the future to kick out any other member upon Mr. Griffin’s personal whim if that member happened to meet with his disapproval. All that would be needed would be another kangaroo court appointed by Mr. Griffin or on his authority, which would be comprised of lackeys who could be relied upon to deliver the verdict that he ordered, and against which the victim would have no legal redress.
What is somewhat amusing in the quoted constitutional amendment is the passage which says that members … "will legally affirm and agree…" In what way agree? Perhaps when sitting in a disused warehouse tied to a chair with a pen thrust in their hand and electrodes being held close to their most sensitive parts!
I shall straightaway be placing the matter of this constitutional change in the hands of my solicitor to seek his advice as to whether such a new clause can ever be legally binding – which I suspect it cannot.
JOHN TYNDALL
PO Box 2471
Hove
East Sussex BN3 4DT