I used to hold Sadie Graham in high regard until she foolishly in a fit of pique broadcast on the blog her disagreements with some members of the Party.
We all have people who we like or dislike but the Party is more important than any individual.
Differences of opinion should be discussed PRIVATELY.
OK it was Matt Single who published the list but it was in the keeping of Sadie.To do so was irresponsible in view of the problems it was bound to cause to individual members and the party as a whole and makes me wonder whether they ever had the Party's interests at heart.
HOWEVER the paltry fine meted out by the judge shfor this crime and his subsequent comments showed how much the judiciary has been politicised.
To say that"there may be some members who do not deserve to be protected by the law" is the antithesis of impartiality.
There would have been an outcry if a judge had said that members of other parties, asylum seekers, thieves or drug dealers should not have the protection of the law. It shows that the judiciary treat us as second class citizens as ordered by their undemocratic masters.
The other statement that he was surprised that Matt Single claimed job seekers allowance because he prides himself on his Britishness, disregards the fact that wrong as he was he had previously paid into the system unlike many new arrivals to our country and was thus entitled to do so.
Yes they do consider our members as second class citizens for what?
Our crime? To work for the salvation of our country and its people. We have not hurt or bombed anyone nor have we given away our hard earned assets nor again sent our soldiers to fight in illegal wars.
This case is just another demonstration of the contempt in which the ruling classes hold our people and country.
The case against our constitution I will comment on later but suffice it to say that they will NEVER defeat us and our struggle for OUR rights goes on.
5 comments:
Hi charles:
You said:
"makes me wonder whether they ever had the Party's interests at heart."
I say:
The use of the word 'they' suggests that Sadie condoned the release, what proof do you have that this is in fact the case?
Matt Single's actions were criminal, and I have not and will not try to justify them. However your analysis of the original Dec 2007 expulsions is also somewhat off the mark.
Sadie did try to resolve the situation in private, and only when all appeals (from several senior party officials) to Griffin had failed, did a number of those involved feel it their duty to inform the grass-roots membership about the damage being done to the party by Collett and co. Surely any party official's first duty must be to the membership, even before that of loyalty to the National Chairman?
Trying to use this criminal act (which occurred 12 months after the expulsions)to justify the National Chairman's actions in Dec 2007 is obviously invalid.
Sadie Graham worked long hours for the party, for very little pay. She took abuse from the media and attacks from ANaL thugs (remember the incident where she was spat on on TV) and was a great asset to the party. Nothing that happened a year after she was wrongly expelled can justify her treatment. Neither is it justice to find her guilty of an offence without a trial.
I'm sorry but I want no part of guilt by association.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
I am not commenting on this case further as I think we have had too much washing dirty linnen in public.
I am aware of the sequence of events and what should have been a storm in a teacup was fanned into a major dispute over a matter initially of little importance.
I know details which you are not aware of which could have led to a solution but these options were not taken up.
But as I said ALWAYS THE PARTY COMES FIRST
Hi Charles,
Yes, you make a lot of sense when you say the party must come first. But these purges have been going on intermittently and for a lot longer than just the last two years. The leadership must learn from the last two years or history will be doomed to repeat itself.
Anti-gag
SINGLE'S
LIVED WITH SADIE IF YOU THINK HE
DID THIS ACTION WITHOUT HER
KNOWING YOU LIVE IN CUCKOO LAND.
OR A MAN WITH NO WIFE.
Dear BritishLady (16:19 hrs)
Once again that's trial by speculation,and I want no part in it. The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental concepts of a free society.
I don't know what happened to make Matt Single do such a terrible thing (not to Griffin but to decent grass-roots membership), and neither do you.
Matt Single's released the membership list, an act I totally condemn. But I refuse to have any part in attributing guilt by association.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Post a Comment