Here we go!”
“There are becoming increasing concerns amongst committed current and former party members (Party Members) regarding the way the Party’s administration structures and party finances are being run. The more information which seems to be coming to the fore these days all seem to confirm the concrete basis of these concerns, and it is becoming very evident to those Party Members that changes need to be made in order for the party to be in a position to progress and grow further.
Several of these concerns revolve around the Party’s finances. For instance, the apparent deception to the whole of the membership of the BNP regarding the appeal, collection and spending of funds to ‘purchase’ the ‘Truth Truck’ several months ago. Coupled with this was a large appeal for funds to ‘purchase’ state of the art office and communication facilities for the Party. More recently there are questions regarding the interactions and possible intermingling of the Party’s monies and expenditure with the official European Union monies and liabilities of elected officials of the party to the European parliament.
Section 41 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 states:
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must ensure that accounting records are kept with respect to the party which are sufficient to show and explain the party’s transactions.
(2) The accounting records must be such as to—
(a) disclose at any time, with reasonable accuracy, the financial position of the party at that time; and
(b) enable the treasurer to ensure that any statement of accounts prepared by him under section 42 complies with the requirements of regulations under subsection (2)(a) of that section.
(3) The accounting records must in particular contain—
(a) entries showing from day to day all sums of money received and expended by the party, and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure take place; and
(b) a record of the assets and liabilities of the party.
(4) The treasurer must ensure that any accounting records made for the purposes of this section in respect of the party are preserved for at least six years from the end of the financial year of the party in which they are made.
Is it surely not unreasonable, in my opinion, that if the membership may begin to suspect that section 41 is not being complied with, then there should be an examination undertaken.
From examination of the party’s accounts held at the electoral commission, it would seem that the accounts for 2006 and 2008 were both delivered late to the commissioners. Since 2003 the accounts have been audited, and a clean audit opinion was given for the accounts for the years ending 31st December 2003, 04, 05 and 06.
However, following 2006 this changed, and the auditors have given qualified statements in the 2007 and 2008 accounts. It seems superficially evident from the accounts that the volume of transactions has overwhelmed the recording systems in place, and the abilities of staff to keep a record of them. However, there could be far more sinister reasons behind just why financial matters seem to have left the rails. Total income recorded was £726,455 in 2006, £611,274 in 2007 and £985,722 during 2008. The overall expenditure exceeded income by £50,582 in 2007 and £82,642 in 2008. By 31st December 2008 the party was technically insolvent, its liabilities exceeding its assets by some £168,233, albeit £125,712 of this was for subscriptions received in advance, and one would assume that the party retained all or the great majority of this pre-paid income.
It has been recently announced that the Electoral Commission are investigating the 2008 accounts. 2009 accounts have not yet been filed with the Commissioners.
It is clear that new systems need to be put in place, run by staff who are capable of keeping on top of the finances and ensuring complete transparency, something which is lacking with the current systems. The Party’s income is around £1 million per annum, and it cannot be too difficult a task to maintain proper accounting records for this level of activity. Information seems to have recently surfaced that an accountant has now been appointed to take over the book-keeping of the party. Good news one would at first surmise, but this information also indicates that this accountant is a ‘friend’ of Dowson. This, in itself, raises further suspicions.
So what should the members do regarding these, and other, concerns. Firstly, it cannot be considered that one option be to do nothing. To ‘turn a blind eye’ to these, and other, matters will have the twin effect of signalling to the party’s management that we, the members, consider the way the party is being administered to be acceptable, and it will also have the eventual effect of the party’s demise.
It is felt imperative that sweeping changes are made. Clearly the links between the party and Dowson have to be broken. These links should be a complete break, not just a push away to arms length. Under the present leadership it has been made clear that there will be no break.
So it is imperative that those currently at the helm of the party, and in particular the party’s leader, should either resign, which is the preferable way forward, or be removed. It is felt doubtful that Griffin will resign of his own accord.
Thus a leadership challenge would seem the only option, and one I would support. However, running alongside this is the matter of the way the party’s finances have been run. It is this I would address in this document.
5) Failing any knowledge of the current members, then use of the ‘leaked lists’, although there are legal implications surrounding this which will have to be considered.
But, in all these matters, the first consideration needs to be liaison and coordination of like minded members and former members around the country, with a possible meeting(s) set up either regionally or nationally. From this a signatory group needs to be formed to both commence a leadership challenge and institute a formal demand to examine the financial and administrative systems. It is felt to be both unfair and impractical for just one person, at this stage at least, to be put forward as a leadership challenger, and have everything fall on his/her shoulders. Eventually this will be necessary, but this leader can be firstly elected by the signatory group, and then put to the members in a formal election as laid down in the constitution.
I don’t argue that the suggestions contained herewith will be easy. We are looking at a very steep mountain to climb, one which, as things stand at present, Griffin and Dowson hold the reins of power, but, as mentioned before, to do nothing is not felt to be an option. However, in time, as progress is made, it is felt that more whistleblowers will emerge from the woodwork with facts and information to assist in the ensuing battle.
But if successful, proper transparent financial, administrative and leadership systems can be put in place to take the Party forward.
I do not know how the mainstream media, the establishment and the unpatriotic Reds who infest our country will respond to this. However, I am sure they will respond, probably with mirth and derision. But nevertheless a successful campaign will put in place leaders and administrators who they will fear, because it will make the party more acceptable to ordinary voters and the public. That, of course, they fear the most.
And what do we, the campaigners and challengers have to fear. Well, our memberships will be rescinded (for those of us who are still members), but what value is our individual membership anyway to a party that is going nowhere except into bankruptcy?
And if the campaign is lost, the situation will only be that we are back to where we are now.
These are my thoughts and suggestions and if others have any further suggestions then I would welcome these for consideration by a possible steering committee.”