EXPOSED: HOW THE STATE PROTECTED SOLIDARITY
Part 1 of this article concluded with the National Executive Committee of Solidarity (or Solidarity ‘A’) making submissions from 2007 to 2008 to the Certification Officer regarding allegations of financial irregularities against its expelled General Secretary, Patrick Harrington, who had gone on to hijack the Union along with the Chairman of the BNP, Nick Griffin.
Solidarity ‘A’ submitted several documents pertaining to their allegations to the Inspector and laid out the claims and evidence testifying to their case. The Inspector responded with several letters (amongst them see figures1, 2, 3). Solidarity ‘A’ responded with a letter dated 8 September 2007 explaining the financial anomalies (see Figure 4)
In 2009 the Inspector appointed by the Certification Office sent out a draft report to both parties, which led to Mr Potter, the President of Solidarity (then representing Solidarity ‘A’) responding with his revisions and criticisms of the Report (see figure 5). The Inspector responded to Mr Potter’s comments (see figure 6)
It was during this time that Harrington suddenly produced the missing receipt for £39 for printing expenses (a receipt which Potter and Hawke suggested to the Certification Officer was manufactured later). In the final report the Financial Inspector, Walker, seemed to accept without question Harrington’s version of events and explanations for such things as no proper cash records:
“Given the small amounts of money involved and the apparent authenticity of the receipts presented to me, I declined to investigate further in the absence of any evidence that the receipts were not authentic”. One could say that there was no evidence that the receipts were in fact authentic at all. So much for the ‘investigation’ of this supposed Inspector.
In the report however the Inspector did manage to get out of Harrington that he was indeed asked formally for the PayPal information relating to the Union account and that he accepted that he did not give this information to Mr Potter – a clear case of both Union misconduct and the fraudulent use of finances.
Walker did recognise the clear fact that Harrington had breached Rule 15 of the Union which required accountants to audit the accounts, which Harrington failed to do. Since then Solidarity changed the rules to ensure that the accounts are done in-house rather than impartially and professionally, a far more convenient arrangement for Harrington no doubt.
The Report itself is reproduced below in its entirety (see Figure 7) and seems to have been a whitewash by any cursory examination. Both Harrington and Griffin published material about the conclusion of this Report, citing it as evidence that the Solidarity internal struggle was based on some form of ‘wrecking’ and ‘infiltration’, and that the Inspector had ‘exonerated’ Harrington and the BNP-backed Solidarity Union that had been hijacked from the original Executive.
It is not intended to discuss the Inspector’s Report in any detail, given that Mr Potter offered a critique of it on his post-Report letter dated 21 January 2009 (See Figures 9. 10 and 11). A comparison between Potter’s critique and the Report itself raises very serious questions of the impartiality of the Inspector and, therefore, of the Certification Office. Mr Potter’s critique and the points that he raises were ignored by the Certification Office who essentially endorsed the Inspector’s Report (see Figures 12 and 13).
The fundamental failure of the Certification Office not to investigate the financial irregularities of Solidarity until after its own Hearings to determine complaints against the Union shows an element of complicity (which it admits to in its Terms of Reference), since one of the fundamental issues that lies behind some of these issues of financial irregularity was the hijacking of the Union by Harrington/Griffin. The fact that the Certification Office chose to investigate the financial complaints before the Hearings is cited as an example of how the Certification Office seems to have absolved Harrington from some of the financial irregularities as they simply could not be investigated before the Certification Office Hearings.
The vital piece of evidence that the Certification Office was prejudiced in its dealings over the Solidarity Affair is contained in page 14 of the Report where the Inspector refers to Harrington and his clique as essentially being the legitimate authority of the Union (see note 41 and 42 of page 14, also note 45 and 46 on page 15). This acceptance by the Inspector was made before there were any hearings regarding the status of the Union.
Despite this the Inspector did make some observations regarding “unacceptable practices” by the Union, essentially involving the lack of receipts and proper accounting procedures.
The conclusion by Gerard Walker, the Financial Inspector, essentially glosses over the internecine conflict within the Union and the BNP hijacking by formally accepting the status quo of that takeover. He further displays his unprofessional and biased attitude by referring to his contention that Solidarity A’ were more interested in pursuing a ‘power struggle’ than ‘actual issues’ relating to process and compliance, hence revealing his real position on the BNP hijacking. His final asinine comment on page 16 of his Report under note 48 is revealing, “…Solidarity has expressed a willingness to take action to correct the earlier failings revealed by my investigations and to ensure future compliance with both the statutory requirements and the requirements of its own rules relating to its financial affairs”. A comparison with some of the points and criticisms raised by Solidarity ‘A’ in this matter will show that the Inspector’s comments are little short of an understatement at best – and a whitewash at worst. One can only conclude that the Certification Office, which had the power to close down a nationalist trade union, chose not to do so and on so doing so protected the position of Nick Griffin. If Griffin/Harrington’s wild assertions that Solidarity had somehow been ‘taken over’ by their imaginary ‘Marxist plot’ and that it was only the actions of Harrington backed up by the BNP that had ‘saved’ the Union, then this would have been the time when the Labour Government and left-wing State could have protected those imaginary ‘left-wing allies’ within Solidarity and ensure that the new nationalist trade union was aborted at birth and controlled by the Left. Considering also the allegations made by Harrington/Griffin that the investigations into Solidarity was simply that of ‘bureaucratic harassment’ made by the State in an attempt to stymie the new union then it is clear that the opposite is indeed true: that the labour Government and its left-wing establishment within the Certification Office worked to ensure that a nationalist trade union could not be run by nationalists but had to absorbed into the BNP which was run by one of their own assets (Griffin).
Solidarity ‘A’ had already made formal complaints to the police and had been ignored and referred simply to the Certification Office. As a result of this, Special Branch had become involved and they were interested in the allegations concerning the BNP hijacking. The fact that the State through its own political police had shown an interest in the affair suggests that not only were they fully aware and informed of the status of Solidarity as a nationalist trade union but also the linkage with the BNP, and its hijacking by Griffin as leader of that party. The absence of a positive result for Solidarity ‘A’ (who represented radical nationalists) and the willingness of the State to protect the hijackers of the new nationalist union show what agenda is being played out. The State clearly saw the threat of a real nationalist trade union movement getting off the ground. Griffin and Harrington’s greed for power and money was the ideal vehicle to ensure that the State could maintain its control on political opposition, neutralising embryonic manifestations or absorbing them into instruments that had already been neutralised.
Between the suspension of Patrick Harrington as General Secretary of Solidarity in May 2007 and the Certification Officer’s Report into the financial irregularities in November 2008, a number of events occurred that throw light on the unscrupulous and nefarious actions of Nick Griffin.
On 12 June 2007 Griffin e-emailed the President and Vice-President of Solidarity, Clive Potter and Tim Hawke, through the email account of Mark Collett (which shows not only the duplicitous nature of Collett who benefitted from Union-supplied printing, but also the fact that this ‘nationalist’ crook was fully aware and compliant in the Solidarity takeover). The e-mail shows that Griffin not only thought that he controlled Solidarity but demanded such (Figure 14 and 15). The National Executive Committee of Solidarity refused the request for a meeting with Griffin’s sycophant Arthur Kemp as it was considered none of their business. Also cited was the fact that Harrington’s suspension and investigation was confidential and any disclosure of information before the Solidarity NEC meant its decision may have been prejudicial to his disciplinary rights.
As the black propaganda machinery of Griffin/Harrington moved up a gear with its creation of an imaginary ‘far-Left plot’ to destabilise Solidarity Mr Potter received a further e-mail from Griffin (dated 7 July 2007). In that communication (see Figures 17 and 18) Griffin arrogantly assumes that he was the authority in the Union and was attempting to undermine Mr Potter’s confidence in Mr Hawke who was being accused of being a ‘Red’. Griffin even went to so far as to lie when he claimed that the “entire local BNP (the Cambridgeshire branch – author) came quite independently to the conclusion that he (Hawke –author) was a wrong ‘un”.
Griffin even accuses Potter of ‘forging’ Executive minutes when he was never there in the first place to make such a judgement. By that date Harrington (a non-BNP member) got the then BNP webmaster, Steve Blake, to post up an article regarding this imaginary left-wing plot taking over Solidarity and attacking Potter and Hawke. In that instance Griffin finally revealed his lying, duplicitous and deceitful self.
The following paragraph from the e-mail should be read and absorbed by all BNP members – particularly those who still cling on blindly to the wreckage that is left of the BNP and dumbly follow the psychotic orders given out by its increasingly unstable serial-liar captain:
“If you insist on making us sort this out the difficult way then all the material which points to either or both of you being either sociopathic cranks or deliberate wreckers will be disseminated – and, because it is so blatantly obvious and comprehensive, widely believed.”
As you can see from this psychopathic rant that should never come form anyone who claims to be a leader of a political party, its author shows clear visible evidence of a serious sociopathic disorder, even projecting his own mental anomaly on to other individuals who refuse to acquiesce to his dictatorial bullying style.
The only part of Griffin’s rant that is seemingly valid is at the end where he says that his claims against Potter and Hawke being ‘sociopathic cranks’ or ‘deliberate wreckers’ will be ‘widely believed’. Since BNP members had no other access to other material and views apart from the centralised BNP website and publications those who did not know Potter and Hawke and the true situation regarding Solidarity naturally fell in line with the ‘official’ perverse version. Hence Griffin/Harrington was able to manipulate opinion and BNP members very easily over this affair. It would seem that during this time the local BNP branches that Potter and Hawke belonged to were supportive of both individuals and retained full confidence in them.
However, over time both branches acquiesced in following the official Griffin line and did not rebel over what now clearly seems a point of fundamental principle in nationalist ideology and conduct. Mr Hawke met criticism from some members of his branch who were slavishly following Griffin’s line and accused him of deliberately wrecking the Union, yet Hawke had been one of the most active members of the branch, regularly leafleting the Red city of Cambridge and giving frequent donations.
Apart from some individuals such as Cllr Graham Partner and Cllr Ian Meller (who both represented constituencies in NW Leicestershire) who came to visit Mr Potter and supported him, and further support from Peter Francis, no other local branch member or official of the Leicestershire BNP contacted him to find out the situation from Mr Potter’s perspective. Credit is due to these councillors, particular Cllr Partner, who had the independence of mind and the fortitude of their moral values not to have fallen for the poison of the official Griffin line spun on this matter. The Leicestershire branch proved its toxicity to free-thinking, decency and moral conviction under the bloated sycophantic chairmanship of Geoff Dickens, who remains at the date of writing a close aide to Griffin. Dicken’s gutless behaviour was reflected by a handful of others who refused to listen to any evidence that Griffin had acted wrongly This included James Mole, the fund-holder, who was co-opted as a ‘scrutineer’ on the misnamed ‘BNP Financial advisory Committee’, set up by Griffin to whitewash his corruption by engaging dupes like Dickens and Mole. Mole as the East Midlands Treasurer, even loaned £10,000 to central funds as a ‘loan’ – members’ money that will unlikely to ever be returned.
Any realisation that Solidarity would be subjected to a hostile takeover by Griffin was made clear in his statement at the end of his e-mail of 7 July to Mr Potter:
“I can assure you that the union will be properly run, with all the proper checks and balances around its financial other affairs, and an expanded Executive which will automatically address your concerns if they were originally well-meant and sincere. You can – and will – have no further part to play in it, so I ask you to prove your overall sincerity as a long-standing nationalist to get out of the way and leave others to continue what you started. That way your reputation can be left as it is, recent events left as a hiccough, and the good work of Solidarity continued”.
The important fact to consider in this statement is that it was – along with many similar items of evidence – submitted to the Certification Office for the July 2007 Hearings. Griffin’s statement unequivocally points to the interference and hijacking of a trade union by an external body, in other words the BNP. Yet even when presented with such stark evidence directly from the head of the hijacking entity the Certification Office decided in favour of the Griffin/Harrington takeover of Solidarity. This proves beyond doubt the complicity of the Certification Office, a State instrument whose Certification Officer is chosen by the Government, in rejecting evidence for the deliberate BNP takeover of an independent trade union. If the BNP was such a hated and feared political party by the Establishment as is claimed, then the State body of the Certification Office would have ensured that the ‘racist’ and ‘extremist’ BNP would have been defeated and denied its temporary victory in hijacking Solidarity. Solidarity would have returned to its legitimate Executive and continued as a model independent nationalist trade union; Harrington would have remained expelled from the Union and an out-cast in nationalist politics( and would have had less influence over the BNP as he does now); Griffin would have been defeated on the legal battlefield and exposed for the lying charlatan that he is, and the Solidarity Executive would have followed up their legal success with calls for a police investigation into allegations of theft and fraud of Union monies by Griffin/Harrington, as well as by legal action by the Union to sue Griffin. The fact that this was already known by both the Certification Office and the Police is clear evidence that Griffin was allowed to get away with his actions so that his protection as a State asset leading a controlled opposition party could continue. The Solidarity Executive decided to play the Certification Office and the Police into their post-hearing strategy as a failsafe option. If the Union lost at the Certification Office Hearings then it would be known that the defeat was due in no small part to State complicity as they would have had known the game plan. Hence if the State truly desired to damage the BNP and to destroy Griffin as its leader the State merely had to ensure that Solidarity ‘A’ won and they would have dealt Griffin a devastating blow.
This is the Smoking Gun of the BNP. In the defeat of Solidarity ’A’ during the hearings the mask of the State slipped from its face and revealed to those who were looking in that Griffin was its man. Harrington, a mere errand boy with a penchant for deviancy, ego politics and political fantasies, had to retain his hold on the Union: to ensure that Solidarity would always remain a totally emasculated micro-trade union with no potential for real power, and to ensure that his co-partner, Griffin, was protected from any damaging defeat. Since the State had been fully informed of what would occur if Griffin had been defeated it has become self-evident that the Certification Officer was advised to ensure that the Griffin/Harrington union of Solidarity ‘B’ retained its control over the Union. Solidarity’s sacrifice can therefore be seen in the long-term as providing proof that Griffin is part of the State apparatus to control British nationalism and to drive it deep in the mud of failed political opposition.
Following on from that e-mail the then Treasurer of the BNP, John Walker, decided also to get involved (see Figure 19). In his communication Walker (clearly operating on the orders of Griffin) attempted to resolve the then current issues regarding the signing-off of the first-year accounts (the AR21 form). Walker repeats almost the same phrases and arguments as Griffin did in other exchanges, and went on to suggest a Griffin/Harrington proposal to have the NEC of Solidarity enlarged which would have clearly meant that Potter and Hawke would have been pushed out. Furthermore, the disgraced General Secretary who had been suspended would have been allowed back on to the NEC without having been disciplined or reinstated. Griffin/Harrington/Walker also wanted to have another member of the pseudo-nationalist and left-wing grouplet, the National Liberal Party (NLP) on the Committee. This proposal was rejected by the Solidarity NEC as it would have destroyed the credibility and independence of the Union as being tied in with both the BNP and NLP. John Walker also attempted to intimidate Potter by phone when he rang him up and tried using coercive and abusive language, no doubt when Walker was in his regular drunken state.
On 17 July 2007 Potter was expelled from the BNP on instructions from Griffin (see Figure 20).
On the meantime the Solidarity ‘A’ Executive continued to manage its affairs though such progress was stymied by the fact that the Union bank accounts had been frozen by the Bank. The Executive consisted of Clive Potter, Tim Hawke, Billy McLinden, Craig Mullen and Nicholas Smith. It is to Griffin’s and Harrington’s shame that some of these nationalists either left the BNP or disengaged from nationalism in disgust and defeat at the hands of these two con-men of nationalism. One of these members, Nicholas Smith, soon became manically depressed after this affair and, exacerbated by his deep disappointment and betrayal he felt at how Griffin was destroying the BNP, committed suicide. This tragedy is on the head of Griffin and Harrington and those cronies who kept these pair of shysters in power.
On 11 July the then BNP Webmaster, Steve Blake, alerted the Executive of Solidarity ‘A’ that Griffin had instructed him to transfer the domain name of the Solidarity website to one controlled by the BNP, in this instance to that run by the South African terrorist Lambertius Nieuwof (‘Bep’) and his wife, Lyndsey Nieuwof (see Figure 21). Yet again this e-mail was presented as evidence to the Certification officer who would have been clearly aware that Griffin was making the moves to change who ran the independent trade union.
During this period from June to October 2007 not only was the website taken over by Griffin on behalf of Harrington but Harrington was able to withdraw £2600 from the Solidarity bank account, despite it having been frozen by the Bank on account of the dispute. Correspondence was entered into with bank who did not reveal why or how Harrington was able to withdraw this money when the account was supposedly frozen (see Figure) Eventually Solidarity ‘A’ was able to get the equivalent amount replaced in the frozen bank account. However, after the decision of the Certification Office to allow Solidarity ‘B’ of Griffin/Harrington to retain their control the bank allowed them full access to the original accounts – and by default the duplicate £2600 which Harrington had removed from the account in the first place!
It was also during this period that HSBC ensured that Solidarity ’A’ could no longer function as an operating Union when it chose to ignore the wishes of its Executive in preventing any further members’ monies from being received into the account. This effectively meant that members were being excluded from the Union and that all further payments from them were being returned by the Bank. In the event of Solidarity ‘A’ winning the battle for control of the Union it would have meant that Solidarity ’A’ would have effectively have been stymied as a fighting union and would not have sufficient funds to operate a legal defence. The actions of HSBC are very curious in this regards and the behind-the-scene activity of this major banking corporation in the Solidarity affair is very suspect. It could be argued that the banking corporations would rather back the state –controlled Griffin and Solidarity ‘B’ as part of a game plan that it may have had with the Government.
It was during this time that Solidarity ‘B’ opened up new bank accounts, including one with the Bank of Scotland in August 2007, which ensured that the new hijacked Union could operate and whilst Solidarity ‘B’ was unable to do so.
When Solidarity audited its 2007 accounts the lay-auditors who signed off the Union’s accounts were no other than Andrea Whelpdale, a BNP candidate from Spennymoor and friend of the Union’s new president Adam Walker; and Norma Walker, the mother of the same president Adam Walker. Any Solidarity member who had been expecting a transparent and uncorrupted Solidarity was to be bitterly disappointed.
After a two-year period Solidarity ‘A’ was able to submit its case against Solidarity ’B’ at the Certification Office for a two-day hearing. Evidence included the e-email correspondence from Griffin testifying to his intentions of taking over Solidarity as well as evidence regarding Griffin’s previous financial record with regards to the BNP, all of which were used to show why Griffin was interested in Solidarity as a financial ‘cash-cow’ (see Figure 22) Also used as evidence were witness statements from a former bodyguard of Griffin, Adrian Wood (Figure 23); the Solidarity Vice-President, Tim Hawke (Figure 24), and the former Head of BNP Administration, Kenny Smith (see Figure 25).
On 22 July 2007 all of the complaints submitted by Solidarity ‘A’ were dismissed by the Certification Officer, David Cockburn (see Figure 26). The complaints listed were as follows:
Potter v Solidarity
“that on or around 22 October 2007 in elections to its National Executive, Solidarity breached section 47(2) of the 1992 Act, by requiring candidates in that election to be a member of a political party.”
“that on or around 22 October 2007, Solidarity breached rule 6(a) by Mr Patrick Harrington taking office within the Union without having been reinstated the Executive Committee”
Mullen v Solidarity
“that for elections held on or around 19 November 2007 Solidarity breached rule 13(i) by appointing scrutineers who had not been elected by the Executive Committee”
“that for elections held on or around 19 November 2007, Solidarity breached rule 16(a) by the Executive Committee failing to send out written requests for nomination”
“that on or around 19 November 2007 Solidarity breached section 49(2) (b) of the 1992 Act by appointing Silver & Co as scrutineers for the NEC elections when the Union had grounds for believing that the independence of the scrutineer might reasonably be called into question”
McLinden v Solidarity
“that on or around 14 July 2007 Solidarity breached rule 13(l) by holding an Extraordinary General Meeting not called by the Executive Meeting”
“that on or around 14 July 2007 Solidarity breached rule 13(m) by abolishing the post of Vice-President and thereby removing the incumbent, Mr Hawke, at an Extraordinary General Meeting not called in accordance with its rules”.
Haynes v Solidarity
This complaint by Ms Sian Haynes was dismissed by the certification Officer on account that it was withdrawn. It was based on the complaint that Solidarity, through the offices of Patrick Harrington, had failed to provide this member with details of the accounts as was required by both the Union constitution (rule 12(g)) and by section 30(2) (a) of the 1992 Act. Ms Haynes made her request on 28 May 2007 yet she was refused access to the books of the Union and the income and expenditure of the Union as provided by rule 12(g) of Solidarity.
This complaint was apparently resolved at the hearing between the two parties (Potter and Solidarity’B’) and hence the reason for that particular complaint having been dismissed. However, the Union never honoured its commitment in providing this particular member access to the accounts as was agreed and ratified at the hearing. Solidarity has yet again failed in complying with its own constitution and in reneging on its agreement, an agreement that was formalised at a tribunal. This is how Harrington and Solidarity treat its members, by denying them their basic rights under the law and their own constitution and treating them as mere chattels for the provision of their members’ dues.
The fundamental issue at stake at the hearings was the legality of how Harrington was able to act independently of the Union’s Executive despite having been suspended, and then expelled from the Union. The Certification Office clearly bent its own rules and logic of justice by asserting that he had not been expelled and that his actions subsequent to that action were perfectly legitimate. This perverse decision will no doubt give officers of other trade unions the freedom to act unilaterally as and when they want as he/she would be able to base their claim of action on the precedent set by Harrington at the hearing of June 2007.
The second fundamental issue at stake was the legitimacy of the Extraordinary General Meeting on 14 July 2007 that was set up by Griffin/Harrington to give some level of spurious legitimacy for the Solidarity takeover by the BNP. This bogus EGM was a scam as there are no records or authentication of whom or how many members attended this, or how many of those who did attend were members before June 2007 or how many joined up after June 2007 and before the EGM. At this ‘EGM’ Griffin was in attendance with his security, no doubt to sway any one who was swaying in their vote. I understand from a member who was present at that ‘EGM’ that only 15 people attended. Yet from this device Griffin/Harrington were able to claim that this was a ‘members’ meeting’ where the ‘members’ spoke to ensure that Harrington was the legitimate authority within the Union.
This bogus ‘EGM’ was ratified by the elections for the expanded NEC in November 2007 – the third fundamental issue at stake. These elections were not called by the NEC but by those within Solidarity ‘B’.
In all three fundamental issues the Certification Officer came down in favour of Griffin/Harrington. We shall not know why the Certification Officer agreed to subvert its own conventions on the rule of law in this case, agreeing that the ‘EGM’ was legitimate in the face of conflicting evidence that was presented to it. What we do know is that Harrington had now become the lawfully recognised General-Secretary of Solidarity and the new and expanded NEC with BNP and National Liberal Party (Third Way) officers had been accepted by the Certification Officer.
When the decision of the Certification Officer came through on 23 July 2009 Lee Barnes, then the BNP Legal Officer, contacted Mr Potter on that very same day to enquire about the result of the decision, and whether an appeal would be made against it, indicating that he had been informed on that same day by Griffin since Harrington would have similarly received the same letter as Potter. Clearly, Barnes was acting on the instructions of Griffin so that he could determine the course of action that Solidarity ‘A’ would take next. The fact that he can operate in such an environment without any conscience or morals, passing information from a colleague to Griffin, suggests an individual who cannot be trusted, a fact that he freely admits himself when he refers to Chris Beverley:
“In the past I have attacked Chris under the direct orders of Nick Griffin.
Griffin even supplied me with a file of documents he had collected concerning Chris to issue to activists and BNP members to attack him during the Sadie Graham fall out.
At the time I did so as I was told to do so.”
This is the same individual who not only advised Potter and Hawke to co-opt Harrington on to Solidarity, but who has since made the following statement (15 September 2010) regarding the Union:
“The role of Solidarity to act as a focal point of organising a Nationalist trade union street movement has effectively been destroyed by Pat Harrington’s decision to work for the BNP and accept a role as a paid BNP officer.”
His support for Harrington for simple ego-power reasons and to make money from the organisation is perverse. He stated on 19 November 2010:
“The BNP can still be saved.
Here’s how to do it.
Griffin resigns as chairman and his place taken by a committee run by Andrew Brons, Eddy Butler, Pat Harrington, Mark Walker, Richard Edmonds and Simon Darby…
…Do these and the BNP may be able to be saved internally as a functional party.”
Why he would want Patrick Harrington – who is not even a member – to run the BNP on a committee with his history of factionalism, splits, divisive and wrecking behaviour of the National Front and later of Solidarity – is anyone’s guess. Clearly he has a very short memory, or he is totally contradictory and therefore cannot be trusted. When he allies that with Griffin stooges like Mark Walker and suspected MI5 plant Simon Darby it shows an appalling level of judgment.
This was made after he oversaw the hijacking and gradual destruction of the Union by Griffin and Harrington for purposes which he was no doubt fully aware had less to do with real political strategy than with simple centralisation of power and money-making. So presumably he thought that until Harrington chose to work for the BNP the hijacking of Solidarity was an acceptable action to take and that Solidarity was being used effectively in the hands of Griffin and Harrington. Barnes, it seems, knew from the start what was going and on and this is why it seems rather treacherous for him to turn around after the event and make such statements.
Solidarity ‘A’ was not prepared to accept defeat but its appeal of August 2009 was rejected by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (Figure 27). Solidarity ‘A’ argued that the Certification Officer had ignored the fact that Harrington as General-Secretary had been suspended, and then expelled. Harrington had never attempted to complain to the Certification Office for his expulsion (see Figure). The Certification Officer had erred in his judgment too on account of misinterpreting the Union’s rule 13(m) which Harrington misused as it can only be used to remove the EC or its members. The ‘EGM’ of July 2007 exceeded many of its powers, even if it had been legitimate in the first instance. The Certification Officer also erred on the side of caution – or chose to ignore – the fact that there was no documentary evidence regarding the ‘EGM’ and indeed whether it had actually occurred in the first place!
Why Griffin backed Patrick Harrington, even from the birth of Solidarity, is unclear. The fact that both were colleagues in the National Front and that both worked together destroy that organisation as a viable political party is clear in itself. Griffin needed allies in his strategy, allies who were known to be greedy, selfish and amoral like him. Griffin trusted Harrington as an operator like himself and knew that he could work with him to fulfil his goals of profiting both from Solidarity members and pursuing his long-term aim of reducing the BNP to an autocratic fiefdom whose members could be fleeced and duped at will, all at the will and protection of the State which oversees the work of controlling the opposition to itself. From the beginning Griffin was passing on confidential information from Solidarity to Harrington, whilst Harrington was by-passing the Solidarity Executive to work unilaterally with Griffin.
We can be reasonably satisfied that the Certification Officer chose to ignore and reject all evidence that may have contradicted his remit, which was to ensure that Solidarity ’B’ could survive and become the legitimate governing body of Solidarity. Despite an unprecedented opportunity for the State to damage, even destroy, Nick Griffin, it chose to play it safe and keep him protected. But by doing so it opened itself to its real intentions and ensured that although Solidarity ‘A’ had been defeated, it had shown how Griffin was actually a State-protected asset, and how that power could be used to ensure that it retained control of its assets within the controlled opposition through which it is able to manipulate democracy.
Fig. 1 to 6.
Fig. 8 to 13.
Fig. 14 to 22.
<a ?t3jf0l2zyj3rFig. 26.