The Solicitors for the Human Rights Case bought by the BNP claim to have not been paid. Specifically, that debt falls to Griffin. If those Solicitors (for example) claim that Griffin knew the debt would not be paid then a Judge could determine if restrictions are to be in place. It is not controversial, just a matter of process. It would be all a matter of Accounts.

Supposing Griffin to be odious, contemptible and a political swine at the european trough is all very well, but it is not a theoretical exercise. He is vulnerable to Creditors announcing that he contracted debts that he knew could not be covered. Without the trough, the BNP dies.

Because its too soon.

He was only made bankrupt on 2nd January which means the official receiver's staff are only beginning to investigate his affairs.

A bankruptcy restriction order (BRO) is not common. More often, a bankruptcy restriction undertaking (BRU) is agreed between the bankrupt and the official receiver - this is a binding agreement which has the same effects but avoids the need for a court hearing.

The bankrupt is always given at least 14 days to consider whether they'll accept the BRU. If they don't agree to it, a BRO is the next step.

Either a BRO or BRU can be applied for at any time before discharge - so the official receiver has a whole year to act.

So even if the receiver found evidence of financial misconduct and acted immediately, it'd be the end of this month at the earliest before anything happens.

The relevance of a BRO/BRU is that it bars the bankrupt from UK elected offices for 2-15 years. It doesn't have any impact on sitting as an MEP though.

 http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/IESdatabase/viewbrobrusummary-new.asp

This shows recent BROs - or most of them at least. If Griffin gets one it should appear here.

Interesting to note he got his address withheld from the Insolvency Register which is usually only agreed if the bankrupt can prove a credible risk of violence.

Lee Barnes described the BNP as "Technically insolvent" in August 2010. At that point there were a number of matters pending regarding unfair dismissal. It was widely understood that the BNP had serious financial problems. Those financial problems seem to have dissipated. So it is actually curious that Nick Griffin is Bankrupt. Far from supporting those at the trough, the experience of Griffin suggests that there is something fundamental happening in the Right.

When Clive Jefferson took over in 2010 it appeared that he, "inherited a catastrophic annual operating loss of -£401,962 and a total debt of more than double that. " From that point, "We moved quickly in 2011 to an operating surplus of £214,473," and finally, "this was a real achievement but one matched again in these accounts which show a very healthy £184,393 operating profit at the end of last year." (ie 2012). He did fail to mention that there was an operating loss of £401,962 in 2012 or that Nick Griffin wrote in 2010 that there had been £1.6 million in donations. The Electoral Commission reveals that the reversal of fortune from Lee Barnes to Clive Jefferson might well be due to bequests from dead supporters.

Statistics from the Electoral Commission show the BNP received £265,987 in donations in 2012, compared to £32,000 in 2011. Albert "Stanmore" left £200,000 to the party in 2012. Brian Mincherton left a bequest of £35,000. Edward Hart left a bequest of £28,736.97. Since these people are all dead, and their bequests are a matter of Public Record, there is little decency to be gained by hiding their names. What the profile of donations does demonstrate is that the BNP have embarked on quite a successful process of persuading old people to leave them money.

There are rumours around the Albert Starmore donation that it amounted to £500,000 (Sometimes referred to as Stanmore - there was a transcription error at the Electoral Commission). An accurate account of how one narrative of the donation is £200,000 and another is £500,000 might well provide anybody with an interest (in the direct financial sense, not the political one) with an interesting series of questions. The estate lists both cash and property: a three bedroomed flat in Chingford, North East London. The record of how the estimate whittles down to £200,000 might be interesting. The ownership and sale of the three bedroomed flat, for example. Or the nature of the Directorships at Brookethorpe Limited (Mister Starmore was, apparently, a Director - a curiousity). Or, indeed, the nature of Brookethorpe Limited.

The suicide of mister Starmore suggests the BNP have no genuinely productive fund raising strategy. Not that they cannot raise money but that they cannot raise money from the living. Which leaves them reliant on the death of supporters. Not the most support building strategy - more like Harold Shipman than Populism. The BNP Shipman Strategy will provide cashflows because the population is ageing. Truth be told: the Left need to cultivate ageing comrades on a pragmatic basis because the ageing population is where the money is. There are those who would, rightly, scorn and deride this suggestion. It is one that needs serious consideration. Not because of the Left "needs" money but because having the ageing population leaving large quantities of money to any political party gives that party a large advantage. A shrinking far right party that has access to a large number of bequests is far more a powerbroker than the belligerent "mass appeal" of the "RWB Festival" party. it might be better to suggest to the ageing population that they give money to the cats home. Look at UKIP, largely the manse of Farage, Sykes et al. As a democratically representative party they are far from mass appeal, but their size and finance makes them powerbrokers.

The Shipman alternative, when donations are examined in detailed, starts to stink of fish.


The problem with commenting on anything to do with Nick Griffin is not that it is not possible but that anything that contains any grain of truth is coated in layers of obfustication. Navigation of those layers leaves anybody open to the accusation of libel or slander or simply to the expedient of strongarming.

The problem for Nick Griffin is that, now, his finances and those of the BNP have entered a critical phase. Can he stand as MEP - of course he can. Nothing stops him. Unless, of course someone complains to the European Parliament on the basis that he would be disqualified from being a Member of the Commons (and the Lords). This would raise a serious question for the Returning Officer as Nick Griffin might be able to stand for office but there is not guarantee that Europe would permit him to hold the office.

In matters of membership of the European Parliament, the disqualifications for the membership of the House of Commons apply. This means that

Mental illness

Bankruptcy - by section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 a debtor who is adjudged bankrupt is incapable of being elected to or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or on any committee thereof, until the adjudication is annulled, or until he obtains from the court his discharge.

Offenders sentenced to more than one year's imprisonment (Representation of the People Act 1981).

Corrupt practices at elections (sections 159 and 160 of the Representation of the People Act 1983).


Might all be held to debarr Griffin from Holding the Office (as opposed to seeking the Office). Which he does at present. A bankrupt Member may sit in the House of Commons with impunity, unless the House takes notice that he is incapable of sitting and voting, and orders him to withdraw. In theory, asking if Nick Griffin would be asked to withdraw from the Commons by the Commons shuold satisfy Europe that he should not be permitted to Hold the Office. Which seems like an academic point until you realise that asking if the Commons would ask him to withdraw now - before any elections - would leave him standing for office on a platform of being unable to hold office.

Under sections 159 and 160 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, a candidate at a parliamentary election who is reported by an election court as personally guilty of a corrupt practice is incapacitated, during five years from the date of the report, from being elected for any constituency and during ten years from being elected for the constituency for which the election was held; persons convicted of corrupt practices are also, under section 173, subjected to a total incapacity to be elected for any constituency for five years. If reported by the election court as being guilty through his agents of a corrupt practice or personally guilty of an illegal practice, a candidate is incapacitated during seven years from being elected for the constituency for which the election was held; this local incapacity lasts only for the duration of the Parliament for which the election was held if the court reports that a candidate is guilty of an illegal practice by his agents. Under section 174 of the same Act there are provisions for mitigation and remission of incapacities as a result of further proceedings, where incapacity has arisen as a result of the report of an election court. This would count, again, as being grounds for Europe to deny holding of an office.

Kicking out Griffin is a two edged sword: it strengthens UKIP. In much the same way the NF strengthened the Thatcherite faction of the Tory Party in 1977-1979. Having Griffin stand in a European Election against UKIP and the Tories gives immense opportunity to promote the examination of the widespread corruption of British Politics.

The key to all of it is, as others (particularly watcher) point out: actually conveying information to the Official Receivers. A Nick Griffin kicked from office today is satisfying. A Nick Griffin dangling on puppetstrings and flailing - very publically - for a year has far more potential to damage the Right. Not only the openly Fascist Right of the BNP but also the Neoliberal Right Masquerading as Democracy.

The insolvency service has now published mr griffin's full address and details on their website. The entry can be found by searching using the link below under his first and last name:

 http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/

If you know of any facts that might be useful to those sorting out the mess he has caused you may choose to invest in a stamp and write, in the first instance, to:

Insolvency Service Office Chester
2nd Floor Rosebrae Court
Woodside
Ferry Approach
BIRKENHEAD
United Kingdom
CH41 6DU

quoting ref: NICHOLAS JOHN GRIFFIN
Bankruptcy Number 0000038
Case Year 2013
Order Date 02 January 2014

They will be keen to hear from, or of, anyone who is owed money as well as anyone who knows where the money has gone, or who can throw light on his business.

You may also wish to keep an eye on any adverts published in the London Gazette. This is where official notices related to his bankruptcy have to be published. This includes requests for information, hearing dates and determinations. For you convenience I've created a link:

 http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/all=%22NICHOLAS+JOHN+GRIFFIN%22;sort=newest/start=1

when published, new info should appear at the top of the search generated by this link.

Personally i would like it if all info relating to mr griffin's bankruptcy/finances were published on indymendia. However i fully understand that there may be a multitude of reasons why that might not be possible, practical or indeed safe for the person publishing. All i ask is that if you have relevant information then share it with those that need to know.... please!

Respect & thanks to those who have commented on this thread. Happy new Year!

In a 6th Feb 2013, Gilbert Davies & Partners were awarded £120,000 payment by the courts. In response, Nick Griffin entered into an Individual Voluntary Agreement. This amounted to offering to pay 42p in the pound to all creditors. This would value his total resources at something in the region of £50,400 if his total debts were £120,000.

Since Nick Griffin has £110,000 in non-expense incomes from Europe (that is £110,000 of income that is not hypothecated to specific expenses such as staying in a hotel, petrol mileage and so on), it would seem that he may have spent up to £59,600 of his European Incomes on undisclosed purposes. Which is fine, since this is the money he was due as expenses, but it raises a question: why is he living so far beyond his means that a £270 a day expenses allowance can be spent on top of £110,000 in non-expense incomes?

He has been noticed in the London Gazette:

Date:10 January 2014
Issue Number: 60749
Page number:479
Publication Date: Friday, 10 January 2014

Notice Code 2503 Bankruptcy Orders
Bankruptcy Order (form: B37.17)
Insolvency Rules 1986 No. 1925
Rule 6.34 (2) (c) (creditors)
Rule 6.46 (2) (c) (debtors)

Date of Filing Petition: 4 October 2013.
Date of Bankruptcy Order: 2 January 2014.
Time of Bankruptcy Order: 10:59.
Whether Debtor's or Creditor's Petition—: Creditor's (ie Gilbert Davies and Partners hence rule 6.34(2) (c) ).

Official Receiver: N Bebbington 2nd Floor Rosebrae Court, Woodside, Ferry Approach, BIRKENHEAD, Merseyside, CH41 6DU, telephone: 0151 666 0220, email:  Chester.OR@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

It is clear from the February 2013 matters that the october 2013 filing was, "the last straw".

Considering the relationship between the Party Chairman and the Party - according to the Constitution of the BNP, any debts contracted by the Party might well count towards the debts for which the Chairman is responsible. A review of the actual Members' compy of the BNP Constitution suggests that the Chairman can demand to be bailed out by party Members and that those members that do not do so are expelled. In some senses, the Party Constitution insists that Chairman and Party are inseparable. Which suggests that when the BNP as a Party Contracts Debts it is with the consent of the Chairman. Given a Bankrupt Chairman, the BNP should be very careful about what debts it contracts in order to avoid the Receiver from supposing bad behaviour or ill will. Should the BNP start paying for an election campaign they really need to be able to settle in cash.

Which is reminiscent of the earlier problems the BNP and Nick Griffin had when Banks were disinclined to take their deposits. Perhaps that is a question that should be investigated further. Who was in charge of the "Bank Account" for it to end up in such disarray? There is no suggestion that the money is not there. Simply that the money is in shoe boxes or socks in the spare bedroom (or some such). The difficulty for Nick Griffin - and so for the BNP - is actually showing a good set of books that shows where money came from and where it went.

Simon Darby claims that "Section 266(2) of Enterprise Act 2002, bankruptcy no longer prevents one standing as a candidate or holding office as an MP or an MEP." which is a gross misinterpretation of what Section 266(2) actually says. The Prohibition against standing for these offices was removed from the Insolvency Act 1986 in one section and added into another section. Which Mister Darby fails to mention. The same amendment when applied to a Member of Parliament means that Member of Parliament can not vote or Sit in either House or a Joint Committee of both houses. In short, the amendment that Simon Darby refers to means that if Nick Griffin were to be accidentally elected he would not be allowed to participate. Which begs the question: why would he stand?

The simple answer might well be that there is a much bigger financial hole than is being talked about. The simple answer is to ask, very closely: where has the money gone?

 http://youtu.be/zrNA3U1XKew (For amusement).