Britain has been rocked this past week by shocking and totally unexpected revelations that have ripped apart the fabric of our national complacency and destablised our settled worldviews.
Prior to this week, it was an unquestioned given that the British National Party was an organisation that was fully committed, both in principle and practice, to multiculturalism and ethnic diversity.
But this article of faith has now been torn to shreds, thanks to the efforts of brave, crusading BBC reporter who went undercover to join the BNP and discovered (brace yourselves, please) that some BNP members are racist!!!!
The evidence he collected includes one BNP member, Steve Barkham, confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, and a prospective election candidate admitting to a campaign of pushing dog excrement through the front door of an Asian takeaway.
I can hardly believe my own eyes and ears but I have to accept the terrible truth. We must be grateful to the BBC without whom we would all still be wallowing in ignorance and delusion. But now for the fallout. First to plummet to earth is the BNP’s bankers, Barclays, which, doubtless reeling from the shock of discovering the awful reality, have closed the the BNP accounts:
Barclays Bank moved to close accounts held by the British National party last night after its members were secretly filmed delivering racist tirades and admitting violence against Muslims.
There is an argument that Barclays are entitled to refuse business on whatever basis they see fit but that argument only really works in a free market and there is nothing like a free market in banking services in this country. At best it is a state-backed cartel. If Barclays refuse to provide banking services to the BNP then it is going to prove next to impossible for the BNP to bank anywhere at all.
The BNP can get along just fine without a bank account but what they cannot do is put candidates up for election, as they will not be able to comply with the requirements of the Electoral Commission. In effect, they will have been expunged from the democratic process.
The absence of a BNP candidates on the ballot for the next election will not, of itself, cause me to lose much sleep but the disturbing implications could well keep me awake at night. First, there is the dangerous precedent. Anyone who thinks that Barclays action is merely coincidental with the BBC report is probably also the kind of person who is genuinely shocked to discover that the BNP are not an anti-racist group. No, this whole things smacks of coordination and, if it succeeds in removing the BNP from the political map, then it is surely a procedure that will be used again. The UK Independence Party is the obvious next target.
Secondly, they may just make a mountain out of a molehill. Something like 800,000 people voted for the BNP in last month’s regional elections. That is not an insignificant number. Their heads may well be stuffed full of odious and stupid ideas but their allegiance to the BNP is driven by their feelings of resentment and persecution; feelings which are only going to be reinforced and justified by their being (as they will surely see it) disenfranchised and robbed of their votes. Elections, whether local or national, are a safety valve whereby these people can let off steam without anyone getting hurt. Seal off that valve and the steam will find other outlets.
If you think that BNP supporters are dangerous now….
Equally disturbing is the role of the TUC in this sordid affair:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2004_july/news_july10.htm
Thought control at its finest, courtesy of the left. As usual
I would presume that the individuals in question do themselves have bank accounts, and that they still retain the right to stand for parliament as individuals, but that they then might not have the legal right to any of the privileges that the law grants to parties. (Does the law allow for the name of the party to be written on the ballot paper in Britain? It’s a while since I have voted in a British election)
I think this is another good argument as to why political parties should not be entitled to any legal recognition whatsoever, at least not over and above the legal recognition that is given to any other voluntary organisation of individuals, which may or may not be political in nature. As a matter of law, people should only have the right to stand for parliament as individuals, and once they are elected to parliament whatever rights they receive as MPs should be given to them as individuals and not party members. There should be nothing to prevent them then voting on party lines to form a government, or even a loyal opposition, but none of this should be written in law. Traditionally none of this ever was a matter of law and all of it was a matter of convention, but in recent decades it has become a matter of law, which has gone a long way to entrenching the present political parties and the present political class.
(This state of affairs is far worse in Australia than in Britain. Australia has state funding of political parties, and there have been a number of court cases that have got down to an argument as to what precisely is a political party. Most notably former One Nation MP Pauline Hanson (someone not very far from the BNP in terms of beliefs) was prosecuted and convicted (although the conviction was overturned on appeal) for essentially stealing money from the public purse, on the basis that her political party was not properly constituted. If her political party had been properly constituted, then the theft of money from the public purse would have been perfectly legal. The gist of the whole affair, which was that the courts should not be ruling on the legal definition of a political party because there should not be such a definition, and that they shouldn’t be ruling on whether or not anyone was entitled to state funding of their political campaigns because there should not be such funding, was alas lost on pretty much everyone).
Hello
Did anyone else find the timing of this program (on the week of Blunkett’s proposed religous hate law) just a little to perfect ? As right on cue we had some anti-Islam quotes from the BNP leader.
Oh well not to worry I am sure next week a BBC reporter will pentrate a radical Islamic group and expose their anti-semitic views 🙂
1327
If the BNP can’t get an account at Barclays it’s for pretty much the same reason that Osama Bin Laden can’t either. The BNP will get no sympathy from me.
Julian,
I was not inviting you to sympathise with the BNP. I was inviting you (among others) to consider the possible consequences of the establishment action that has been taken against them.
This isn’t only about the BNP. This is an attack on a party that threatens to disrupt the present set-up. I’ve heard much worse from union officals in their cups when they thought they were in “safe” company. And I’m sure the same could be said of some Conservative & Lib Dem supporters.
They’re after the BNP now, then it’s the UKIP. Then anybody else who pops up on the horizon.
The points made by David Carr are well taken. As, indeed are several other comments here, drawing attention to the organised involvement of the Left and its broadcasting organisation in the background to this story.
Loathsome and hateful as the BNP may be, I will find the BBC’s and the establishment’s ham-fisted attempts to undermine it far more credible when organisations on the Far Left and Islamic fundamentalist bodies receive similar attention.
As for the point made by both David Carr and Elaine, it seems to me that the BBC (and others) have already begun their campaign against the UKIP and were actively pursuing it before, during and after the recent EU elections. Love him or hate him (and I’m closer to the latter) Kilroy Silk was repeatedy smeared, as was UKIP and its supporters generally.
In other words, the process has already begun and (particularly in the light of the EU’s illegal action against investigative journalists and revelations about its absolute unaccountablity under law), I wouldn’t in the least be surprised to learn that the EU was not already working behind the scenes against the UKIP – and any other organisation opposed to its authority.
The UKIP might not yet have had its bank counts frozen but I’d bet money that it (and others) are actively being conspired against.
What price a BBC ‘investigative’ programme on ‘what UKIP MEPs really believe’, well timed for the refernedum?
I don’t think this is worrying, though. There is zero chance the same technique could be used against a merely “inconvenient” party – it would backfire horribly. If they tried for example against the UKIP or some future Libertarian party, another bank would pick up the accounts, and Barclays would look like meddling idiots. Instant large-scale boycotts would be a certainty. Major financial lossage would ensue. This is only a weapon against those who are already held in low public regard.
I have been keeping an eye on these developments as I am standing as an independent on my local Town Council and am being opposed by both Labour and BNP.
Whilst I dislike what the BNP stands for I would uphold their right to say it as per the recent “Blackadder goes forth” thread.
It was actually Labour who caused a rumpus at the recent Council elections count when independents seriously crucified the labour vote, winning all six seats for the town & ruffling a lot of very complacent feathers.
I’m blogging about it at http://www.iangrey.org.uk if anyone wants to take a look at my election diary.
The BNP has a very apt graphic on their home page at the moment- an apple with a blair-headed worm in it, with the caption “rotten to the core”.
I have only a general idea regarding the BNP’s programme and its history. However, unless one can link it explicitly to genuinely illegal activities (terrorism, fraud etc.), it must continue to exist for the sake of democracy and the free market of ideas.
I’m merely a newcomer here, but for a group of people who espouse broadly libertarian principles, I’m put off by your propos.
You’re quite willing to distance yourselves from the BNP’s right to express its opinions simply because you find them repugnant. PC all the way.
In fact, from the original post and the comments here above, I would go so far as to say that your *only* concern is that some future domino effect might perturb your “preferred” political parties.
Alex Jacques writes:
“In fact, from the original post and the comments here above, I would go so far as to say that your *only* concern is that some future domino effect might perturb your “preferred” political parties.”
I think you have entirely misunderstood what most of the people commenting have been saying.
The BNP is unlikely to get much sympathy on a libertarian forum – and not only because of its views on race: it is also a profoundly statist party.
However, the sense I get is that several commentators here are pretty disgusted by the BBC’s partisan approach.
You seem to have mistaken our complaint that this is the thin end of a wedge for a lack of objection to the existence of a wedge at all. Not, I would suggest, the case.
David,
Here are some parts that you might like to add to your blog.
http://foxhunt.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_foxhunt_archive.html#109001278406120231
And the actual interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/tvseq/newsnight/newsnight.ram
I see this BBC ‘operation’ as just another reason to relieve the British taxpayer of the burden of supporting the BBC and placing the BBC in the ranks of a private company.
You may want to hold onto your view that the BNP is a danger in the future if it gets hold of the levers of power but you might want to visit the implications of a david blunkitt government being voted in in the next election !! The real story at the recent elections in Britian is that the combined Labour and Tory vote failed to pass 50%.
From a political standpoint the BBC is clearly demonstrating just how seriously the Left takes the rise in the BNP’s support. This support is mainly coming from nominally Labour areas.
Since British banking regulations are being submerged into the EU system I see no real problems for the BNP getting a bank acc in say Latvia.
I liked the whole operation here by the BBC in this affair as it clearly demonstrates how corrosive the BBC is to the concept of freedom and liberty.
The reality David is that the BBC has become the modern day ‘Star Chamber’ with direct support of ‘The House of Commons’.
At the end of the day all Libertarians should be happy with the rise of the BNP as it clearly demonstrates the concept of the ‘free market place of ideas’ in the realm of politics today in Britian. If you need a clearer view why not visit the current political climate in Britian’s fomer colony of Hong Kong.
Smile and have a nice day.
Agree with G Cooper. Alex Jacques has misunderstood the apprehensions expressed by all commentators except Julian Morrison.
Libertarians defend free speech, no matter who’s speaking. Although, personally, I would probably make an exception in the case of the publicly-funded parasitic BBC. Or rather, I would permit them to continue to spew out their hatred of Britain, but on their own penny. Let them froth at the mouth into the thunder.
Michael Jennings wrote:
Until very recently they didn’t, except for very small exceptions relating to party political broadcasts, and certain privileges attaching to groups in elected office. You could view this persecution of the BNP as another step in the nationalisation of politics, which has been proceeding steadily for a while.
See particularly the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and the subjugation of Parliament to the bureaucracy by the creation of the Commisioner for Standards in Public Life (1995).
The first explicit recognition of parties in relation to elections arose out of the adoption of (the most pernicious form of PR) a regional list system for European Elections, under the European Parliamentary Elctions Act 1999.
Parliament and John Major’s government were weak in the mid-90s and made a dreadful mistake with the transformation of the Committee of Privileges that further undermined the House rather than strengthening it, by institutionalising the idea that individual politicians are corrupt and need to be monitored by officials. Far subtler and more dangerous politicians (by no means all of them in parties) have taken advantage and driven the process since.
Verity writes:
“Libertarians defend free speech, no matter who’s speaking. Although, personally, I would probably make an exception in the case of the publicly-funded parasitic BBC. Or rather, I would permit them to continue to spew out their hatred of Britain, but on their own penny. Let them froth at the mouth into the thunder.”
Welcome back, Verity.
And straight to the bullseye!
Okay, G Cooper, Verity, perhaps I’ve jumped to some conclusions.
However, Julian Morrison’s comments remain doubtful.
Julian, would you please explain why you encourage a business to refuse service to a customer because of his opinions?
(Surely in a free society, the bank could freely choose its customers, but I hardly see why one would applaud such discrimination in a purely capitalistic framework.)
The BNP-Oussama comparison is apples and oranges.
Correction: It is obviously wrong to say parties were first recognised in relation to elections in 1999, when we first had “registration” (and all the connected controls on funding, naming, usw) after 1998.
What I meant to say was that the party list system was the first time party domination of elections was explicitly acknowledged in legislation. Before then, votes were counted for individuals, and national parties could not force the electorate to take a candidate it didn’t want, even if they could (depending on their own constitutions) sometimes bully local parties into apppointing particular candidates.
Alex Jacques writes:
“However, Julian Morrison’s comments remain doubtful.”
I can only agree.
Julian can answer for himself but for my part, discrimination is the essence of freedom in many ways. If Michael Moore came to me and asked me to publish an article by him on this blog, I would most certainly discriminate against him on the grounds of his opinions.
I support his right to speak him mind and I support my right to speak mine as well (such as calling him a lying sack of shit)… and also not do business with him if I do not want to for whatever reason.
Does the right of ‘free speech’ apply to corporate, political, or indeed to any entity?
I can well see a ‘right’ being devolved on individuals, but cannot see that same right being granted to an inanimate body, such as the BNP, or for that matter, to the BBC, the Labour Party, the Conservative party, or any other organisation.
In this case it would seem to be a case of a powerful caucus, ganging up to bully another organistion into submission or even extinction. They, (the BBC et al), would probable site this as a demonstration of democracy at work, but in reality it is no more than the excercise of a ‘protection’ racket, as so often practised by that ‘wonderful’ union of ‘organised labour’, the TUC.
Does the coordination of tactics between the BBC and the TUC indicate the formation of some sort of ‘civil terrorist’ unit, (a.k.a. ‘Brownshirts), aimed at extinguishing any opposition to our lunatic dictators?
That many of the members of the BNP are former Labour and Trades Union members, would indicate that the BNP is a ‘far left’ organisation, and not from the ‘right’, as so many commentators would have us believe. They are just another unpleasant facet of ‘socialism’. From being compliant ‘union’ fodder, they now have some ideas of their own, and are paying the price for their dissension. It is but a fine line between socialism and fascism.
I see a similarity between the Mafia having problems with one of the upstart families, and threatening all sorts of mayhem to keep them in-line.
However, what is happening to them now, can and will happen to other less obnoxious factions in the future. Soon there will not be any effective opposition to counter the cant and hypocrisy of the current brand of ‘socialism’. All forms of dissent will carry extreme retribution, and will be more often enforced by alliances such as that of the BBC and TUC,rather than by the rule of law. It is the classic socialist arrangement, the ‘elite’ (the BBC), and the enforcement arm, (the TUC). Hitler did it, Stalin did it, is Blair trying to do the same thing?
It is but a fine line between socialism and fascism.
http://colley.co.uk/garethjones/german_articles/under_hitler_1.htm.
The above link could well have been written this week….
Ernest,
Something for you to read through.
http://geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html
On Barclays Bank….. as I remember Barclays does substantitual business with the British government.
“I support his right to speak him mind and I support my right to speak mine as well (such as calling him a lying sack of shit)… and also not do business with him if I do not want to for whatever reason.”
Perry, I agree with you. Julian has every right to disagree with, say, the BNP’s platform, as well as to refuse them business if ever it were question of doing so.
What concerns me, however, is twofold.
First, consider a worst case scenario where the BNP can not find a bank and for whatever reason, they fold (not being an expert on British electoral law I can only speculate). Congratulation, you’ve just lost an integral part of the democratic process, eliminated by in an entirely occult fashion.
Normally this wouldn’t be a problem, because the BNP would surely be able to find another bank willing to provide services.
However, this depends on the absence of government pressure. Has anyone bothered to ask themselves what exactly caused Barclays to try to drop the BNP?
Being the little genius that I am, I would be not at all surprised to discover pressure emanating from some aspect of the government. That’s not free enterprise. That’s coercion.
Shaun Bourke,
Thank you for the link. It rather confirms the saying that history repeats itself.
Alex Jacques,
More likely a veiled threat or two from the TUC. As I tried to point out in my comment, the Government would not like to be seen getting dirty hands over the BNP, too much chance of it backfiring on them, they would rather encourage a third party to do the deed.
All classic socialist textbook stuff…the only saving grace, is that each faction seems to hate each other, almost as much as they hate capitalists.
Alex J. indeed… and that is pretty much the exact point David was making in his article. The actual issues have very little to do with the BNP.
Alex Jacques asks “Julian, would you please explain why you encourage a business to refuse service to a customer because of his opinions?”
Two reasons.
First, I think it’s good commercial sense to refuse service to anyone who is poison to your business. That is, if you make the calculation “I will be better off by dumping them than by courting them”, then they ought not to be your customer. Barclays gains good press, loses a taint upon their brand, and – by holding back until they saw hard evidence – evades accusations of populist knee-jerk.
Second, I think that discriminating against undesirables is a good way to legitimately attack behaviors that don’t meet your moral standard. Short term it drives them away and “out of your hair”. Long term and in aggregate, it presents a serious disincentive to becoming bad.
As to the whole “BNP won’t get a bank” thing, it’s the government’s silly fault for requiring a bank account. If the government also required a red clown-nose, would clown-nose vendors have a democratic duty to sell so as to “avoid disenfranchising”? Blech. Sillyness.
First off, excuse this American for his naive insights on British politics.
Now, in what other country would an agent of the government (in this case, the British government owned BBC) go in and infiltrate meetings of a political party? These are the activities of a police state such as China, North Korea, or Cuba. This also illustrates how hate speech laws (I assume Britain is as “enlightened” as the rest of the EU in this regard) can be used to stifle political debate (note how several BNP members were concerned their remarks could have them arrested).
Hah, easily cicumvented! Simply issue a statement that ‘Sinn BNP’ is the POLITICAL wing of the National Socialist Party and does not constitute the stormtroopers who do the actual violence.
Kevin,
I believe that in almost all countries law enforcement attempts to infiltrate groups that are thought to be a danger to the public. As long as this isn’t done under political control, does not include agent provocateur activity, and “danger to the public” is defined as threats to people and property, or to free institutions, I don’t see a problem with that. The FBI used to spy on the American Communist Party, and still keeps the Klan under observation, for example.
That’s not what is going on here, though.
The BBC isn’t an agent of the government. It is to some degree an agent of liberal establishment attitudes and it is supported by a hypothecated tax, but it doesn’t answer to the state directly. What it was doing would be legitimate investigative journalism, but for the weirdness of claiming to “expose” what everyone in Britain not in a political coma is aware of anyway: the BNP is a bunch of racist thugs.
What is additionally interesting apart from the general intent to control political discourse, is the way the story was spun to condemn “Islamophobia” by associating it with the BNP, in the immediate aftermath of government proposals for introducing a crime of “incitement to religious hatred”.
Guy: Okay, that’s interesting – it’s mostly a New Labour thing. These kinds of things have been happening in Australia since the 1970s and my guess was that the same sorts of things had been happening not that long after in Briitain. (Unpaid party political broadcassts on television strikes me as a moderately big instance rather than a small one to be honest, although they are perhaps more a consequence of the strange structure of British television rather than the structure of British politics).
But apparently not. Talking federal politics only, the first such legislative acknowledgement in legislation in Australia was actually a constitutional amendment passed in 1977 – fallout from the constitutional crisis of 1975 – which required that in the event of the retirement or death of a senator, the replacement come from the same party as the original senator. However, after the Australian Labor Party was elected in 1983 they made a raft of moves along these lines that came into effect in 1984. One was the indroduction of state funding of political parties, and another was the placement of the names of parties on ballot papers and the introduction of “above the line” voting in senate elections, in which voters essentially vote for a party list rather than individual candidates. It is technically possible for voters to vote in such a way that they override the party lists, but it is sufficiently complex to do so that very few voters actually do. The voting system in use – what in Australia is called the Hare-Clarke system and over here is usually referred to as “Single transferrable vote” is probably the least pernicious system of PR, but her pernicious it is depends on how you use it.
Lots of little strides in the further nationalisation of politics have occurred since, as much as anything by the courts in developing a body of case law to deal with this stuff. but they were the big ones, I suppose.
It should be noted that the opposition parties also voted in favour of all these measures in the senate and they wouldn’t have become law otherwise, so it is probably better to blame the political establishment as a whole rather than one party.
There is a problem with this Julian, Royal Bank of Scotland’s Drummonds branch in Trafalgar Square is rumoured to be the Bin Laden family’s branch. Whereas you cannot cancel all the presumably 52 accounts (one for each child) for the sake of Usama’s bank account should not something be done about it?
I agree with David’s sentiments the BNP has a right to exist however loathsome their statements. Better they wither in the light of day than hide in the night.
Barclay’s, which I will stay well clear of into the foreseeable future, has one duty: to make money for the people who own it – its shareholders. Duh. Its chairman and board have no business making moral judgements on organisations or individuals who are conducting their affairs within the law. If I were a shareholder in Barclay’s, I’d attend the next shareholders meeting and move that the chairman and board be replaced with businessmen and women who respect the bottom line.
Sucking up to Britain’s First Liar in the pursuit of future preferment, at the expense of the shareholder, is not part of the business of a bank.
Thanks, G Cooper. I’ve scarpered! I’m breathing free, non- EU air!!!
Another objection I have to these programs is that although they shock and horrify the Guardian readers who created them they actually act as recruitment adverts to the type of person likely to join the party.
Also I can second the point made earlier in that both the BNP’ers I have come across are old school left wing ex-Labour party members. This is part of a bigger picture though that isn’t being reported yet which is that the Labour party is gradually (and not so gradually in some places) losing its stranglehold on local government in the north of England. Sure the lunatic fringe both BNP & Lib Dem:) are making some gains but it is the independants who are the winners. Expect a few BBC programs about the dangers of them soon.
I believe that in almost all countries law enforcement attempts to infiltrate groups that are thought to be a danger to the public. As long as this isn’t done under political control, does not include agent provocateur activity, and “danger to the public” is defined as threats to people and property, or to free institutions, I don’t see a problem with that. The FBI used to spy on the American Communist Party, and still keeps the Klan under observation, for example.
But should such infiltrations be tolerated? ‘That are thought to be a danger to the public’ is the root of the issue, and while you have qualified the berth the Stte should have (political, agent provocateur) the question still remains that ‘who does the thinking’ as to what is a danger? At the other end of the process is a individual, or an association, whose values control. And when, as a matter of State, especially a highly organized and powerful state, has politics not come to overshadow the bureacracy?
Theseare the questions that libertarians should face, and it is really the catch-22. Are they infiltrated because of credible evidence that they are plotting to harm life and property at large, or simply because they are contrarian in their beliefs from the ‘norm’? Which comes first, the threat and then investigation, or infiltration and ‘prosecution’ once they have stumbled?
In essence we are all lawbreakers to some extent. But we certainly don’t want helicopters overhead and electronic devices in the lettuce bin at the grocery store. If we want freedom from State surveillence for ourselves, we have to extend it to others up to the point of credible evidence of a specific action. Just as we shouldn’t pull over people selectively based on ethnicity, we shouldn’t infiltrate and bug associations simply because they hold different beliefs.
Freedom and security are inverse to each other. I prefer to live in a society that is free and entails risk, than one that is less free and is (supposedly) more secure. I’d rather die (or fight) in a 9-11 incident than live in State that can, on bureaucratic ‘hunches’, throw up roadblocks (figurative and literal) every five feet.
I guess what it comes down to is that Statists in general, in whatever stripe, presume to go beyond protecting life and property from DIRECT harm, but formulate functions whereby they can ‘trace back’ the threat to some origin point and ‘nip it’ there. The more they do this, more freedom they take from the population at large. And while they may start with organizations that are repugnant to the vast majority, they also can triangulate against other minorities as well (businessmen and unaffiliated individuals for example). The mass becomes so indoctrinated that where there is smoke there must be fire and allow the bureaucrats to proceed apace based on their hunches.
Although I’m happy to point out when we are being pushed down the slippery slope, I don’t think we can evade all questions of the degree of state intervention we are willing to tolerate by pointing to a slippery slope. I’m not an anarchist. I do think we need minimal (by current standards) law and limited amounts of arbitrary order (such as rules of the road). Therefore I am stuck with some of the problems that toolkien points out, but I don’t object to constant investigation and redefinition of the boundary of law as long as it doesn’t (as now) move monotonically in the direction of state authority.
I suspect toolkien and I would draw the lines of permissable surveillance in very similar places. Where I do differ is that I don’t agree that freedom and genuine personal security are inverse, or even contravariant. I think one is founded on the other.
Freedom and “security” (as in Bureau of Homeland, or “security forces”) are, because the fans of “security” tend insist that anything that decreases freedom is necessarily a gain in and justified by “security”. They Lie.
Michael: I was under the impression Australia used the much simpler and more rational, non-proportional, Alternative Vote. One more illusion gone.
New Labour – Old Fascism.
Interesting that the First Liar and the tenth-raters and sleazebags currently infesting Downing St are frightened by the whirlwind whose seeds they have sown by encouraging mass legal and illegal immigration (in furtherance of their endless quest for ever tighter control over the political process). They’re frightened of trying to ban the BNP themselves, of course. This slippery little band of chancers prefers to go about their business in the dark, like cockroaches.
As in, suggesting to banks that they should demonstrate how ethical they are by refusing service to a party which poses a threat not to the British body politic or democracy, but to the ambitions of Toneboy and his lovely wife Imelda.
Julian – no one here is pleading for sympathy for the BNP. We are noting that democracy is being further eroded by private institutions, like banks, now acting as delegates of a controlling, Fascist, authoritarian government. It is not the business of banks to drive the BNP out of business.
verity:
Barclay’s [..] has one duty: to make money for [..] its shareholders. Duh. Its chairman and board have no business making moral judgements on organisations or individuals who are conducting their affairs within the law.
Except that, as Julian already pointed out, there’s a perfectly reasonable argument that this is good for business. This is good publicity for Barclay’s. It might lose a bit of money in the short-term, but I think most of the general public, the Samizdata commentariat notwithstanding, will have more good-will toward them following this move, not less.
Wili Wachendon writes:
“Except that, as Julian already pointed out, there’s a perfectly reasonable argument that this is good for business. This is good publicity for Barclay’s.”
But who would have known that Barclays handled the BNP’s account, had it not been about to have been made very public by the Left?
In other words, it is only “good publicity” in so far as Barclays have, in effect, succumbed to blackmail.
Those who see nothing wrong in this might like to pause and compare the situation with that of Huntington Life Sciences, which has been the victim of numerous campaigns from the eco-Left, part of whose racket involved ‘naming and shaming’ HLS’s banks.
An interesting (and probably not coincidental) similarity of tactics.
Shaun:
“Since British banking regulations are being submerged into the EU system I see no real problems for the BNP getting a bank acc in say Latvia.”
I doubt it. Latvia joined the EU a couple of months ago.
Wili Wachendon – “This is good publicity for Barclay’s.”
Are you sure? I’m not. I don’t think most people will have a soaring sense of relief that Barclays Bank has begun to dictate which political parties can operate without hindrance in Britain. I think most people will regard their action as towering impudence.
Today, the BNP which, so far as we know, as a party, operates within the law. Tomorrow, the next party which presents itself as a thorn in this arrogant, authoritarian government’s side. UKIP has already been mentioned above. Who knows what they will be emboldened to do next if they are not stopped?
The BNP, as long as it operates within the law, has as much right to exist and to canvas the electorate and hold bank accounts as the Conservatives or the People’s Glorious Labour Party.
Wili Wachendon? As in Vernor Vinge’s “The Peace War”? – very cool handle!
As to the question;
1) Barclays should do what they want – and pay the consequences if customers leave the bank.
2) The BBC is a government sanctioned arm of the Labour Party. The BNP and other ‘independent’ parties are eating into NuLabour heartlands – ergo the BBC will ‘out’ such parties to continue this funding stream (as the BBC steals its money through an indirect ‘licence fee’ tax, the government has plausible deniability…).
3) It’s the BNP this month, it’ll be the UKIP next.
I *really* don’t like the BBC.
editors note: Comment deleted.
We have already banned you before (you’d be amazed how easy it is to track you when we can be bothered). Piss off.
Let’s take both organizations one by one because they’re separate cases.
The Communist Party was spied upon because they were suspected (rightfully so) of being a front for the Soviets. Just like I believe that many American mosques are nothing more than Saudi-funded recruiting stations for Islamic terrorism against Americans.
The Klan was a different case because they were purely a terrorist organization who used only violence to push their political agenda. They were a threat to the national security of the United States and were dealt with as such.
I’ve heard of the BNP and from I’ve heard and read about them, I must concur with your assessment of them as racist thugs.
As for the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, we used to have a similiar problem with the leftist controlled news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN); but we broke their monopoly by three ways:
1)The rise of talk radio
2)The Internet
3)A wonderful Australian by the name of Rupert Murdoch created Fox News Channel which has become America’s largest cable news channel.
Any chance of Brits using talk radio and the Internet (I know about Sky News and ITN) to break the BBC’s monopoly?
Even we here in the “land of the free” are being subjected to the wonders of hate crimes laws and hate speech codes, especially on university campuses.
GCooper:
But who would have known that Barclays handled the BNP’s account, had it not been about to have been made very public by the Left?
You’re right. I’m fairly agnostic on the question of whether this was a good or bad thing. But I think Barclays actions, in light of this, were probaby the best for them and their shareholders.
I also don’t think it’s likely to happen to UKIP or similar. I guess an intrepid BBC reporter could secretly acquire footage of some of the more reactionary members bitching about ‘those bloody frogs’ over a pint, but it’s really a completely different ball-game.
Tony:
Wili Wachendon? As in Vernor Vinge’s “The Peace War”? – very cool handle!
Cheers! You have good reading habits. 🙂
Any chance of Brits using talk radio[…]
Radio is subject to the same controls on political discussion in Britain as TV, through Ofcom. (Doncha love the Newspeak names of all these regulators? Years ago the Canadian manner of naming government agencies as if they were total commanders of their particular sphere, e.g. Environment Canada, used to send a shiver down my spine. Now I’m all shiver.)
The printed press and internet are all we really have. Both are less free here than in the US.
I’m really looking forward to the deep-undercover BBC investigation of foreign-born mullahs who preach forcible conversion of the West through terrorism in a mosque in Brum, and the enthusiastic reactions of their young followers.
In fact I’ve been looking forward to it for several years, but they never seem to finish editing it. Too busy repeatedly furnishing the shocking revelation that skinheads are apt to become rude and boastful when plied with drink.
“he printed press and internet are all we really have. Both are less free here than in the US.”
Hmm… Although we do have the ridiculous racial hatred laws, my understanding is, you’re less likely to get done for obscenity or blasphemy though… swings & roundabouts, but feel free to let me know if i’m mistaken.
This debate is already too little and too late. The advent of “Party” at local, national and now inetrantional level in the so-called democratic process and the rise and rise of the permanent bureaucracy has spelled the death of real democracy. We now live in an oligarchy ruled by a permanent political class and they are themselves subject to the machinations of a permanent “nomenklatura” whose grip on power tightens with every new piece of legislation. The so-called “left wing liberals” who now control every aspect of the public purse and the allocation of funds also control all the mass media and have their placemen in the BBC and all the major News Groups. They also control access to education and to the content of education, thus ensuring that only those approved by them can have access to the sort of education which ensures the continuance of the political class.
Anyone see the parallel between this supposed “free” world system and the former Communist system?
The action against the BNP, repugnant as most of us find them and their concepts, is the natural result of this continued erosion of liberty and freedom of speech. This is Orwell’s 1984 given life and reality, and it’s not far off Animal Farm either, with the majority seen as merely the “masses” or the “workforce” there to provide the ruling class with the wealth and the means of power they crave.
Democracy is dead, it died when the “Party” took on a legal persona and the concept of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” took on a meaning which divorced it from the people it represents.
Perry is that a veiled threat of violence towards MM?
Together with the censorship of comments it doesn’t look too libertarian. A robust argument should be able to withstand dissent and satire without resorting to censorship and threats.
Or does the end justify the means on this blog?
Nothing unlibertarian about it. As it says below, “You are a guest on private property and we reserve the right to delete anything we want to. Have fun but please be civil and succinct. Blogroaches will be persecuted, not to mention IP banned”. And I seriously doubt Mr. Moore was simply giving a dissenting viewpoint.
And where the hell was the threat of violence?
I admired the bravery of BBC reporter Jason Gwynne and the BNP recanting Searchlight agent Andy Sykes. Television footage of Nick Griffin and John Tyndall speaking their minds gave viewers an insight into the nature of the BNP that newspaper reports cannot. The programme was an example of investigative journalism that is only too rare.
Many viewers would aso have learned of the BNP’s paranoia about infiltration by anti racist activists and by the security services. Some might even have come to wonder whether the BNP was an organisation actually controlled by the state and designed to be repellent to the electorate, the political equivalent of athlete’s foot. There are precedents. Were there not more FBI agents in the USA Communist Party than Communists? Would not the ludicrous John Tyndall and the uncharasmatic Nick Griffin make splendid BNP leaders? Maybe they will turn out to be anti racist moles too, eventually winning for their efforts an Order of European Excellence.
Barclays should be free to terminate the account of the BNP with appropriate notice but if the BNP cannot get an alternative bank acceptable to it and to the Electoral Commission the rules relating to political parties must be changed. It would make an apparent mockery of democracy for an otherwise legal political party to be disqualified from standing at elections
Gerald Hartup writes:
“The programme was an example of investigative journalism that is only too rare.”
What is also “only too rare” (as has been pointed out repeatedly) is similarly courageous investigation of other, equally offensive, organisations on the Left, or among religious minorities.
Until it changes its role from being a propaganda arm of the Left, no fair-minded person can trust a word the BBC broadcasts.
For a very funny take on multi-cultural disputes between Americans and “Asian-Americans”, I can only recommend your watching the Coen Brothers’ film: “The Big Lebowski”.
Plus, you’ll even find some new yank stereotypes in it. It’s a hoot!
G Cooper – Andrew Gilligan makes the charge in this week’s Spectator (where Rod Liddle also makes an appearance) that the row about his report between the BBC and the People’s Glorious Labour Party was manufactured.
I thought this from day one. I’m a fan of the ballet and I recognise choreography when I see it. It was Alastair Campbell’s last hurrah. It purported to demonstrate that Tony Blair was unable to dictate to the BBC, despite having appointed fervent Nu Labbers to be in charge. The BBC cleaved to its proud independence and refused to bow to the mighty Toneboy! How touching! How bracing for those who had begun to suspect that Tone and Alastair were running the Beeb! Here was a dramatic saga, headlines news, that demonstrated the falsity of the assumption.
People resigned! Andrew Gilligan was placed under suicide watch! Alastair Campbell was in a rage! Cor blimey, Ethel!
But, like everything else that Juan and his lovely wife Evita touch, it just didn’t quite hang together. It was ramshackle. Unpolished. It didn’t convince. And now, it appears, Andrew Gilligan, in the thick of it, wasn’t convinced either.
The BBC continues in the service of the Gramscians.
Poor Gilligan the patsy. He was the only innocent party as the BBC and government planned the whole charade of a row. All they needed was a sloppy Conservative supporting BBC journo to niaively set the whole thing in motion by reporting (without malice of course) allegations about the government that he could not substantiate.
Of course Verity knew this from day one.
Verity writes:
“Andrew Gilligan makes the charge in this week’s Spectator (where Rod Liddle also makes an appearance) that the row about his report between the BBC and the People’s Glorious Labour Party was manufactured. ”
Amazing! I must read this. Presumably a collusion at a level beneath that of the two Blairite hacks who were forced to resign? I got the impression that Davis and Dyke (ah, what a music hall act!) weren’t actually all that keen to leave.
As for Gilligan, pretty lousy reporter he may be but his initial report looks more accurate with each passing bucket of whitewash… err… think I meant ‘incredibly impartial report from a wholly unbiased investigator’.
And I say that as someone who supported the war and is perfectly sanguine about its outcome.
Som armys are so secret that BBC reporters can’t infiltrate them. I was reminded of another secret army today, from a 70’s (BBC) sitcom…
A VERY SECRET ARMY
Jimmy, Reggie Perrin’s brother in law, is setting up a private army -” ready to fight for Britain when the balloon goes up”. At Jimmy’s bedsit he explains to Reggie exactly the sort of scum they would be fighting against:
Jimmy: …wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons (headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up), Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, ‘Play For Today’, Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody’s, Chinese restaurants (why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?)
.
Reggie: You realise the sort of people you’re going to attract, don’t you Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, ratialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, rear Admirals, queer admirals, Vice Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo-loyalists, crypto-loyalists.”
Jimmy: Do you think so? I thought recruitment might be difficult.
I couldn’t think of a better place to share it.
That should be “Fairly Secret Army”.
Gerald Hartup: “Were there not more FBI agents in the USA Communist Party than Communists?”
There were also German neo-Nazi cells where more than half those attending were agents of the “Office for the Protection of the Constitution”.
Be fair, how do you expect poor spooks to earn their pay and civil service pensions now the Cold War’s over? (A development they completely failed to predict, BTW.) Never underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to conjure up threats to security.
Skeptical – Well, actually, I was skeptical about this “row” all along. Then I became semi, but never wholly, convinced. Then I decided it had the quality of being choreographed by Cher and costumed by Bette Midler. It was tacky and didn’t convince. It was designed to deflect attention from the emotive issue of Dr David Kelly’s death without being obviously an attempt to reassign the focus, so it needed to be a big story that had legs for at least a week.
G Cooper, your comments were rather opaque. Yes, I believe nothing is beyond the scope of this government, and if it takes throwing two loyal Labour hacks to the sharks in order to save Toneboy and The Project, well, so be it. Today’s loss to the BBC is tomorrow’s gain for the House of Placemen. (Ooops! House of Lords.)
Looking back, I am more convinced than I was at the time that there was too much attention being paid in the press to Tony Blair’s role in Dr Kelly’s death and also to the way he had chaired “rolling meetings” day after day in his “den”.