The list contains several thousand names. Apparently 10,000. Some people have donation as acomment against their name. If All the people on the list were to have made a donation to the party of, say £5, there should appear in the accounts. They do not. If all the people on the list paid a membership fee - of, say £5 per month - then that too should appear on the accounts. Either the list has substantial flaws or there is something fundamentally unsound about the accounting of the Party. A membership fee of £5 per month would equate to £600,000 a year in membership fees alone.
If the list is true then there may be irregularities about the way in which the names were gathered. BNP activists adding the names of those signing a petition might account for some names. This would excuse the Party from financial explanations but beg the question of data protection compliance.
Which might point to a systematic contempt for data protection and the principles of data protection legislation. Indeed, the knowledge that Nick Griffin sports about the content of the list suggest his role is not that of innocent bystander in the list being made public. He is aware of the law and conversant with its nature. He enjoys the challenge of breaking laws he sees as contemptible. He is not above manipulation.
It is not a defence of fascists. It is an examination of who, exactly, needs to publicise huge lists of names and why. Given Griffin's historical relationship to Fiore and the International Third Position - the exercise of collecting "sympathetic" names and then releasing them to "unsymapthetic" elements smacks of a strategy of tension tactic. An attempt to radicalise the mainstream in favour of fascism by forcing anybody remotely connected with the party to be subjected to tension.
Fundamental questiona remain around the BNP's policies, practices and methods of data protection and accounting. Particularly given the relationship between membership and fundraising. The state of the Party's finances do not seem to relate to the number of alleged members. Perhaps a full set of accounts might clarify the issue. A full set of accounts, on time and signed off by a fully qualified Auditor.
A statement about why the party has kept so many names on a list that is for members when those people are not members might clarify matters. A statement as to why a member list contains such sensitive comments might clarify matters. Clearly, such comments are not necessary to administer membership of a Political Party. A statement as to how the membership fee relates to the list might also clarify matters: surely each member must pay the minimum membership fee.
The list is backfiring on the BNP as the party begins to unwind. All questionable behaviour will be attributed to "antifiascists" - while silent phone calls are more likely to originate from the BNP themselves. BNP members more than happy to treat the newly included ethnic members to hard treatment in order to create fear. By pointing out that it is the BNP that has more interest in abusing its members, there are points to be made about exactly waht kind of party it is.
If the list is true then there may be irregularities about the way in which the names were gathered. BNP activists adding the names of those signing a petition might account for some names. This would excuse the Party from financial explanations but beg the question of data protection compliance.
Which might point to a systematic contempt for data protection and the principles of data protection legislation. Indeed, the knowledge that Nick Griffin sports about the content of the list suggest his role is not that of innocent bystander in the list being made public. He is aware of the law and conversant with its nature. He enjoys the challenge of breaking laws he sees as contemptible. He is not above manipulation.
It is not a defence of fascists. It is an examination of who, exactly, needs to publicise huge lists of names and why. Given Griffin's historical relationship to Fiore and the International Third Position - the exercise of collecting "sympathetic" names and then releasing them to "unsymapthetic" elements smacks of a strategy of tension tactic. An attempt to radicalise the mainstream in favour of fascism by forcing anybody remotely connected with the party to be subjected to tension.
Fundamental questiona remain around the BNP's policies, practices and methods of data protection and accounting. Particularly given the relationship between membership and fundraising. The state of the Party's finances do not seem to relate to the number of alleged members. Perhaps a full set of accounts might clarify the issue. A full set of accounts, on time and signed off by a fully qualified Auditor.
A statement about why the party has kept so many names on a list that is for members when those people are not members might clarify matters. A statement as to why a member list contains such sensitive comments might clarify matters. Clearly, such comments are not necessary to administer membership of a Political Party. A statement as to how the membership fee relates to the list might also clarify matters: surely each member must pay the minimum membership fee.
The list is backfiring on the BNP as the party begins to unwind. All questionable behaviour will be attributed to "antifiascists" - while silent phone calls are more likely to originate from the BNP themselves. BNP members more than happy to treat the newly included ethnic members to hard treatment in order to create fear. By pointing out that it is the BNP that has more interest in abusing its members, there are points to be made about exactly waht kind of party it is.
Comments
Display the following 2 comments