"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story". That phrase could have been coined for the amateur journalists at 'Lancaster Unity'. Take a look at their article on the Solidarity PayPal account. It illustrates this general point.
The Solidarity PayPal account had temporary restrictions placed on it as a result of the automatic triggering of procedures designed to prevent money-laundering. These (as any ebay seller will know) are put into place when money coming in goes above a set limit.
Yet posters on 'Lancaster Unity' sought to give a different impression:-
"Paypal have already suspended the Solidarity account because of complaints."
and from another poster:-
"Allegations of money-laundering?
Sounds like Nick Grifin is somehow involved here.
The Paypal account is not the only likely fraudulent issue with Squalidarity."
How foolish they now seem. After the submission of the required documentation the restrictions were lifted and the account is now operating as normal. Go and make an online donation to Solidarity! Solidarity collects donations and membership subscriptions using PayPal but this represents only a small fraction. Once collected the money is used to pay bills or paid over to the Union account. All PayPal transactions are electronically stored in the 'History' section and can therefore be easily audited.
The great democrats at 'Lancaster Unity' also call for people to write to a bank asking them not to provide services to the Solidarity Union. Here they begin to cross into areas covered by anti-stalking and anti-terror legislation. Solidarity will request copies of all correspondance sent to any financial institution regarding the Union. Solidarity is carefully documenting their transgressions. These kind of fascist tactics go beyond acceptable debate and those involved should know they may face civil and criminal sanction.
Showing posts with label Solidarity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solidarity. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Collusion, It's no illusion 2
Is there a plot to kill the independent Nationalist Trades Union Solidarity? That is now a question being seriously asked by many political veterans. For the first year of the existence of Solidarity little was done. Former President Clive Potter found reasons not to do things. He failed even to produce a membership card for those enthusiasts who joined despite his almost complete lack of promotional work.
When I took the position of General Secretary, Potter did everything he could to delay the progress of the Union using every bureaucratic objection he could. He sought to block every suggestion I made. As a non-BNP member (and indeed a member of a rival Party) I found myself in the curious position of having to argue with Potter (a BNP member) that we should attend BNP events for recruitment purposes. I was further alarmed when he started referring to Nick Griffin (the BNP Chairman) as 'our Beloved Leader' in a sarcastic tone. I wondered exactly what his agenda was! When I spoke to members of the Christian Council (which Potter was also an official of) I was told that they were also concerned by his lack of activity and drive. Nothing was being done. He appeared to be an obstacle to any progress.
When I looked into his personal background I became even more concerned. He was some kind of gnostic Christian, interested in ufos and living with a girlfriend who was a wacko jacko 'stalker' promoting celibacy! Now, as anyone will tell you I'm a pretty liberal kind of guy, but I wondered why Potter never spoke about any of this. I also wondered why he had promoted in the past a spoof march through one of the most Asian areas of Leicester. Alarm bells were starting to ring.
When he failed he tried to expel me and prevent the election of an expanded Executive team. Reason enough for many to suspect that something untoward was going on! Yet this is by no means the end of the story...
When the British National Party asserted that that agents were being used against the Union the State allied Searchlight magazine specifically responded:-
"Searchlight makes no comment about this allegation. However when Solidarity was set up, we examined its frules and wrote in an internal briefing note in January 2006: 'It would seem difficult for Solidarity to exercise firm control over who joins, and once people are members they can exercise thier democratic rights to elect the Executive Committe, etc. Any attempt to prevent members exercising their rights could result in a complaint to the Certification Officer [the regulatory authority for trade unions]'"
- 'Not so solid now' , Searchlight July 2007, p16.
In the light of this statement it is interesting to note that three people, Potter, McLinden and Mullen have made two 'Breach of Rule' complaints each against the Union in the same time period and in collusion to the Certification Office (CO). Additionally Potter and McLinden have brought about a financial investigation into the Union by the CO.
To give an example of the spurious nature of the complaints Mullen has brought one saying that the Union required candidates in Union Exec elections to be members of the BNP or Third Way. Of course the Union did no such thing. Statements in the Union bulletin and on the website made it clear any member could stand. Indeed one of the candidates was not a member of any Party. There is little doubt that this complaint will eventually fail - it has no basis whatsoever. Yet that is not the point - it is an attempt to muddy the waters in the meantime and waste Union time.
Solidarity is answering all such vexatious and unfounded complaints but nonetheless it is time-consuming and a diversion from the proper functions of the Union. Not only that but it appears to many that the Certification Office is being unwittingly misused as a tool to bureaucratically harass the Union.
On a side note one name keeps being whispered into my ear - Megan Dobney. Suggestions as to why this might be the case would be welcome!
When I took the position of General Secretary, Potter did everything he could to delay the progress of the Union using every bureaucratic objection he could. He sought to block every suggestion I made. As a non-BNP member (and indeed a member of a rival Party) I found myself in the curious position of having to argue with Potter (a BNP member) that we should attend BNP events for recruitment purposes. I was further alarmed when he started referring to Nick Griffin (the BNP Chairman) as 'our Beloved Leader' in a sarcastic tone. I wondered exactly what his agenda was! When I spoke to members of the Christian Council (which Potter was also an official of) I was told that they were also concerned by his lack of activity and drive. Nothing was being done. He appeared to be an obstacle to any progress.
When I looked into his personal background I became even more concerned. He was some kind of gnostic Christian, interested in ufos and living with a girlfriend who was a wacko jacko 'stalker' promoting celibacy! Now, as anyone will tell you I'm a pretty liberal kind of guy, but I wondered why Potter never spoke about any of this. I also wondered why he had promoted in the past a spoof march through one of the most Asian areas of Leicester. Alarm bells were starting to ring.
When he failed he tried to expel me and prevent the election of an expanded Executive team. Reason enough for many to suspect that something untoward was going on! Yet this is by no means the end of the story...
When the British National Party asserted that that agents were being used against the Union the State allied Searchlight magazine specifically responded:-
"Searchlight makes no comment about this allegation. However when Solidarity was set up, we examined its frules and wrote in an internal briefing note in January 2006: 'It would seem difficult for Solidarity to exercise firm control over who joins, and once people are members they can exercise thier democratic rights to elect the Executive Committe, etc. Any attempt to prevent members exercising their rights could result in a complaint to the Certification Officer [the regulatory authority for trade unions]'"
- 'Not so solid now' , Searchlight July 2007, p16.
In the light of this statement it is interesting to note that three people, Potter, McLinden and Mullen have made two 'Breach of Rule' complaints each against the Union in the same time period and in collusion to the Certification Office (CO). Additionally Potter and McLinden have brought about a financial investigation into the Union by the CO.
To give an example of the spurious nature of the complaints Mullen has brought one saying that the Union required candidates in Union Exec elections to be members of the BNP or Third Way. Of course the Union did no such thing. Statements in the Union bulletin and on the website made it clear any member could stand. Indeed one of the candidates was not a member of any Party. There is little doubt that this complaint will eventually fail - it has no basis whatsoever. Yet that is not the point - it is an attempt to muddy the waters in the meantime and waste Union time.
Solidarity is answering all such vexatious and unfounded complaints but nonetheless it is time-consuming and a diversion from the proper functions of the Union. Not only that but it appears to many that the Certification Office is being unwittingly misused as a tool to bureaucratically harass the Union.
On a side note one name keeps being whispered into my ear - Megan Dobney. Suggestions as to why this might be the case would be welcome!
Monday, 2 June 2008
An Inspector Calls?
'Lancaster Unity' have published an interesting article:- Lancaster Unity: TU Certification Office investigating Solidarity
The infantile leftists at the LU blog have a lot to say about the Solidarity Union (little of it accurate). Let's take a look at their latest assertions and arguments.
They begin by reproducing the statement from the Certification Office announcing an enquiry into Solidarity. Then they state:-
"It is a very strange thing indeed that the supposed General Secretary of a supposed trade union only thinks it "possible" that the Certification Office is a "neutral party", as if he had no idea what the Certification Office existed for."
Really? Do they find it strange that some members of our Union doubt the neutrality of a State agency? A State agency which has been bombarded with letters from our Union rivals, traitors and political opponents seeking to pressurise them into closing our Union down. How odd of them! For the record, I still entertain the hope that the CO is neutral - time will tell whether I or the cynics are right. I fully expect that once presented with the evidence the CO will discount the many malicious and vexatious allegations which have been made against our independent Union.
'Lancaster Unity' then seek to question what services our Union provides. It is a matter of record that we have provided members with representation at various stages of grievance procedures, benefits appeals, disciplinary hearings, ACAS concilliation, and have put in cases on their behalf to Employment Tribunals. Our last case resulted in a negotiated settlement (including a confidentiality clause) to the benefit of a member who quit his job. To argue that we have only one case is inaccurate and childish. So far we have represented around twenty of our members in different respects. We have attended meetings at Astra Zenica, GNER, Cummings, Middlesbrough FC, Alliance and Leicester, County Durham and 'Harvey Nicks' to name a few. 'Lancaster Unity' may not like our Union for political reasons but there is little point in them making assertions which can be disproved with ease.
Next they state:-
"As we have seen in past articles, it is very far from being the "One Big Union" of Harrington's vaulting aspirations, having only 211 members (allegedly), and having stirred little interest among the BNP membership at which it aims itself. Its annual conference was a tawdry hole and corner affair hedged about with tight security, and attended by only 27 members - almost a third of those sitting on the Executive platform."
Solidarity continues to recruit. We announced the figure of 211 members some time ago. Each week more join. Members of the BNP join our Union because we are prepared to uphold their rights as well as others. We stand against discrimination on political grounds in the same way that we oppose discrimination on racial, sexual, religious or other grounds. It is true that only a tiny proportion of BNP members are also members of our Union. Those that are have, in many cases, been active Trade Unionists for many years.
All Solidarity meetings have "tight security". At our Annual Conference, held in Birmingham, threats were made by supporters of 'Lancaster Unity' to Hotel staff. This was very distressing for workers simply doing a job (many of them from ethnic minorities). 27 in attendance represents over 13 per cent of our membership. If that percentage figure remains the same as we grow I will be quite content. We have seven members of our Executive and they were all present. Next year the Executive will consider subsidising travel for those attending.
Then 'Lancaster Unity' turn to Mark Walker:-
"And, of course, it has taken on only one case since its inception, that of sacked teacher Mark Walker, a BNP man advised by the useless "fighting union" to find himself a lawyer specialising in employment law."
As I have already pointed out we have taken on over twenty cases - not one. Mark Walker has not been sacked (attention to detail please comrades!). He has been suspended on full-pay for over fourteen months now. It was only recently that the management investigation was completed. It is only now that we expect to move to a formal disciplinary. I represented Mark at the last meeting in May personally. I will continue to represent him at any future meetings. Our Union (alongside Civil Liberty) is paying for an Employment Lawyer for specific aspects of this complex case. It is not unusual for Trade Unions to utilise the services of lawyers! Many of our members know Mark and can ask him themselves whether he thinks the £1.25 a week we charge represents good value for money!
The infantile leftists at the LU blog have a lot to say about the Solidarity Union (little of it accurate). Let's take a look at their latest assertions and arguments.
They begin by reproducing the statement from the Certification Office announcing an enquiry into Solidarity. Then they state:-
"It is a very strange thing indeed that the supposed General Secretary of a supposed trade union only thinks it "possible" that the Certification Office is a "neutral party", as if he had no idea what the Certification Office existed for."
Really? Do they find it strange that some members of our Union doubt the neutrality of a State agency? A State agency which has been bombarded with letters from our Union rivals, traitors and political opponents seeking to pressurise them into closing our Union down. How odd of them! For the record, I still entertain the hope that the CO is neutral - time will tell whether I or the cynics are right. I fully expect that once presented with the evidence the CO will discount the many malicious and vexatious allegations which have been made against our independent Union.
'Lancaster Unity' then seek to question what services our Union provides. It is a matter of record that we have provided members with representation at various stages of grievance procedures, benefits appeals, disciplinary hearings, ACAS concilliation, and have put in cases on their behalf to Employment Tribunals. Our last case resulted in a negotiated settlement (including a confidentiality clause) to the benefit of a member who quit his job. To argue that we have only one case is inaccurate and childish. So far we have represented around twenty of our members in different respects. We have attended meetings at Astra Zenica, GNER, Cummings, Middlesbrough FC, Alliance and Leicester, County Durham and 'Harvey Nicks' to name a few. 'Lancaster Unity' may not like our Union for political reasons but there is little point in them making assertions which can be disproved with ease.
Next they state:-
"As we have seen in past articles, it is very far from being the "One Big Union" of Harrington's vaulting aspirations, having only 211 members (allegedly), and having stirred little interest among the BNP membership at which it aims itself. Its annual conference was a tawdry hole and corner affair hedged about with tight security, and attended by only 27 members - almost a third of those sitting on the Executive platform."
Solidarity continues to recruit. We announced the figure of 211 members some time ago. Each week more join. Members of the BNP join our Union because we are prepared to uphold their rights as well as others. We stand against discrimination on political grounds in the same way that we oppose discrimination on racial, sexual, religious or other grounds. It is true that only a tiny proportion of BNP members are also members of our Union. Those that are have, in many cases, been active Trade Unionists for many years.
All Solidarity meetings have "tight security". At our Annual Conference, held in Birmingham, threats were made by supporters of 'Lancaster Unity' to Hotel staff. This was very distressing for workers simply doing a job (many of them from ethnic minorities). 27 in attendance represents over 13 per cent of our membership. If that percentage figure remains the same as we grow I will be quite content. We have seven members of our Executive and they were all present. Next year the Executive will consider subsidising travel for those attending.
Then 'Lancaster Unity' turn to Mark Walker:-
"And, of course, it has taken on only one case since its inception, that of sacked teacher Mark Walker, a BNP man advised by the useless "fighting union" to find himself a lawyer specialising in employment law."
As I have already pointed out we have taken on over twenty cases - not one. Mark Walker has not been sacked (attention to detail please comrades!). He has been suspended on full-pay for over fourteen months now. It was only recently that the management investigation was completed. It is only now that we expect to move to a formal disciplinary. I represented Mark at the last meeting in May personally. I will continue to represent him at any future meetings. Our Union (alongside Civil Liberty) is paying for an Employment Lawyer for specific aspects of this complex case. It is not unusual for Trade Unions to utilise the services of lawyers! Many of our members know Mark and can ask him themselves whether he thinks the £1.25 a week we charge represents good value for money!
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Theft is theft - even when it's intellectual property theft
Have you ever been in a pub and seen a loud drunk trying to start a fight and then when challenged seeking to involve and get back-up from his friends? I have and sometimes the friends are wise enough to stay out of things, other times they don't and the consequence is often that they end-up getting a good-kicking. I thought of this analogy when reading an entry entitled “Get stuffed Harrington!” on a supposed 'anti-fascist' blog.
It reported:-
“The Great Fantasist himself, the One Big Vast Huge Onion's farcical serial failure Patrick Harrington, is attempting to get Blogger to do the dirty legal work he's too afraid to do himself.He's complained that we used the photograph above from the One Big Vast Huge Onion's website and therefore breached his copyright.”
This was in response to a complaint I filed with Blogger (owned by Google) regarding infringment of copyright. Norfolk Unity had been warned previously that action would be taken if they did not respect copyright and could at that stage have quietly removed the offending image. That isn't exactly their style, however.
Instead they responded by stating:-
“Anyway, Harrington's a bit on the late side. That photo has already appeared on several other internet sites, and though we can't be sure, we have a feeling it's about to appear on many more.We're not taking it down, and we're not removing the post.As far as we're concerned, loser Harrington can take a running jump off the end of the Britannia Pier. We're Norfolk Unity, not Clive Potter or Tim Hawke - and we bite back.”
The picture was then posted on a number of associated sites. We were very intimidated! It also meant that we had to complain about all these other sites which have taken a hostile attitude to the Solidarity Brotherhood!
The result was that the image (and sometimes pages) from the following sites were removed:-
http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html
http://norfolkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-stuffed-harrington.html
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2007/12/bnp-ballerina-provokes-new-storm.html
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2008/03/huge-growth-for-bnps-one-big-union.html
http://birminghamunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/norfolk-unity-tells-hypocrite.html
http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html
http://antifascistnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html http://norfolkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/huge-growth-for-bnps-one-big-union.html
The end result was that not only Norfolk Unity but the other infantile leftist sites have made themselves appear foolish. Our Union will enforce Copyright and deal with any infringement of our legal rights. If you sign-up to the terms and conditions of American servers and companies you shouldn't complain when we refer to US law in our complaints. That shouldn't be taken to mean, however, that we will not take action in other or multiple juristictions.
It reported:-
“The Great Fantasist himself, the One Big Vast Huge Onion's farcical serial failure Patrick Harrington, is attempting to get Blogger to do the dirty legal work he's too afraid to do himself.He's complained that we used the photograph above from the One Big Vast Huge Onion's website and therefore breached his copyright.”
This was in response to a complaint I filed with Blogger (owned by Google) regarding infringment of copyright. Norfolk Unity had been warned previously that action would be taken if they did not respect copyright and could at that stage have quietly removed the offending image. That isn't exactly their style, however.
Instead they responded by stating:-
“Anyway, Harrington's a bit on the late side. That photo has already appeared on several other internet sites, and though we can't be sure, we have a feeling it's about to appear on many more.We're not taking it down, and we're not removing the post.As far as we're concerned, loser Harrington can take a running jump off the end of the Britannia Pier. We're Norfolk Unity, not Clive Potter or Tim Hawke - and we bite back.”
The picture was then posted on a number of associated sites. We were very intimidated! It also meant that we had to complain about all these other sites which have taken a hostile attitude to the Solidarity Brotherhood!
The result was that the image (and sometimes pages) from the following sites were removed:-
http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html
http://norfolkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-stuffed-harrington.html
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2007/12/bnp-ballerina-provokes-new-storm.html
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2008/03/huge-growth-for-bnps-one-big-union.html
http://birminghamunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/norfolk-unity-tells-hypocrite.html
http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html
http://antifascistnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/03/solidarity-and-mysteries-of-copyright.html http://norfolkunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/huge-growth-for-bnps-one-big-union.html
The end result was that not only Norfolk Unity but the other infantile leftist sites have made themselves appear foolish. Our Union will enforce Copyright and deal with any infringement of our legal rights. If you sign-up to the terms and conditions of American servers and companies you shouldn't complain when we refer to US law in our complaints. That shouldn't be taken to mean, however, that we will not take action in other or multiple juristictions.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Hear the truth before you read the lies
This blog has been created on the orders of Patrick Harrington. Patrick Harrington is the General Secretary of the Solidarity Trades Union and a Director of the Third Way think-tank. He became concerned at the disinformation being spread by some blogs of the infantile left and felt that their arguments and reactionary positions needed to be analysed, deconstructed and replied to. This blog will answer all those bloggers who adopt positions which are dishonest and reactionary and not just Lancaster Unity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
