Norfolk Unity

There was confusion last night over whether Norwich North’s British National Party (BNP) candidate has the credentials to call himself “reverend”.

The Rev Robert West is at the centre of a row over his ministerial moniker, which he claimed was genuine – even though he admitted he had no current connection to any Christian denomination.

When questioned, Mr West, who lives in Holbeach in Lincolnshire, said: “It’s been dealt with once and I don’t have to justify myself.”

He said he had explained himself and shown his ordination certificate on a TV show in recent months, and said he had been advised “not to go through it all again”.

He said he had been “ordained as an elder” of the Apostolic Church of Wales some years ago. He claimed the word “elder” in the New Testament came from a Greek word meaning “priest”.

Mr West, who will be bidding to win the vacant Norwich North seat once the by-election date has been announced, said: “Ordination means recognition. It’s simply recognition of what you are. It recognises your gifts.”

Meanwhile, UKIP leader Nigel Farrage was in Norwich yesterday outlining how his party planned to reach out to traditional Labour voters and Tories disenchanted with David Cameron’s Conservative Party.

Norwich Evening News

With the BNP winning two seats in the European Parliament Nick Lowles looks at where the anti-BNP campaign goes from here

There are three clear facts that need to be remembered at the outset of this article. The first is that the British National Party has won two seats in the European Parliament. This provides it with the platform, financial clout and semi-respectability from which it hopes to build future success at a local and even parliamentary level over the coming year. Secondly, their election is a game changer. Debates around no platform, access to the media and political representation will change whether we like it or not and we will need to adapt accordingly. Finally, and in terms of this article probably most importantly, anti-fascism can be successful particularly if it becomes more organised. While I will argue that only by addressing the public policy issues that give rise to the BNP and challenging the racism at the core of its support can the far right be properly defeated, anti-fascism, particularly at a local level, can halt and even reverse its growth.

It is also important to dispel two widely (though separately) held assumptions. Firstly, this is not the protest vote against mainstream parties and useless locally elected representatives that many politicians would like us to believe. It is an increasingly hard and loyal vote which is based on political and economic insecurities and moulded by deep-rooted racial prejudice. This in turn is linked with a second myth, that the way to beat the BNP is simply to tack left and offer more socialistic policies. While this might peel off some BNP supporters who feel economically marginalised, it will not in itself address the strongly held racist views of many BNP voters.

As the YouGov poll (see below) clearly shows, the racism of many BNP voters goes well beyond simple opposition to current immigration and eastern European migrant workers which one might expect if their support for the BNP was prompted simply by economic insecurity. Belief in the intellectual superiority of white people over non-whites, the view of nearly half of BNP voters that black and Asian people can never be British, the almost universal dislike of even moderate Islam and the contempt and suspicion many of their voters have towards a liberal and multicultural society show how hardline much of the BNP support is and how it will take more than a more progressive economic policy to win them back fully.

More importantly, and regularly overlooked by politicians, activists and commentators alike, are issues around identity. As I have discussed before, the BNP is emerging as the voice of a forgotten working class, which increasingly feels left behind and ignored by mainstream society. As the YouGov research confirms, the majority of BNP voters feel that the Labour Party, for many their traditional political home, has moved away from them and is now dominated by a middle-class London elite who care more for Middle England and the interests of minority groups than for them.

Class politics exists but not as we once knew it. The Labour Party, in line with many other centre-left parties across western European and Scandinavia, draws the bulk of its support from the middle class, public sector workers and minority communities, especially in the big cities. The BNP, on the other hand, is the voice of a section of the white working class, particularly in those areas of traditional industry that have experienced the greatest economic and social upheaval over the past twenty years.

Most of the local authorities with the biggest BNP vote are in areas once dominated by the car, steel, coal or ceramic industries. All have gone, and those people able to leave have left. While some new jobs have replaced those lost, the work is generally lower skilled, short-term and further away from their home. In addition to economic difficulties the identity of the areas has collapsed, leaving behind a confused, resentful and alienated minority. This is the cultural war that the BNP has cleverly exploited, particularly by tapping in to people’s paranoia that outside forces are deliberately conspiring against them and giving preferential treatment to others (viewed by most BNP voters as undeserving).

However, all is not lost. While the BNP vote edged up it did not make the sweeping gains it and others predicted. The vast majority of voters still reject the BNP and many of those equally disillusioned with the political process did not vote BNP but stayed at home.

Addressing the widespread economic insecurities, solving the democratic deficit and forging new progressive identities requires public policy changes that are beyond the remit of the HOPE not hate campaign and anti-fascism generally. We can mobilise the anti-BNP vote and even sometimes suppress the pro-BNP vote but we cannot build houses and reduce waiting lists; we cannot prevent undercutting of wages and the abuse of migrant workers. Local anti-fascist movements cannot get resources into communities, often the poorest, dealing with extraordinary levels of migration.

That is the job of politicians and political parties. It is their failure currently to do so that is resulting in the increasing tribalism of local politics along racial and religious lines.

Making a difference

What we can do, however, is make a difference on the ground. And we do. Results in several local authority areas in the European elections showed the BNP vote (both actual and share of the vote) down compared to 2004. Among these areas were Burnley, Pendle and Oldham in the North West, Bradford and Kirklees in West Yorkshire, and Sandwell and Dudley in the West Midlands.

A common factor in all these areas has been the intensity of local anti-BNP campaigns, which has been all year round and not just a leaflet at an election.

And this sets the model for the year ahead. We will go into the 2010 local elections with an emboldened and financially secure BNP and we believe the number of council wards at risk is now over 150 across the country. The BNP’s main target will be Barking and Dagenham where it will be looking to take control of the council.

To fight the BNP effectively we must move away from city and town centre events to focusing on the very communities where the BNP is drawing its support. We need to return to localised leaflets and newsletters, tapping into the local identities of neighbourhoods and addressing local issues to undermine the BNP’s message of hate.

Smaller, local events are more important than one-off larger ones. The recent anti-racist carnival in Stoke-on-Trent might have been attended by 15,000 people but was it really the best use of £300,000? Even the carnival the year before, in Hackney, might have been attracted 60,000, but what impact does it have on the London hotspots such as Barking and Dagenham and Havering?

The effort required to put on and build such an event drains and diverts activism away from local campaigning, which will be the priority in 2010. Of course in the ideal world we would like both big national events and smaller local events, but where funds and activism are limited this is not possible.

A proper local strategy requires us to localise our campaigning. What works in one area will not work in another. Talking to principally Conservative voters requires a quite different leaflet to what would be put out in a traditionally Labour area. Localising our approach allows us to deal with local issues and also to target our message depending on what we are trying to achieve. And mobilising the anti-BNP vote is sometimes quite different from trying to suppress the BNP vote.

That is why the HOPE not hate campaign will be encouraging and supporting local groups to begin their own local anti-BNP newsletters. We hope that by starting this summer and focusing on the key wards for 2010 the newsletters will become a crucial tool to defeating the BNP at the ballot box.

To begin to undermine local BNP support we also have to build alliances within the community. Local anti-BNP groups need to be accepted and even respected. Every community has key movers and shakers and spending a bit of time cultivating relationships with these people will open new opportunities, allow our message to be widened considerably, potentially increase our activist base and give us a regular flow of information to rebut BNP myths and lies.

We also need to be cleverer in how we present our arguments. The YouGov survey shows the complete lack of respect BNP voters have towards authority – way beyond those of other parties. That means dogmatic or one dimensional arguments on anti-fascist leaflets are likely to fail.

We have to recognise that we might not always be the best messenger to get over an argument. One of the most successful leaflets we have ever produced was in Halifax where we got quotes from local doctors and pensioners to dismiss BNP claims that asylum seekers were forcing old people off GP lists and causing hospital operations to be cancelled. The strength of getting other people to speak up for us, particularly those respected by local people, is also evident from the survey. Local GPs, at 82%, came out as the most trusted professionals among BNP voters.

A new reality

We also have to accept that the political landscape has shifted. Searchlight comes from a proud tradition of No Platform, a belief that fascism should not be allowed to air its politics of hate publicly. We have always opposed legitimising fascism through public debate and where fascists try to incite hatred within communities through provocative marches and actions, we have backed mobilisations against them.

While I still adhere to this in principle I also believe that we have to accept a new reality. Firstly the BNP has MEPs and whether we like it or not Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons will appear more regularly on television. No platform agreements between political parties were already breaking down before the election, with only Labour holding to them, and this process is likely to quicken now.

Likewise, we also have to change our tactics on the streets. The hammer attack on a BNP activist in Leigh, Greater Manchester, in March was an unmitigated disaster. When we learnt about the BNP’s intention to hold a fundraising event in a local nightclub we got almost 5,000 people, including 400 from the local area, to sign an open letter from a local vicar calling for the event to be cancelled. Our pressure proved successful but what should have been a great media story, showing the strength of people power against the BNP, became three days of appallingly negative local headlines after an anti-fascist struck a BNP member in the head with a hammer.

Our response to any BNP activity is a tactical issue. Just as we always consider what is possible, so we have to think about the possible outcomes. With large chunks of local people supporting the BNP something that gives the party media sympathy is often counter-productive. In a 24-hour-communica-tions world every small event that in the past would have gone unreported can be headline news on television, the radio and on the internet within minutes.

With the BNP leaders far more politically savvy than in the past it is not difficult for them to spin a story to their advantage.

There is also a need for an honest debate about the use of rallies, marches and pickets. While one could argue that it is important continually to oppose the BNP gaining any legitimacy, such protests are increasingly ineffective and, probably more importantly, a distraction from the real work required in the communities.

The reality is that most people other than a few highly motivated activists will not come out on a regular basis. Continually chasing the BNP uses up their time when there is more serious but perhaps less glamorous work to be done in local communities. Again, people might say that we should do both. That may be the ideal but it is not the reality and choices have to be made. We have to prioritise our agenda rather than continually react to the BNP’s. Obviously there will be times when mobilisations are important but this cannot be a distraction from the real work at hand.

Moving forward

Over the next few months our priority is to build anti-fascist groups in every community in the country. Over 115,000 people have engaged in some activity for the HOPE not hate campaign. That’s an incredible one in 470 adults in Britain. Over 80,000 people have signed our “Not in my name” petition since the election, of which over 60,000 were completely new to us.

This shows the level of anger at the BNP success, but now we need to harness it in a positive and constructive way that helps us build the necessary networks that can defeat the BNP in the community.

Our initial job is to turn our online supporters into activists on the ground. Hopefully some will emerge as local organisers, committed to the localised strategy ahead. Old hands must be encouraged to support new organisers and we will be providing an organising and leadership programme in every region of the country.

A series of one-day training events will be held to give key activists from local groups the basics in running a local campaign group, working in a target ward and building alliances within the community.

From there a handful of the most enthusiastic local organisers will be invited to a three-day residential programme, to be held in the late autumn, where they will develop leadership and organisational skills.

Developing a pool of local organisers is the way to ensure good quality campaigns. Whatever the enthusiasm of local activists a lack of organising skills and the ability to localise campaigns effectively will result in continued reliance on national help, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of a local campaign.

To support local groups, particularly in the run-up to next year’s local and probable general election, the HOPE not hate campaign will be seeking to put trained organisers on the ground in each region of the country.

The work of local groups will be further supported by an even bigger online effort than we achieved this year. Through online telephone canvassing, supporters across the country will be able to help in our key battlegrounds from their front rooms. Matching groups and activists in one part of country where there is no BNP threat to an area where there is one can help us raise money for local material.

Remaining focused

The BNP success has led some to argue that we need to politicise anti-fascism, even to offer a political alternative to the BNP. While there are clearly public policy failings and a democratic deficit, it is not our job to fill this void. We must leave that to the political parties, old or new.

We are about defeating the BNP, both by turning out those voters totally opposed to their racist politics and by dispelling myths and challenging the assumptions and ignorance that give rise to BNP support.

We have a big job to do but it can be done. The work on anti-BNP campaigns in East Lancashire, Oldham, the Black Country and West Yorkshire is testament to that.

However, for us to defeat the BNP over the coming year requires hard work, building local broad-based coalitions, adapting to the new realities and being a little bit smarter than we have been before. Get these components right and we can hold the BNP at bay.

A hard and alienated vote

Who votes BNP and why

A new survey into the attitudes of BNP voters has produced some startling revelations. Unsurprisingly BNP voters are overwhelmingly opposed to immigration and asylum seekers but a sizeable number also share the BNP’s hardline attitudes about citizenship and racial superiority.

It shows that BNP voters are predominantly working class, drawn from former Labour-voting households and feel more insecure about their economic prospects.

Conducted by YouGov from 29 May to 4 June, the survey questioned 985 BNP voters as part of a much bigger study of the political views of 32,268 people.

The study tells us that men are twice as likely to support the BNP as women, 44% of BNP voters are aged 35 to 54 and 61% are drawn from the social groups C2DE. One third of BNP voters read The Sun or the Daily Star, whereas only 13% read the Daily Mirror and those reading The Guardian and The Independent are statistically insignificant. One fifth claim to be members of trade unions or trade associations and 36% identify themselves as skilled or semi-skilled manual workers.

On one level the report tells us little new. More BNP supporters regard immigration as one of the key issues facing the country at the moment – 87% compared to 49% among all voters. Again unsurprisingly, 94% of BNP supporters believed that all further immigration should be halted. This compares with 87% of UK Independence Party voters, 68% of Conservative voters, 46% of Labour voters, 43% of Lib Dem voters and even 37% of Green voters.

Only 4% of BNP voters believed that recent immigration had benefited the country.

What is more startling is the strength of the racial attitudes of many BNP voters. In a result that gives the lie to the BNP vote simply being a protest, 44% (compared to 12% of all voters) disagreed with the statement: “non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”.

Among BNP voters 21% strongly disagreed with the statement compared to just 1% of Greens and Lib Dems and 2% of Labour and 3% of Conservative voters.

More disturbingly, 31% of BNP voters believed there was a difference in intelligence between the average black Briton and the average white Briton.

Although only 2% of BNP voters deny that six million Jews, Gypsies and others died in the Holocaust, a further 18% accept that the Holocaust occurred but believe it has been exaggerated.

It is clear that the BNP receives support primarily on issues of race, immigration and identity but there is also a clear link with economic insecurity. Several of the questions probed respondents’ views on their current and future economic prospects. BNP voters repeatedly had the most gloomy outlook.

When asked whether they were satisfied that they had enough money to live on comfortably, 74% of BNP voters said no, compared to just 43% of Labour and 50% of Conservative voters.

On whether they were confident that their family would have the opportunities to prosper in the years ahead, 75% of BNP voters said no compared to just 35% of Labour voters.

Over half of BNP voters felt the financial situation of their house- hold would worsen over the next 12 months. In contrast only 29% of Labour voters agreed and 27% thought it would get better.

Again, more BNP voters thought someone in their family would lose their job in the current recession than supporters of other parties.

One of the most startling results was the response to the statement that “there is a major international conspiracy led by Jews and Communists to undermine traditional Christian values in Britain and other western countries”. Amazingly one third of BNP voters completely or partially agreed.

However, the significance of this response actually lies in the feeling of victimisation felt by many BNP supporters and cleverly exploited by the BNP itself. The view that they are losing out because of the conscious action of others is widespread among BNP supporters and it comes out clearly in this survey. Over three quarters of BNP voters believed that white people suffered unfair discrimination whereas only 3% thought Muslims did. Nine out of ten BNP supporters felt that councils allowed immigrant families to jump housing queues.

This feeling of victimisation coupled with a widespread belief that the Labour Party, which most once supported, at best no longer cares about them and at worst conspires against them makes these voters susceptible to the BNP’s big lie. It is hardly a surprise then that so many people in Barking and Dagenham were happy to believe the Africans for Essex myth.

Think of the balance of forces. On one side you have the Labour Party (which 57% of BNP voters think no longer cares about them), politicians (who 78% of BNP voters think are corrupt), senior officers in the council (who only 1% of BNP voters trust a great deal) and immigrants (who 87% of BNP supporters think are a problem and only 4% believe contribute anything positive). Then you have the BNP, the anti-establishment party speaking up for the forgotten white working class.

This survey is both predictable and disturbing. While immigration remains the dominant issue for BNP voters it is clear that they more than any other group feel economically insecure and politically abandoned. What is shocking is the depth of their racism and the alienation from mainstream politics. Support for the BNP goes far beyond being a protest, as some politicians would have us believe, and the racist attitudes will not disappear simply by improving economic conditions.

We should be under no illusion that a long and hard struggle lies ahead.

What do you think?

We are opening up the August issue of Searchlight to find out your views on the way forward. Please restrict articles to 500 words and get them to me nick@stopthebnp.org.uk by 10 July. (Please note that space is limited and we cannot guarantee to publish every article.)

Nick Lowles, Searchlight

• Pressure mounts for end to race hate law loopholes
• CPS powerless to pursue complaints made by police

Senior prosecutors are calling for the laws on race hate crimes to be strengthened to counter the threat posed by the British National party.

The threshold for securing a conviction is so high that far-right activists are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist, according to sources at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to “stir up racial hatred” or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.

The offence, which was created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through people’s letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.

Several BNP leaflets have been referred to the CPS over the last five years – some by senior police officers and one by a judge – but no further action has been taken.

Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a part-time judge, submitted a complaint last year over a leaflet called The Changing Face of London that had two pictures, one depicting an all-white street party from the 1950s, the other showing three Muslim women wearing a niqab, one of whom is making a V-sign towards the camera.

“Under the law, it has been extremely difficult to mount a prosecution against extremism and hate speech,” said Herbert. “But with the rise of the BNP, and the subsequent rise in racist attacks and the fear the party’s leaflets can provoke, it is essential we are given the tools to deal effectively with this threat.”

Herbert said the law should protect people from material that creates a fear of racist attacks as well as those that are deemed to incite racial hatred. “All the evidence suggests that it is people from minority communities and the faith communities that are put in fear of violence when racist leaflets are delivered in town centres or on estates. If someone handed out the same thing in the workplace, most employers would consider that gross misconduct; if someone does the same thing in the street, there is very little we can do.”

Another complaint was submitted to the CPS by Lancashire police who expressed concern about a BNP leaflet which blamed Muslims for the heroin trade. Four people were arrested and released on police bail last year but detectives are still waiting to hear from the CPS about whether they have grounds to prosecute for “incitement to stir up racial hatred”.

In another incident, Derbyshire police alerted the CPS about a BNP election leaflet claiming three asylum seekers had raped a woman. The police said the rape claims were “unfounded”, but the CPS said there were no grounds to prosecute under existing law. “Whilst those details in the leaflet regarding the alleged rape are factually incorrect, this in itself does not constitute a criminal offence,” said a CPS spokesman at the time.

A senior prosecutor told the Guardian: “There are numerous problems. The test to show incitement is very high and the material has to be distributed in public rather than put through people’s doors. This makes it really difficult to get convictions for material which many people consider racist.”

A CPS source confirmed that the organisation would review its policies on prosecuting race hate crimes following the election of two BNP candidates, including the party’s leader, Nick Griffin, to the European parliament.

“We will need to look again at the situation with prosecuting incidences of this material,” the source said.

Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the official watchdog on race and equality, wrote a formal letter to the BNP giving them one month to remedy three alleged breaches of the Race Relations Act, including the party’s whites-only membership policy.

That announcement increased the likelihood of legal action against the BNP in the civil courts, but critics say there have been too few criminal proceedings, despite material distributed by the party which many regard as inflammatory.

Herbert, the former chair of the Metropolitan police race hate crime forum, said a number of anti-racism and human rights bodies would back a change in the law.

“I expect a strong coalition will form around this idea and put pressure on the government to instigate a change in primary legislation as soon as possible,” he said.

Anti-racism campaigners welcomed the crackdown on inflammatory or racist leaflets but warned more was needed to effectively counter the threat posed by the BNP.

“Where the BNP has been distributing racially offensive material, it is right that they should be prosecuted with the full force of the law,” said a spokesman for the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight. “However, the way we will defeat Nick Griffin and his party is street by street and estate by estate, not lawyer by lawyer and courtroom by courtroom.”

The Guardian

High-minded notions of rooting out Euro-sleaze voiced by Nick Griffin at his oh-so-lucky election as an MEP already seem to have been forgotten as the Cyclopic one elects to tread more familiar BNP turf, and takes for his first “case” that of a “24 year-old former prison service employee” who attended a Fire Service recruitment open evening in Oldham, and who, according to a posting made by Griffin on his shiny new website, was sent away because “the gentleman concerned was white and he along with around 20 other white males and one white female were told that the fire service were only targeting people from the ethnic minorities and the gay community, and they were sent away and dismissed from the recruitment process”.

Even on a first reading this seems improbable, and on a second impossible. If this had actually happened there would have been a clear breach of the law on the part of Greater Manchester Fire And Rescue Service, which covers Oldham, and GMFRS’s representatives would have been reduced to making snap judgements on the ethnicity of the attendees, as well as improperly inquiring after their sexual orientation.

Can you imagine the justifiable uproar, the outraged Daily Mail headlines?

So far the outrage seems confined to Griffin’s office manager, Tina Wingfield, who fulminates: “This is a worrying case of positive discrimination gone mad. Here we have an ideal applicant for the job of firefighter but he was barred from even applying because he is a white hetrosexual. This is a shocking state of affairs and that needs to be addressed.”

What needs to be addressed is the BNP’s relationship with the truth.

An amused GMFRS spokesperson told us there was not the remotest possibility of any person being “sent away and dismissed from the recruitment process” because they happened to be white heterosexuals. He agreed that not only would such a move be negative and counter-productive, it would be a public relations disaster. The idea that this happened to 22 white heterosexuals at an informal open evening in Oldham was “ridiculous”.

Nick’s first Euro lie nailed?

Croydon Council is looking to see whether it can take a BNP member to court after she boasted about mounting a hate campaign against a family of immigrants living in the flat above her.

Charlotte Lewis, who earlier this year stood as a candidate in the Waddon by-election, told a meeting of British National Party members she played loud music late into the night – which may have contributed to the Afghan family moving out. The comments were made at a meeting in east London to celebrate the party’s showing in the recent European elections.

Addressing party members at a pub in Dagenham, she said: “I don’t think they could take any more of my penchant for playing heavy metal at 1am.”

When the Advertiser asked the 36-year-old, who lives in Bensham Lane, Thornton Heath, to explain the comments, Ms Lewis said she had “embellished” the story for the sake of her audience. But she added: “I’m of the opinion that none of them should be in this country anyway. It would be in the best interests of this country if they moved back to Afghanistan. If British people were to move in upstairs I would keep the noise down.”

Asked if she had made any efforts to get to know her neighbours, Ms Lewis added: “That would be hypocritical, and I’m not hypocritical. What on earth would we speak about, even if they could speak English? They’re immigrants in my country and I’m a member of the BNP.”

Croydon North MP Malcolm Wicks – a patron of the West Croydon Refugee Centre – said he was appalled at her remarks. He said: “If she admits that she made the comments, it’s a really extraordinary thing. It’s clearly anti-social behaviour and the idea that someone could be considered for elected public service after admitting this kind of anti-social behaviour is bizarre. It shows the good sense of the people of Waddon for not voting for her.”

Councillor Alison Butler, who represents the Bensham Manor ward where Ms Lewis lives, was equally disgusted by her bragging. She said: “I’m going to see if there’s any action we (Croydon Council) can take. I’m just horrified at her despicable remarks, I just wish we’d heard about it sooner.”

Gavin Barwell, the council’s cabinet member for safety and cohesion, has asked officers to investigate what steps they can take against her under anti-social behaviour laws. He said: “I share Councillor Butler’s concerns and will be looking into it. I view it very seriously, and I’m taking advice from officers about whether there is any legal action we can take.”

This is Croydon

While leading members of the BNP are afforded the luxury of having themselves pelted with eggs, those lower down the ranks are only thought worthy of cheaper alternatives.

In the case of the BNP’s Norwich North by-election candidate this was a jug of iced water expertly flung at pretend prelate the “Reverend” Robert West by an irate housewife in North Hykeham, Lincs, when West – sporting his trademark dog-collar – came calling on behalf of the racist party.

The incident happened in 2006, soon after West resigned from a Conservative Party about to expel him for speaking at BNP meetings and for his role in setting up the BNP’s bogus “Christian Council of Britain”.

The unnamed housewife later told the Lincolnshire Echo: “He was wearing a dog collar so I asked him whether he was a real reverend. He refused to enter into a debate about it. I had the jug of iced water because I was preparing for friends who were visiting that day. I refuse to apologise. I have no remorse. If he comes here again I will empty a whole jug over his head.”

The matter of whether West is a “real reverend” or not has exercised quite a number of people for quite some time, not least those who take a closer interest in religious affairs than the “Rev.” West finds comfortable.

In the past West has refused to discuss the validity of his orders – that is, who ordained him, into which church, when and where? Without valid orders, West has no more right to call himself “Reverend” or to pass himself off as a clergyman than you or I.

There have been unsourced reports that West was ordained as an “Elder” into something calling itself the Apostolic Church, but the only legitimate existing British church of that name denied all knowledge of him, telling a researcher for the Love @nd Rage website:

First of all may I confirm that The Apostolic Church does not support the views or the activities of the British National Party. The Church has no political association whatsoever.

On the second matter I am uncertain about who is the Mr Robert West mentioned in the article. One thing is certain: he does not speak on behalf of The Apostolic Church. If this person lives in Lincolnshire he does not attend The Apostolic Church. In fact as a denomination we have no churches in Lincolnshire.

I note that he is quoted as being ‘ordained as an elder’ within the Church. If this person has had any association with The Apostolic Church in the past the only means by which he can maintain either his membership or office is by attending one of our churches. If he were an active member of the Church his views would not be accepted by the Church and disciplinary action would be undertaken by the Church which strongly distances itself from views such as these.

West operates – if that is the word – the Grace Covenant Fellowship from his Holbeach home, the “Fellowship” strongly suspected, like the “Christian Council of Britain”, of having a membership of one.

Following the European elections West appeared on BBC television’s “The Big Question”, in company of ex-Nazi and ex-National Front leader, Andrew Brons. At the beginning of the show West was explictly challenged by Ekklesia director Jonathan Bartley to say how many members the CCB had, and not for the first time shied away from answering. Bartley told West in no uncertain terms that it had one, namely himself, to which West could only grimace lamely.

Back in April, however, on the East Midlands version of The Politics Show, West produced what he claimed to be a diploma from the Apostolic Church Bible College, located in Pen-y-groes, south Wales. An Apostolic college certainly exists in Pen-y-groes, and is indeed run by the Apostolic Church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination founded in the early 20th century. Its title, however, is Apostolic Church School of Ministry (ACSOM), previously the Apostolic Church International Bible School.

What is immediately apparent from its website is that ACSOM and the church to which it is attached are multi-cultural, multi-racial, and inclusive. Its members do not wear dog-collars, nor do they use the title “Reverend”. And the last thing they will preach about is the “sin” of race-mixing.

Little wonder, then, that the church is keen to distance itself from the claims of the “Reverend” West.

As Jonathan Bartley asks of the well-watered “cleric”: “Will any church come forward to claim him? Or is this another example of BNP deception?”

Well, the voters of Norwich North and Norfolk journalists are going to have every opportunity to find out the answer to Jonathan’s question when West and his cohorts of decidedly unsaintly BNP hatemongers descend upon the Fine City in the near future.

Don’t forget to ask: who ordained Robert West? Into which church? When? Where? And let’s see his written orders, please.

The EHRC has today written to BNP over possible breaches of anti-discrimination law.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has today written to the British National Party over possible breaches of anti-discrimination law. The Commission has demanded that the party address potential breaches related to its constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to the public and constituents.

The letter, sent to the party chairman Nick Griffin, outlines the Commission’s concerns about the BNP’s compliance with the Race Relations Act. The letter asks the BNP to provide written undertakings by 20th July that it will make the changes required by the Commission. Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP.

The Commission has a statutory duty, under the Equality Act 2006, to enforce the provisions of the Act and to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination. This duty includes preventing discrimination by political parties.

The Commission thinks that the BNP’s constitution and membership criteria may discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, contrary to the Race Relations Act. The party’s membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular “ethnic groups” and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act which the party is legally obliged to comply with. The Commission therefore thinks that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally.

The Commission has required the BNP to provide a written undertaking that it will not discriminate contrary to the Race Relations Act in its employment and recruitment policies, procedures and practices.

The BNP’s website states that the party is looking to recruit people and states that any applicants should supply a membership number. The Commission thinks that this requirement is contrary to the Race Relations Act, which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation. The Commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally.

The letter asks the BNP to provide a written undertaking that it will amend its policy on recruitment accordingly so that it complies with the Race Relations Act.

The Commission is also concerned that the BNP’s elected representatives may not intend to offer or provide services on an equal basis to all their constituents and members of the public irrespective of race or colour. The Commission thinks that this contravenes the Race Relations Act and the Local Authority Model Code of Conduct and that the BNP may have acted illegally and may act illegally in the future.

The Commission’s letter asks the BNP to provide a written undertaking that its elected representatives or those working for them will not discriminate on grounds of race or colour in the provision of services to members of the public or constituents.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal at the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

“The Commission’s statutory role includes a duty to investigate possible breaches of discrimination law and take action where appropriate. The legal advice we have received indicates that the British National Party’s constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to constituents and the public may breach discrimination laws which all political parties are legally obliged to uphold. We await a response from the BNP to our letter before deciding what further action we may take. Litigation or enforcement action can be avoided by the BNP giving a satisfactory response to our letter.”

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Four people including a teenager have been arrested on suspicion of “racially aggravated” offences at the British National Party’s ‘Victory’ rally in Lancashire.

The men, who are not believed to be connected to the party or anti-fascism protestors picketing the event, are being held by police after confronting protestors outside the Kimberley Hotel in Blackpool on Saturday. The four arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred were a 16-year-old boy and a 22-year-old man from Widnes, Cheshire, a 21-year-old man from the Wirral and a 41-year-old man from Leigh, near Wigan

Up to 80 members of the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) group gathered outside the hotel where BNP leader and North West Euro MP Nick Griffin is expected to address members around 4pm.

A Lancashire Police spokesman said that the protest ended around 2pm and passed off “without major incident” despite the arrests. She said: “It is not believed the four are associated with the UAF or the BNP in any way.”

Protesting outside the hotel on the resort’s seafront, Raymond Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, held up offensive, threatening posters which he claimed had been put through his door by the party. He said: “Don’t tell me it’s a normal political party – that’s what the Nazi Party said in the 1930s. And we must expose them. It doesn’t matter what Nick Griffin says.

“They are respectable in the daytime but at night go around kicking in doors.”

Mr Griffin, who was elected a Member of the European Parliament for the North West earlier this month, said the rally was to thank the party’s “key people and activists all over the country.” He said: “We will be talking about where we go from here and to make sure we serve our constituents properly.”

Lancashire Evening Post

You always remember what you were doing when something wonderful happened.

Well, on the evening of August 28, 2004, I was standing on a track-side seat and screaming as a young woman drove herself through the last few strides of an Olympic final. When she crossed the line, adding the 1500metres title to her 800m victory, I apologised to an American colleague for my outburst.

‘Don’t worry,’ he said. ‘She’s a great lady, Kelly Holmes. You Brits should be proud of her.’

He was right, of course. Kelly’s double was a prodigious achievement. In the annals of British sport it takes its place alongside Roger Bannister’s four-minute mile, Bobby Moore’s World Cup winners of 1966 and the 2003 Rugby World Cup victory of Martin Johnson’s men. I well recall her tears of pride as she climbed to the peak of the podium and she did not cry alone.

Since that glorious Athenian evening, Kelly has continued to bring honour and credit to her sport. She was appointed National School Sports Champion and has enjoyed real success in increasing the amount of PE and active sport in our schools. She has designed and promoted programmes to support the development of gifted young sportsmen and women.

And she carries the credibility of an athlete whose own career – despite being distorted by injury and plagued by ill fortune – represented the ultimate vindication of spirit, endurance and towering talent. She was created a Dame in 2005 and more recently was elected President of Commonwealth Games England. In short, she is something more than a mere heroine; she has attained the status of national treasure.

Which makes the intervention of one Andrew Brons even more offensive.

Mr Brons is a leading light in the British National Party. He recently polled 9.8 per cent of votes in the Yorkshire and Humber region, which won him a seat in the European Parliament. He is a former member of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement. And this odious fellow has just expressed a view about our Kelly.

Although she was born in Pembury, Kent, and served for several years in the British Army before embarking upon her stunningly successful career in the British vest, she is not, in Brons’s considered opinion, a fully-fledged Briton. For Kelly is the daughter of an English mother and a Jamaican-born father and her mixed-race heritage means that she is ‘only partially from this country’.

Or, as he puts it: ‘I don’t accept the term Black British or Asian British. Britons are the indigenous peoples of these isles.’

Now, normally I should not dream of publicising the pitiful fantasies of Brons and his fellow inadequates. But his idiocy gives us the chance to reflect upon just how far sport has come.

Football, the national sport, has played a major part in engaging the entire community. The briefest glance at the current England team tells us how handsomely the sport has embraced diversity. Track and field has always had an admirable record in this area while rugby and cricket can point to genuine progress.

In truth, most of our major sports – with tennis a faintly depressing exception – have made intelligent efforts to broaden their talent base and British sport has benefited greatly from such enhanced inclusiveness.

It is, therefore, appropriate that the country should take collective offence when a fascist like Brons dares to question their presence in the nation’s sport by declaring: ‘They are British citizens, which is a legal concept, but not British by identity.’ It is a statement both baseless and insulting and it says more about the poisonous dullard who made it than the men and women who it seeks to belittle.

For they are considerable people who have achieved great things, people like Ugo Monye, Ravi Bopara, Emile Heskey, Theo Walcott, Monty Panesar and Rio Ferdinand, as well as the woman who brought us screaming to our feet at the Athens Olympics.

‘She’s a great lady, Kelly Holmes,’ said the American journalist. ‘You Brits should be proud of her.’

Indeed we are, because Dame Kelly is one of the finest athletes in Olympic history. And she is one of us.

Patrick Collins in the Mail on Sunday

The British National party’s (BNP) efforts to form a coalition with other extremist groups in Europe have ended in failure.

Party leader Nick Griffin had hoped to form a grouping with parties such as Italy’s Northern League and France’s Front National.

Parliamentary groupings require 25 MEPs from at least seven countries, which triggers up to a million euros funding for staff and office costs.

“It appears at present we are below the threshold,” Mr Griffin said after talks at the European parliament in Brussels.

“We have to see how the other political groups get on with their negotiations and if they cannot do a deal whether they will deal with us.”

The BNP grouping has only attracted 12 MEPs, despite wide gains for the far-right in the recent elections.

The far-right often struggles to work together across national boundaries.

In the last parliament the Greater Romania party broke up the far-right Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty group after a spat with Mussolini’s daughter, Alessandro, who said all Romanians were criminals.

The Northern League’s rejection of a BNP grouping will severely hinder Mr Griffin’s attempts to have a strong presence in the parliament, because they carry nine MEPs.

Geert Wilder’s Dutch Freedom party, which mostly sells itself on an extreme variant of anti-Muslim thought, also rejected the BNP, despite being sufficiently extreme to be banned from entering Britain.

Mr Wilder is understood to be attempting to appeal to mainstream Dutch voters, and is furiously avoiding associations with the likes of the BNP or the National Front.

The Danish People’s party is also avoiding Mr Griffin. It has also tried to avoid Jean Marie Le-Pen’s National Front, after he again denied the Holocaust at the parliament.

Groupings must be declared by July 14th, for the parliament’s inaugural sitting.

Politics.co.uk