Question Time 5: BNP Security Department

The Britain Forward Lie: “A number of members are concerned about the people working in the party’s Security Department. People are saying that having our leader surrounded by up to 30 men in Mafia type suits and dark glasses, like on the TV reports of the court case, makes the party look bad. Worse, some are saying the security department are unprofessional and incompetent.”

The Truth: Note how Britain Forward uses implied innuendo, un-quoted (and unquotable) and ‘impossible to trace’ grammatical tricks in this one.

For example, “some are saying the security department are unprofessional and incompetent.”

“Some” say? Hilarious!

Using that sort of argument, we can state that “Some say that Britain Forward is a pedophile. A number of members are concerned about the fact that Britain Forward has been seen in the company of children.”

How is that for totally unsubstantiated innuendo? And this is the type of argument to which Britain Forward actually expects a response?

This allegation, all by itself, shows very clearly that the Britain Forward blog actually serves no purpose whatsoever except to try and rake up dirt. Fortunately, Britain Forward’s attempts are so weak and blatantly transparent, that they collapse under their own incompetence and hopelessness.

The Britain Forward Lie: “How much is Martin Reynolds paid as Head of Security?”

The Truth: The simple answer is: nothing. He is not full time, and the only costs incurred are his reasonable expenses while attending public events with Nick Griffin. This in an invaluable service, as a recent physical attack on Nick Griffin in Surrey – warded off by the BNP chairman and Martin Reynolds – proved.
Sadly for Britain Forward and his lying blog, the party expenses are all detailed in the party’s annual statement of accounts to the Electoral Commission and here for individual campaigns

The Britain Forward Lie: “Did Mrs Reynolds get the job of appointments secretary to Nick Griffin (shades of John Prescott?) on merit or because she is Martin’s wife, and how much is she paid?”

The Truth: She volunteered for the position, which is unpaid. She runs her own successful business, and does not need party money.

It is a disgrace of Britain Forward and his lying blog to disparage volunteer party activists who freely give of their own time in this way – but, of course, we expect nothing less from someone prepared to stoop to such levels.

The Britain Forward Lie: “How much are others on the security team paid?”

The Truth: Zero. There is no full time security team.

Expenses are paid as and when people are used for periods excessive than what normal volunteer work demands.

Once again, all party expenditure is detailed in the party’s statement of accounts which is accessible at the Electoral Commission and here for individual campaigns

The Britain Forward Lie: “How are the people in the security department vetted?”

The Truth: Individuals apply and are subjected to an internal security vetting process, the nature of which is not for publication. Only an obvious Searchlight activist would want to know those details, or have them published on the Internet. The reader is invited to decide for themselves why Britain Forward seeks these details to be publicised.

The Britain Forward Lie: “We have heard that one of them has ideas about getting rid of Reynolds. If there is in fact a threat it could well come from within our own ranks.”

The Truth: Another implied innuendo, un-quoted (and unquotable) and ‘impossible to trace’ grammatical trick here.

Using this sort of “logic,” we could say that “We have heard that the pedophile community wishes to get rid of Britain Forward. If there is in fact a threat it could well come from within his own community’s ranks.”

See how the ridiculous line of “argumentation” works?

The Britain Forward Lie: “How many training courses are this team going on, like the very costly secure driving and anti-kidnapping courses, and what do they cost?”

The Truth: The basic driving course was for one person, who then provided the training to other members of the security team. The anti-hijack driving course cost £600. Other party officials who want those skills are given the training by the one professionally trained individual at a cost of £30 per person. In this way the cost of the original training and vehicle maintenance has been recovered in full.

Apart from the anti-hijack course, upon which Britain Forward is fixated, other members of the Security Department are in possession of the basic Security Industry Authority (SIA) qualification, which is a legal necessity for anyone wishing to work as door security. The party is thus legally obliged to have people go on these courses if it wants to ensure effective security at meetings.

These courses cost around £130 per person, payable to the private company providing the training. The certificate showing that the candidate has qualified, issued by the SIA in terms of parliamentary legislation, costs a further £190.

Ten key security officials have undergone this course, incurring a once-off legally-obligated cost of £320 per person.

Importantly, these courses include full First Aid certification as well, and as such the party provides its own legally qualified security and First Aid officers at public functions such as the annual Red White and Blue. Real value for money.

The Britain Forward Lie: “How are the course providers chosen? Some security companies work for government departments and may be hostile to the BNP.”

The Truth: The course provider was chosen by BNP security after a proper evaluation, on commercial grounds, relating to skill, previous experience and value for money.

The assertion that this means that “security companies are hostile” is just an absurd delusion and implies that the BNP has no support in the broad community – an obvious lie.