Life insurance business fails so BNP moves into double-glazing

The same electoral commission states that the BNP have put down in their accounts that £52K a year is spent on entertainment and over £120K a year is spent on wages. No wonder Grffin's farm keeps getting new extensions. 'All aboard the Gravy Train.'

sounds just like the labour party and the conservative party.so what else is new?

I wasn't aware that any of the other parties had moved into selling double-glazing or skip hire. Perhaps Griffin will move on to selling secondhand cars next - oh no, he's already failed at that one. Encyclopedias, perhaps?

Can you imagine??? The BNPdia (sorry).

In the past ICANN, Nominet and so forth have made it clear that businesses should not hide their registrants.
If they trade then they should do so honestly and openly. This is
in line with the approach taken by the Office of Fair Trading. It also
smacks of cybersquatting - which is also dimly viewed.

'...ICANN, Nominet and so forth have made it clear that businesses should not hide their registrants.'

Blake seems to have got around that by simply lying. Part of the Whois info for both domains reads; 'The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.'

Non-trading individual? Isn't that a breach of some regulation or other? Here's the whole Whois return for SHR:

'Domain name:
skiphireregister.co.uk

Registrant:
steve blake

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrant's agent:
Pipex Communications UK Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]
URL:  http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 31-Jul-2006
Renewal date: 31-Jul-2008
Last updated: 15-Aug-2006

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
ns.heimdall-scot.co.uk
ns1.split-infinity.net

WHOIS lookup made at 05:12:25 03-Oct-2006'

Perhaps Griffin and Collett will turn up as a latter day version of Steptoe & Son - The two rag n bone men of fascist politics.

That Britahomes.co.uk is purely an advertising site. The entire prupose seems to be to obain cash from click through. Wonder how that will come out in the Electoral Register Accounts. It could very well be viewed as improper. You know. Open to abuse by the unscrupulous. Which would be against Googles policies of use:

"Incentives (monetary or point-based) to users or third-party beneficiaries for online activity including, but not limited to, clicking on ads or links, performing searches, surfing websites, reading emails, or completing surveys "

This also means you can complain to Google as the site is against Google's terms and conditions. The BNP would effectively be Google ad Client

pub-1829831079782101

Google do make it clear what the policies are:

 https://www.google.com/adsense/policies

and you can join the adsense program simply to complain about their activities.

It also contains a lot of freely available telephone numbers. Freephone numbers. If you had the time you could look at some of the numbers, find the 0800-ish ones telephone and ask if they knew they were financing a fascist organisation. Companies with freephone numbers are paying for the privilege. Which would be adverts. Which, again, would be against Googles best interests. Google cover this in the FAQ:

"Communications Solely With Google. You agree to direct to Google, and not to any advertiser, any communication regarding any Ad(s) or Link(s) displayed in connection with Your Site(s). "

So anybody who complains to google that they wer not directed to google over the advert to the skip hire would be reasonably certain of getting a response.

Or you could just go and click like crazy and tell google that you wer told to do so by the BNP. It would be a lie. But it would be a white lie.

You could look here:
 http://groups.google.com/group/adsense-help

Yes this article says alot about the BNP doesnt it. They havent a pot to piss in, dont get any dodgy investors, or cooked buisnessmen backing them, and they are 50 grand in debt, and you claim this is worthy of a mention.

Standards please. This forum is filled with cheap shots, which dont hold much water in the real political world.

Not like labour of course, which is not mentioned for some reason. I do beleive they have taken cash for bribes, they love crooked buisnessmen and they always bring on board dodgy investors. And yes they are 23 plus million in debt.

And they run the country!

Shouldnt the so called well meaning people on this site be more concerned by this than the tiny BNP.

What are you afraid of? The BNP by the looks of it. Do you honestly think the BNP is a threat to anything, that Labour isnt?

I remind people on this site about the numerous wars Labour have engaged us in over the last number of years.

The fascist trolls on here are so thick they think everyone supports the Labour Party!

Especially when they point out that the BNP raises money over the internet. Through Paypal or (In this case, according to Google) through clicks on links to bona fide businesses. If the BNP can afford to pay for multiple web sites while financially in the red, it might lead the uncharitable to suggest theses sites are merely phishing. But for what? Is there a deeper financial scandal?

Certainly the Skip Hire and Conservatory businesses could be used for spamming. The very detailed DNS report obtainable shows that the mail server for the businesses are specifically opened for use as spam servers:


"Your domain does not have an SPF record. This means that spammers can easily send out E-mail that looks like it came from your domain, which can make your domain look bad (if the recipient thinks you really sent it), and can cost you money (when people complain to you, rather than the spammer). You may want to add an SPF record ASAP, as 01 Oct 2004 was the target date for domains to have SPF records in place (Hotmail, for example, started checking SPF records on 01 Oct 2004). "

Which could be used as a source of spam for the benefit of either the BNP or others. It would simply require the use of the following piece of information:

"Your SOA record [TTL=43200] is:
Primary nameserver: ns1.livedns.co.uk.
Hostmaster E-mail address: administrator.brightahomes.co.uk.
Serial #: 20061051"

To allow pornographers or criminals to use the name of brightahomes.co.uk in order to circulate whatever they saw fit.

It points to some very bad technical advice or to some deeply scandalous behaviour. Would the BNP be thinking of spamming and phishing? Surely not, both are illegal activities. It does seem that there is bad technical advice as further DNS data shows that other aspect of implementation are sloppy:

"NOTE: You only have 1 MX record. If your primary mail server is down or unreachable, there is a chance that mail may have troubles reaching you. In the past, mailservers would usually re-try E-mail for up to 48 hours. But many now only re-try for a couple of hours. If your primary mailserver is very reliable (or can be fixed quickly if it goes down), having just one mailserver may be acceptable. And mailserver.brightahomes.co.uk claims to be host smtpin115.livemail.co.uk [but that host is at 213.171.216.115 (may be cached), not 213.171.216.65] So there is some attempt to hide the true identity of the machines involved."

This could be corrected by a simple not to the postmaster:  postmaster@Brightahomes.co.uk

The technical implementation points to a single point of failure in the name servers. There are apparently two but only one exists. This again detracts from the BNP's capacity to publicise itself.

Underlying is the question: why? The Sites have both been created using the same software, most likely by the same person. The code may simply be used to seek to defraud google of click payments - for every adsense advert that is clicked on Google pay out to the hosting site. There are specific terms and conditions that forbid repetitive clicking. It would portray the BNP as fraudsters if it were to be widely known that Google check for multiple clicks from the same machine.

All of the listings are Unpaid. Which essentially means that Google collects the cash for the Site Owner. The site owner is registered as an individual, yet the nature of the site is as a business. Someone, it would seem, is out to portray the BNP as duplicitous at best and fraudulent at worst. Someone is seeking to make Google put cash into Party Coffers. Regardless of the current state of Party funds, will this be accounted for in an open way.

As Google is an American Company, it is bound by Sarbanes-Oxley Legislaion. The kind of legislation designed to stop fraud on the scale of Enron. Is this some deeply secret attempt to bring Google down by implying it is riven with improper practices. This entire article has only scraped the surface of this scandal.

Then there is the scandal of the BNP being funded by an American Company. Is this simply a rehash of the failed funding through Paypal - which was going to rescue the party? Or the Illegal American Friends of the BNP? The U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 specifies that any "agent" or "representative" of a "foreign political party" who "solicits ... money, or other things of value for" that foreign political party must register with the Department of Justice and provide detailed records of income and expenses. Penalties for noncompliance are five years in prison and a fine of $10,000. As the sentence is five years, whoever is ultimately in charge of Brightahomes or the Skip List might need to consider if they realy wish to be extradited to the US. It would be a provocative way to stand up for British Judicial Rights against the American Bully tendency. But just who is in charge at the BNP? And Just what kind of financial structure do they have?







Or the Premium rate Telephone Line as examined by ICTIS?

Lots of interesting (and potentially useful) iformation there, Another Unhappy Customer. Thanks. If you have any more ideas feel free to contact us direct on  lancaster.uaf@zen.co.uk