What It Really Means When You Like or Share Content from Britain First

On these pages we frequently take the time out to celebrate the genuinely positive things which come from social media, such as the force for good that was Stephen Sutton and the unanticipated impact of the no-make-up-selfie movement.

Every now and then however we have to comment on the darker side, the way that the democratisation of publishing and communication is exploited in the service of what can only be described as evil. Because a lot of non-evil people are getting suckered in, being used to spread reach and support for the organisation Britain First – whose Facebook Page likes are currently growing at around 8000 per day.

Other than masters of social media manipulation, who are Britain First? They are a registered political party under the leadership of one James Dowson, who split from the BNP to form his own movement some years ago on a platform of evangelicism, anti-abortion, anti-islam and anti-immigration homophobic hate campaigns. They drive around in military jeeps outside mosques handing out alcohol to fuel mobs recruited from the EDL, and have links with violent extremist groups in Northern Ireland.

None of the above facts play too well on social media though, so how have they become the fastest-growing UK political movement in Facebook history, with over 300k likes – more than the Conservative, Labour and UKIP pages combined? [UPDATED: UKIP growing too fast for this statistic to hold up now] And generated levels of engagement – the ‘people talking about this’ factor – that would leave most brand’s social media managers wringing their hands in envy?

By using simple, emotive viral content, which people click ‘like’ and ‘share’ on – without stopping to think about the cause they are actually promoting and spreading.

Love Diana? Support our troops? Revere the D-Day heroes? (You know, the guys who died fighting fascism 70 years ago..?) An endearing image, a catchy meme – how can you NOT click ‘like’, unless you actually disagree and support paedophiles, right?

In the run-up to the recent European and local elections in the UK, millions of UK residents will have been exposed to a piece of Britain First content – more than buy physical copies of newspapers such as The Independent or The Guardian in any seven day period. Combined with the context of the rise of far right groups in other parts of the continent, and the most cursory reading of the history of the past century, this should make every thinking person’s blood run cold.

“Oh, but I don’t ‘do’ politics” / “I don’t care what they stand for I was touched by that photo” / “Halal just sounds so cruel and I love animals” people wail, when you call them out on sharing content from this evil violent fascist hate-filled organisation.

Well, then you are as much a part of the problem as the people creating and sharing this content in the first place. In some ways you are worse, because those who actually believe in are easy to spot and eliminate from my friends list.

It’s the people I know to be basically good compassionate humans, but think it’s OK to share this stuff, which make me want to weep. They don’t realize they are being cynically manipulated to spread a campaign of hate – how did those fallen veterans consent to the use of their image in this way? Why have the family of Lee Rigby had to undertake legal battles to stop Britain First exploiting the name of their murdered son, on their election campaigning material as well as their social media content? There is nothing this group will not do, no depths they will not sink to, when it comes to exploiting misery and division to fundraise for their campaigns of hate.

Every time you like, share or comment on a Facebook post by Britain First, you create a story in your newsfeed, and spread their reach and their message further. You help them fundraise for their violent oppressive demonstrations and campaigns, you help them threaten peaceful people at worship, you help them beat up gay people, spread poison and divisiveness, you help them fuel ignorance and hate.

Please do not misunderstand me, everyone’s party political views are their own. I enjoy friendship and dialogue with many people whose opinions on many matters I am fundamentally opposed to, or have little interest in. Unlike Britain First I embrace and celebrate diversity and difference, and intelligent discussion of different points of view – heaven knows the world is in a mess right now and I have no grand opinions on the best way to fix it, talking about ideas with people whose ideas challenge and push at your own is a good way of developing solutions.

But it is that frustration at traditional party politics, the anger at austerity, the fear of further loss, that is being exploited by the far right – again.

If you share content from Britain First because you believe in what they stand for then fine, unlike that organisation I actually respect your right to that opinion – let’s go our separate ways and be done with it. Please remove me from your friends list, if I have not already done so recently.

And if you were suckered by their sugar-coated emotive linkbait into sharing something that no-one could disagree with, and you now regret it, you know where the delete button is

(if you don’t – it’s here)

If you have friends who need to read this and make up their own minds about where they stand on disseminating hate propaganda, do consider sharing this post, either on your timeline or as a comment on the content they have shared.

Thanks for reading.

[UPDATED 10-7-14] Not sure whether to laugh or cry over the latest cynical bandwagon jumping by Britain First. They must have had this meme out within about an hour of the press announcement of the unexpected death of one of the UK’s lefty comedy icons. I am sure the friends and family of Rik Mayall have better things to focus on right now than this exploitation following their sudden bereavement, and I am sure the man himself would be roaring with indignant laughter,

About as hilarious as their invocation of Gandhi on their page yesterday as well. Apparently on account of his animal rights positioning – well, so long as we’d never let him through customs and immigration.

Rebel in Paradise Rik, thanks for all the laughs over all the years.



Reproduced with acknowledgements to Costa Connected.

Nick Griffin Expelled as BNP Follows a Time-Honoured Tradition

 

When I stumbled by chance yesterday evening upon an article on the BBC News website breaking the news that Nick Griffin had been expelled from membership of the British National Party my first reaction was to laugh out loud.

My mirth was induced not by any desire to heap scorn upon a man whom I’d considered a friend and comrade in the days when we shared a political outlook which I’ve since come to despise. Rather it was the amused reaction of one who had once more been reminded of the perennial farce that is and always has been the far-right’s approach to organisational etiquette.

Griffin and I were both young men in the National Front in the late 1970s, when the racist party had emerged from an acrimonious split with a Strasserite faction, which had oddly allied itself to a right-wing Tory-inclined faction in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to wrest control of the organisation from the national socialist clique which had ruled with a hidden hand more or less since the NF’s inception a decade or so earlier.

MARGINS

During the latter part of the seventies the party mood had been upbeat and expectant as election results got better and better and the breakthrough for which it had hankered appeared increasingly imminent. When instead of achieving that breakthrough electoral support crashed, membership figures plummeted and the organisation was reconsigned to the margins whence it had come the then NF leader John Tyndall scarpered to form his own breakaway party, the New National Front (which, ironically, would later become the British National Party). So bitter was the manner of his parting that Tyndall and those who had followed him very quickly became non-people, whose names could no longer be spoken.

Nick Griffin, the NF’s National Student Organiser, was by this time already firmly ensconced on the party’s governing body, the National Directorate.

A shadow of its only recently former self the NF trundled along, holding badly-attended public activities in the back of beyond which had become more of an institutional nostalgia trip than a serious attempt at winning friends and influence, until the de facto leader of the party and “mastermind” of the failing strategy, Martin Webster, was ousted from his post of National Organiser following a carefully managed coup in which Griffin was instrumental. Needless to say the transition from deposed leader to expelled ex-member was, for Webster, a rapid one and he and his supporters very quickly became persona non grata, the more outspoken amongst them soon finding themselves the unwilling recipients of some pretty disgusting (if sometimes rather imaginative) hate material.

For a few years thereafter the National Front, sans Webster, ploughed new furrows, enjoying small oases of success amid a wider desert of failure as the party remained the retreat of the lonely, the obsessive and the eccentric. Nick Griffin was a major player, although there were other major players too. There were fewer though once the split of 1986 had taken place. At a historic meeting of the National Directorate in Slough factions led on the one side by Griffin and on the other by Martin Wingfield, Andrew Brons and the late Ian Anderson went their separate ways in a dispute which began with the almost gentlemanly exchange of letters of expulsion and culminated in the attempted car-bombing of Anderson’s motor vehicle and the breaking of the then Griffin supporter Patrick Harrington’s arm during a factional scuffle outside an East London public house.

For the remainder of the 1980s the two factions, both calling themselves the National Front, dedicated themselves almost entirely to the cause of trying either to harass or to embarrass the other out of existence. When the anti-Griffin NF announced its intention to stage a march against Middle Eastern terrorism the pro-Griffin version would distribute a press release declaring its undying love for the fathers of the Iranian Revolution. When the Griffinites denounced the Union Flag as an imperialist rag the Wingfieldites, for want of a better term, would bedeck every page of their propaganda material with it.

ITALIAN EXILES

Then, in 1989, Griffin and a few others got itchy feet and decided they would relocate what was left of the party (or at least their faction thereof) to the French countryside, much to the chagrin of Patrick Harrington who by now was running the organisation on a day-to-day basis from his Mum’s basement pad in Kensington. The result, inevitably, was not a mature discussion on the future direction of the party but rather its division into two further factions, this time neither of them laying claim to the name “National Front”. The Griffin group, backed by the Italian exiles around Roberto Fiore, became the International Third Position whilst what remained in England changed its name to the Third Way. The Wingfield/Anderson faction, whose existence everybody had all but forgotten, thereby became the one and only National Front by default. Every one’s a winner.

By far-right standards the ITP/TW split was relatively civil. Both parties decided to go fairly much their own way and to do fairly much their own thing. Both organisations still exist today, in one form or another, but Nick Griffin has nothing to do with either of them

When I parted company from the far-right and its ideology towards the end of 1991 – many years later than I ought to have done – Griffin was still a member of the ITP, although recovering from the shotgun cartridge accident in France which led to him losing an eye. It was some while later that he joined the BNP, apparently via an incident in which he managed to relieve an ITP colleague of his life savings through an ill-advised printing venture, and determined from the beginning that he would usurp the leadership from the now ageing John Tyndall. Within a few years he had achieved his objective of taking control of the party which he had once so disparaged. Before long, naturally, Tyndall had been expelled.

Under Griffin and his “modernisation” strategy the BNP achieved considerable, if temporary success. At one point it was able to count its councillors (including parish) in three figures, as well as boasting two MEPs and an elected representative on the Greater London Authority. His ability to achieve this was down to lessons learned from the experience of the NF in the 1970s coupled with an understanding of the importance of building from the grass roots, a strategy to which Webster had been oblivious. Add this to a political climate in which establishment politicians were held in low regard, low voter turnout and an element of personal media savvy and he and the BNP were away. Sadly for him the quality of his elected councillors was found wanting and his unwillingness or inability to train them conspired against any prospect of sustained growth.

DECLINE

As decline began to set in BNP members began to ask questions. They questioned Griffin’s tactics. They questioned his commitment to core principles – some traditionalists felt he had moved away from those great fictions that have sustained “nationalist” ideology in the UK since the Second World War whilst some of the newer recruits feared he was still old guard at heart. Most of all, they questioned his financial probity. Talk abounded of large sums of money unaccounted for, dodgy deals, debts not honoured, employees not paid and all manner of other irregularities.

A common by-product of the disputes that beset the BNP during its later days of decline was the emergence of leadership challenges. Chris Jackson, Colin Auty, Eddy Butler, Andrew Brons – all of them tried, failed – and ended up outside of the party in short order. Nick Griffin, as the far-right itself, has never done “ordinary” leadership contests in which the best person wins and the other shakes hands and lends his or her full support to the victor. For as long as I can remember, every leadership challenge in the recent history of the far-right has resulted in expulsions, resignations and bitter recriminations.

As the BNP’s star has faded with the emergence to major prominence of UKIP which, despite its undisputed commitment to democratic traditions, casts its net wide enough to enable it to embrace most erstwhile far-righters, so my own interest in keeping a watchful eye on the BNP and other far-right groups has mellowed. Nevertheless I have been periodically following with voyeuristic interest the fortunes of what very little is left of the BNP, from the moment when Griffin “stepped down” to make way for one Adam Walker (whom I’ve never met, but from his track record he seems none too bright) to his inevitable expulsion.

My amusement derives from the fact that Nick Griffin’s BNP career has ended in precisely the same manner as that of every one of his victims, from his expulsion without a proper hearing to the obligatory whinging about the unfairness of it all.

It is difficult to predict where Nick Griffin will go from here. Much depends on whether, at 55 and with 40 years of flat-out political activity behind him, he has the stomach for beginning all over again. Maybe he’ll fight for his job back which, with the BNP’s current fortunes, is akin to squabbling over the best seat on the proverbial Titanic. Or maybe he will regard it as a blessing and launch a new project of his own, one more suited to the current UKIP-friendly climate. His traditional support base has not vanished, it has simply relocated to a nicer home. For as long as it exists, it has the potential to return to the far-right if it gets its act together and the “moderate” UKIP fails to maintain momentum. To get rid of it for good we need to educate, not manipulate.

To some Nick Griffin is the man who almost took racism and fascism into the political mainstream. To others he is a charlatan who has run the BNP in the manner of some two-bit gangster, first cooking up spurious charges and later expelling all his critics within the movement. It is difficult not to see that the folk now running the party who have expelled him for bringing the organisation into disrepute are treading a well-trodden track.

Coming Face to Face With My National Front Past...Almost!

This may seem a strange topic to choose for my first post of 2013, but I had a weird dream the other night which I want to consign to record, as much for my own sanity as for anything else, but also to provide some light amusement for those who find such things amusing.

I was somewhere in a run-down area of London, in a derelict back street. The road was busy, although it was in actual fact a cul de sac terminating at the gates of an old factory. I was lazing about on a wall, actually lying down face forward, awaiting the arrival of some people who were going to join me on a demonstration. The factory employed mostly immigrant workers, who were being exploited by their management. The purpose of the demo was to protest against their treatment by the factory bosses.

In very little time several hundred people had arrived. They were a varied and colourful bunch, made up of all types of people. There were men and women of all ages, and from a whole variety of ethnic backgrounds. There were gay people (they seemed to be there as gay people) and, strangely, there was a group of men with shaven heads and identically attired in gold whom I presumed to be a religious sect of some form or another. A similarly-clad group dressed in pink then arrived, to the apparent chagrin of the gold people. I assumed these were from a rival religious sect.

But the folk I remember most vividly were an assortment of left-wing types, not in the union militant or Rocking Russian sense but more your trendy student, look-at-me, faux alternative stereotype. Although we shared a common cause I recall feeling uneasy around these people, not so much out of fear but more a sense of insincerity and general debasement of the mission upon which I was embarked.

The protest involved a march for the length of the street, after which we would turn left into a busy main thoroughfare. There, from within the sunken depths of a major London underground station, a National Front counter-demonstration was going to emerge onto the sidelines of our route comprising two to three hundred shouting, angry neo-fascists.

There was nothing to be frightened of. The whole area was saturated with police, both either side of the march and all around the tube station where the counter demonstration would first manifest itself. Besides, I knew nothing serious was going to happen because I had been there before.

Yes, you read that correctly. This was in actual fact an identical re-run of an event that had already taken place some time previously. Only on the earlier occasion I had been a participant in, and presumably an organiser of, the counter demonstration. As such I knew the whole day was going to pass without major incident.

In fact my only fear as I approached the junction and the counter demonstration, and I recall it was a very real fear, was that I was going to meet myself!

As we turned into the main street there was, bizarrely, a “commentator” at the side of the road with a microphone, giving an account of events to the participants as it was happening. He announced something to the effect of (I can’t recall the exact words): “Of course not everyone here is really one of us, are they Phil?”.

Rather than be shaken or wrong-footed by this, I simply laughed and gave him an ironic thumbs-up as I passed without looking directly at him. One or two of those around me glanced at me, perplexed, but nobody seemed overly concerned. It was, after all, only a dream (and I am blessed/cursed with the ability to usually know that I am dreaming) and I knew this guy was completely aware of my sincerity in supporting the cause of the exploited workers and opposing the fascists, and that he was simply making mischief. Most of those around me seemed to know it too.

But notwithstanding all this I was genuinely troubled, dream or no dream, by the prospect of meeting myself as we passed the counter demo. I can remember this feeling very clearly indeed.

The feared encounter never took place thanks, I think, to the timely intervention of my alarm clock. Nonetheless I remembered the whole thing so vividly, and still do some thirty hours later, that I decided I wanted to write it all down, for posterity or for future reference.

Most people who know me at all will be well aware that I was indeed a prominent member of the National Front many years ago. Some critics of my work in the community would prefer it were still so, and like to pretend that the two decades and more that have passed since I first turned my back on the far-right and renounced its politics have never taken place. Anybody who matters, though, is well acquainted with the full facts.

There was, of course, a certain amount of licence involved where my nocturnal adventure was concerned. Even as a National Front organiser I would never, for instance, have opposed a demonstration in support of exploited workers, immigrant or otherwise. And I have never seen any significant delegation of Hare Krishnas on any anti-fascist protest of my acquaintance, although the middle-class, plastic revolutionaries in duffle coats do ring true a tad.

I like to analyse my own dreams and more often than not I am able to see where they are coming from but at the time of writing I admit to being at a loss to make head or tail of this one. Maybe a friend, or indeed a foe, would like to try and help me out here?

The Demise of the BNP and the New Challenges it Brings

Some while ago I wrote on this blog about the emergence from the wreckage of the BNP of a grouplet calling itself the British Freedom Party and in particular about its professed creed of “cultural nationalism”. I expressed doubts at the time that the BFP would come to anything much. It appeared devoid of anybody with sufficient pedigree or charisma to overcome the enormous challenge of emerging from amid the confused mess that is the far right today and, as former NF leader Martin Webster is alleged to have once put it, of “kicking its way into the headlines” (Webster maintains that he used the word “crashing” as opposed to “kicking” but the point I am making remains).

Indeed it appeared even back then that some of the personalities the BFP did possess were of the destructive variety and were primed to bring embarrassment to the new party at any moment of their choosing.

I also remarked that, whilst I doubted the organisational potential of the BFP itself, the concept of cultural nationalism was one that could emerge when the smoke clears to cause very real problems.

Since its formation the BFP has hardly set the world alight, indeed one of its few actions of note has been to engage in its own acrimonious split which has lead the tiny party to divide into two even tinier, rival parties. However the faction retaining the party name surprised a few observers recently when it announced the formation of some manner of pact/agreement/merger (the precise nature of the deal depends very much upon whom one is listening to) with the controversial English Defence League (EDL).

The EDL itself, of course, preaches a similar cultural nationalist message in that it professes to be a movement solely opposed to militant Islam and one that is not racially exclusive. The reality is that its ranks are filled with racists and politically is to all intents and purposes a street army of the far right. It, too, has experienced splits and leadership disputes in recent months.

More on cultural nationalism anon, but in the meantime it is worth taking some time out to catch up with developments within the mainstream of the far right, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

The BNP continues to crumble under the weight of serious debt, poor votes and a massive decline in membership numbers. As it does so sundry factions squabble over the corpse, some opting for fight and others for flight.

Those inclined to fight are largely rallied around Andrew Brons MEP, a retired politics lecturer from Harrogate who was elected to the European Parliament alongside BNP leader Nick Griffin in 2009. After months of apparent indecision Brons, a former Chairman of the National Front, this year challenged Griffin for the leadership of the BNP and lost by a mere nine votes in an election that seemed to be conducted very much on Griffin’s terms to say the least.

Despite his youthful activities as a keen member of the late Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement (he once wrote to Jordan’s equally Nazi wife Francoise that he held a “dual view” as to whether or not burning down synagogues was a good thing to do, whilst ordering a consignment of stickers with swastikas on), Brons seems to have managed to gain for himself a reputation on the far right as a logical and reasonable man, as well as being something of a thinker. His genteel manner, his intellect and his maturity in years command him respect and he would appear to have been adopted as some kind of wise elder statesman within the movement, although some others accuse him of being a ditherer due to his apparent reluctance to make a decisive move in his ongoing quarrel with Griffin.

The current state of play is that Brons and his supporters have created what they refer to as a “parallel party” within the BNP, retaining their membership and professing their loyalty to the party whilst not to Griffin himself and organising around a website called “BNP Ideas”, effectively daring Griffin to expel them.

Meanwhile the flighters include 2010 leadership challenger Eddy Butler, who has joined the English Democrats, an organisation that seems to operate just within the pale although the infusion of ex-BNP bigwigs may have the effect of changing that. They also include one Jim Dowson, a businessman whose recruitment by Griffin as an “industry expert” to make the BNP money was one of the biggest bones of contention at the time of the Butler challenge, but who has since fallen out with Griffin himself and now heads his own breakaway group calling itself Britain First.

What this all has to do with cultural nationalism is the opportunity that the general realignment of the far right affords it to reassess the way in which it pitches its message. With the field awash with small groups and disgruntled individuals as the parent organisation reluctantly but most certainly disappears further into oblivion the potential for fusion around a new strategy is a worrying one. Particularly when the message essentially masks the same underlying racist philosophy.

For what has changed is not the type of individuals that we are dealing with. There is nothing about the EDL that makes it in any way more cuddly or more acceptable than the BNP, or the NF of bygone days. Fascists have not suddenly become nicer people. On the contrary all that is different is the demographic. The far right, for the most part, recognises that a seismic shift has taken place in the composition of our society since the days when the movement could say “Send them all home!” and still credibly maintain that “they” had an identifiable home to go to.

Anybody who wishes to understand the potential for cultural nationalism needs only to walk into any working men’s club and listen for a few moments to the conversation when it gets around to immigration. The message everyday people are getting from the tabloids is that a new generation of immigrants is receiving everything on a plate, has hostile intentions towards the (now multi-ethnic) host community and is challenging us all for resources that with the economic downturn have already become scarce. In the absence of any information to correct these false perceptions it is little wonder that they are held close by people who are otherwise normal and decent.

Generally people are not racist in the sense of having a conscious belief that they are in some way superior to other people (although ironically some “anti-racists” of my acquaintance would appear to make similar assumptions about themselves). However in my experience there is clearly a “dislike of difference” which leads them to be mistrustful of others whose looks, dress and mannerisms differ from their own and which, when coupled with a belief that the other community is in receipt of special favour, makes many an obvious soft sell for the cultural nationalist argument that “it’s not about race but…”.

Where there are myths perpetuated about the nature and intentions of the group, as in the case of Islam, this is even more so.

A cultural nationalist position furthermore gives the racist an unhealthy amount of wiggle room. In defence it is not about race or ethnicity so nobody need be offended, but in attack it means that everybody needs to be “like us” and, where the message is receiving a sympathetic hearing, opens the door to all the prejudices and hatreds that have historically informed the far right. It is an expandable, contractible ideology which can mean almost anything the intended audience wishes it to mean, yet retains racism and xenophobia at the core of its message.

Common sense suggests that there will be a regrouping on the far right and whilst we rightly celebrate the demise of the BNP this, perversely, has the potential to trigger it. While the economic conditions remain, and ignorance abounds, there is no logical reason why fascism should suddenly vanish, or why racists should cease being racists and not look to organise themselves again. With the “soft” nationalism of UKIP and the English Democrats enjoying some popularity and with a small army of stateless ex-BNP and soon to be ex-BNP followers looking for a new home, it is important that anti-fascists do not take their eye off the ball.

If I sound defeatist or fatalistic then it needs to be understood that I flag up this prospect because somebody has to, and in the hope that those whose task it will be to confront the new threat will be ready and waiting for it. A new wave of far right activity is inevitable, but its success most certainly isn’t.

Understanding the threat of "Cultural Nationalism"

A little over a month ago I commented upon the upheaval currently taking place within the British National Party (BNP), with party leader Nick Griffin finding himself being challenged for his job by Eddy Butler, a former NF stalwart from London's East End.

In that article I explained that Butler had unsurprisingly failed to meet the ludicrously prohibitive nominations criteria to enable his challenge to proceed to a full ballot against Griffin, and stated that the formation of a breakaway party was "almost inevitable".

I can now report that the almost inevitable has happened, in the event against the wishes of Butler who believes his best chance of seizing the leadership of the BNP rests upon him playing a waiting game and standing for the post again in 2011. At least that was what he believed earlier this week. The arrival a day or two ago of his notice of expulsion from the BNP may yet of course induce a rethink of some kind.

The breakaway has been forced by a number of Butler's more impatient supporters, who refuse to wait another year for the privilege of mounting another, probably doomed challenge under rules which appear designed for the specific purpose of giving Griffin a job for as long as he wants it.

The new venture goes under the name of the British Freedom Party (BFP). I'll not link to it, but for those who wish to see first hand what it is about I am sure Google will prove helpful.

One of the cheerleaders of the BFP would appear to be one Lee Barnes, formerly the BNP's celebrated legal eagle but now an outspoken anti-Griffinite. Like many of those involved on both sides of the dispute Barnes seems to have appeared on the far-right scene some considerable time after I departed it, but he has a reputation in fascist circles as being a wordy and knowledgeable if sometimes rather eccentric kind of guy.

On his blog Barnes advises us that the new outfit will pursue a policy of what he describes as "Cultural Nationalism", which he differentiates from "Ethno Nationalism" (based on race - you're okay if you're white) and "Civic Nationalism" (based on citizenship - you're okay if you have a British passport). According to Barnes:

"Those who are British citizens must integrate into British culture and society, it is not for us to surrender our country and culture, and re-engineer our society, to suit immigrants.

"All immigrants must become British - Britain will not become colonised.

"All those of all races and religions who are British citizens and who are proud to be British and who respect British culture are welcome to join our party."

Whether the BFP will ever amount to anything or whether it will fizzle out as so many other BNP breakaway groups have in the past is still to be seen. It is not a good start, from their point of view, that the anti-Griffin faction would already appear to have split between those who still believe the party can be changed from within and those who feel a new party is the answer. The latter would certainly appear to be devoid of anybody who could by any stretch of the imagination be described as a political heavyweight. Rumours abound that MEP Andrew Brons could be about to join them, but the journey from former Nazi Party sticker displayer to "Cultural Nationalist" would be a considerable one.

What I find myself contemplating with a degree of trepidation is a redrawing of the battle lines in a way that I have for some time considered to be inevitable as the concept of a "racially pure" Britain slips further and further into the realms of unreality. Whereas in the 1960s and 70s it was (just about) possible, without having to undergo a complete credibility bypass, to talk of repatriating "racially unassimilable" minorities, the widespread assimilation of same over the years and decades that have followed has consigned the aspirations of the race freaks to the margins even within their own company.

Instead the argument that minorities will be "welcome" (read "tolerated") just so long as they "integrate into British culture and society" (undefined) emerges as an ostensibly more reasonable option and, I suspect, one that may resonate with the not inconsequential "I'm not racist but..." tendency in our society.

So why should minorities not "become British"? Why should they not accept "our" ways, and adopt them henceforth as their ways? What, to put it bluntly, is wrong with "Cultural Nationalism"?

The first and most obvious worry of course arises from the pedigree of the new party that heralds the concept. It is a breakaway from the unquestionably racist BNP, led and populated by people who had joined an unquestionably racist party to begin with. The objections cited by the rebels towards the BNP leadership throughout their campaign to wrest the party from Nick Griffin have centred not around any dissatisfaction with BNP policy but instead around internal issues such as nepotism and financial probity.

It is possible, of course, for an entire organisation or a faction within an organisation to change fundamentally. The National Front was doing it all the time throughout the 1980s, moving seamlessly from one ideological fad to another, albeit always within the confines of a race-focused overview that remained unshaken. The Social Democrats broke away from a Labour Party that was too left-wing, then merged with most of the Liberals to become the Liberal Democrats who now shun Labour for being too right-wing. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially in politics.

But the move towards "Cultural Nationalism" is not a clean break from racism in the way that I and others who have been where I have been and seen what I have seen would recognise. Rather it is merely a movement towards a more populist expression of racism in a form with which those who would baulk at the purist pretensions of National Socialism would identify.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with all our citizens sharing and celebrating a common British identity. I wrote about such a thing here over two years ago on Walk Away's sister blog, A Community In Action. But that identity arises from our rich diversity as a nation, not from the forced submission of myriad cultures to the one.

I find myself wondering exactly what it is that "Cultural Nationalism" requires of minorities that they might become "like us". Like whom exactly? Like white people?

And just how far is this requirement supposed to go? Is everybody required to eat English food, wear English clothes, adopt "English" religious beliefs? Will accents be acceptable?

It is difficult to imagine a society in which some citizens are required by order of the state to imitate the ways of others ever being able to embrace true equality. Integration is a process that emerges organically over time in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect.

"Cultural Nationalism" moves us away from a society based upon respect and equality. It is but a Plan B for race purists whose first idea passed its sell-by date without being bought.

Wherein lies the best option when one knows both devils?

I've been watching with some interest the increasingly acrimonious spat that has been developing between current BNP Chairman Nick Griffin and his challenger in a recent leadership ballot, Eddy Butler.

I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.

I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.

On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.

So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.

The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.

As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.

Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.

Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.

Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.

And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.

The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?

Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.

For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.

In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.

The NF and it's short-lived electoral breakthrough

The National Front is not an organisation that it is easy to feel sorry for, and so one has to laugh at the news that despite the racist party having waited 43 years for its first proper councillor the man who achieved that dubious honour just a week or so ago has had his party whip removed this morning.

Rumour has it that Councillor John Gamble, who had originally been elected to Rotherham Borough Council as a member of the BNP for Brinsworth and Catcliffe ward before leaving/being thrown out (depending upon whose version one reads) and joining the National Front via the England First Party, didn't realise that his new party was racist.

This gave him, and them, a particular problem as he claims to have had "several black girlfriends", although some of his erstwhile comrades are suggesting on sundry fascist websites that these "girlfriends" have been extremely temporary liaisons, not to mention somewhat costly.

Councillor Gamble has now announced that he intends to sit as an independent.

One wonders just how many people join fascist parties out of a sense of personal inadequacy and self-loathing. An interesting sociological study, if nothing else.

Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories

Acknowledegements to The Guardian


Reports of racial and religiously motivated crime rose following the election of British National party councillors in several far-right strongholds, police statistics have revealed.

Complaints of hate crime increased in wards in the West Midlands, London and Essex after the election of a BNP member, in spite of declines in reported hate crime in the wider police areas. In other wards race crime reportedly rose in the run-up to BNP election victories, according to the figures, obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

The findings came as the party stepped up its campaign to win its first seats in the House of Commons with a "weekend of action" in Barking and Dagenham, where the culture and tourism minister, Margaret Hodge, faces a challenge for her Labour seat from BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Hodge said the new figures cast doubt on police assurances that there is no link between racially motivated crime and a BNP presence.

Yesterday, BNP member Terence Gavan was jailed for 11 years after police found nail bombs and 12 firearms at his home in the borough of Kirklees, West Yorkshire, where the BNP has councillors. The Old Bailey heard that Gavan harboured "a strong hostility" towards immigrants.

One of the biggest increases in hate crime came in Barking's Eastbury ward, where racially motivated violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled in the year after Jeffrey Steed won a council seat for the BNP in May 2006. A year later, hate crime rose again and 45 racial incidents were reported in 12 months.

In several other BNP wards, race crime fell in line with declines in the wider areas, but anti-fascist campaigners believe rises may be linked to BNP election wins. "Voters have been emboldened in their racist views by seeing the BNP in power and that could have led to the increases in racist attacks in some areas," said Sam Tarry, campaign organiser for the Hope Not Hate campaign, set up by the anti-fascist group Searchlight.

"The figures suggest that if the BNP wins more seats, people from ethnic minority and gay communities could face greater persecution because racist and bigoted views will have been further legitimised."

The BNP denies that increases in hate crime are related to its activities and blames the rises on increased immigration. Bob Bailey, the party's London organiser said: "This is due to an increase in the ethnic [sic] population. There are more people who are prepared to go to the police complaining they are victims."

The Guardian has analysed data from 11 police forces covering 29 wards across England where voters have elected BNP councillors in the past six years. In eight wards reports of hate crime rose following BNP election wins despite a wider decline across the police force area. It declined in 14 wards, in line with force-wide reductions, and there was no change in four and an insignificant amount of data in three.

In Essex, complaints of race crime rose after the election of BNP councillors in parts of Epping Forest, while in Chelmsley Wood, a suburb of Birmingham, the average annual incidence of race crime almost doubled after George Morgan won a seat for the BNP in May 2006.

In the four years before his election, there were an average 11 incidents a year rising to an average of 21 a year in the following four years. West Midlands police said some cases involved assault, while most were incidents of verbal abuse in shopping centres, taxis and in the police station with white and Asian victims.

Detective Chief Inspector Sharon Goosen said: "None of the offences reported in the area since 2006 can be directly attributed to an elected member or political organisation."

The BNP is understood to be planning to field more than 1,000 candidates in local elections and 300 candidates in the general election. Griffin and the BNP deputy chairman, Simon Darby, who is standing for Stoke Central, are considered to have the best chance of winning seats at Westminster.

Independent community action is the key... (Part Two)

I unearthed the following article from a Staffordshire publication called The Sentinel, via the excellent anti-fascist resource blog Lancaster Unity.

As with the superb recent by-election victory by the Loughton Residents' Association (LRA) in a ward formerly held by the BNP, this latest development once again demonstrates the power of independent community action in defeating fascism where the politicians, whilst they talk a good fight, would appear to be powerless.


"Is BNP leader quitting now while he's ahead?"
from The Sentinel

The British National Party has been at the forefront of politics in Stoke-on-Trent for the past seven years, since outsider Steve Batkin stunned sceptical observers by coming third in the 2002 mayoral elections.

Since then, while more established political parties have crumbled and lost ground, the BNP has seized upon the slightest sign of weakness in its opponents.

Mr Batkin may have been a lone figure in the council chamber in 2003, but within five years he was joined by eight more members. In the same period, Labour's once total grip on power evaporated, leaving the party with little choice but to go into opposition for the first time in the city council's history. The Conservatives have had to form a tenuous alliance with centre-right independents to muster enough numbers to occupy key political posts.

The recent emergence of the Stoke-on-Trent Independent Group not only cut the Conservative and Independent Alliance to just seven members, but also made the BNP the outright third largest political group in the city, just five seats behind Labour.

When last year's mayoral referendum took place, the BNP backed the campaign to retain the elected mayoral system, leading many political commentators to speculate openly about the possibility of a BNP mayor running the city. In short, the BNP under Alby Walker's leadership had become a major political force. But that all changed on Wednesday evening when Mr Walker sent a tersely-worded email to council officers stating that he had quit as leader.

Of course, he would not be the first senior political figure to stand down for personal reasons. But the email made it clear that he was stepping down before his group had even begun to appoint a successor. In fact, that is not likely to happen until January. Then, when The Sentinel contacted deputy group leader, Councillor Michael Coleman, three hours later, he said he knew nothing of the resignation.

Leadership changes happen, but stable political parties try to plan ahead to smooth the transition and reassure their members and supporters. The BNP is not a localised council group operating in its own tiny bubble of influence. It is part of a large, organised political body with its own national and regional leadership structure. It is unthinkable that anyone in the BNP's hierarchy who knew of Mr Walker's intention would let him make his announcement without carefully managing the situation.

But party leader Nick Griffin certainly seemed to have no knowledge of the crisis developing in the city he likes to call the jewel in the BNP's crown. Speaking from the climate summit in Copenhagen, an obviously flustered Mr Griffin said: "I'm afraid I don't know anything about this. I've no idea what's happening in Stoke-on-Trent."

Clearly party chiefs, like the council group, did not know of Mr Walker's plans until after he had executed them.

When he confirmed his resignation that evening, he not only admitted that he was unlikely to stand for election to retain his seat in May, but also refused to say whether he would remain with the party at all. One source close to Mr Walker has suggested the announcement was timed to prevent someone else leaking the news of his planned resignation to "stab him in the back". But the fact that his own group did not know what he had done, even hours afterwards, implies that the attack he feared was expected to come from within, rather than from rival parties.

Since Wednesday, the group has been displaying a united front once again, and members are bullish about its chances of making yet more gains at the polls. Mr Coleman confidently expects to take 10 more seats in May and a further 15 in 2011. But he may have given an insight into the real mood within the group when he said: "It is going to be a difficult 18 months ahead of us. It's getting harder now, not easier."

He also said that he felt Mr Walker had "done the sensible thing" in resigning now, to let others take on the burden of fighting three Parliamentary and 20 council seats next year, as well as all 45 council seats in 2011.

Up until now, the BNP's successes have been victories against the mainstream parties on the back of mounting public discontent with New Labour, and the Blair and Brown Governments. It would seem that Mr Walker certainly has done the sensible thing – he is quitting while he's ahead, before the progress he has made begins to falter.

The current balance of power within the council means that, in order to continue their meteoric rise, the BNP is soon going to have to vie for votes with the independents – solid community candidates who are not shackled by party dogma and whips or hampered by the conduct of their representatives in Westminster.

Mr Walker was facing re-election in May, and would have been a prime target for his political foes. Defeat would have been a massive blow for his party and a major propaganda coup for his rivals. But his departure ahead of polling day means that, should another party take the seat, they will not be able to claim the trophy of toppling the BNP leader, and their victory cannot be recorded as a defeat for the far-right party.

Mr Coleman may make an even stronger leader for the group; only time will tell. But if he fails to deliver on his morale-boosting promises of sweeping electoral gains over the next two years, then he could find himself at the head of a declining party with no political weapons he can use to fight back at the formidable independents.

My interview with Ed Saunt of the Hounslow Chronicle

A week or so ago I was contacted by Ed Saunt of the Hounslow Chronicle who wanted to write a piece about me and my former association with Nick Griffin, the Chairman of the British National Party (BNP), in the wake of his recent appearance on the BBC's Question Time programme.

I'm always happy to be of assistance, particularly in the case of young local journalists looking to showpiece their talents, and to put my specialist knowledge of the far-right to good use. Heaven knows I've been offering to do so for the past eighteen years but, as someone who has issues with the Labour Party even if only in a strictly local context, many of the most vociferous anti-racists, being possessed of a political conflict of interests, have preferred to perpetuate the myth that I am still in some way involved with the far right and of course, in order to keep that particular ball in the air, have had to dismiss any intelligence that I am able to offer as a "smokescreen".

So when Ed informed me that he wanted to carry a major piece on me and on my experiences with the far-right I agreed, but insisted that we should conduct the interview by e-mail where there would be a paper trail leading back to what I had actually said if in the event that I was in any way misquoted or misrepresented (that wasn't how I actually put it, but he was smart enough to understand).

Whilst I maintain that this was the correct thing to do in view of the sensitive nature of the subject (and Ed readily agreed to my proposed way of doing things anyway), as it happened I needn't have bothered. The two-page article demonstrated that Ed had a talent - unusual amongst local journalists, particularly the younger and more ambitious ones - for being able to write a feature which catches the eye and draws the crowds (inasfar as the Chronicle readership could be described as a crowd) without having to resort in any way to fabrication or distortion. Indeed, after a well-written and cogent introduction, the larger part of the feature consisted of a simple but effective reproduction of the question and answer interview that we had conducted, warts and all.

I am grateful to Ed and to the Chronicle for the mature approach which was taken in the production of this feature and would be happy to help them, or any other potential interviewer who is prepared to adopt the same ethics in seeking out good information on this most topical of subjects.

The full text of the interview can be found here.

Keep fascism out of football

According to the Searchlight-backed campaign Hope Not Hate one of the ringleaders of the enigmatic but distinctly unpleasant English Defence League, which draws most of its recruits from soccer hooligan firms around the country, is a regular at Brentford FC home fixtures.

The EDL claims to be non-racist and has attracted criticism from the BNP, however given its anti-Muslim appeal it is likely that the primary cause of any antipathy is its potential as a rival. Embracing as it does the militant street activity which the BNP rejected some years ago in favour of its new suited and booted electoral approach it has the potential to recruit younger, more excitable BNP types and thereby to starve the BNP of valuable membership dues.

As a local activist though it is the Brentford connection which bothers me. Brentford has an excellent record as a family club which speaks out against racism, and I'll be contacting the club in my capacity as Hounslow Council's (non-Executive) lead member with responsibility for liaison with Brentford FC to impress upon it the need to put some distance between itself and the EDL.

SORTED!

"BNP will not be back!" says pub landlord

The landlord of an Isleworth pub which unwittingly played host to a meeting of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on Wednesday evening will not be re-admitting his unwanted guests after the ICG exposed their true identity.

The "Hounslow" BNP (in reality a motley collection of activists from all across West London and beyond) had used the venue to discuss plans for its forthcoming general election campaign in the Feltham & Heston constituency, as well as its proposed participation in the local elections. Although it aspires to contest all sixty council seats, it currently admits to having only four volunteers, at least one of whom is believed to live in Brentford.

ICG councillors have worked hard to promote unity and cohesion in their wards and believe the BNP strategy was to destabilise these communities and to divide residents on the basis of their ethnicity. The landlord of the pub, which has a multi-cultural clientele, was grateful for our intervention.

Our work against the BNP is actively supported by council colleagues from all the major political groups and we would like to acknowledge and thank them for their help in achieving this result.

More readily fall victims to the Big Lie than to the Small Lie - unless you get caught

We all know that what Churchill might have described as "terminological inexactitudes" are prevalent in our politics. In my borough one party publicly proclaims its acceptance of untruthful campaigning as a fact of political life without any suggestion that it rues the fact.

However, whilst not accepting the inevitability of deceit in political life I do reluctantly accept that there is in politics, as everywhere else, a question of degree. Put another way, there is a world of difference between the sometimes irritating ways of the mainstream politician and the persistent and quite deliberate efforts of the far-right to destabilise our multi-ethnic community by resort to shameless scaremongering and often quite outrageous lies.

This week we witnessed the suspension of Barking & Dagenham councillor and BNP Greater London Authority (GLA) member Richard Barnbrook after he admitted that claims he had made about three alleged murders having taken place is his borough were completely untrue. The disgraced councillor claimed that "dyslexia" had led his extraordinary claims to "come out wrong" (and also, presumably, inspired him to repeat the claims on his blog and to refuse to remove them when it was pointed out to him that there was no factual basis for them).

Although Mr. Barnbrook is of a similar age to myself I never knew him in my far-right days. He clearly arrived on the scene after my time. I can offer no personal insight into the man nor into what makes him tick. However as I write I have heard no word of any impending censure or disciplinary action to be taken against him by his superiors in the BNP, many of whom I did know personally.

What I can say is that it has been a typical tactic of the far-right down through the years to try to whip up the fear and mistrust that it simultaneously claims to be protecting us from. Despite claiming no longer to be a racist party, the BNP is content to allow one of its very most senior members to fabricate three serious crimes in the borough he has been elected to represent and then to try to associate those non-existent crimes in the public mind with the presence of immigrants in our community.

This is not a normal political party we are dealing with here, and institutions such as the BBC should not be treating it as such by attempting to ease it into the mainstream through such devices as its Question Time programme. Democratic politicians from across the board should be doing everything they can to highlight the moral chasm that exists between the likes of the BNP and themselves. And the best way to achieve that, apart from denying fascists the oxygen of publicity, is not to act like them ourselves. To any degree.

Sick stunt reveals racism in its natural presence

When I was a member of the National Front in the 1980s there weren't enough members to be holding outdoor "family" festivals, but if there had been they would probably have been something like the BNP's annual Red, White & Blue event. Not that I've ever been to one, nor am I ever likely to, but by all accounts they are weekend activities at which BNP members and their families pitch tents, visit stalls and listen to political speeches whilst drinking lots of beer.

This year reporters from the News of the World apparently gained access to the RWB and recorded for posterity the video reproduced above. In it a man who transpires to be a BNP council election candidate stages a mock "trial" of a golly, which is found guilty of "being black" and dropped onto a bonfire. A suggestion is made that those involved should venture into town and "find a real one". The person who releases the doll onto the flames is, we are told, a 12-year-old girl, presumably the daughter of one of the people attending the festival.

During my time in the Front I'm sure I witnessed far worse things. However what brought it home to me just how sick the whole far-right experience is was the thought that my own twin children are the same age as this young girl. I imagined for a moment either of them being involved in a ritual of this kind, being surrounded by and taking in all that hate and irrationality with the blessing, indeed encouragement of their parents and I found myself literally, physically shaking with fear and anger. Fear because there but for the grace of God go my kids, and anger at the thought that anybody could poison the mind of an innocent child like the girl in the video in this way.

Thankfully my kids do not think in this way at all but would that have been the case if, instead of leaving the far-right and in due course meeting Caroline, I had continued along my earlier path and instead settled down with somebody who shared my old allegiances? Had I not walked away when I did could that have been me, and a child of mine, burning the golly at the RWB?

Sometimes I like to reassure myself that, in the later years at least, I was a more "sophisticated" kind of fascist than some of these cave dwellers. The NF in the late 1980s abandoned the rhetoric (if not the actuality) of race hate and indulged instead in endless high falutin debate about the merits or otherwise of popular rule in Burkina Faso, and suchlike.

And yet, so many of the people who occupy high positions in today's BNP were involved with the NF during that very period, including of course Nick Griffin himself. The guest speaker at the RWB was by all accounts Roberto Fiore, whom so many of us looked up to during that so-called "intellectual" period and followed, with Griffin, into the ITP.

This afternoon I spent a little time browsing the various far-right forums to see whether any remorse was being expressed over this disgusting incident. Certainly there was an element of regret that it had made the papers but most of this, alas, focused on attacking the reporters themselves. "In public we have to project a good image. Burning golliwogs? Sieg Hail? (sic)" asks a poster at the non-aligned neo-Nazi site Stormfront. "No. The jew is waiting for an opportunity like that to exploit." ("The jew", it seems, was at the RWB this year - he certainly gets around, this guy!).

I would appeal to those who might have joined this organisation or supported it in good faith to take a step back and ask themselves - is this what we signed up to? The public presentation may have changed, but the reality resurfaces under the cover of darkness over a few drinks.

There are ways and means of challenging disengagement and injustice in our society. Putting black people onto bonfires, even if only symbolically, is not one of them.