Skip to content or view screen version

Lecomber murder plot. Six months on and still no arrest. Why?

Lancaster UAF | 18.07.2006 08:08 | Anti-racism | Repression | Social Struggles

No arrest or even questioning for a known terrorist who proposes to murder public figures, in a racially-motivated conspiracy - yet he isn't even questioned...

Tony Lecomber, former Group Development Officer for the British National Party, has been accused of attempting to solicit a well-known alleged hitman to assassinate establishment figures 'who are aiding and abetting the coloured invasion of this country', an act of terrorism prompted by racism. Yet he has never been questioned, let alone arrested, and the mainstream media - except for a single newspaper - has remained silent. Why?

On January 16th this year, after spotting a subsequently (and speedily) deleted thread on the nazi Stormfront forum, Lancaster UAF reported  http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=62 that Tony Lecomber, the British National Party's then Director of Group Development, had been sacked or had resigned after, in the phrase used in a hurriedly-released organisers' bulletin, 'making a serious error of judgement in speaking to a non-member about matters which could be misconstrued and which could thereby possibly have caused embarrassment to the party.'

Confirmation of this was almost immediately provided by the BNP itself. Its website was suddenly amended to show Nick Cass taking over Lecomber's role in the party (eventually replaced by Sadie Graham). No other explanation was forthcoming and all questions asked on most of the far-right forums on the internet about the matter were almost instantly blocked and the forum threads themselves either locked or, in many cases, swiftly deleted.

Lecomber, in common with most of the leading figures in the BNP, has a background. In 1986, he was convicted on five counts for offences under the Explosives Act, including possession of homemade hand-grenades and electronic timing devices, and earned himself a derisory three year sentence. In 1991 he was sentenced to a further three years for unlawful wounding for his part in an attack on a Jewish teacher who he caught trying to peel off a BNP sticker at an underground station. He has a total of 12 convictions. Lecomber is generally regarded as something of an organisational whiz and is largely held responsible (and you can read that whichever way you like) as the architect of Nick Griffin's eventual success over BNP-founder John Tyndall in their fight for the BNP leadership.

For a short while, the truth of Lecomber's removal was unknown. While he had clearly been removed from his highly public position in the party, he was still working in the background, still being paid by the party and still retained his party membership. As the truth emerged though, Griffin was forced to act, removing Lecomber via his resignation after several organisers within the party threatened to quit if he wasn't openly dumped. Even then, he still worked for the party up to, and for all we know beyond, the May elections primarily in the North of England. Certainly, he attended a celebration party for the newly-elected BNP councillors at Barking and Dagenham, showing that he's still on the scene and still accepted within the BNP.

On April 4th, an open letter was printed  http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=155 on another nazi forum (Vanguard) purporting to be from former Griffin bodyguard, Joe Owens, who himself had been forced to resign from the BNP after news of his extensive and violent gangland activities became public. Owens' letter, if true, blew the lid on precisely why Lecomber had been kicked out of the BNP - albeit in slow motion.

The letter alleged that Lecomber had approached Owens completely out of the blue, had arranged to meet with him and on meeting had proposed the assassination of establishment figures (Greg Dyke was specifically mentioned for some reason) thus 'targeting members of the establishment who are aiding and abetting the coloured invasion of this country'. As this meeting was to have taken place over the Christmas period, it can reasonably be assumed that the purpose of Lecomber's somewhat startling proposal was originally in some way intended to influence the outcome of the Griffin/Collett trial, due to begin on the following January 16th.

Owens claimed that he refused to have anything to do with any such 'mad scheme', and the two parted relatively amicably.

Owens' letter continues:

'After we parted company, I immediately rang Mark Collett [the BNP's Head of Publicity and the star of the Channel 4 documentary 'Young, Nazi and Proud': see  http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=313 ] and told him of the conversation I just had with Lecomber, he like I was deeply shocked. I also rang Stevie Cartwright from Glasgow and he said he would call Warren Bennett, head of BNP security and he would inform him about this serious breach of security.

Warren Bennett and maybe Scott McLean, then informed Nick Griffin of the situation. I then received a phone call from Nick Griffin and briefly outlined to Nick the conversation I had with Lecomber.

We decided to meet up on Saturday 14th January at the Chester services on the M56 motorway to discuss this serious turn of events.

I met Nick that day during the afternoon and told him word for word the conversation I had with Lecomber, to my amazement Nick informed me Lecomber was suffering from diabetes and that diabetics were prone to mood swings, this he said “could explain Lecomber’s apparent leave of his senses”.

After I had stopped laughing, I said, “well, it must have been a long mood swing as I got the xmas card two weeks before xmas and I had the conversation 12th January with Lecomber”. To which Nick conceded I was right.

Nick and I spoke for some time and went over every possible scenario to explain his strange behaviour.We both then agreed the man was up to no good, in fact, Nick then said to me “this now explains why Searchlight has always known our exact membership numbers”.'

It's necessary to include some background here. Lecomber surprised everyone by only receiving a three-year sentence for the bombing incident back in 1985. Rumours have surfaced from time to time that he was recruited by the state at that time to provide information on the BNP in return for an extremely light sentence. Larry O'Hara, writing in Notes From the Borderland (NFB), Issue 7,  http://www.borderland.co.uk/notes_from_the_borderland_006.htm cites several instances of Lecomber-related activity that certainly supports the possibility, but states clearly that the question of whether or not Lecomber is a state asset is still inconclusive.

Owens continues with his story. After having been told that Lecomber had been ordered to 'resign or fall on own sword', he was perturbed to discover that Lecomber was still working for the BNP and emailed Griffin to see if this was in fact the case. Griffin's response was somewhat startling. It explained that Lecomber was in the process of passing his job over to another senior member (presumably Sadie Graham) and that losing him 'was a great loss to the BNP and now leave the poor man alone.'

Suffering a minor apoplectic fit at this point, Owens fumes, 'Leave the poor man alone? The same poor man who tried to solicit me to murder people. I found this response from Griffin very strange indeed. Instead of using the full weight of a BNP tribunal to bring Lecomber to book and kicking him out of the party, Griffin was more concerned about Lecomber’s feelings.' He continues: 'I now challenge Lecomber and Griffin to refute one word I have written here, in fact I even made the offer to Griffin to pay for Lecomber to undergo a polygraph test if what I was saying wasn’t true. To date I have not been taken up on my offer.'

Not altogether surprising really, given the circumstances.

Recovering from his anger, Owens goes on to ask the question that should have been asked from the moment this incident first became public knowledge; '...why has Lecomber not received a visit from the police as I am sure they will be aware of his conspiracy to solicit murder?'

Perhaps the police are taking the view that it's one man's word against the other? Well, not quite. Larry O'Hara examines this particular point closely in NFB7  http://www.borderland.co.uk/notes_from_the_borderland_006.htm and draws some useful conclusions. Referring to the Lecomber resignation notice, he asks; '...what did Lecomber say that could be 'misconstrued' along the lines Owens alleges? On 15/1, Owens contacted Lecomber stating "if nothing illegal by you was said, then please inform now, what actually you said to me. Now if you admit what it was you were talking about, then why were you? And what if I'd said yes, what was the next stage? I can't believe you would embark on such a venture and think it would benefit Nationalism. You could only be asking me to do this, because someone as sent you. If I'm wrong, then why were you asking me to embark on this suicide mission?" This Owens email is consistent with his account of events, as you would expect, but of greater interest is Lecomber's lame same day reply, not what you would expect if he hadn't been soliciting to murder or similar. He tersely comments "I never said anything about the BNP. What I'm saying is as far as I'm concerned I just want to forget it". Tending to confirm Lecomber had said something beyond the pale, illegal even - if not, surely he would have denied it? On 17/1/06, Owens emailed Lecomber again. "I don't really know how far you would of went with this and were not going to know, but it was a suicide mission for you and whoever else you recruited". Lecomber's reply had no denial, but contained the seemingly corroborating passage "You're right, no one can fancy suicide very much. Least said, soonest mended I think".' It's difficult to draw anything from this exchange of emails other than the conclusion that Owens is telling the truth.

Owens, in wondering why Lecomber hasn't been visited by the police, has asked a damn good question and one that paradoxically more people are asking as this saga is apparently carefully suppressed. Where is the interest from the media? The only newspaper that's published the story so far is the Sunday Herald on May 28th.  http://www.sundayherald.com/55980 Curiously, there was no follow-up to that story in the following Monday's tabloids and nothing else has happened with regard to the story except that Joe Owens - not Tony Lecomber, you'll note - has been proscribed by the BNP leadership and also, it is claimed, been questioned by a Special Branch detective named Brannigan brandishing a copy of Larry O'Hara's Indymedia posting reporting the murder plot allegations.

To be honest, it's not difficult to see why Joe Owens has been proscribed - though the big question here should be why the BNP leadership (primarily Nick Griffin, who has known Owen's history for years) didn't proscribe him ages ago. He has been described as 'Britain's number one contract killer and one of the country's most notorious race-hate white supremacists...leading neo-fascist...[former] personal bodyguard [for three years] of BNP boss Nick Griffin...professional assassin with seven alleged hits to his name...one of the top suspects for the slaying of TV presenter Jill Dando...[who] a Merseyside Police file describes as the £100,000-a-time gunman for the criminal gang led by cocaine baron Curtis Warren.'

Nevertheless, in this instance it appears to have been Lecomber who made the proposal, not Owens, and Lecomber who should have been on the end of any proscription notice from the BNP and/or any visits from the police/Special Branch.

Martin Webster, ex-National Front, joined in the fray, as we mentioned here  http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/index.php?itemid=166 questioning the fact that the only person to have received a visit regarding this matter from the police was Joe Owens. 'I find this apparent police inactivity very puzzling in view of the fact that Lecomber's approach to Owens constitutes an incitement to terrorism - the kind of activity which has recently been the subject of stringent new laws following the '7/7' incidents.' A valid point and he's far from the only person to be surprised.

The proscription notice, which the BNP distributed to all organisers in the party, was, though belated, pretty clear. It states, '...Mr. Owens is now reported to be working with a mainstream journalist and publishing house on a book about his life. The proposed title: 'Nazi Assassin' indicates that this will be a sensationalist tease, as Joe Owens made it clear that he had rejected the old BNP neo-Nazi undercurrent before rejoining the party in 2001 after a period of some years of total political non-involvement. Furthermore, it is self-evident that, however many copies he hopes to sell, he is not going either to 'confess' to any illegalities, let alone assassinations. The best chance that he therefore has of making the book a commercial success is to play up his links with the BNP, including any continuing personal contact with party officials. In turn, from our point of view, the best way to continue our move towards the political mainstream is to ensure that those links are in the receding past, and not in the present'.

This seems to be deliberately missing a vital point. Back in April, Owens announced on a nazi forum that he was giving up on the memoirs on the grounds that he wasn't happy with the way they were going - too much had to be kept quiet for his own safety - and that his working relationship with his publishers and editors was breaking down. A few weeks ago, he wrote on the Vanguard forum, 'I will no longer be having anything to do with the writing of the so called 'Nazi Assassin'. As each day passed,one could see the hand of Searchlies [Searchlight] and the State, shaping and controlling the direction of the book'.

Since then, Owens and his publishers, Mainstream (Edindurgh), appear to have resumed communication and the book may be back on again but at the time the proscription notice was issued, Owens was clearly and publicly backing off from publishing. It's hard to believe that Nick Griffin and the leadership of the British National Party wouldn't have been aware of this; thus we have to look at other reasons for the proscription - and the only one that makes any sense is that the BNP want to keep Owens firmly at arms-length so he doesn't continue to spread his story about Lecomber through the ranks of the BNP. Had the BNP simply wanted to proscribe Owens for the damage his book could potentially do, they could, and should, have done that ages ago.

So why all this ducking and diving apparently to protect Tony Lecomber? Assuming Owen's story is true, why would the BNP want to protect Lecomber at all? Surely not just to avoid damaging publicity - a proscription notice on Lecomber himself and an announcement that he had been sacked and why to the media at large would have dealt with that, plus Griffin could have played the fake morality card he so loves to play into the bargain.

There are only two possibilities that ring true. Either the BNP are protecting Lecomber because he knows where all the skeletons are buried (and he does) and can destroy the party single-handed, which works but still doesn't answer the question of why he hasn't yet been arrested - or he's a state asset. In fact, the whole thing ONLY works if you assume that he IS a state asset - and then everything falls neatly into place. Assuming he is, there are still a lot more questions that need to be asked including the original question of why he hasn't yet been arrested. Asset or not, what he was suggesting to Owens was an act of terrorism or, at the very least, a racially-inspired conspiracy to commit murder. Both of these are serious crimes and either of them should have had him picked up within minutes of Joe Owen's disclosure way back in April. Assuming he's an asset, there's a certain level of protection he could be expected to claim but these should not be expected to ignore proposals to murder, for whatever reason. If they do, one wonders what other crimes are ignored in the pursuit of the interests of the state.

Joe Owens has clearly provided enough verifiable evidence to support an arrest but even if the police regard Owens' statements as highly suspect, there is, without a shadow of doubt, enough evidence to vigorously question Lecomber. Even this much hasn't happened. Why not and, even more disturbingly, why isn't the media at large asking the same question? Owens, according to Larry O'Hara in an email to Lancaster UAF (July 14th) '...was more than willing to provide a sworn affidavit to Neil McKay [the journalist] for the Sunday Herald piece, but (for whatever reason) McKay decided not to seek one.' One wonders why not. It would be most helpful if MPs and those in relevant positions of authority could help in our quest to get this question answered.

In fact, this whole incident brings up an awful lot of questions that need to be answered (some of which have already been asked in NFB7) and in an effort to provide those answers we've sent this article to several hundred MPs, journalists, relevant police authorities and other interested parties. We'd be obliged if some of them demanded the answers that should have been forthcoming months ago:

Why hasn't Lecomber been arrested or at least questioned by the police about his proposal to Owens?
Why have no mainstream politicians (thus far) demanded an answer to the first question?
Why has the media (for the most part) completely ignored this incident?
Is Lecomber a state asset and if so, who exactly does he work for and how long has he worked for them?
If this incident was state-inspired, what other illegal activities has Lecomber undertaken for the state with apparent immunity?

Answers to any or all of these questions will be very welcome and will almost certainly feature in our next article about Teflon-Tony Lecomber.

Lancaster UAF
- e-mail: lancaster.uaf@zen.co.uk
- Homepage: http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/

Comments

Hide the following 25 comments

Wheels within Wheels

18.07.2006 10:14

It seems very strange that Margaret Hodge and the Media gave the BNP a definate leg up before the local elections. The BNP were given the most sympathetic and extensive coverage they have ever had, the mere mention of the Lecomber incident would have stuffed their chances. This points to the BNP leadership/direction being a possible state asset, whether they realise this or not is another question. The question is why?

Their publications and Griffin seem to be adopting a pro-israeli stance, whilst at the same time whipping up hatred towards muslims?

Scott


Question

18.07.2006 11:12

I have no idea what to make about the Lecomber story. Griffin a state asset? So why are they trying so hard to jail him with the help of searchlight UAF. The UAF work along side the Labour party and urge people to vote for them instead of the BNP. So who is the state asset again?

James


Dance with the devil

18.07.2006 11:54

I would suggest that the recent increased publicity of the BNP serves Tony Blair's agenda well. Old Labour is being divided and its message sidelined.

Why try to lock up Nick Griffin? Why not? Its a win-win from that perspective - lock the guy up, the BNP are up in arms, perhaps win more sympathy, either way gain more public attention. If he's acquitted - the BNP are able to say "this proves our point" and get more media attention.

If thats what New Labour are doing, they're playing a dangerous game - lets hope they know what they're doing. AND that they've got MI5 protecting potential BNP targets.

anonymous


confusion

18.07.2006 12:51

perhaps i'm confused, or the other commenters. as i read the story, the suggested state asset is not griffin but lecomber, who, it is suggested, was trying to prompt far-righters towards terrorist actions in a provocateur/entrapment role, that could then be used against the BNP/far right generally. it is also suggested that griffin and the BNP were thus happy to demote him/accept his resignation, but that he is still given favour by the leadership but he (lecomber) might have all sorts of embarrassing info that he could 'out' to discredit the BNP.

i have to admit, that when you get into all this conspiracy theorising, and ascribing things like spookdom to people based on extended rationalising about the possible benefits to different groups (qui bono - who benefits?) you can tie yourself up in horrible tangleds: it's the basic logic of conspiracy theory and seems to obscure as much as it illuminates....

anarchoteapot


Lecomber and sadie graham are probably state assets

18.07.2006 13:59

On the evidence available it does seem that Tony Lecomber and current group development director Sadie graham are probably state assets working for the Special branch/Searchlight entities. Tony Lecomber has been suspected of being an asset for many years with the suspicion that he was turned by Special branch after his attempted attack on the Workers revolutionary party bookshop in 1985 an offence for which he received a laughably short sentence of 3 years imprisonment. Other suspicions of his activities include.

1. The appearence of Tony lecomber in a photo with UKIP member Nigel Farage and Mark deavin of the BNP of which no credible explanation has ever been put forward by Lecomber or anyone else but which may fit the state's attempt to fit UKIP up as a fascist organisation.

2. The current situation with Joe owens would seem to confirm that Lecomber was acting as an agent provocateur trying to entice owens (who has an history of thuggery) to do something totally criminal which could implicate the BNP. Griffins reaction to Owens claims is most strange. Is it possible that Lecomber has some kind of hold over Griffin which may explain griffin's attitude to Lecomber. Its possible!!!. Lecomber's possible role as a state asset is also reinforced by the fact that the media, politicians, police etc have not investigated these claims by owens and have not even questioned Lecomber all of which adds to the suspicion that he is an asset protected by the state with a licence to incite violence.

As for Sadie graham she was originally an activist in animal rights anarchist circles in Brighton who had an apparent sudden political conversion to fascism to the point where she is now Group development director in the BNP having risen through the ranks of the fash. She has led a charmed life as an activist for the fash. She was never targetted by the ANL at university like other BNP students such as Mark collett despite peoples urging at the time and apparently she is spoken of highly in Searchlight as well which may explain the lack of Searchlight venom against her. The case for Sadie being an asset is much less than Lecomber however but given her dramatic shift in political beliefs, lack of anti fascist campaigning against her when she attented Nottingham university, and Searchlight's lack of interest in her would suggest that she is possibly dodgy.

Steve la fevre


Worst case

18.07.2006 18:11

The worst case is that griffin is jailed along with collet, griffin leaves his choice of stand in leader in charge and a internal struggle breaks out and henceforth a Leadership battle.
If Barnbrook wins this battle the BNP could well be picking the wallpaper for number 10 within the next general election.
Griffin is not electable, but barnbrook is... highly, beyond any doubt the most electable BNP leadership contender for 25 years, whilst griffin is in charge they will be at most a fringe party as mud sticks, upset this balance and we may regret it for hundreds of years, the BNP are well and truly the new anger stick of the working class and all they need is a new face
It is a dangerous situation and one that needs more thought !

Malc


Prove it

18.07.2006 19:22

So prove it then plant pot. Prove that Larry is a state asset instead of just smearing people or just shut the fuck up.

Steve la fevre


Goodness me

18.07.2006 19:23

Quote from james
'I have no idea what to make about the Lecomber story. Griffin a state asset? So why are they trying so hard to jail him with the help of searchlight UAF. The UAF work along side the Labour party and urge people to vote for them instead of the BNP. So who is the state asset again?'

Searchlight and UAF split ages ago. A few branches of UAF are happy to co-operate on the ground with Searchlight but that's as far as liaison goes. UAF do not encourage people to vote Labour - they encourage people to vote anything except BNP.

Quote from anarchoteapot
'...the suggested state asset is not griffin but lecomber'

Yep. The Griffin thing isn't an impossibility though - though as you say, all this spookerie confuses the issue somewhat (in my opinion).

Quotes from Steve LeFevre
'The appearence of Tony lecomber in a photo with UKIP member Nigel Farage and Mark deavin of the BNP of which no credible explanation has ever been put forward by Lecomber or anyone else but which may fit the state's attempt to fit UKIP up as a fascist organisation.'

Most peculiar - though this ties in with Griffin's current courtship with UKIP members (which is pissing off the UKIP membership no end).

'Is it possible that Lecomber has some kind of hold over Griffin which may explain griffin's attitude to Lecomber.'

I would expect Lecomber to know precisely where the bodies are buried, so to speak.

Quotes from Malc
'If Barnbrook wins this battle the BNP could well be picking the wallpaper for number 10 within the next general election.'

I don't see that happening. The BNP would never be allowed to get that far by the established parties.

'It is a dangerous situation and one that needs more thought.'

That's certainly true and it needs thinking about now.

Quote from Plant Pot
'And that's YOU Larry O'hara.'

Oh, for Gawd's sake.

Tom
- Homepage: http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/


White

18.07.2006 21:10

Since most of the Fash won't touch known informer Tony White with a barge-pole, it'd be interesting to know why Lecomber spent so long talking to him in a Leeds pub during one of Griffin's court appearances shortly before the shit hit the fan.

Peapod


Re: Confused?

19.07.2006 01:40

>perhaps i'm confused, or the other commenters. as i read the story, the suggested state asset is >not griffin but lecomber, who, it is suggested, was trying to prompt far-righters towards terrorist >actions in a provocateur/entrapment role, that could then be used against the BNP/far right >generally. it is also suggested that griffin and the BNP were thus happy to demote him/accept his >resignation, but that he is still given favour by the leadership but he (lecomber) might have all sorts >of embarrassing info that he could 'out' to discredit the BNP.

I commented earlier.

Indeed that is what the article is suggesting. The idea that the BNP in general is an asset to the government is one that I was exploring following reference made by a previous poster who asked why the govt have charged Griffin with criminal offences if he's an asset.

I believe that practically any BNP publicity serves the Government's purpose at the moment.

>i have to admit, that when you get into all this conspiracy theorising, and ascribing things like >spookdom to people based on extended rationalising about the possible benefits to different >groups (qui bono - who benefits?) you can tie yourself up in horrible tangleds: it's the basic logic >of conspiracy theory and seems to obscure as much as it illuminates....

If my ideas were based on mere "qui bono" - I'd agree. But we have the evidence above to start with - the government had a fairly straightforward opportunity to torpedo the BNP before the local elections, but they chose not to, for whatever reason.

Furthermore we have Margaret Hodge of Barking and her ridiculous BNP statement that led the BNP into power:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4974870.stm

Finally (and most tenuously) we have the fact that newspapers which for a good number of years beginning in '97 have said pretty much whatever Blair's spin doctors have wanted them to are now focussing on bread and butter BNP issues expressing BNP-lite views... I for one refuse to believe that Blair's spin doctors have lost their sway...

Others may rationally disagree with me on the point - but my first two points remain.

My view is that the govt are being far softer on the BNP than one might expect from a labour government. Tony & co are acting out of character without explanation, and under the circumstances, I feel justified in posing tricky questions and in the absence of decent answers, forming my own conclusions - so call me a conspiracy theorist!!

GB


what am I saying

19.07.2006 02:00

you can tell its 3AM. "Led the BNP into power?" They got a few seats on the council & became the opposition (as you'll probably have heard umpteen times elsewhere!)

GB


A FEW MORE POINTS

19.07.2006 03:47

1) It is nobody's intention at NFB to deny there are real issues that have sadly enticed some people into voting for the dead-end that is the BNP. Which is why this issue also has an anti-fascist strategy article. We do not, however, buy into the simplistic view seeing the BNP as a New Labour inspired safety-valve.

2) Some posters above seem to think that the Lecomber issue is a distraction of some sort--on the contrary, plots to murder are serious things indeed, and as in Northern Ireland (Brian Nelson/Stakeknife) if those planning such work for the state it is a matter of public importance.

3) I agree with Steve Lefevre's points about broadening analysis to include Lecomber's successor, Sadie Graham.

4) The abuse quotient from PlantPot & similar is hitherto rather less than usual on threads of this nature--are the little trolls awaiting fresh orders?

Heidi Svenson
mail e-mail: contactnfb@tiscali.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.borderland.co.uk


Who helps Labour

19.07.2006 07:54

Again I ask who is the state asset? Still find it hard to believe the BNP is a state asset when they are trying so hard to jail Griffin, are we really to believe that Griffin is sacrificing himself for Labour? The UAF often urge people to vote Labour instead of BNP. As most of the BNP success was in working class wards in the locals it then follows that the UAF are helping the state by getting people to vote for them to keep them in power. All this speculation regarding BNP members is all very well but it is Labour who have invaded Iraq not the BNP with its 54 councillors. Know matter what the intention may be, the UAF are working for the state when they urge people to vote Labour and keep them in power.

James


Clarification

19.07.2006 09:10

"1) It is nobody's intention at NFB to deny there are real issues that have sadly enticed some people into voting for the dead-end that is the BNP. Which is why this issue also has an anti-fascist strategy article. We do not, however, buy into the simplistic view seeing the BNP as a New Labour inspired safety-valve.

2) Some posters above seem to think that the Lecomber issue is a distraction of some sort--on the contrary, plots to murder are serious things indeed, and as in Northern Ireland (Brian Nelson/Stakeknife) if those planning such work for the state it is a matter of public importance."

In case thats an interpretation of my first comment - please don't misunderstand me. I believe the BNP have quite an independant existence to New Labour, and don't doubt that they'd discuss/seek to arrange political assassinations.

What I am suggesting is that at the present, New Labour have found them a politically expedient group, and are doing them favours for that reason. If you have a more logical explanation for the governments inaction re:lecomber - I'm all ears...

GB


Single-track mind/idiot?

19.07.2006 10:20

Quote
Again I ask who is the state asset? Still find it hard to believe the BNP is a state asset when they are trying so hard to jail Griffin, are we really to believe that Griffin is sacrificing himself for Labour? The UAF often urge people to vote Labour instead of BNP. As most of the BNP success was in working class wards in the locals it then follows that the UAF are helping the state by getting people to vote for them to keep them in power. All this speculation regarding BNP members is all very well but it is Labour who have invaded Iraq not the BNP with its 54 councillors. Know matter what the intention may be, the UAF are working for the state when they urge people to vote Labour and keep them in power.

They're not trying very hard to jail Griffin are they. If they were, he's be in jail.
I'm sure you're not fash james so why are you using the stupid arguments and attempted deflections they use. The UAF people have already said they say vote anyone as long as it keeps the BNP out. That's not the same as saying vote Labour. Even if they DID say vote Labour so fucking what? Or libdem? Just keep the BNP out - if under our undemocratic system that means voting Labour to do it, I'll vote labour. Tactical voting - given our crap system thats all we've got.

Alby


Trolls missing

19.07.2006 10:35

Quote from Heidi
'The abuse quotient from PlantPot & similar is hitherto rather less than usual on threads of this nature--are the little trolls awaiting fresh orders?'

That's because it's all true. BNP-supporters are always confused when they're confronted with the truth - they don't see much of it.

Tom
- Homepage: http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/


UAF

19.07.2006 11:25

Yea thats right Tom anyone who dares to question the UAF are trolls.

James


This is just a deluded fascist troll trolling

19.07.2006 17:53

What confuses me the most is which state are these people assets of? Let see, the BNP embraces - at arms length - Jewish councillors and villify islam. That woul be current American state Policy Would it not. So the collapse of the American friends of The BNP may not be as complete as you thought. Griffin and Collet and Lecomber would fit in - from an International Third Position Perspective - with a craven adulation of American Fascists. Which would give the American Government enough leverage with enough deranged people to keep the Britis Government on guard at all times. Remember Wilson?

Deluded Fascist troll


Trolls?

19.07.2006 19:50

Quote from James
'Yea thats right Tom anyone who dares to question the UAF are trolls.'

I don't think I said that, did I? I simply tried to point out that you were wrong: apparently that's not an option. Fine, question UAF all you like - it doesn't worry me. I'll still support it as long as I see it at least trying to do something useful. What angers me is all the idiots who slag off anyone who is trying to do anything while doing fuck all themselves; all the armchair (or pub stool) antifascists who just criticise and create divisions for the sake of it.

Tom
- Homepage: http://82.69.12.18/lancasteruafblog/


As I see it.....

20.07.2006 00:19

.....the UAF are certainly active in opposing the Bnp, but then I always start thinking what are the political views of these people?

It is well known that UAF are a front group of the SWP, and unfortunately there are many problems with the politics of the SWP that actually make white working class people more likely to vote for the BNP!

For example, did the SWP think that their part in the creation of the Muslim party Respect was going to attract disenfranchised and disillusioned working class voters? If they did they must be morons.

It was an opportunistic attempt by the SWP to get themselves elected off the back of the Muslim vote. Many years ago the SWP abandoned the working class as being "inherently reactionary" and I believe it was the millionaire Tariq Ali who said that "the new revolutionary class are feminists, ethnic minorities and students".

Even the wealthy middle class university lecturers and professors of the SWP must now accept how idiotic this is?

With respect (no pun intended), I wouldn't campaign for the UAF (though I have been actively involved in politics before) because I don't want to campaign against something on the simplistic basis of 'don't vote for the nasty racists.'

The BNP have some very clever propaganda and very often appear to be more working class and "socialist" in their politics than Respect or even the SWP.

Maybe if the SWP and their front groups start listening to other people, then other people will start listening to you.

Uncle Joe


Oh balls

20.07.2006 01:51

'...the UAF are certainly active in opposing the Bnp, but then I always start thinking what are the political views of these people?'

Why? What does it matter? Just for information (and for the umpteenth time) UAF is supported by people from all political parties, most unions, all religions, creeds and colours, and those who are of no religious or political allegiance at all. Once again, as it always has to be pointed out to people like you who only seem to post on Indymedia to deflect criticism of the BNP, I'll point out that UAF is all about UNITY. It's ALL of us against you.

'It is well known that UAF are a front group of the SWP...'

No, it's well-known that UAF started with the ANL which was formed by the SWP but rapidly became multi-party and so on, then was absorbed into UAF along with a LOT of other groups. In my time as an active member of UAF I have NEVER been handed an SWP leaflet, asked to hold an SWP placard, had anyone solicit my membership for the SWP. And even if I had, so what? That'd be a small price to pay for a bit of organisation in fighting the BNP.

Now instead of trying to deflect this thread so it goes off along that well-worn anti-leftie track, how about responding to the Lecomber article instead.

Jay


UAF=Labour.

20.07.2006 07:30

Okay lets deal with why Lecomber has not been questioned by the Police(and you do not know that). Could it be that there were only two men present when this alleged 'plot' took place. Both men have convictions, Owens has a record as long as anyone's arm, so how do you decide who is lying? The Police can't act on what someone like a gangster Owens said. Owens is pushing his book helped by Searchlight and the UAF who delivered thousands of leaflets with the Owen's story on them, that would have helped Joe's bank account. Oh the sophistication of the plot! Lecomber was alleged to have said ''were have to get a car with false plates'', blimey they would never have got caught! To myself it sounds like a clumsy attempt by Searchlight to entrap Lecomber although I can't be sure. UAF/Searchlight are obsessed by Lecomber who is often refered to as the 'bomber'. He was in fact jailed when a large Roman Candle he had set alight to his pants, as it is alleged he was planning to use against a building. As for the attack on the 'Jewish' teacher, it was the teacher and others who confronted Lecomber and got the worst of the fight. The UAF have in elections helped to deliver Labour party leaflets, I myself have seen them doing it when visiting family in london. At the UAF conference its Labour party speakers who address the conference. Some in the UAF may have good intenions but they have to recognise they are helping a captialist party like Labour everytime they urge voters to vote for them or deliver Labour party leaflets. Six thousand dead in two months in Iraq, yet UAF still urge people to vote Labour as a anti BNP vote. A vote for Labour is a vote for a war criminal, Blair. To clear this up why don't the UAF publicly state that Blair is a war criminal and should be put on trial. Also break their links with Labour and ban Labour party officials from attending their conferences. Then I might believe they are not just a arm of labour and a state asset.

James


UAF and Zionism

21.07.2006 23:15

In support of James's view of the UAF and their alliance with Labour/social fascism, one of the 'big name' sponsors of UAF is Louise Ellman, Labour MP. She is a leading Zionist who fully supports Israels current slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the slaughter of over 300 Lebanese. How getting people to vote for her can be a stand against fascism is beyond me.

Dave


Media

23.08.2006 17:21

As a reporter who raised this story at the time of the local elections to my newsdesk (after Joe Owens letter was put about), I was told we didn't want to give the BNP any more publicity than necessary. There was no state-pressure placed on my colleague - in fact, my paper has run long campaigns against the BNP - just common-sense!

I contacted Joe Owens about it anyway through a third party to see what the score was and to see if he would talk to me about it but he didn't want to play ball because of his book deal. Read into that however you want.

Hack


hack--or journo-cop?

03.09.2006 03:34

There is an off-chance that 'hack' is intending to be humorous: however I don't think so, do you? To deal with his/her post

1) To claim the story wasn't covered because of a desire not to give the BNP publicity is facile--given they get extensive publicity anyway.

2) That Owens may (or may not) have been willing to talk isn't the point--serious issues have been raised in the public domain that deserve serious answers, both of the BNP leadership generally & the police (Special Branch) specifically. In any event, Owens was willing to sign an affidavit for Neil McKay of the Herald--who changed his mind and at the last minute decided he didn't want one...(all enquiries to PO Box 3255 perhaps??)

3) Inasmuch as the media still use the Copeland (nazi nail-bomber) story against the BNP 7 years on, when Copeland was only briefly a BNP member, and in an anti-BNP (Nazi) group the NSM at time of his arrest, then why not use the antics of Lecomber, a far more long-standing and important BNP member, against the BNP?

4) The answer to 3 above might well be the same reason as the Lecomber murder plot has barely been covered--delving too deep affects secret state interests/agendas.

5) 'hack' is right in one rerspect--most journalists are so craven and spineless they don't need to be 'ordered'by the state not to cover certain stories--the gentlest hint of a suggestion will suffice in the vast majority of cases.

Next!!

Larry O'Hara
mail e-mail: contactnfb@tiscali.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.borderland.co.uk