Mr. Collins and the New Statesman are not to be relied upon – by Andrew Brons

By Andrew Brons

The Labour supporting comic, The New Statesman (or New Statesperson as it should be called) has found the task of discovering Labour Party policies too difficult. It has decided instead to invent some for the British Democratic Party. Its writer, Matthew Collins is a ‘reformed’ hater of people of other races, who has now redirected his venom against British Nationalists. He is scarcely qualified to cast the first stone.

Collins has decided that we were critical of the policies of the Rump British National Party and thought that they had been watered down. In fact there are few policy differences, as can be seen by comparing our Policy Statement with the late BNP’s Manifesto in 2010.

However, there was one gross blunder in that manifesto. It called for the repeal of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The repeal of this Act would remove all the safeguards for suspects against ‘verballing’ or being coerced  into making confessions by corrupt police officers. It would also remove the  protection from honest police officers against false accusations of these practices by malicious suspects.

The  Rump BNP Chairman’s foot is most likely to find its way into his mouth when he makes impromptu remarks. In 2009 he suggested that one boat bringing illegal immigrants from North Africa should be sunk leading to the loss of the passengers’ lives. This would, he claimed, deter any more from setting off. The New Statesman journalists to whom he made this remark were in disbelief and asked him if he would like to retract it. He declined to do so and said that he would repeat it, which he did several times. It is not quite true that Chairman Rump has never kept his word.

Needless to say, we are as concerned about illegal (and legal) immigration as Chairman Rump claims to be. However, the answer is not to take the lives of fellow human beings, even if they are illegal immigrants. The answer is to return every single one to the country that he or she left.. That would ensure that they saw their efforts and their risks as inevitably fruitless. That would discourage attempts to migrate illegally and save lives at the same time.

On another occasion in 2011, somebody let Griffin loose on a social networking site, called Twitter. He then said that it was his policy to have David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, hanged. Yes you have read that correctly. Of course, once you have established the principle that one prime minister should be hanged why not all the others and what about their senior colleagues. I can imagine the journalist’s question, “So, Mr. Griffin, when you been elected your first priority will not be to round up illegal immigrants or get Britain back to work but conduct a blood bath against your political opponents?” The fact that that question has not been asked speaks for itself.

I hope that I shall not be seen as a sympathiser of David Cameron when I say that political office should not be misused to conduct feuds against one’s political opponents. I believe in the Rule of Law and I am implacably opposed to retroactive legislation. Nationalists must demonstrate that they are fit for political office.

Mr. Griffin’s response to the riots that took place in the Summer of 2011 was to make a formal statement on camera. He concluded that the rioters should be chained to lampposts for three days. No, you have not misread this. Furthermore, it was not an impromptu remark; it was a formal statement by ‘a statesman in waiting’. Perhaps he would call it  community punishment. I cannot believe that Elizabeth Fry or even Michael Howard would have approved.

No, we were not opposed to the ‘modernising’ of the BNP whatever that might mean. We were opposed to the lunatic outbursts of its Chairman.

The writer of the article stated that we were ‘expected’ to engage in ‘Holocaust denial’. On what  this expectation was based, he did not tell us. It is not the business of political parties to make pronouncements on historical events. However, we would not quarrel with the consensual conclusions of historians or other academics, provided that they have been free to conduct their own research without interference. It is not the proper role of politicians to interfere with the work of academics.

So what exactly is the game of The New Statesman?  Its writer was concerned lest  former members of the British National Party, who found Griffin’s conduct and views repellent, should gravitate towards our new party. The writer hoped that his words would, directly or indirectly, dissuade them from doing so, by trying to pretend that our ideas were even more reprehensible than Griffin’s. However, the writer has failed to supply any supporting evidence for the damning conclusion of his article. That is a bit of a stumbling block for those who practise to deceive.