Strange how one article can fire some people up.  Good.  Because if nothing else, the article about the chairman needing to burst out off the bubble he has either had put around him or build himself, we have at least learned a few things.  Information that should have been reported on the main site first and not be passed on in private conversations before being made public on this site here.

So let us have a look what we have learned.  I will not bother boring you with the few, very few abusive comments left by people who clearly have not taken their medication and who wish to make things personal.  I am beyond that silly game. 

First let us look at one of the comments from Mick Simpkins who is a fairly well respected organiser, even if he is  a bit of a yes man.  You can read his blog here Confessions of a Taxi Driver.

It is time for us to get professional too. To be honest the last two RWB's I have been to were a bit of a shambles. No fault of anyone concerned it is just we are not experienced at that size of event.

Now these are the kind of words I keep advising the BNP to refrain from.  It is true, as one person pointed out that I have only been to one RWB which was last year but I thought it was extremely well organised.  I was told that the preceding years RWB was even better. 

So Mick I am sorry but I do find your comment extremely offensive to those who worked so hard at the last two events.  But then again you do not approve of people sitting around in a field do you?  Neither do you believe that the internet serves any useful purpose.  Well we shall see.

But the point I was making for those of you whose heads it went right over was this.  The BNP should have told the members that there is or is not a  RWB this year - not let it have to be leaked out from this site. 

Now about the election deposits letter.  Again it should not have been left to this site to ask for clarification about the exact meaning of the email.  All I have done as a NON member (card expired end of April) is to ask a question that BNP organisers, officers and members have not been able to ask.  Who do you think brought this email to my attention?  I would still like to see clarification on this issue on behalf of those people who raised their concerns with this site in the first place.

But now we do start to learn information left in another comment by Jim Diggory and perhaps he should have been the man to draft the email that was send out because he writes:

The fact that the party insists on retained deposits taking the form of cheques made out to the BNP is to provide an audit trail for the benefit of the Electoral Commission. Individuals who provided the deposit money on a win and return basis will be repaid by their local branch by cheque for the same reason. Where HO has provided the deposit then it will be returned to HO, otherwise the local branch who raised the cash keeps it. This is how its always been. As far as I am aware in every case a returning officer logs the receipt of the £500 deposit money from the BNP as being from the BNP - not from Fred Bloggs the candidate. Similarly BNP accounts must record the payment from the BNP of £500 to the local authority and hence its return if retained. How on earth can you satisfy auditors as to the money trail otherwise? So why pander to the rumour mongers in the suggestion that HO is out to collar the money?

Now if something like that had gone out in the email, I would not have had people ringing me up, emailing me and asking if I could help clarify the situation.  But whatever else the article has done it might make some people think about what they write in the future.  So a job well done as far as I am concerned.

Now I do not know who this Jim Diggory is but he does raise some good points.

Similarly if there isn't going to be a single RW&B, or regional ones instead, then let's wait until we hear it officially before we start moaning shall we? After all, this may not be true or, if true, there may be absolutely valid reasons for it.

If the party wants to send a handful of people to the States to see how the Yanks conduct elections then whats the problem? At the end of the day only by doing this will we know whether American techniques will actually work for us. We won't learn by sitting at a PC searching the Internet - at least not to anywhere near the same extent.

As for mobile homes for campaigning etc - lets just wait until HO explains the rationale and costing behind this before we stard knocking them shall we?

Point one. That is all the members want to know.  Tell them and tell them now, whether there is going to be an RWB this year or not.

Point two. Complete and utter nonsense.  The Americans can teach us nothing - no offence to our American cousins.  Are there no British Companies?  What happened to British Jobs for British Workers?  The last thing the members want to see are images of BNP officials photographed visiting the Grand Canyon or turning the cards in Vegas after their fact finding day is over.  Smacks too much of all those free holidays that the Pigs in Parliament are always taking.

Point three. So it seems that the mobile homes are more than a rumour.  Well let us have an announcement then. 

Now if the party does not wish to see further articles like this, then I respectfully suggest that they show a bit more respect for the members who will have to pay for all of the above and be a bit more transparent.

Because unlike some of the new crop of paid officials, I do what I do for love of country and not a pay cheque.  I do not seek political office or job and want nothing from the party except for it to succeed and once the 2011 elections are over I am out of this game and will be glad to see the back of it and some of the individuals involved in it.

Now some of you will disagree but I will reiterate it one more time.  This site supports the British National Party and it's chairman 100% but that does not mean to say it is always in agreement with them.