From the Stormfront UK forum.

Originally Posted by :
Rather to your correspondent’s surprise, the BNP central accounting unit’s accounts for the year ending 31st December 2007 were delivered to the Electoral Commission only only slightly late. The regional accounting unit did even better. It filed only one day late. Sadly for Griffin loyalists (a diminishing band) that, and the apparently impressive increase in membership (but more of that anon) is where the good news begins and ends.

As usual, for those who can read between the lines (or even simply read) there is much of interest in these eccentric accounts.

Welshpoolologists will begin by asking themselves why it is that the BNP’s hapless and hopeless former treasurer, “Johnny” Walker “walked” weeks before the 2007 accounts had to be filed, leaving his successor, Jenny Noble, the doubtful pleasure of submitting them? Had Mr Walker gracefully retired from office after filing the 2007 accounts, his departure might have passed with little comment. As it is, his departure seems precipitate, to say the least.

Former fund manager Mrs Noble has taken on an unattractive portfolio: the treasurer of the BNP is legally answerable for irregularities in the party’s accounts under s.47 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but, as Mr Griffin himself observes at page 4 of the 2007 accounts, the party leader has sole control of administration and finances.

That much underrated Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, once reproached the great press barons Beaverbrook and Rothermere for seeking “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot down the ages.”

The treasurer of the BNP is in the distinctly less desirable position of having responsibility without power. Nor should she expect thanks or even trust as a reward for her endeavours. On the contrary, at page 4 of the 2007 accounts Mr Griffin repeats the annual insult to the treasurer, which is his transparent pretext for keeping the BNP’s fund-raising arm, the Trafalgar Club, under his direct personal control:

In order to avoid the danger of ‘all eggs in one basket’, the National Treasurer is not permitted to handle this body’s finances.

Quite how Mr Griffin can find essentially decent people willing to tolerate so disgraceful a slur on their integrity from a former bankrupt and seedy used (Japanese) car salesman is one of the many mysteries of tyranny that any free man or woman will never (thankfully) understand. But on to the meat of the accounts.

Let’s begin with a real shocker. The auditors express the opinion that:

the financial statements do not:

1. Give a true and fair view of the state of the party’s affairs at 31st December 2007.

2. Give a true and fair view of the state of the results for the year then ended.

So the BNP (prop. N. Griffin) fails the most basic test of any undertaking. It cannot provide reliable accounts. The fault of course is not with Chairman Nick, even though “the party leader has sole control of administration and finances.” (N. Griffin)

This year’s scapegoat is former head of administration, Kenny Smith, who, it is said at page 3 of the chairman’s report, has refused point blank to account for large amounts of expenditure.

There are two problems with this “explanation.” The first is that, as Mr Griffin, wary of the risk of a libel writ, admits, “Much of it undoubtedly was properly spent”. The second is that while Mr Griffin advances a fanciful figure of £70,000 for “unaccounted income” at page 8 of the chairman’s report, the figure given in the accounts themselves at p. 16 is only £18,271.

What the accounts do not tell members, but anyone who was present in the High Court at Manchester on 10th April 2008 will know, is that in the proceedings that Mr Griffin has brought against Mr Smith and others, Mr Griffin is only claiming £4,050 from Mr Smith, who has a counterclaim for unpaid wages, so it can fairly be presumed that the balance of the £18,271 (£14,221) was on Mr Griffin’s admission, properly spent on party business.

Moving on to the figures for the central accounting unit, income is down sharply. While membership dues are up by 44% from £145,445 in 2006 to £210,354 in 2007, donations are down by 32%, from £289,492 to £198,023. Income from commercial activities is down by 29% from £246,004 to £175,286, and income from fundraising activities is down by 40% from £38,970 to £23,433. The end result, taking other, minor sources of income into account is a fall in income of £115,181 (15.8%) from £726,455 in 2006 to £611,274 in 2007.

Notable features of the decline in income from commercial activities are the falls in sales of Identity (from £44,801 in 2006 to only £32,487 in 2007 and Voice of Freedom, from £66,541 to £57,347, which are difficult to reconcile with the official picture of an increasing membership, especially in the case of Identity, which presumably sells mainly at branch meetings). I will discuss this point further in the context of the regional accounting unit.

The chaos following the expulsion of several senior and once respected inner party members (who are now all unpersons) may account for the wild fluctuations in the figures for Excalibur, which might not therefore be truly comparable with 2006. It would therefore be unfair to dwell too much on this point.

Expenditure is down too, though staff, management and administration costs remain stubbornly high. Staff costs amount to over 42% of income (after adding back the re-charge to commercial activities which massages the figures), while management and administration costs are more than 27% of income. In other words, about 70% of the party’s income is spent on staff and administrative costs, and that is not counting Mr Collett’s take from printing the leaflets.

Only £47,167 (7.7% of income) was spent on campaigning in 2007. While that represents an apparently commendable increase in campaign expenditure from £19,016 (or 2.6% of income) in 2006, it is made up almost entirely of leaflet costs (£45,213). The monopoly supplier of leaflets is Mr Griffin’s widely disliked special friend, Mark Collett, so much of this money has presumably gone into the pockets of his Young, Nazi and Proud favourite.

£1,000 of the £1,276 of the so-called campaign expenditure broken down as party registration fees is in fact the fine imposed by the Electoral Commission because Messrs Griffin and Walker were so late in filing the 2006 accounts. I was wondering how this sum would be disguised. Now we know.

The reduction in expenditure is by £45,742 (or 6.4%), whereas income has fallen by £115,181 (or 15.8%), the result of which, as Mr Micawber (surely a role model for Mr Griffin) might say is misery.

A straw in the wind is the sharp increase in bank charges (note 4 at p. 16) from £823 in 2006 to £5,890 in 2007. That suggests a party whose account is in chronic overdraft beyond the agreed limits. It will be seen from the alarming note to the regional accounting unit’s accounts that this explanation is all too likely to be true.

Coming to the bottom line, current assets at the year end for the central accounting unit were £31,385 as against current liabilities of £161,103, which include a forced loan from the branches of £41,831 and unpaid PAYE and VAT of £20,492. Since the £41,831 was taken from the British Heritage tax account, no wonder that PAYE and VAT are so late. Not content with keeping the tax man and the VAT man waiting (they charge high interest for the privilege) head office has launched a massive raid on branch funds to keep going. More of this business anon.

All these figures can be found at note 7 on page 18. They are truly shocking (current liabilities are more than five times current assets) and indicate insolvency on the cash flow test.

The central accounting unit recorded a deficit of £50,582 in 2007 (compared to the small surplus of £18,857 in 2006 so much trumpeted abroad by Mr Griffin), so that it has a carried forward deficit of £85,591. It is therefore balance sheet insolvent as well as cash flow insolvent.

It is however arguably necessary to consolidate the regional accounting unit’s accounts with those of the central accounting unit to obtain an overall view of the party’s position. Actually this is a debatable point. Legally, the party’s creditors, including unpaid tradesmen (to whom £21,023 was owed at the year end; see page 18) and Her Majesty’s Customs & Revenue may have recourse against branch funds for what head office owes them. On the other hand, there is at least an expectation by the party’s rank and file that money donated to branch funds will be used for local campaigning.

I shall proceed on the strict legal view that the party is a single unincorporated association, so that its accounts should be consolidated.

The accounts of the regional accounting unit are truly remarkable, and suggest that the party has no effective internal controls. £147,119 (or more than half the total income of £291,114 in the RAU) consists of unanalysed and unattributable donations to branch funds. Put another way, the RAU does not know where more than half of its income came from.

The £90,782 of campaign expenditure, up from £36,673 in 2006, is almost all attributable to an increase in the cost of leaflets from £36,533 in 2006 to £89,542 in 2007.

Whether that represents an increase in the demand for leaflets, or increased costs charged by the monopoly supplier Mark Collett compared to commercial printers in a competitive market is an unanswered question. Why not ask Mr Hannam? (if, that is, you wish to be expelled and libelled as a left wing infiltrator, neo-Nazi and Tory reactionary all at the same time).

The charge to branches for supplying reduced numbers of the party publications is also sharply up, in the case of Identity from £16,680 in 2006 to £22,385 in 2007, and in the case of VofF from £34,699 to £52,256. Sales on the other hand have declined from £11,360 to £8,170 for Identity, and £26,001 to £19,741 for VofF.

These figures suggest a leadership which, not content with raiding branch funds for a “loan”, is extracting yet more money from the branches by raising the costs of publications that the branches are bound to buy in fixed quantities, and can only sell at a loss. They also throw into question the credibility of the supposed increase in membership. If membership is up, why are sales of the party’s two publications down?

Last but not least, the forced loan. As Dave Hannam tactfully puts it at p. 8 of the RAU’s accounts:

During 2007 central office borrowed from the regional accounting unit. It is the aim of central office to repay this internal loan with monthly standing orders.

Unfortunately for Dave, the auditors are less sanguine about this piece of wishful thinking. At page 10, they say:

. . . at the year end the party owed the Region £42,000 and the reason why this is the case is that it had insufficient funds, which places doubts on the ability of the Party to repay this money.

Indeed it does. Looking at the RAU’s balance sheet at p. 14 of its accounts (by the way, page 13 is missing), no provision is made against the £41,831, even though the auditors think that it is a doubtful debt. If it were to prove irrecoverable, as seems likely, the branches will have lost a large amount of money. What is the betting that not a penny piece has been paid back yet? How will branch officials react when the penny drops (or doesn’t drop, because Mr Griffin has spent it)? Time alone will tell.

So where does that leave the BNP? The answer is almost certainly, facing its annual financial crisis significantly earlier this year because of the various debts from 2007 that will need to be paid out of 2008's income. In effect part of 2008's income is “mortgaged” to pay last year’s liabilities. Suppliers would be unwise to give credit to such an organisation. Prudent branch treasurers should be setting up local patriots’ clubs independent of the party, whose accounts cannot be raided by head office to pay its bills.

Whether Mr Griffin will be able to keep his rickety vehicle on the road long enough to have a second run at the Strasbourg seat that he so covets is looking increasingly doubtful. He must be hoping desperately that it will, for only a win at the Euros (surely a remote possibility as the overall number of seats in England and Wales is being reduced, so that the percentage needed to win a seat will go up in 2009) will save the BNP from following all Mr Griffin’s previous enterprises into bankruptcy.

E.N. Ronn, London, England


Reprinted from Heritage and Destiny magazine (issue 34 – October/December 2008). Copies available for £3.00 from BCM Box 7318, London, WC1N 3XX; or $5.00 from PO Box 6501, Falls Church, VA 22046
__________________

[Rep]

I doubt very much that most contributors to this forum give a damn about these so called revelations from the Stormfront forum, a repository for the opinions of neo-nazis and other cranks. They may however be surprised that they were posted by a man whose obsession with undermining the British National Party under its current leader seems to dominate his life, but masquerades on here as a vehement opponent of the very views expressed on that forum!

But let us face facts and let the reader be the judge. This piece of journalism was written by one of the more erudite members of the British nationalist community the barrister Adrian Davies. Adrian has long been an opponent of Nick Griffin and was the leader of the now defunct Freedom Party. He has also defended a number of defendants from nationalist parties from the "holocaust deniers" Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle to the Sadie Graham faction of the BNP in their action against Nick Griffin earlier this year.

Secondly Heritage & Destiny is the magazine of the tiny England First Party, which emerged from the openly neo-nazi British Peoples Party/Aryan Unity organizations formed by veteran national socialist Eddy Morrison. Strange associates you have here Spencer!

The EFP claims that under Griffin the BNP has "watered down" its policies and "sold out", although revelations of coloured councillors and candidates with mixed race children compromised this ambiguous hardline stance somewhat. It remains an insignificant but vocal thorn to the the right of the BNP gathering in a few decrepit old hardliners and malcontents from the good old days when John Tyndall led the BNP to the dizzy heights of electing one councillor for two months in 1992.

Personally, I respect Adrian Davies, who is an articulate and indeed eloquent man, and of course is entirely entitled to his views and assessment of the current political scene. But to cite this obscure magazine as a relevant reference point is like citing the Workers Revolutionary Party as an important assessor of the broader Labour movement in the first decade of the twenty first century.
[Rep]

I leave it to the interested to decide the worth of the article and whether its provenance affects their assessment of it's accuracy.

Didn't read it myself. The case is closed on the competence, financial or otherwise, of the BNP as far as I am concerned.
[Rep]

There is an irony, that is not lost on me Spencer, that you still remain a British nationalist and desire the imposition of radical change to arrest the decline of this once great nation, as much as I or anyone else does. I also think your grievances are publicised more through frustration at the lack of genuine political progress rather than any malevolent attitude to any particular party, including the BNP.

My main disagreement with you is that I believe that when mistakes have been made, inlcluding financial ones, that these are the product of operating on a tight shoestring rather than more sinister motives. That the BNP oeprates on a tiny budget is well acknowledged, as are mistakes when they occur. It is of course important to realise that much of this criticism is done from two angles, first those that genuinely do so from a positive critical viewpoint and those who stir for their own political agenda. That however shouldn't preclude criticism in an open and democratic party, nor should the right to address those criticisms.
[Rep]

*Yawn* Change the record please.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by blueblood1920:
*Yawn* Change the record please.

You change it, it's your record not mine.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Vortex:
I doubt very much that most contributors to this forum give a damn about these so called revelations from the Stormfront forum, a repository for the opinions of neo-nazis and other cranks.

I beg to differ - this piece by Adrian Davies was very interesting, and should be of interest to everyone who loves his country and wants to see a thriving nationalist party. Unfortunately this shows that there are still grave areas for concern. 5k on bank fees alone is a colossal waste of money. I can only hope that the crooks and spin doctors who run the current BNP are soon removed once and for all, because we can't afford the sabotage of our nation's hope. But turning a blind eye and refusing to believe this article isn't going to make the problems disappear. Nor is shooting the messenger.
[Rep]

First of all FE welcome back to the forum. Secondly, you will have noted that I am careful to point out the following facts:-

1. There is a need for the party to be transparent and open, and recently the Advisory Council meeting minutes have been made publicly available on the BNP website.

2. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made but believe that this is the result of mismanagement due to operating on a shoestring budget mainly, but also errors of judgement have been made and these should be open to criticism as long as its positive. To repeat an article from Stormfront, without having read it as Spencer (Wowbanger) admits in this very thread is ambiguous to say the least! The article was penned by Adrian Davies, who is an intelligent observer of the nationalist scene, but is very hostile to Nick Griffin, so his interpretation of the facts should be assessed in the light of that.

3. Having looked at the SF thread this came from, it was posted by Peter Rushton, of Heritage & Destiny magazine and main speaker at many right wing meetings including the neo-nazi BPP, the EFP and the John Tyndall memorial group, all of whom have their own opinion of the moderating direction the BNP has taken.
[Rep]

Thanks for the welcome Vortex. I post on here from time to time, but there isn't a whole lot I can do from this distance, and I mainly just come on here to read news - there isn't much to be gained from arguing all the time, and no matter how bad the BNP is, we must still support it because there isn't anything else, and time is fast running out. Nor am I in a position to criticize as I have done (out of frustration mainly), since you guys are on the ground; i am not. However I do find these figures quite disturbing in light of everything that has happened, and however unpleasant reading it is, I would rather know what's going on. It's hard to put a good spin on them, even if Adrian Davies is hostile. But all is not doom and gloom; things can change very quickly in politics.
[Rep]

bnp members get out while you can, i sure did
[Rep]