Has been expelled from the BNP. Looks like the self-anointed "true White Nationalists" have suffered quite a blow. A victory for reason, nonetheless.

Has been expelled from the BNP. Looks like the self-anointed "true White Nationalists" have suffered quite a blow. A victory for reason, nonetheless.

Quick background on this fellow?

Dr Brandt was a fan, hates everyone but muslims because they "fight the jew". One of those morons.

Has been expelled from the BNP. Looks like the self-anointed "true White Nationalists" have suffered quite a blow. A victory for reason, nonetheless.

Has Mr. Tyndall actually done anything wrong? Or is simply having views in opposition to those of Mr. Griffin sufficient for expulsion from the BNP (contrary to its written bylaws)? And if so, how is this a good thing? And in what sense does it constitute a victory for "reason?"

Dr Brandt was a fan, hates everyone but muslims because they "fight the jew". One of those morons.

That is an idiotic mischaracterization (although perpaps not technically a "lie," since its entirely possible you sincerely believe such demented tripe).

http://heretical.com/British/bnpxmas.jpg

"The BNP Christmas Social was held on Friday 3rd December somewhere between Tower Bridge and Fenchurch Street. Tony Lecomber 'stars' in this picture and the music was provided by our ethnic buddy, who was hired from a commercial DJ organisation, possibly without being checked out. It did have the effect of inhibiting public comments and a few people walked out, which does not say much for the others." The identity of the photographer is known.

http://heretical.com/British/ng-zion.jpg
heretical (http://heretical.com/British/bnpfun.html)

This is what JT had to say:

Dear Friend,

As you most probably know, the disciplinary 'trial' at which I faced thirteen charges of alleged offences against the BNP constitution took place in Essex yesterday. Since I returned home I have been inundated with 'phone calls and e-mail messages enquiring as to how things ended.

I greatly appreciate everyone's concern, and am overwhelmed by their support. So far, however, I am unable to inform anyone about the result. At the conclusion of the proceedings it was suggested that I and my party of friends wait to hear the tribunal's verdict. In advance we had recognised that this would just be part of the game of psychological warfare waged against us, and we had agreed not to submit ourselves to such an indignity. We departed immediately, informing the others that they could communicate the verdict very easily to me by telephone or e-mail once it had been made. So far I have not heard anything.

Being familiar with the mentality of Mr. Tony Lecomber, I would not be surprised if he decided to play one of his childish games in keeping me guessing for a good few days before informing me. On the other hand, taking into account the same mentality, neither would it surprise me if he had already started boasting to everyone of his achievement in "kicking Tyndall out of the party." In that case the news would, I am sure, very soon get back to me. I am virtually certain that 'guilty' and 'expelled' will have been the decisions overall, even if 'guilty' verdicts were not given on every one of the thirteen charges.

Three members sat on the tribunal. I had never before met or even heard of any of them. I was not notified of their names in advance of the hearing, as I should have been. I cannot say that I found any of them personally disagreeable but it was very clear from early in the proceedings that they were woefully inexperienced in the ways of nationalism and of the party and simply did not understand the basic arguments. Tony Lecomber's approach was to harp constantly on the 'nazi' theme and to appeal to these people's perfectly correct and understandable view that we did not want the BNP to be labelled a 'nazi' party -- a view that I happen to share but one of which it was difficult to convince the tribunal members in the face of repeated allegations by Mr. Lecomber to the contrary. All kinds of items were taken from Spearhead magazine and twisted and presented in contexts intended to convey 'nazi' intentions. A politically mature and legally aware tribunal would have seen through this technique but I doubt if any present did. It was clear that one definitely did not and was nodding and loudly 'yessing' to everything Lecomber said; with regard to the other two, I wait to hear before commenting further.

Of course, the issue at hand was not whether what I wrote in Spearhead was poli

tically right or wrong but whether, in writing it, I had in some way breached the BNP constitution. Repeatedly, I had to bring the agenda back from political arguments -- and arguments as to whether this or that happened or didn't happen in the party -- to the strictly legal arguments that were crucial to the case. Repeatedly, I had to remind the jury that they were not asked to agree with things I had written, or allowed to be published, but were expected to recognise my right in a free country to express or publish them. Mr. Lecomber endeavoured at times to take us on long tours into totally irrelevant territory, for instance arguing the rights and wrongs of the conflict occurring in 2000 involving Michael Newland and Steve and Sharron Edwards, and attempting to back up or excuse Nick Griffin's actions in that conflict. As on so many occasions, I had to remind the company present that none of this had anything whatsoever to do with my guilt or innocence on the charges I was facing. Tony Lecomber knows this -- he is not a complete fool in such matters -- but he quite cynically sought to influence the tribunal against me by drawing upon these arguments to show how 'wrong' I was in my assessments of things going on in the BNP. In a proper court of law he would immediately have been pulled up by a judge for dwelling on irrelevancies and then had the judge instruct the jury to disregard them. However, here he was able to get away with it.

Again and again, I had to remind the tribunal of my basic rights in the expression of my opinions, and these included the right -- at times and in some people's view -- to be wrong. Whether this message got home is open to doubt.

Just before leaving to drive up to Essex, I checked the morning's e-mails and found among them copies of an absolutely self-damning communication from Tony Lecomber. It was addressed to Britain's most notorious homosexual nationalist, Martin Webster. It concerned the charges against me and the coming hearing of them, and I will quote the most relevant parts here exactly as written:-

"Dear Martin...

"I'm in the last phase of, i hope, finally getting rid of tyndall from the bnp. After which there will no doubt be a court battle over the matter which i'm sure he will lose.

"I plan to write a small biography/exposure of the great man covering his political career. I remember our conversation in Islington [in 1998, shortly before the Griffin takeover campaign. JT] about events in the 1970s which you could recall, being the man on the spot, but was all news to me. It confirmed to me that he was a bloody hypocrite but, at the time, i didn't see the point or need to make notes as the points made weren't really germane to Griffin versus Tyndall in 1999 [open to serious question. JT].

"I should say now right from the off that this little project has got nothing to do with Nick. It's about my personal loathing and contempt for tyndall, who in my opinion has cost us 20-25 years [JT emphasis]... Tyndall has cost us dearly.

"Such material as you could provide would be highly desirable since it covers the period you knew him and I didn't...

"Will you help out on this one?

"Tony"

Mr. Lecomber displayed monumental foolishness in sending such a communication to Martin Webster, for 'confidential' information conveyed to the latter today will tomorrow become known to the whole world. This piece of idiocy contrasts strongly with the sender's quite cunning and clever conduct of the tribunal proceedings two days later. Of course, what our Tony L. did not seem to appreciate was that Martin Webster not only hates me, in consequence of my stand against his homosexual adventures in the National Front in the late 1970s, but he hates Nick Griffin probably even more, and also despises Tony Lecomber.

I produced this e-mail and read out the most relevent parts in yesterday's proceedings but I doubt if it would have had any important bearing on the outcome. I believe, however, that it could be a vitally important piece of evidence in any court action I may later take to get an expulsion order overruled.

That then is the state of play at 2.35 p.m. on Sunday, the 5th December, concerning yesterday's 'trial'. As soon as I know more, you will be among the first to be informed.

Yours sincerely
JOHN TYNDALL

The reasons:

BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY - GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION
PO Box 1032, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 9GN
Telephone:- 077744 54893

September 23rd 2004

Dear Mr. Tyndall,

I am writing to suspend your membership as per Section 6, sub-section 6 of the party Constitution pending a disciplinary tribunal.

The particulars are:

1. That your January (#419) issue of Spearhead contained on page 4 in an article `Forward Together Now in 2004!' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 -Code of Conduct, Section 8.

2. That page 21 - `Why are these members being frozen out?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1- Code of Conduct, Section 8.

3. That an advert for National Vanguard on page 20 also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

4. That an article on pages 6-9: `Time to start thinking about the politics of Space' also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution. The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain.

5. That your February (#420) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 an advert for books by Colin Jordan that offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

6. That page 21 - `Legal Fund for `expulsion' challenge' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Section 8.

7. That page 28 - 350 years on: What's changed?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

8. That your April (#422) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 - a boxed item `Spearhead Support Group' that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

9. That your May (#423) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9 - `Why we don't need Jewish Candidates' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

10. That your December 2003 (#418) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 24-25- Spearhead Books -a number of titles which offend Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

11. That your June.2003 (#412) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9- `On the Crucial Question of Power' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

12. In addition your Internet site (formerly www.spearhead-uk.com but now www.spearhead.com) contains an online article entitled: `The Problem is Mr Griffin' which contains written material offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Sections 7 & 8.

13. Lastly, you have met with and shared a platform with a number of proscribed persons at a meeting in Bradford on Sunday July 12th offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

I enclose a copy of the Constitution and you will have to hand copies of the offending publications so you will be able to look at these in your own time to make a considered reply.

If no written reply is received by you within 14 days, the disciplinary tribunal which will convene to consider the case will take it that the charges are admitted and act accordingly. If, on the other hand, you wish to either contest the charges or offer an explanation at the disciplinary tribunal then you ought to reply within a fortnight.

Should you wish to defend these charges then I shall write to you again with the venue, date and time of the disciplinary tribunal.

yours for Race & Nation,

A. Lecomber , Director ,
Group Development & Regulation


c.c. Nick Griffin, National Chairman
Warren Bennett, Director Internal Affairs

Dr Brandt was a fan, hates everyone but muslims because they "fight the jew". One of those morons.Bingo. He is also trying to stir up trouble within the BNP because he is pissed off that Nick Griffin is turning it into a successful organization. "MuadDib" is always defending him. So are the rest of the Neo-Nazis and the self-anointed "true White Nationalists" over at Stormfront. They are always bitching about all the "Tories" that have taken over their party. Lets get rid of those guys! They don't believe that Churchill was a traitor and that Hitler was the greatest man to ever live!

Has Mr. Tyndall actually done anything wrong? Or is simply having views in opposition to those of Mr. Griffin sufficient for expulsion from the BNP (contrary to its written bylaws)? And if so, how is this a good thing? And in what sense does it constitute a victory for "reason?"
BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY - GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION
PO Box 1032, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 9GN
Telephone:- 077744 54893

September 23rd 2004

Dear Mr. Tyndall,

I am writing to suspend your membership as per Section 6, sub-section 6 of the party Constitution pending a disciplinary tribunal.

The particulars are:

1. That your January (#419) issue of Spearhead contained on page 4 in an article `Forward Together Now in 2004!' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 -Code of Conduct, Section 8.

2. That page 21 - `Why are these members being frozen out?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1- Code of Conduct, Section 8.

3. That an advert for National Vanguard on page 20 also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

4. That an article on pages 6-9: `Time to start thinking about the politics of Space' also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution. The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain.

5. That your February (#420) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 an advert for books by Colin Jordan that offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

6. That page 21 - `Legal Fund for `expulsion' challenge' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Section 8.

7. That page 28 - 350 years on: What's changed?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

8. That your April (#422) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 - a boxed item `Spearhead Support Group' that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

9. That your May (#423) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9 - `Why we don't need Jewish Candidates' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

10. That your December 2003 (#418) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 24-25- Spearhead Books -a number of titles which offend Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

11. That your June.2003 (#412) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9- `On the Crucial Question of Power' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

12. In addition your Internet site (formerly www.spearhead-uk.com (http://www.spearhead-uk.com/) but now www.spearhead.com (http://www.spearhead.com/)) contains an online article entitled: `The Problem is Mr Griffin' which contains written material offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Sections 7 & 8.

13. Lastly, you have met with and shared a platform with a number of proscribed persons at a meeting in Bradford on Sunday July 12th offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

I enclose a copy of the Constitution and you will have to hand copies of the offending publications so you will be able to look at these in your own time to make a considered reply.

If no written reply is received by you within 14 days, the disciplinary tribunal which will convene to consider the case will take it that the charges are admitted and act accordingly. If, on the other hand, you wish to either contest the charges or offer an explanation at the disciplinary tribunal then you ought to reply within a fortnight.

Should you wish to defend these charges then I shall write to you again with the venue, date and time of the disciplinary tribunal.

yours for Race & Nation,

A. Lecomber , Director ,
Group Development & Regulation


c.c. Nick Griffin, National Chairman
Warren Bennett, Director Internal Affairs

Why don't we have people like Nick Griffin leading the racialist movement in the United States?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1520000/images/_1524014_nick.300.jpg

"The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain."
--Nick Griffin

The particulars are:

1. That your January (#419) issue of Spearhead contained on page 4 in an article `Forward Together Now in 2004!' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 -Code of Conduct, Section 8.

2. That page 21 - `Why are these members being frozen out?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1- Code of Conduct, Section 8.

3. That an advert for National Vanguard on page 20 also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

4. That an article on pages 6-9: `Time to start thinking about the politics of Space' also offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution. The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain.

5. That your February (#420) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 an advert for books by Colin Jordan that offends Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

6. That page 21 - `Legal Fund for `expulsion' challenge' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Section 8.

7. That page 28 - 350 years on: What's changed?' contained written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

8. That your April (#422) issue of Spearhead contained on page 21 - a boxed item `Spearhead Support Group' that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

9. That your May (#423) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9 - `Why we don't need Jewish Candidates' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

10. That your December 2003 (#418) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 24-25- Spearhead Books -a number of titles which offend Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

11. That your June.2003 (#412) issue of Spearhead contained on pages 6-9- `On the Crucial Question of Power' written material that offended Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

12. In addition your Internet site (formerly www.spearhead-uk.com (http://www.spearhead-uk.com/) but now www.spearhead.com (http://www.spearhead.com/)) contains an online article entitled: `The Problem is Mr Griffin' which contains written material offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution and also Annex 1 - Code of Conduct, Sections 7 & 8.

13. Lastly, you have met with and shared a platform with a number of proscribed persons at a meeting in Bradford on Sunday July 12th offending Section 6, sub-section 2 of the party's Constitution.

This is merely a list of allegations; it proves nothing. I could just as easily say that the person who styles himself "fade the butcher" ought properly to be charged with numerous counts of treason; my saying such a thing does not demonstrate treasonous behavior on your part. Charge #3 is particularly interesting, as the National Alliance (htpp://www.natvan.com) and the BNP have had a formalized relationship of mutual allegiance since the mid-to-late 1990s (we developed a similar relationship with Germany's NDP about that same time). Since when is it improper to advertise the publication of one's formal ally? The BNP may hypocritically be using this National Alliance "link" to discredit Mr. Tyndall, but the whole damn party is formally "linked" to the National Alliance! And does anyone recall them rescinding any of their previous requests for help in promoting the BNP here in America? I do not. Hell, for a couple of months, National Vanguard's on-line edition contained article after article about the BNP's glorious prospects in the upcoming European Parliamentary & municipal elections, what a great man and leader Nick Griffin is, Griffin's historic meeting with Le Pen, etc. How's that for gratitude?

I think the post - Tyndall success of the BNP speaks volumes. From what I understand Tyndall cultivated a more radical fringe image, while Griffin wanted a more moderate image that would draw more people in. Under Griffin the party is growing by leaps and bounds.

Has Mr. Tyndall actually done anything wrong? Or is simply having views in opposition to those of Mr. Griffin sufficient for expulsion from the BNP (contrary to its written bylaws)? And if so, how is this a good thing? And in what sense does it constitute a victory for "reason?"

Yes, there really isn't anyone like Griffin in America. I can't think of anyone who comes close.

Why don't we have people like Nick Griffin leading the racialist movement in the United States?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1520000/images/_1524014_nick.300.jpg

"The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain."
--Nick Griffin

I could just as easily say that the person who styles himself "fade the butcher" ought properly to be charged with numerous counts of treason; my saying such a thing does not demonstrate treasonous behavior on your partThat would be a false analogy. Nick Griffin is citing violations of the BNP Constitution by Tyndall. I am not affiliated with any such political party in the United States.Charge #3 is particularly interesting, as the National Alliance (htpp://www.natvan.com/) and the BNP have had a formalized relationship of mutual allegiance since the mid-to-late 1990s (we developed a similar relationship with Germany's NDP about that same time). Since when is it improper to advertise the publication of one's formal ally?Where did you hear this? Can you provide a link?

I think the post - Tyndall success of the BNP speaks volumes. From what I understand Tyndall cultivated a more radical fringe image, while Griffin wanted a more moderate image that would draw more people in. Under Griffin the party is growing by leaps and bounds.That ought to tell you something. Looks to me like J.P. Slovjanski's revolutionary cadres (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167982) have suffered yet another blow. We need to get something like the BNP here started in the United States.

These words could easily have come out of my mouth:

"The broad tone of this article makes it clear that you thoroughly approve of the military aggression of Hitler's Nazi regime, its methods and ways. It scarcely needs saying that having a prominent member of our party, indeed its founding Leader, promulgating such views is damaging to our public image and our desire to see a democratic Nationalism take a firmer grip in Britain."
--Nick Griffin

Kevin_O'Keeffe: "Charge #3 is particularly interesting, as the National Alliance and the BNP have had a formalized relationship of mutual allegiance since the mid-to-late 1990s (we developed a similar relationship with Germany's NDP about that same time). Since when is it improper to advertise the publication of one's formal ally?"

Where did you hear this? Can you provide a link?

I read this in an issue of the National Alliance (http://www.natvan.com) monthly Bulletin, an issue which approximately coincided, i.e. closely followed, Dr. Pierce's trip to the United Kingdom sometime between 1996 and 1999 (I can't nail it any better than that, but perhaps Google might be of assistance in this matter; I'm about to go off-line at the moment). There shouldn't be any links available to the actual Bulletin article, however, as the Bulletin is a semi-secret publication intended for members-eyes-only.

That ought to tell you something. Looks to me like J.P. Slovjanski's revolutionary cadres (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167982) have suffered yet another blow. We need to get something like the BNP here started in the United States.

I agree, however the BNP is handicapped in that its core constituency is the disaffected working class. It has no standing with intellectuals on the right, and this severely limits its appeal for the patriotic middle class. That niche has been filled at least temporarily by the UKIP.

Nick Griffin is smart enough to understand this and it would not be surprising to see further purges of the Old Guard. This is necessary if the BNP is ever going to draw closer to the racial nationalist opinion formers who have rejected the Torah Party of Hecht and Litvinov as merely a pale imitation of NuLabor, and whose support is necessary for the BNP to achieve real credibility.

There is always room for improvement. :)