........that Larry'O'Hara worked for Sarchlies!!!!

Electronic Loose Cannon No. 18
Saturday 21st January 2006


EDITOR: MARTIN WEBSTER
Postal address: BM-ICR, LONDON, WC1N 3XX, GREAT BRITAIN.
Mobile: 07932 049019




Mystery surrounds Griffin's decision to
sack his chief lieutenant Tony Lecomber



Loyalist former paramilitary alleges he was
urged to "take out government ministers"

British National Party members will now know that party chairman Nick Griffin has been obliged to "let go" his deputy, Tony Lecomber.

This is being presented both by Griffin and Lecomber as a "resignation". In phone-arounds to long-term contacts on Thursday (19th January) Lecomber stated simply: "I resigned on account of something I said". He refused to specify what he said, however.

I am informed that on Thursday evening the BNP web site has dismissed suggestions of any improprieties on Lecomber's part and claimed the sudden "resignation" was prompted solely for "health reasons caused by stress".

The BNP explanation would not seem to be very credible. For one thing it contradicts what Lecomber himself has been putting about - and for another, no party would lightly lose the services of the man who is, in effect, its deputy-leader just as its leader faced trial on a charge which, if he is convicted, might see him jailed.

A High Court barrister with strong connections to the "Right Wing" scene, has it that about a week ago Lecomber had a one-on-one meeting with a Loyalist former paramilitary activist who recently escaped convictions on very serious charges. This person is now connected with the Liverpool Branch of the BNP.

WISH TO 'TAKE OUT' CABINET MINISTERS


M'Learned Friend asserts that the line of Lecomber's conversation was understood by the Loyalist to be a direct incitement to "take out" certain Cabinet Ministers in the current Labour Government. The Loyalist listened to what Lecomber had to say, but was non-committal.

Upon Lecomber's departure the Loyalist, just like Matilda, went tip-toe to the telephone to summon the immediate aid - not of London's noble Fire Brigade - but BNP Chairman Nick Griffin who was a day or so away from entering the dock at Leeds Crown Court charged with "incitement to racial hatred".

The Loyalist conveyed to Griffin what Lecomber had proposed. He went on to express his opinion that an attempt had been made to lure him into he some kind of an MI5 entrapment operation - perhaps in revenge for his recent acquittal, perhaps as a means to compromise the BNP, and therefore Griffin, at the outset of his trial.

This phone conversation ended something along these lines:

Loyalist: "You either sack Lecomber right now - or I get in touch with the media directly."

Griffin: "Put like that, I've no option. I'll sack Lecomber at once."

True to his word, Griffin did so, but agreed to allow Lecomber to dress the whole thing up as a "resignation". I don't doubt that to sweeten the pill, Griffin will have promised to keep his "close comrade" on the party payroll, somehow. This was intimated by Lecomber on his phone-around.

Griffin cannot afford to behave vindictively as it is well known that for years Lecomber (who has a wife and young family to support) has maintained an insurance in the form of a "Griffin's Gaffes" file now stored on a highly portable and well hidden Memory Stick. Griffin's plans for Lecomber are a topic on which I will comment further in due course.

LECOMBER AN MI5 PLANT?


I am not as convinced as the Loyalist seems to be that Lecomber is an MI5 plant. He could genuinely believe that direct action of the kind it is alleged he incited is appropriate, despite his apparent conversion to the "moderniser" wing of the BNP. Perhaps it was the Kronenburg rather than his intellect which operated his tongue on the occasion in question.

But the Loyalist might just be right. MI5 does have a record of recruiting cash-strapped militants who land up in jail. It also has a knack of placing its people (or recruiting people) in high positions in organisations it wishes to penetrate. For example, the head of security in Mosley's pre-war BUF was a career MI5 officer - hence the speed of the Regulation 18B round-up.

If he is right, the the following background should be taken into consideration:

The state has staged the trial of the Muslim radical cleric Abu Hamza at the Old Bailey in London to run almost simultaneously with Griffin's trial at Leeds Crown Court. This has been done so the state can demonstrate its "even-handedness" in prosecuting "extremists", whatever their race or religion.

This simultaneous staging of the two trials may be an example of somebody being too clever by half. Much of the evidence against Hamza, widely reported in the pro-Zionist media (ever anxious to highlight Islamic frightfulness) can only be perceived to justify the general drift of the views Griffin expressed for which he is being prosecuted. It would be very unlikely that the jurors sitting in Griffin's case are unaware of the evidence being presented in the Hamza case.

Furthermore, Griffin faces only a "racial incitement" charge, while Hamza faces 15 charges, including four counts of "racial incitement" and NINE counts of "soliciting to murder".

"SOLICITING TO MURDER"


It would certainly be convenient for the state's "even-handedness" pose - perpetrated "in the interests of good community relations" - if something could be done to implicate the BNP, and by inference its leader - in "soliciting to murder" while Griffin's trial is taking place.

If such a stunt could be finessed by using an agent provocateur to manipulate an idiot, then the ensuing publicity might tend towards a Griffin conviction (which at present is far from certain). Such a result could then be deployed to "balance" any guilty verdict/s against Hamza and thereby calm down riot-prone elements among Britain's enormous Muslim community.

It is already widely acknowledged that the decision to prosecute Griffin was taken by the Labour Government just before the last general election in order to win back a large section of the Muslim vote which had been lost to Labour due to Blair's support for the war in Iraq and for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.

The decision to push for a new law prohibiting "incitement to religious hatred", much desired by Muslims, had been put on Labour's legislative agenda for a similar reason. (As I have mentioned in a previous ELC, if Griffin is acquitted at Leeds, then this will be used by Labour as "proof that a law against incitement to religious hatred is desperately needed"!)

While the jury is still out on the question of whether Lecomber is an MI5 agent provocateur, it is evident that the Loyalist is not an idiot. His phone call to Griffin, rather than an immediate resort to the media and the police, was a master stroke.

We now have to return to the topic of what will be Griffin's long-term strategy in dealing with Lecomber.

Within months of being elected BNP Chairman in 1999, Griffin made discreet promises to those who see themselves as "respectable" and who ardently support the "modernisation" makeover of the BNP, that "the Lecomber problem will have to be sorted out in due course as part of the party's change of image".

WHY DID GRIFFIN KEEP LECOMBER ON BOARD FOR SO LONG?


"The Lecomber problem" is, of course Lecomber's record of convictions for extremely violent assaults and bomb-making - hence his nick-name "LeBomber".

These "respectables" wonder how Griffin kept Lecomber on board, in effect as his deputy, for weeks - let alone the years that have elapsed. Perhaps Lecomber's intense hatred for the deposed BNP Chairman John Tyndall, who sought a come-back until his dying day, made him useful as head Praetorian. But Tyndall's dying day came and went, and with it went a larger portion Lecomber's usefulness.

At this stage it is hard to know whether Griffin has decided:

(a) that Lecomber's latest alleged folly is so outrageous - and seriously criminal - that the moment of opportunity has come when he can keep his promises to the "respectables" without fear of any reprisals emerging from the "Griffin's Gaffes" file; or,

(b) that he relies on Lecomber's talents as his chief "enforcer" so much that the "resignation" is, for the time being, just a facade and that he will seek to restore the hot-head to his former positions once the current racial incitement prosecution is over and there has been an opportunity to test how widely-known Lecomber's indiscretion has become among the membership and, more to the point, the attitude of the police and the media.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE MARTIN WINGFIELD CASE?


Any who think that option (b) is too cynical should be reminded that this was similar to the cynical strategy Griffin employed to protect another very senior BNP official - Martin Wingfield, Editor of 'The Voice of FREEDOM' from the consequences of his indiscretions.

In that case the issue was not "taking out" government ministers, but of an adult man boasting with glee that he had enjoyed sexual relations more than once with a girl of "only just 14 - a little raver!" when he was offered overnight accommodation by her mother, a nationalist activist and Parliamentary candidate for whom Wingfield was acting as Election Agent.

The facts about Wingfield's conduct were set out in an affidavit (a notarised document) sworn by a witness of Wingfield's boastings. The document was published by me in ELC No. 13 on Thursday 5th March 2003. (Copies of that issue of ELC are available by e-mail to those who request it.)

Wingfield never denied the facts I had published - and did not institute libel proceedings against me. This was duly noted by a group of mothers within the BNP. (Perhaps some of these mothers contributed to the formation in 2005 of the BNP sub-unit 'Mothers Against Paedophiles'.)

The BNP mums were horrified by the contents of the affidavit and formed a deputation to lobby party Chairman Nick Griffin for his dismissal. Griffin assured the mums that "something will be done" and they went away and waited for action. And they waited....... and waited. Nothing was done. The heat went out of the situation and the women became either disillusioned or distracted by some new pressing issue.

Wingfield is still in place publishing articles about "moral values", "decency", "perverts", etc., etc. The BNP web site a year ago carried a feature about how some government-funded tourist agency was promoting Britain as a place for male homosexuals to visit on account of its "low" age of consent for males (16, the same as for females).

MORE TO COME ABOUT GRIFFIN


That tourism promotion was indeed a disgrace. But far worse, surely, is the fact that the party which denounced the idea of foreigners coming over here to have sex with "our boys" aged 16+ employs as the editor of its main publication a man who boasted of repeated copulation with "one of our girls" who was "only just 14"!

Contrast Griffin's treatment of the BNP mothers' representations to him about Wingfield with Griffin's treatment of a complaint against Lecomber made by Caroline Lange, the 2005 winner of the BNP's "George Flaxton Activist of the year Award". Ms. Lange resented Lecomber describing her as a "little old lady". Griffin obliged Lecomber to tender a grovelling apology. This was duly reported in the October 05 'British Nationalist' BNP Members' Bulletin.

The canting "Christian" humbug Wingfield is bad enough. I bet that right now he is churning out articles about the latest scandals concerning paedophile teachers - that is, if he's not occupied writing features praising BNP members who take delight in their African in-laws.

But the person who must bear the personal responsibility for this disgusting hypocrisy is the person who kept Wingfield in his position in the face of protests from BNP mothers: Nick Griffin.

The Wingfield and Lecomber cases may be viewed as "details" - but these are the kind of details which help us to comprehend the rotten foundations upon which the BNP is being built.

In the not too distant future I will reveal a FAR more shocking matter - nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with the BNP, but directly to do with Nick Griffin and his lust for money and what he is willing to do to get it. The story goes back a good few years, but even so, one aspect of the scam has the potential to have a terrible impact on the lives dozen or more nationalists today. That impact may already have commenced in one or two cases.



Martin Webster