Apparently, Arthur Kemp is not a concensual figure in Britain´s extreme right-wing. In the following article, British right-wing extremists formulate accusations against Kemp, which may or not be true.
Griffin’s Lie Machine
In August 2002 a pamphlet was circulated to selected members of the British National Party attending the BNP’s Red White & Blue festival in Lancashire. It has since been passed around to a few other BNP members and even to some members of other groups.
Entitled Peter Rushton: Considerations for Proscription, this document was published by the BNP’s Welshpool box number and, though it carries no author’s name, was clearly the work of BNP chairman Nick Griffin and his right-hand man Tony Lecomber.
The pamphlet attempts to provide evidence to support Griffin’s action in proscribing me from the BNP the previous month. In their final paragraph, its authors claim that it can also serve “much like a training manual in how to spot a wrong ‘un.”
The following pages will expose Considerations for Proscription as a tissue of lies, half-truths, distortions and irrelevancies.
I will demonstrate that Nick Griffin’s key witness and close ally is both a liar and a long term state informant.
I will show that in three cases the Considerations for Proscription document accuses me of leaking specific information to Searchlight which did not actually appear in the magazine!!!
And I will prove that Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber are not fit to hold any position of responsibility within the BNP.
This document is primarily intended for those who already have a copy of Considerations for Proscription. It is set out partly in numbered paragraphs, corresponding to the ‘allegations’ in this original pamphlet.
For those who have not seen Considerations for Proscription, this may make it difficult to understand in places. But I think you will have no trouble working out the overall message!
Introduction
Most of their pamphlet consists of numbered allegations, but Griffin and Lecomber start up their lie machine even in the introduction.
DISTORTION
Griffin and Lecomber give a grossly distorted account of the slanders against me first heard in 1993-94. These were in fact produced by the Charlie Sargent faction of Combat 18, which at that time was involved in a bitter factional struggle against the party.
As recently as July this year, NW regional organiser Chris Jackson confirmed that there had been absolutely nothing of substance in these charges - and in fact the current Combat 18 leadership agree with me on all these matters.
The ultimate proof that none of these charges stood up is that Griffin and Lecomber do not recycle them even in their own lying pamphlet!
I should point out that one of the other Combat 18 targets in 1993-94 was Tony Lecomber himself, who was accused of being a police informer. Perhaps Charlie Sargent wasn’t wrong about everything then!
LIE
Arthur Kemp is said to have returned to South Africa and “refuted” the allegations against him in relation to Chris Hani’s murder.
This is untrue. As will be shown later in this document, Kemp was arrested in April 1993 and released after two days of questioning in relation to the Hani murder. In September 1993 he gave evidence for the prosecution against his former comrades Clive Derby-Lewis and Janusz Waluz.
In 1997 he attempted to sell his story to the Sunday Times, but later in 1997 and 1998 he was unwilling or unable to give evidence when Derby-Lewis and Waluz appealed for amnesty in South Africa.
Kemp has indeed returned to South Africa, but has at no time “refuted” any allegations relating to the Hani murder - with which he was never charged - or relating to his role as a state informant.
1:HALF-TRUTH
This feeble allegation relates not to a website, but to a proposal for the creation of an internet usenet newsgroup. As many readers will know, there are tens of thousands of newsgroups, and to create certain types of groups a vote has to be taken in which any internet user can participate.
During 1995 and 1996 there were fierce disputes over proposals by Milton Kleim, then one of the internet’s best known nationalists. Having lost an earlier vote to create a nationalist newsgroup, Kleim argued that nationalists should retaliate by attempting to prevent the creation of a leftwing newsgroup.
Other nationalists, including myself and the BNP’s then press officer Mike Newland, disagreed. We argued that it was self-defeating for us to try to play the censorship game, and that we should in fact play up the free speech issue, taking on the left wherever we found them around the internet but not attempting to censor them.
Therefore while Kleim and some others voted against the creation of the leftwingers’ newsgroup, I and some others voted to allow its creation.
No big deal surely - and nothing secret. Perhaps Griffin and Lecomber just don’t understand the issues here. Or more likely they have simply picked up this allegation from a certain Harold Covington who is the only other person ever to have criticised me on this score. Strange bedfellows?
2)IRRELEVANCE
I stand accused of reading a wide range of literature, including “obscure” left-wing literature. Well I must plead guilty to that!
If Tony Lecomber would like a list of recommendations I can send him one - he may find it more useful than his usual reading of inaccurate bomb manuals.
2A)LIE
It is claimed that “Chris Jackson’s chief observation of Rushton is that he never actively helped the party”. A ridiculous allegation for anyone who has ever known me.
In fact Chris’s chief observation, both to the Advisory Council when my proscription was decided and to me personally on the day it was announced, was that “I’ll never be able to replace him”.
3)LIE
The possibility of forming a Tameside unit was discussed back in the ‘90s and I organised several meetings with members around the area.
However, it was decided by the then Tameside members (and don’t forget we are talking about a handful of people at a time when the BNP had very few active units in the region) that due to their advanced age it would be better to base the new unit in Stockport, where we had one or two younger members.
I therefore gave the money which I had collected from myself and one or two other Tamesiders to Terry Bowden, a Stockport activist, so that he could pay for a Stockport box number. He did so, and thus laid the foundations for the party’s current strong activist base in Stockport.
Note that like many of the other fables in the Considerations pamphlet, this story dates back more than five years, but is only now being used against me because it is only now that it suits Griffin and Lecomber’s factional interest.
4)LIE
see above
The idea that I would spit in the face of any old age pensioner, let alone a fellow nationalist, is both offensive and absurd.
As it happens, I had never even had an angry word with Frank Dawber.
Two other points are worth mentioning. Was I really supposed to have done all this so that I could steal £50 intended for a box number? And if I was alleged to have done this, why has it taken six years to raise the allegation?
5)LIE
I have rarely if ever been given follow-ups. This is partly because I do not have a car. Since there are longstanding activists available around the area who can drive, it is more sensible for them to handle follow-ups. A straightforward matter of horses for courses.
Once again, this silly story about follow-ups dates back many years, but is only now being used because it happens to suit the Griffin faction’s current interest to attack me.
6)LIE
Back in the early and mid 90s I visited the bookshop quite frequently and several times picked up leaflets etc. To be strictly accurate this was mostly before Chris Jackson’s time as regional organiser.
Again, since I do not drive, there was a limit to how much stuff I could carry, but I have never to my recollection refused to pick up leaflets or literature, either from the bookshop or from other events. Yet again this is a story that dates back many years - the bookshop closed down years ago and even for a year or two before that I had not been a regular visitor to London.
7)LIE
Some of the lies about me in this section are pretty innocuous and merely repeat disinformation which I gave to Searchlight spy Tim Hepple back in 1992.
Again I would refer you to Chris Jackson’s point that he would “never be able to replace” me in the party.
As for never helping financially or in any other way, tell that to Oldham organiser Mick Treacy, who knows that time after time I personally donated bottles of whisky etc to Oldham branch raffles, and more importantly that I was a very active member of the Oldham campaign team during the local election campaign this year. To give just one example, I was one of only half a dozen activists who canvassed frequently in the St James ward, where Roy Goodwin came close to winning the BNP’s first Oldham council seat.
8)LIE
A photograph of me at this redirection point appeared in Searchlight in September 1996, as did a photo of Pete Barker from Rochdale and a photo of Chris Jackson and his car, apparently taken close to the venue itself rather than at the redirection point. Rather contradicts the impression given in the Considerations pamplet doesn’t it?
It’s quite likely that I did pass on a message to Calvin Richards from Arthur Kemp regarding Paul Burnley, since Kemp had specifically asked me to find out whether Burnley was still active. But that’s about as far as the discussion would have gone - as everyone in the movement knows, I have never had any real involvement with the music scene and have avoided taking sides in its various factional splits (except of course when denouncing Charlie Sargent!).
Bizarrely, the booklet quotes Calvin as saying: “In the next issue of Searchlight magazine, it was claimed that I was the E. Midlands Organiser for B&H.”
I have recently checked the issue in question (September 1996) and this claim does not in fact appear!
At the end of a long article about splits within the nationalist music scene, accompanied by an incorrect photo of Calvin, the following paragraph appears:
“One local man coming to prominence in the nazi music scene in Nottingham, where he has strong links with the British National Socialist Movement, the extreme nazi group not to be confused with the BNSP, is former squaddie John Kelvin Richards. He is a prime candidate to take over organisation of the Blood and Honour bands who have fallen out with Charlie Sargent of C18.”
9)LIE
I remember this incident solely because Chris Jackson and I had a private joke about the letter I needed to post, specifically about the person to whom it was addressed. I mentioned this in the car as soon as Chris picked me up, and probably dropped it in a post box on the way to the meeting. If I did post it in Oldham rather than on the way (and to be honest I don’t remember) this would have been Chris’s choice, not mine.
In any case, this (very small) meeting was never disrupted, photographed or reported in any way - so what’s all the fuss about? Yet again, readers should be aware that this tiny Oldham meeting was many years ago, but the story is only now being used. Why?
10)LIE
Do Griffin and Lecomber really expect us to believe that a policeman would risk not only his job but a long prison sentence under the Official Secrets Act by leaking a list of police informers to the BNP?
And if such a list had been leaked, how come Griffin and Lecomber weren’t able to tell us all about Darren Wells?
The truth is that this ridiculous story was first floated years ago as a follow-up to the Charlie Sargent smear. No-one believed it then, and Griffin/Lecomber don’t believe it now. It’s just another convenient lie.
Note for Oldham members: this story has nothing at all to do with an ex-policeman you might know!
As it happens there is a proven police informer - a man who repeatedly gave evidence to the state about nationalist comrades - involved in this whole saga.
But it’s not me - it’s Arthur Kemp, Nick Griffin’s close ally and star witness!!! (see Appendix 1 for the evidence)
11)LIE
I bought the BNP domain name back in the 1990s, and at the same time bought some web space for the party. This was because the BNP site set up by then press officer Mike Newland had been hosted on a small server in the US which went bankrupt and on the free server Geocities, who were about to pull the plug on all nationalist sites.
At first I paid for both the domain name and the web space. Then for a couple of years Manchester & Salford BNP paid for the domain name, but I continued to pay for the web space. Contrary to the pamphlet, I gave full credit to Manchester & Salford branch, and to all others involved at any stage - in fact I deliberately played down my own role in the party’s internet success. (Members who attended the 1998 BNP rally will remember my speech on this issue.)
It is true that there were two occasions when problems arose with payments for the site - once involving the domain name and once involving the web space. Note that at no time then or since did the party (either nationally or locally) pay for the web space, which was paid for solely by me, although the local branch did pay for the domain name.
One of the problems was my fault, the other wasn’t. For obvious security reasons I’m not prepared to discuss the details here.
Also note that following Mike Newland’s resignation from the party, I was asked by Tony Lecomber to prevent him having access to the party site. To my subsequent regret, I agreed. Following this distressing outbreak of factionalism, there was no way I was going to hand over passwords to someone as fundamentally untrustworthy as Simon Darby, Tony Lecomber or Nick Griffin!
12/13)LIE
It is true that I first met Alan Payne at a David Irving meeting at Chelsea Town Hall, around the time I first joined the BNP. But the rest of the argument in the Considerations pamphlet is provable nonsense.
The Chelsea meeting took place in November 1991 - the exposure of Alan Payne and other Manchester activities was in Searchlight in December 1990, as well as on BBC Panorama the same month. Alan has rarely if ever been mentioned in Searchlight in more recent years.
So in other words while the booklet claims I met Alan, then he was exposed, the truth is it was the other way round!!!
14)LIE
Searchlight ran a photo of the leadership meeting (having simply lifted the photo from British Nationalist or Spearhead then claimed it as a secret leak).
However they did not mention the venue in their initial report of the meeting.
Specific information about Alan Machin’s hotel appeared in a follow-up report in Searchlight focusing on some of his local activities and other gossip from the nationalist scene in and around Blackpool. Readers should be aware that Alan was not some sort of ultra-secret nationalist. He had been a parliamentary candidate and quite a few party members in the region had stayed at his hotel over the years.
Around the same time photos of Blackpool organiser Dave Blezzard appeared in the local press as part of an orchestrated exposé of the branch. None of this had anything to do with the leadership meeting or with any activity with which I was involved. I can’t remember whether this was before or after the leadership meeting, but I’m sure Searchlight would have referred to it at some time.
Far from me being seen as suspicious by Blackpool branch, this branch happens to contain several good friends of mine. I have spoken at a couple of Blackpool events and stayed at another hotel in the town owned by party supporters - years after the events mentioned by Griffin and Lecomber in their lying pamphlet!
15)LIE
see above - I have rarely if ever been involved with follow ups for the reasons stated. As I matter of record, I can not remember being introduced to a single new member recruited by Alan Payne in recent years. Neither can I remember seeing Alan on any leafleting or canvassing trips during this year’s Oldham campaign!
The overall message here is that in some sense I was the one sabotaging the party in Manchester & Salford. If so, why have the BNP leadership repeatedly tried to remove Alan Payne as local organiser and give his responsibilities to me. I have lost count of the number of times that senior party officials have put the knife in my hand and urged me to stick it in Alan’s back. Party veterans will be well aware that Alan Payne is a good nationalist who has just one or two serious weaknesses. The irony is that I am now being punished for being too loyal to Alan in earlier years.
16)HALF-TRUTH
The story about Derek Summers which appeared in the Manchester Evening News had nothing to do with politics.
As a matter of record, I have not subscribed to the Evening News since the mid-1980s. The rest of this section in the Considerations pamphlet is blatantly illogical. If the conversations mentioned took place, the most obvious and likely explanation is that Derek himself showed me the press cutting at some point.
17)LIE
This entire section in the Griffin/Lecomber pamphlet is grossly deceptive. Here are the true facts.
The Mosley Centenary Dinner in November 1996 was attacked by reds, who stole the guest list. Some of those attending were named on this list, and their names were later printed in a report of the dinner in the December 1996 issue of Searchlight. No prizes for guessing the connections here!
My photograph appeared twice in this edition, and two other guests were identified in photos.
However, four others whose photographs appeared were not identified by name, even though they were all very well known to me.
The Considerations pamphlet’s references to Manchester comrades are grossly inaccurate. Griffin and Lecomber state that five Manchester members attended and that they were all identified.
Even had this been true, given the theft of the guest list and the fact that Searchlight identified many dinner guests from all over the country, many unknown to me, it would not be too surprising or suspicious.
In fact six nationalists from Manchester attended the dinner. Four were BNP members. Three of these members plus one Manchester guest were identified in Searchlight: myself, Alan Payne, the late Gordon Gee and the late Melvyn Higginbottom.
Melvyn was not a BNP member but had recently published a book on Henry Williamson and had attended several local BNP meetings (a fact never mentioned by Searchlight as it happens).
Two of the Manchester comrades were not identified: one of them a very senior local member of both the BNP and FOM, the other a local Conservative Party activist. The former is as puzzled by Griffin and Lecomber’s lies as I am. I had a drink with him just the other day.
I suspect that one reason why they were not identified is that perhaps their full names did not appear on the guest list (eg they may have appeared as Mr and Mrs F. Bailey + Guest).
18)IRRELEVANCE
It is true that Searchlight frequently misspelled my name as Rushden - I always assumed they initially copied this from Tim Hepple and Charlie Sargent, and continued as a wind up.
The reference to Bob James is a typical Lecomber disgrace, since there is to my knowledge no evidence whatsoever that Bob James is or was an informer. He is simply an enemy of Lecomber, which for the current leadership means he is a fair target for libel.
The conspiracy theory about misspelling is especially ironic, since in the very same pamphlet Griffin and Lecomber manage to misspell the names of Chris Hani and Sir Oswald Mosley (twice).
19)GENUINE
This is the one anecdote in the entire pamphlet which is both substantially true and genuinely curious.
The meeting in question took place at the Millstone pub in central Manchester. It was not a particularly important meeting, and I remain mystified as to why it should have been a target for surveillance.
Chris himself told me that he had seen two Special Branch types (NB not reds) at the redirection point (which had been well advertised) and it does seem almost certain that the photo of Chris later seen in Searchlight was taken later outside the actual meeting venue, probably in my opinion from a vantage point in the nearby multi-storey car park.
Since Searchlight must have a vast collection of photos of Chris Jackson, I am mystified as to why they chose that particular photo, unless it was a deliberate effort to throw suspicion on a person or persons who attended the meeting (which was - like most other events in the pamphlet - many years ago and is only now being used against me as Griffin and Lecomber desperately dredge for ‘evidence’).
20)HALF-TRUTH
The idea about challenging Asian voters to prove their identity was one of a number of issues arising from election law which I researched and presented to Mick Treacy of Oldham BNP, as well as circulating to several other party officials including Nick Griffin.
This was never mentioned at a meeting in the Black Lion, since no meetings have been held in this pub for about the past two years.
The voter identity issue was however very widely discussed at both formal and informal BNP meetings, and at a meeting between Mick Treacy and local council officials. It is therefore not at all surprising that some mention of it appeared in the press.
To be honest this particular press report was good for us. The whole point of the voter identity question was not for us actually to do it, but for us to threaten to do it (since it was entirely legal) as a means of putting pressure on Oldham Council and the police not to mess us around. Even if Griffin and Lecomber don’t understand this, Mick Treacy understands the issue fully.
21)CONTRADICTION
Back in paragraphs 12 and 13 I was accused of having repeatedly leaked information about Alan Payne and other Manchester activities. Now in paragraph 21 it is claimed that I had “developed a bond” with Alan and his mates which would not let me “betray them - others yes - but not his friends”.
I remember the paragraph about the “railway children” in Searchlight - which at the time seemed a typical Gable effort to stir up suspicion, not against me but against a particular party supporter who is an active trade unionist. I am not prepared to comment further about this individual, who is well known to most Manchester & Salford members, except to say that I am satisfied he is not any sort of informer.
Just what is the Griffin and Lecomber thesis here? Their entire pamphlet portrays me as an exceptionally devious long term Searchlight or MI5 agent, and yet here in paragraph 21 they claim that Searchlight was forced to send me pretty obvious coded messages to try to persuade me to give them information!
22-26)LIES
Here we come to the most fascinating section of Griffin and Lecomber’s grossly libellous pamphlet. Here they rely on the testimony of Arthur Kemp, whose full grisly career as a secret policeman, infiltrator and informant is spelled out in Appendix 1 and in my earlier report Murder, Treason & Espionage.
In these paragraphs Kemp refers to an article about him which appeared in the September 1996 edition of Searchlight, accompanied by a front page photo.
He claims that this article “ran almost verbatim large parts of the text of the AWB book I had given Rushton on disc”. Kemp claims that “no-one else” had a copy of this book.
Innocent readers could be forgiven for thinking this damaging evidence against me, and might think this finally is what Griffin and Lecomber were talking about in their introduction when they wrote that “other points made are far weightier and are, of themselves, sufficient testimony”.
Rather foolishly as it turns out, Arthur Kemp invites readers to find a copy of the Searchlight article concerned and compare its “verbatim large parts of the text” to the actual text, which he insists was first published in 1999 on the Internet.
Well let’s take up his challenge!
I have obtained a copy of the September 1996 Searchlight. Far from running large extracts of the book verbatim, the four page article about Kemp does not run a single quote from the book.
It quotes from an article written by Kemp in the German nationalist journal Nation und Europa and mentions speeches made by Kemp in Germany in the early 1990s. Kemp’s connection with Nation und Europa was first mentioned by Searchlight in its June 1993 edition soon after the Hani murder, but before I had even met Kemp (which as he admits was in 1996).
It also mentions that Kemp was the author of a book on the AWB, but it does not quote from it - not even once!
Is this at all suspicious? Readers should be aware that the first edition of Kemp’s book on the AWB was in fact published in 1990 in South Africa. It was referred to by both the Guardian and the New York Times in articles published in April 1993. That same month, a South African newspaper published an old photo of Janusz Waluz, the gunman who assassinated Chris Hani, holding up a copy of Kemp’s book on the AWB.
According to Kemp, the Searchlight article states that he held a bank account on the Isle of Man. He claims that I could have picked up this information after seeing his debit card following a meal. In fact the Searchlight article does not mention the Isle of Man or give the location of Kemp’s bank account.
According to Kemp, suspicious phone calls were made to the place where a friend of his was working. He says that after telling me about these suspicious calls I suddenly disappeared, and that the Searchlight exposé followed.
The truth is that I never disappeared anywhere. I still live at the same address now as I did then - which Kemp should know because he has stayed there.
Moreover far from disappearing, I visited Kemp at his home near Oxford after the Searchlight article appeared. The friend he talks about was present for part of the two days I spent there, as were Kemp’s wife and children.
It was not until shortly after this trip that I received information from South Africa and elsewhere which made me extremely suspicious of Kemp (see Appendix 1 and earlier report Murder, Treason & Espionage).
I don’t intend to give full details about Kemp’s friend, since I have no reason to suspect him of being an informer. But the brief facts are that this friend was involved in an alleged bombing conspiracy in South Africa. At one point a warrant was issued for his arrest and all airports etc were issued with his description after he failed to attend a court hearing. What had actually happened was that he had a serious car accident and was critically ill in hospital at the time when he should have made his court appearance - at the time I met him he still had an obvious tracheotomy scar.
Given his background, it is not surprising that mysterious phone calls were made to investigate this chap soon after his arrival in the UK. MI5 and the anti-terrorist squad do have to earn their keep somehow!
As for Kemp’s employer, it is true that Searchlight published photos of Kemp outside his office. Some readers may raise an eyebrow when they read that Kemp was working for a company called Paul Kagan World Media!
27)LIE
Kemp claims that he was told by Jani Allan and Cliff Saunders that they met me with the Searchlight team in London when researching a programme about the far right.
The truth is that I have never met Cliff Saunders, although I know a lot about him and have spoken to him on the phone twice (once from the phone in the BNP’s Welling bookshop) while trying to return calls to Jani Allan.
I first met Jani at the nationalist festival at Diksmuide in August 1995. She invited me to go on with her to Brussels and Paris, where she was going to interview leading members of the VB and FN.
I was unable to do this, but met Jani subsequently in London. None of these meetings were in the Searchlight offices, unless Searchlight’s office is a Kensington restaurant with Gerry Gable disguised as a waiter.
Disgracefully, Kemp suggests that British nationalists should contact Cliff Saunders in London for further information. Readers should be aware that Cliff Saunders is an admitted agent of Nelson Mandela’s intelligence service. Numerous articles to this effect appeared in the South African press during 2000, in which Jani Allan mentioned that Saunders tried to get her to spy on British nationalists (see Appendix 2).
28)IRRELEVANCE
Arthur Kemp was not even present at the 2001 RWB but nonetheless gives us the benefit of his irrelevant opinion that I was responsible for tape recording part of the entertainment.
Had he been there he would have known that the place was crawling with journalists and that security on the gate was practically non-existent for much of the weekend - so much so that I had to appeal to members without tickets to make a donation at the end of the event because there had been no-one to collect money on the door!
Had he been there he might also have known that I didn’t even have my own tent, still less a hotel room - I slept in a sleeping bag in the communal tent - so how I was supposed to have activated and hidden a recording device about my person God only knows!
In any case the recordings made during the event - inevitable from the moment Griffin invited the media and left them unsupervised - were not especially damaging. The only parts of the Panorama programme which damaged the party were those where Griffin and his sidekicks seemed to be shifty and/or deceptive. (And of course there was the usual damage resulting from yet another mention of Tony Lecomber’s bombing conviction.)
Conclusion
The pamphlet claims that my non-membership “made any kind of disciplinary tribunal superfluous”.
In the strictest legal sense this is of course true - but if Griffin and Lecomber want to play by the strictest legal rules they have several nasty surprises in store.
As any fair-minded reader will realise, the issue is not whether I had a legal right to a tribunal. The issue is whether I had a moral right, and far more importantly whether the leadership was really interested in the truth.
If you are interested in finding out the truth of an allegation, the most obvious thing to do is to put the allegation to the person concerned. ‘Evidence’ is not really evidence at all until it has been rigorously tested.
Griffin and Lecomber, characteristically, preferred not to test any of their ‘evidence’. I and many others were first told that there could be no mention, let alone discussion, of any of the charges, let alone the evidence!
Then Roy Goodwin, a well respected Oldham member, was told that he could be shown the ‘evidence’, after being sworn to secrecy, and that he could tell Oldham members simply whether in his opinion I was Guilty or Not Guilty. Once again I was not allowed to know any of the charges, let alone the evidence.
When even this strategy failed, and Roy Goodwin gave a Not Guilty verdict, this ridiculous pamphlet was produced, presumably in the hope of fooling the gullible.
In their concluding remarks, Griffin and Lecomber tell three more lies. They claim that an NF member called Wayne has cooperated with their investigation. I know Wayne well, and he has not cooperated with Griffin and Lecomber in any respect whatsoever.
They accuse Pete Barker of leaking information to the enemy. The truth is that Pete Barker - a respected nationalist for more than 25 years - was forced out of the party on the pretext that he had forwarded an email from Griffin to Martin Webster. There is no evidence whatsoever that Webster leaked this email to the reds. While Webster is clearly an enemy of Nick Griffin (and for that matter of John Tyndall) there is no evidence that he is in any sense a stooge for Searchlight or other reds. By contrast it is certain that Griffin and Lecomber were responsible for leaking information to the ANL about a recent Burnley BNP meeting. Moreover Lecomber has admitted arranging a secret meeting with Webster in 1999 in an attempt to obtain damaging information about John Tyndall!
The pamphlet concludes by smearing former BNP chairman John Tyndall with a totally manufactured quotation. John Tyndall has never made this comment or anything like it, so he is also being libelled here.
The reference to the Burnley meeting is equally deceitful - in fact the local party officials whom Griffin ordered to turn me away were highly embarrassed and apologetic. They themselves argued that I should be given the right to defend myself!
Note also that Griffin and Lecomber do not refer to the fact that they tried to sabotage the entire Burnley meeting.
My apologies to readers for the fact that this document is necessarily long-winded, but the Appendices alone could be extended to book length, such is the depth of Griffin and Lecomber’s treachery.
HE NEEDED THE CASH!
Appendix One
Griffin’s right-hand man admits he was a state informer
On April 11 1993 a classified document arrived on the desk of Major General Johan le Roux.
Le Roux was the South African Police chief in charge of investigating the country’s most sensational crime in recent memory. Chris Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party and a likely successor to Nelson Mandela, had been shot dead earlier that day outside his home in Boksburg, an exclusive suburb of Johannesburg.
The document came from a Mr Botha of the South African National Intelligence Service (NIS). Formerly known as BOSS, and once dedicated to preserving white rule against communist subversion, the NIS was now the puppet of business and political interests who were busily selling out white South Africa to the ANC.
The main role of NIS was now not to spy on communists, but to spy on white nationalists. One known white militant, Polish immigrant Janusz Waluz, had been arrested within hours of the assassination and there was clear forensic evidence that he had been the gunman (or at least one of the gunmen) who killed Hani.
A list of names and address details, including Hani’s, had been found at Waluz’s home. The NIS report stated:
“Information corresponding to the so-called hit list found in the flat of Walus was reported to division 052 by agent Z0066 (Jerry Pieterse who fronted as a freelance reporter) who received it from sub-source 46 (Arthur Kemp).”
The report claimed that Kemp was not a registered agent of NIS, but Le Roux knew that Kemp had been an officer of the South African Police Security Branch (their equivalent of Special Branch) for three years. He also knew that Kemp was widely suspected in political circles of being some kind of state agent.
The “hit list” referred to had been drawn up by Kemp at the request of Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis, wife of the prominent South African politician Clive Derby-Lewis, who quickly found himself arrested alongside Waluz. Mysteriously Kemp had informed NIS agent Jerry Pieterse all about the list and the role of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis some weeks before the murder.
More than four years later the document was published as Exhibit V in the amnesty hearings for Waluz and Clive Derby-Lewis. They had been convicted of murder in the autumn of 1993 after a trial in which Kemp appeared as a prosecution witness, and they had been sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment.
As part of the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Waluz and Derby-Lewis applied for amnesty, in common with many others convicted or suspected of political offences. They were eventually refused amnesty. Arthur Kemp had been unwilling or unable to give evidence at the hearings.
Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis, wife of Clive Derby-Lewis, testified that when the intelligence document was released she had contacted Kemp to get his side of the story.
“…I immediately e-mailed Mr Kemp and I said: “Who is this man Pieterse?” and he said Pieterse had approached him and asked him to write about the right wing and that he would give him some money.
Kemp said that he was battling a bit financially at the time and he could use the money, he wasn’t aware that Pieterse was an NIS agent. Pieterse said to him that he had some kind of an international press network and - well I won’t go on anymore but the reason why I’m showing this is that journalists are well known as agents.”
For an earlier report on Kemp, see Murder, Treason & Espionage: Nick Griffin’s Star Witness Exposed.
Appendix Two
SOUTH AFRICANS SPY ON BRITISH NATIONALISTS
In a document entitled Considerations for Proscription, published by Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber, there is a peculiar mention of a man called Cliff Saunders.
Arthur Kemp, a South African who has a long record of informing on nationalists, quotes Saunders in support of his libellous statements against BNP activist Peter Rushton.
He acknowledges that Saunders, a former correspondent for the South African Broadcasting Corporation, was a longstanding spy for the apartheid-era intelligence service.
What he forgets (?) to add is that Saunders changed sides, and continued spying against white nationalists, in South Africa, in Britain and across Europe, for the new Mandela-era intelligence service.
These facts were exposed by Saunders himself and one of his former employees, Jani Allan, in a series of South African newspaper articles beginning in February 2000. The story was also picked up by the Guardian and by the Nigel Dempster column in the Daily Mail.
Until abruptly terminating the operation in December 1995, Cliff Saunders and his associate David Bamber had used journalistic fronts called Geofocus and Newslink International to mount spying operations against European nationalists.
For some of these operations they employed the well known journalist Jani Allan, who visited the nationalist festival at Diksmuide in August 1995. Jani became suspicious of Saunders and Bamber, and confided her suspicions to a retired British Army officer who had gone on to edit a patriotic journal.
She also confided in Peter Rushton, a BNP activist whom she had met in Diksmuide and who assisted her with further researches.
In the South African paper Sunday Independent on April 1 2000, Jani told some of this story, under the headline ‘I never knew I was being used to spy’.
Cliff Saunders, the apartheid-era political correspondent for the SABC, allegedly used Jani Allan to spy on members of the right wing without her knowledge.
Allan made this claim to The Sunday Independent this week and gave as proof print-outs from Saunders' computer that she obtained when she had access to his office.
The spying began when Allan worked in Britain for what she believed to be a news agency where she was employed to conduct research as a journalist.
But she became suspicious when she was not paid on several occasions, and when she was asked to focus solely on the right wing while she believed she was functioning as a legitimate journalist.
One week in 1995, when Saunders was back in South Africa, Allan was able to gain access to computer records of correspondence between him and a paymaster in South Africa.
Until then Saunders had barred access to the records by changing the code every day: "By now I was well aware that reports were being sent in code to South Africa using a code system that was changed personally by Saunders each day."
Late in June, when Saunders was temporarily "incapacitated" and forgot to change the code, Allan was able to break into the files. This revealed not only the true nature of the operation but also how she had been deliberately inveigled into working for Saunders.
When Saunders sued Joe Nhlanhla, the minister of intelligence services, for R100 000 earlier this year for services rendered, Saunders alleged that he and Allan had spied on members of the right wing while they lived in Britain in 1994 and 1995.
Communication between Saunders and his contact in South Africa, which was leaked to The Sunday Independent this week, revealed how Saunders gave accommodation to Allan in his London home. The print-outs, part of a dossier in Allan's possession, also show how Saunders asked for permission to hire Allan on a £900 salary in 1994/5.
Contacted for comment Saunders said: "You know I can't comment." Allan was looking for accommodation and employment after her bruising legal battle with Britain's Channel 4, which she unsuccessfully sued for libel after the television channel alleged she had had sex with Eugene TerreBlanche, the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) leader. Allan lost the case, but in court her private life was splashed all over the media and she was left to pay huge legal bills.
Allan, who now works for a talk radio station in Cape Town, found herself in London without a regular job, and Saunders offered her a job as a researcher and journalist at Newslink International, a news agency.
While Allan thought she was in legitimate employment, she was in fact working for Geofocus SA, a front company whose task was to spy. Groups included the Inkatha Freedom Party, the AWB and right-wing organisations.
But she was not aware of her true role. According to one of the print-outs, Saunders wrote to South Africa: "As far as she is concerned she is simply assisting me with one of my consultancy projects. Once she begins receiving money she is compromised ... and will have to continue. This technique is the wellknown one you guys taught me."
So not content with smearing rival nationalists, Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber have used one proven state informant, Arthur Kemp, who in turn uses the ‘evidence’ of another state agent, Cliff Saunders, and has the audacity to suggest that nationalists should look for Cliff Saunders in London and confirm the ‘evidence’ with him.
Apart from any other consideration, enticing British nationalists to get in touch with Cliff Saunders - an admitted agent of a foreign power - is itself a crime which should result in severe reprimands for Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber. Readers should be aware that South African intelligence has longstanding ties with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, which is no great friend of the BNP! For example, see A. & L. Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p295: “Israeli intelligence cooperated closely with the South African National Intelligence Service, formerly known as BOSS, the Orwellian Bureau of State Security. Interestingly enough, the Israeli internal security service SHABAK maintained a permanent mission abroad in South Africa.”
But we must also take this shocking behaviour in the context of their other recent activities: the monstrous smear against Peter Rushton, the ongoing smears against John Tyndall and Richard Edmonds, the disgraceful treatment of Bob James, the attempt to incite Alex Cooper to attack Dave Hill via a disgusting anonymous letter written by Lecomber, the highly irregular approach to party finances ever since Griffin’s election, the splits within Griffin’s own faction dating right back to the disputes with the Edwardses and Mike Newland back in 1999, and the treacherous approach to fundamental political principles displayed repeatedly by Griffin during 2002.
The overall picture is quite clear. Nick Griffin must be removed as leader of the British National Party. He and Tony Lecomber have no future in our movement.
ESPAÇO DA PORTUGALIDADE
http://www.geocities.com/portugalidade