Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Day 11: Round Two

Day 11: Round Two

Carrying on from my earlier piece all the material here is written from memory rather than my notes made in court on the laptop which is in the boot of one of our security team's vehicles.

Another inanity from the prosecution was the suggestion that Mark should be jailed because an ‘unknown male’ at a meeting called out “twat some Pakis” in the middle of general applause for one of his points. He neglected to repeat the possibility that this was another of Andy Sykes’ crew. This does, however, indicate that, from now on, security and stewards at meetings are going to have to be much tougher with drunken idiots or loudmouths.

Jameson talks repeatedly throughout his speech of how phrases we use give “windows into the soul” through which the jury are supposed to be able to peer to work out our real intentions. I don’t know if he understands the deep irony of this phrase. It was used by Elizabeth the First when setting out the limits to the Protestant hunt for Catholics under her regime, designed to break the old confession that had been so disgraced in the public mind by its own persecution of Protestants under her predecessor ‘Bloody’ Mary.

Even though the Protestant heresy hunters executed dozens of unrepentant Catholics, Good Queen Bess made it plain that she was only concerned with crushing public dissent, and not with what people chose to belief in their own hearts. As such, she specifically instructed those responsible that she did NOT seek “windows into men’s souls”.


Yet this is precisely what NuLabour’s PC inquisition do want. Whether Jameson’s use of this phrase is based on ignorance of its origins, or is a deliberate piece of arrogant pressing of the boundaries for a new level of state repression I do not know. Perhaps he’ll be kind enough to tell me, for it became clear today that he’s reading this blog avidly. Another satisfied reader!

He tells the jury in grave turns that when Mark talked of seeing a pretty but heroin-ravaged blonde girl with an ‘Asian/asylum seeker type’ and of how he assumed that the man in question was a pusher, this indicated that Mark is a race hater. “He might just have been her boyfriend,” protests Mr. J.

“What evidence did Mr. Collett have to the contrary?” Once again, we see here the gulf of incomprehension between real life in inner city Britain and the rose-spectacle version which prevails among the so-called great and good. What evidence? How about common experience? Common sense? The way it almost always is.

In the real world, pretty blondes on heroin don’t have boyfriends, they have ‘clients’, and pimps. The ethnicity of the pimps may vary, but these days, they are very rarely indigenous English, Scots, Irish or Welsh. Most are – depending on the area - black, Muslim in general, or Albanian in particular. And if Mr Jameson thinks that comment warrants another crack if I walk from this one, I’ll be happy to go another round with him. Not least because one of my daughters is a pretty blonde, and I don’t have to think too hard to understand just a little of the pain the parents of the girl Mark was talking about feel every day of their broken lives.

Straw men

We break for lunch and return at 2.15. Jameson turns to me. He suggests to the jury that I deliberately make it difficult to distinguish between Islam as a religion and ideology. The implication is that I could legitimately criticise Islam but any criticism of Muslims is illegal. The trouble is, it is not (yet), because Muslims come in all colours and sizes, and are not an ethnic group. This is the first of a fair few straw men he sets up to knock down, because he can’t deal with my actual arguments.

My Morley speech, being aimed at the media and police for anti-white bias, was, as I readily stated during cross-examination, was mainly about racism. Now Jameson says I’ve admitted that it the speech was about ‘racism’, and leaves the jury to conclude this means racial hatred against non-whites. Pathetic, but there is so much of this rubbish that I worry if some will slip under by defence barrister’s radar. For brilliant in law though he is, this isn’t legal argument, it’s fifth form debating society bullshit.

Of my speech in Keighley, he suggests that it may show that I “may be genuinely phobic about Islam.” Now it’s PC bullshit! A phobia is an irrational fear of something, such as tiny spiders or the number seven. Fear of the potential impact of Islam on our Western society, on the other hand, is not irrational in the slightest, but well grounded on incontrovertible facts and historical experience.

Next he tries to cherry pick a page of the Koran I supplied to question my interpretation of it. Curious that he didn’t try this trick when I was in the witness box and would have been able to shoot his pathetic effort down in flames. Still, perhaps that’s a tussle we can have next time if it goes to that.

He makes a great deal of the way I talked of ‘whites’, sneering as he uses the word as if there’s something wrong with us. Because, he says, I talk of the victims in racial terms, it follows that I am implying that the perpetrators must be seen in racial terms (not the case in my Keighley speech at all, where I was seeking to show the influence of Islam in the paedohile racist sex attacks).

Orwellian plot

We are here perilously close not to Good Queen Bess and the repression of Catholicism, so much as to George Orwell’s 1984, and the plot to remove words from circulation so as to make it impossible to think certain thoughts.

He similarly takes issue with my condemnation of the ‘multi-racial society’. To use the phrase, claims this overpaid witch-finder corporal, is to show an interest in matters ‘racial’ which clearly shows intention to incite hatred. Perhaps even to exterminate whole populations? Who knows what goes on in the white liberal’s self-hating mind?

He is particularly indignant about the fact that I said rather rude things about Stephen Lawrence. He ridicules the fact that I wasn’t prepared to call the policeman who was one of our sources for the real character of the lad. Here’s the nub of NuLab’s fury with these speeches (apart from the obvious need to claw back some Muslim votes): I’ve blasphemed against one of the Latter Day Saints of the Multi-Cult.

Moving on to deal with what I had to say about white victims, Jameson muddles up what was said about Gavin Hopley and Sean Whyte. Then he says that I’ve made up the idea that Sean’s killers have continued to prowl the streets, boasting that you can kill a white lad and get away with it.

The rules of evidence in this case mean that I am unable to show the jury the video footage we have of an Asian lad in Keighley police station naming the killer, and saying that he uses his reputation as a killer to intimidate people in both communities. Any journalist worth his salt would take up this terrible story and go digging to expose this terrible injustice, official incompetence and unexploded bomb just waiting to kill again. But, despite the fact we’ve been publicising the footage for months, not a single one has asked us about it. And Mr Jameson’s CPS have likewise turned a blind eye. As Mark put it so well, these are the bastards I really hate.

Dismissive attitude

He passes over the murder of Lee Martin by calling it “another story”, then deals with the Kriss Donald murder by reading the most PC pieces from the hopelessly anti-white Scottish media.

He accepts that I predicted “with uncanny precision” the London bombings of 7/7, then returns to the ‘hate’ thesis by saying that the determination I had expressed in the same speech to get the story of the killing of Lee Martin into the mainstream media shows that I’m a race hater.

The BNP may have changed on the outside, he concludes, but the racism is still there. We were trying, he concluded, to create “fear of this Asian-inspired nightmare… because it’s a small step from fear to hate.”

He finished at 3.05. Several people in the public gallery woke up as the droning stopped. They included, incidentally, my wife, which says something either about his delivery, her, or me! From the glazed expressions on the faces of several of the jurors, I suspect it’s the former.

Straight away, the floor is taken by Mark’s silk, Mr Lawson-Rogers, who tells the jury that he won’t be finishing today. His voice is much more powerful and convinced.

Crime statistics

He starts by explaining to the jury the significance of the addition to their evidence bundles of the extract from the British Crime Survey which proves Mark’s point about there having been 150,000 recorded racist incidents in 1999, of which a staggering 111,000 involved white victims. Exactly what this means in terms of disproportionality (the average racist thug is 18 times more likely to be an ‘ethnic’ than a native), and the fact that the Home Office have stopped keeping such figures as they are inconvenient, is not gone into. Another minor defence failing (so many facts, so little time to express them) that could well be put right if it comes to another trial on these charges.

Launching into his actual speech, Lawson-Rogers says that the proceedings are “misconceived and inappropriate.”

“We live in an era of Political Correctness. You can think what you like, but don’t say it,” he says. “This prosecution is a fetter on the right to freely express one’s views, despite the fact that total freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.”

He quotes Voltaire, and goes on to say that “our rights and liberties are under attack as never before.” We face, he points out “drastic erosions of our freedoms: Detention without trial, ID cards and so on…. Once these freedoms are lost they can never be regained.”

The he produces a classic Orwell quote: “If liberty means anything at all it is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” We are, he continues “on new and dangerous ground, with the government of the Labour party prosecuting members of a legitimate and registered opposition party for campaigning speeches made during an election.”

He goes on to tell the jury that this prosecution could only be brought with the consent of the Attorney-General (a Labour man) in person, and to ask them to consider if it was a coincidence that the charges were laid the day after the long-expected election was actually called.

Human Rights

He concluded for the afternoon by getting out of the way a bit of legalese about how the European Convention of Human Rights impacts on the older Public Order Act. He promises to explain what this means for this case in the morning.

So another day’s done. A brief conference with the lawyers, who are taken with one of the points our own Lee Barnes has jotted down and passed to me earlier.

I have no doubt that both their speeches tomorrow will outshine the lacklustre Mr Jameson (who might, of course, be a perfectly nice chap, merely doing his job, blah, blah, or might actually believe all that PC guff. I’m not actually sure which is worse), not least because they have good cases to argue. But whether justice and effective rhetoric can overcome more than a decade of collective British worship at the Shrine of St Stephen, and all the other PC brainwashing that has affected even some otherwise sensible Yorkshire folk, we have yet to see.

And, on top of that, we have the potential impact of inscrutable Fate throwing something into the balance. After all, it’s plain to everyone who knows anything about this case that, particularly since it developed such a high media profile, the very worst result for the CPS and the Powers That Be would be guilty verdicts and prison sentences for Mark and me. Strange things happen when the wheels of history turn as quickly as they are doing nowadays.

Video footage - Keighley speech

New footage has been uploaded this morning for viewers.

This undercover material was taken by Jason Gwynne the man working for Britain's State broadcaster, the BBC, once a globally revered institution but in recent years has declined to become nothing more than the publicly funded propaganda arm of the Labour Party.

The footage includes a speech given by BNP Chairman, Nick Griffin to a private BNP meeting in Keighley in May 2004, prior to the European Parliamentary elections and the local council elections. In the speech Nick talks about the disgusting activity taking place in Keighley and other parts of West Yorkshire where Muslim paedophiles were (and still are) grooming young white girls for sexual abuse. Schoolgirls as young as 12 have been targeted, plied with alcohol and drugs and used as sexual toys by gangs of Pakistani men.

The Crown Prosecution Service claimed that the speech given by Nick Griffin,which is simply a true reporting of the facts of life in Keighley , contained words and phrases which were likely to incite racial hatred and forms one of the key pillars of the prosecution case against him.

The jury in Leeds Crown Court have viewed and listened to the entire speech, as well as the other speech given at Morley Town Hall. Within a day or two the jury will be asked by the judge if Nick is guilty of inciting racial hatred on the basis of these speeches.

The footage which is suitable for broadband users only can be found here.

Whatever the jury decides each and every viewer can make up their own mind - does Nick deserve to face imprisonment for talking about this appalling consequence of mass migration into Britain.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Day 11: Monday 30th January

Day 11: Monday 30th January

We start the third week of the Leeds Free Speech trial at 11.50 a.m. after yet more legal discussions. There’s quite a funny tale to be told about this when reporting restrictions on such matters are lifted at the end of the trial – watch this space (if I’m at liberty, that is, to fill it).

The judge tells the jury that a photograph of me standing in the witness box has appeared on a website (not ours, of course). This is a serious contempt of court and the judge is rightly angry about it. He warns all in the public gallery that anyone taking a photo or recording proceedings in any way will be brought before him to face an immediate prison sentence if caught.

The warning is justified but, in the unanimous opinion of everyone who has been there throughout the trial, wasted because the culprit is no longer there. Certainly it’s odd that the professional anti-BNP photo stalker Andy Ali made a point of sitting in a place where he had a really good view of the witness box while I was in it, kept a small bag on the desk in front of him, and then hurried out after just a few minutes last Friday. We’ve learned from past experience that this strange, plump coward has a distinctly unhealthy fixation about getting footage of us, and I’d put my money on it having been him this time. If he turns up again he’ll be pointed out to the usher.

Common phraseology

At 11.55 we watch two short clips from the Edge of the City programme. One shows a girl whose mum is worried that she is clearly being groomed telling the camera how her ‘boyfriend’ gives her all sorts of presents and that she loves him. “Is he a Muslim?” asks the presenter. “Yeah, he’s a Paki,” she confirms.

The second clip has another woman relating how another Muslim has told her daughter “Us Pakis are going to have to watch what we’re doing with you young ’uns now.”

Together the clips make it crystal clear that for me to have used the phrase “Paki street thug” to describe a specific type of swaggering young scumbag – equivalent, as I told the jury on Friday, to the “hoodies” and “white trash” who besmirch our own community – was not intended to be, and could not possibly be taken to be, any kind of racist slur or insult. In Keighley, as in fact all over working class Britain, the word is a simple, neutral, descriptive term, used by all communities.

Finally, my Mr King QC has passed to the jury a sheet carrying one final admission extracted from the Crown: That there was spontaneous and generous applause from the audience at a meeting in Halifax when I said that the racist killers of an elderly Asian man in West London the day before should hang for murder. This will come up again later in his actual closing speech.

Prosecution summing up

For now, however, this concludes my defence and Tim King hands over to Roderick Jameson QC, to make his closing speech for the prosecution.

Jameson starts at 12.05. He says he has decided not to show the videos of the speeches again. He will instead use the transcripts. He says the speeches should be taken in full, but of course doing it this way means they cannot and will not be.

He maintains that the prosecution isn’t meant to stifle debate on “serious issues”, but claims it’s a question of controlling how it’s done. He contrasts a report of mealy-mouthed comments by Ann Cryer about the grooming issue (only speaking out under pressure from us) with the way we address the issue. “There’s nothing wrong with the subject matter …. The problem is how it was done and what was intended.”

He effectively concedes that nothing we said can be regarded as ‘threatening’, but says he have been abusive or insulting.

Turning to the speeches themselves, he starts with Mark’s speech at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley. This one, he says, is very important because it was the only meeting at which we shared a platform.

He deviates to go back to the question hanging over the whole case: “You may not like the BNP, if so, the last thing we are asking you to do is to commit these men.”

Then he proceeds to try to get them to do just that. He reminds the jury that non-whites can’t join the party. He ignores totally my explanation of this as a matter of a) giving us a Race Law defence against our members being victimised at work, etc, and b) our opposition to the integrationist/exterminationist model of community relations. Instead, he says, it shows we hate non-whites. No mention that huge numbers of them take exactly the same position, and that there’s no hate either way in the choice to remain separate.

Our policy to deport ethnic minority criminals is held up as something wicked. Never mind that this was how immigration was ‘sold’ to the British public in the 1950s. Any criminals were going home then, courtesy of a Labour government. But now the idea makes us ‘haters’.

Wild speculation

Jameson scrapes the absurd barrel when he asks the jury to speculate on this happening to someone “whose grandparents came to Britain from Bangladesh in the 1920s.” Hmmm – the fact that none did and that the place didn’t even exist until 20 years later doesn’t seem relevant to him.

Moving on to another of Mark’s speeches, he accepts that trenchant and well deserved criticism of ultra-left firemen’s union leader Andy Gilchrist may be abusive and insulting, but is not at issue as he’s not from an ethnic minority. So why does he mention it?

Our ‘crime’, he claims, is trying to “blacken an entire ethnic community by stirring up fear, and thus hate. Why? For votes.” No mention of course, of the fact that in most cases, if all we wanted were votes, we’d get more of them by forgetting our concerns about immigration, etc, and joining New Labour.

Desperate claims

The absurdities continue. Mark had contrasted the way in which gangs of ‘Asian men’ in Keighley were involved in the paedophile racist rapes/grooming scandal with the way in which a young white lad might pick up a dolled-up 15-year-old in a nightclub in a genuine mistake. He complains bitterly that Mark should have used the example of a young Asian lad going into a nightclub and picking up the 15-year-old by mistake. The fact he didn’t, claims Jameson, shows Mark was trying to incite hatred of Asians. Desperate stuff, but it might fool some.

Mark had gone on to say that the problem here was anti-white racism among the media, police and some ‘ethnics’. Ah ha! Claims Jameson, “this comment shows the issue in his mind is racism.” We’re not far here off ducking witches: If they sink they’re innocent; if they float they’re guilty!

Repeatedly, he dishonestly and deliberately tries to confuse racial awareness with racial hatred. Again, it could fool some, but will it? We’ll know soon enough. For now the problem is that a serious barrister is desperate and dishonest enough to try out such drivel.

I should have ‘corrected’ Mark for perhaps giving a ‘false impression’ of BNP policy in his speech. Convenient that he raises this now, rather than asking me why I didn’t while I was in the dock. Perhaps he had an inkling of the verbal roasting I had lined up for him if he’d gone down that road.

The fact that Mark’s home city of Leicester is now more than half non-white is written off as “not a very serious matter”, and Mark’s comment that it is now “not a very nice place” is described as “insulting to non-whites living in Leicester.”

He complains that Mark was guilty of ‘over-statement’ for describing the Bradford riot as “clinically planned” (despite press coverage of police comments that it was).

“Does Mr Collett have any real regard for the truth of what he’s saying?” he asks. I’d love to put the same question to him, and rattle off a list of his little deceptions.

Mark is taken to task for having received a tip-off about guns and explosives in a mosque in Bertram Road, Manningham, Bradford. “I have no idea whether the police checked it out,” he says, unwittingly exposing the criminal irresponsibility of the entire British Establishment in the months before 7/7.

Possible scenario

In my opinion, Mark was mistaken in his speech and was running together two separate pieces of intelligence we’d received. Explained properly this would have significantly strengthened our case, and left the Powers That Be looking utterly incompetent. This is only one of a number of powerful points that slipped through the net of our double defence this time around. Such failings (minor in the grand scheme of a very skilfully fought action by our excellent teams) will be put right next time if there’s a hung jury and a retrial.

That’s not a prospect I relish from a personal or family point of view, but for the standing of the party overall in the eyes of the public, and as a source of more publicity for our views on these vitally important issues, it would be the very best result possible. Especially as our defence would be tightened up further next time around. Perhaps if the Attorney General isn’t too busy giving Blair bent advice on how it would be ‘legal’ to flatten Iran he’ll make the mistake of giving us a second bite of this very juicy political cherry!

Jameson claims that Mark’s use of the word ‘breed’ in describing the different birth rates of the white and Muslim Asian communities is “meant to imply they breed like rabbits.” At this point most of the jury members laugh. This, from his face, is definitely not in the script! Down in Islington the PC approved reaction is a sharp gasp of collective shock. But West Yorkshire, of course, is not Islington.

Moving on to Mark’s comments on the asylum issue, he says it’s a legitimate issue to discuss but complains we never gave our solution to the problem while we were in the witness box. There is, of course, a simple reason for this omission – the florid little creep never asked us!

He admits that, after these speeches, no-one went out and committed any act of violence. But, he claims, the problem is “the long term pernicious effect” of people making ‘racist’ comments in the community.

Funny that, since the CPS spent considerable time asking the police to see if there had been any immediate effects in terms of racist incidents after our speeches (there were none), and neglected to check their own records to see if anyone has ever claimed as mitigating circumstances the ‘fact’ that they’d months before heard a speech by me or Mark, or talked to someone who had, and been wound up by it.

Sadly, I managed to leave my laptop in the wrong vehicle this morning, so am having to type this up from notes. Accordingly, a group of us are going to eat now, so I’ll have to type up the rest later tonight. It may not get online ’til the morning, but it will be there.

Tomorrow, just for the record, will be the second half of the closing speech for Mark, the closing speech by my excellent Mr. King, and perhaps part of the summing up from the patient judge. There is no chance now of a verdict before the end of Wednesday, quite possibly Thursday.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Weekend posting 28th-29th January

Nick back at the helm of the blog now. Thanks to Mark doing a splendid job on the two days I've been in the witness box.

It really is extraordinarily hard work in there, especially when being cross-examined by the prosecution. My legal team were very happy with my (and Mark's, for that matter) performance, reassuring me at the end of Friday afternoon that Jameson "didn't lay a glove on you" during the three-and-a-half hours verbal sparring match. Comparing notes with Mark, however, we both found that we had been unable to judge our own performances, it was only those watching us who could tell just how good they were. Mark's, I say again, was brilliant. Of course, whether being brilliant is any use is another matter entirely. My feeling is that at least half of the jury will have made up their minds whether to convict us or free us the moment they realised who we were.

Still, we'll find out soon enough.

Boxing match

Having been a university boxer many years ago, I can tell you that the boxing analogy is actually rather accurate. There's the same pre-match nerves, that sinking feeling in your stomach and the voice in your head that asks "why the hell did I get myself into this position?" Your stomach suggests a visit to the toilet in the back of the cell at the side of the dock (the security guards discretely slip back into the dock itself under such circumstances, giving one

more privacy than the half height screen that serves as a toilet door). The only thing I can tell you is that this part of the process is very much harder when wearing boxing gloves!

Standing in the witness box waiting for the judge to give the signal for the contest to begin with the words "Yes, Mr. Jameson", is just like the moment when the seconds pull the stool out of the boxing ring and you face your opponent and wait for the bell. You are utterly alone; you have no idea how good he is; you are worried, not about the possible pain, but about the possibility of being made a fool of in front of all those people. What's worse in this case is that you know you're up against an opponent who has a formidable height and weight advantage, in that he has pages of notes in front of him, while everything you want to say has to be in your head. And he is allowed to attack you almost as much and as often as he wants, whereas you are only allowed to block, cover up and "duck and dive," as my old trainer used to say. If he decides to take a breather and back off, it's not possible to chase him across the courtroom and pummel him in the opposite corner.

Still, at least once the confrontation actually starts the butterflies in the stomach turn into pure adrenaline; you can't run even if you want to, so it's stand and fight. In the first exchange of verbal punches on Friday I slipped and lost my thread after answering the first half of the question. Jameson sneered and refused to help, but when I asked him to repeat the initial question he did so and my second half response parried it with no problem.

Among his other early questions was one to which the best possible answer was a very clever one that Mark had come up with the day before. I rephrased it, but the core idea was still there, and the lawyers at least would have known it was Mark's. From that point on, Jameson avoided asking questions which my very able co-defendant had already shot down in flames. In a way this was a shame, because I was looking forward to dealing with any repetition of his stupid

'hypothetical' questions about "what if there had been asylum seekers or Asians in the audience" by warning him that Mark's "flying pigs" were knocking on the courtroom door.

Political experience helps

Jameson's initial flurry of aggression reminded me again of past boxing matches, especially the first few proper fights I had. Several opponents rushed out, knowing they were up against a novice, and hoping to overwhelm for a short, sharp victory. The trouble with such tactics is that, if they fail, the whirlwind of arms frequently runs out of breath himself quite quickly. Jameson's problem here was that, although novices in courtroom terms, both Mark and I have vastly more experience than him in scoring political points, and in each case this rapidly became apparent.

Having been in a far more public ring with the likes of Jeremy Paxman, James Naughtie, Sue McGregor, Jeremy Vine, Peter Allen, Jeremy Bowen, Angela Rippon (who really does have lovely legs, by the way), various pretty Sky News blondes, and the near psychotic Tim Sebastian, my bout with Mr Jameson soon settled down into a fairly painless routine: Question jabs out, answer blocks or slips it, "thank you for that, Mr. Griffin" (delivered in a tone which says "gotcha", but I quickly realise that's the same empty bravado as when an opponent in the ring grins when you've just landed a punch that really hurt), then move on to another question.

Little by little, an air of going through the motions began to creep into his questions. Perhaps my mispronouncing his name all the time doesn't help – two can play silly tricks with words and tones, you see. And, although I'm not allowed to ask him questions, the highly political nature of the exchanges means that I can go on the offensive. Time and time again I hammer home points about the utterly disgusting way in which the media, police, other political parties and the judicial system neglect, abuse, even despise, white victims of racist discrimination, violence and murder. At one point he tries to parry this by feigning disbelief at my pointing out that Establishment figures refer to "white trash". Bad mistake! Out come examples like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown, allowed to do just that in the Independent, and on prime time BBC. Jameson rapidly takes refuge behind another question.

That's the only problem with this courtroom match though. You can land as many blows on your bewigged opponent as you like, and at the end of it he'll still collect his fat pay cheque and move on to his next case. But if he lands just one good one on you, you are likely to go directly to jail as a result. It's a distinctly one-sided affair.

In the case of yesterday's dust-up, however, there were compensations. When I started landing blows that not only broke his arguments, but also made the judge and jury smile or even laugh, Jameson's junior, sitting one row back, began to smirk at his leader's discomfort. At first I thought that he just appreciated the joke, but after a couple more I got the impression that the real fun for him was seeing his colleague get verbally leathered. Perhaps they don't get on?

Loathsome contempt

Some of Jameson's questions indicated either a total lack of knowledge about the real world, or a loathsome contempt for ordinary decent people with less money, education and status than himself. As the afternoon, this made me more and more angry, and I found myself addressing him with contempt in turn.

By the time I 'asked' that the court records should at least spell Sean Whyte's name correctly, I was struggling to control my temper. I hope it came out icily, but all I really wanted to do was to leap out of the witness box, grab the undoubtedly clever but smug little bureaucrat by the throat, drag him out of the court and dump and his own family him in the real world among the last whites on the edge of Manningham Lane, Glodwick or the Gibbet in Halifax.

The same is true of the lying parasites behind me in the press section of the public gallery, who in their reports of the day later predictably make no mention at all of my evidence about their own failings or my reasons for concluding that Islam is a menace. People like Hamza and the smoother fundamentalists of the Muslim council of Britain I respect - they believe they have a higher mission and they work to carry it out - but for these upper class or media luvvie vermin, who have sold their own people out for money and a career, I have nothing but hatred.

Welcome break

Home for the weekend. Actually it's a little bit like a second weekend, since the day off on Thursday was a tremendous break. We drove up to Sunderland to speak at a good-hearted meeting there on Wednesday evening, and then part way back down into North Yorkshire to stay at a lovely country village pub owned by a couple who are staunch BNP members. We arrive at gone midnight, but the bar is promptly reopened for a couple of pints of really good beer (Young's Winter Warmer, all the way up from Wandsworth, South London) and homemade soup and sandwiches. Bed by a little gone two, and - bliss - real sleep and no need to get up until a big chunk of the morning has already gone. It's the first really good night's sleep for some time.

Furthermore, our hosts had changed their own plans at short notice and driven all the way from East Anglia to be there for us. Then they stayed in on Thursday to cook us a superb roast beef dinner in the early evening, before driving back to East Anglia and their own affairs. Such dedication to the cause and personal kindness typifies so many people in our movement. Words cannot express my gratitude.

Historic visit

As for the free Thursday, Jackie and I and two security drive up into the North Yorkshire National Park. First stop is Rievaulx Abbey, one of the finest of all monastic ruins in the country. Huge fluted columns of pale cream stone and massive but delicate arches echo now not to plainsong but to the gentle cooing of wild doves. Set amidst river meadows and surrounded by a circle of wooded hills, it is a place of beauty and tranquility.

Then we drove over the high road across the moors and to the edge of the Cleveland Hills, then through a string of picture postcard villages an on to the coast at Whitby. Neither Jackie or I have ever been to this quaint old seaport before. Famous for its connections to the great explorer Captain Cook, it was also homeport to generations of whalers and fishermen. We climb a massive flight of stone steps to the hill overlooking the harbour. On to stands a memorial to St. Caedmon, one of the founders of pre-1066 English Christianity (according to some experts a version of the religion very close to that now preserved in the Eastern Orthodox rite) and another ruined abbey. Whitby is a gem of a town – I hope to be free to come back for a better look in the not too distant future.

As dusk falls we set off back towards our promised roast beef dinner, and after saying our goodbyes drive back down to West Yorkshire. We stay at the home of a member who plays several musical instruments. He is part of a folk music trio playing a gig at a wedding in an Irish club on Monday evening, and to my great delight the band are practicing in his study. I sit with them for a few numbers, beer in hand, sing along for a while and then, with regret, turn in for bed as I need to be fresh on Friday. Snatches of guitar, banjo, penny whistle and well known Irish songs float up the stairs as I drift off to sleep, thoroughly content and at ease with the world.

Sunday 29th January

Went for a long walk yesterday with Jackie and the dogs. A lovely crisp sunny day - yet again we haven't had much of a winter on this side of the country, and we're now only a few weeks away from the spring. While, from a long-term political point of view, I have no doubt that the best possible result is for Mark and I to be found guilty and jailed in a blaze of liberal media gloating, I will be bitter at having the sights, sounds and smells of a whole spring season taken from me. I think of Robert Frost's poem about the beauty of wild cherry blossom and how - with an allotted span of just seventy springs in which to see it - he couldn't afford to miss a single one.

The Sunday papers are full of very little, though Rod Liddle's column in the Times has a good crack at Metropolitan police boss Ian Blair over his disgusting comments on the Soham 'Babes in the woods' Murders and his absurd claim that black murder victims get less coverage than white ones.

Top Pc’s blunder

The only grain of truth in Blair's comments is that when the killers are also 'ethnic', the media often play down such murders. Muslim on black racism, in particular, is taboo, which is why the attacks on the West Indian community in Birmingham during last autumn's riots there were presented as being 'six-of-one-and half-a-dozen-of-the-other', when in fact the one-sided casualty figures in the hospitals show that it was more like an Islam-fuelled anti-black pogrom or lynching party than a race riot.

Rod mentions the white man stabbed to death on the London bus in the same week as the black lad Anthony Walker was murdered in Liverpool, as evidence for his thesis that, in fact, the media discriminate in favour of black victims and against white ones. Quite so, but it is unfortunate that even people who know the score use this example.

For the far better one is the murder, also in the same week, of young dad David Henkel, kicked to death in an attack by a gang of asylum seekers in Kent. Last Thursday, an Afghan, Nowbahar Bahar, was sentenced to just four-and-a-half years for his 'manslaughter'. When he and his gang attacked David, Bahar had only just got out of prison after serving a year for theft and assault. In prison, he had told warders and other prisoners that he intended to kill a white man once he was free. He did so just a month after leaving prison.

He should, of course, have been sent back to Afghanistan (from which he only arrived in 2001) the moment he finished his first sentence. And, this time around, the fact that he stomped on a defenceless white victim's head while members of his gang held him down, should have led to a sentence of racially aggravated murder. But, as I told Jameson on Friday, to his type, to the police, to most of the legal system, and the vast majority of the people who run the mass media, ordinary white people are just 'trash', and their deaths and their families' tears count for next to nothing.

As a direct result, more innocent victims and their families will go through the same kind of tragedy. When David Henkel's murderer could be free before me and Mark, when the young Pakistani Muslim thug who stabbed Sean Whyte to death is allowed to strut around Keighley (yes, Keighley, he's moved from Colne) boasting about it - despite the fact that we have given the police and the CPS a fresh new lead.

Such victims' blood will be on the hands not just of their immediate killers, but also of the likes of 'Sir' Ian Blair, Mr. Jameson QC, and the editors of all the national newspapers which, despite having provided pretty fair coverage of our trial up until now, have conspicuously refused to cover anything from my evidence on Friday. These cowardly PC swine haven't reported a word I said about the anti-white bias of the media. They haven't published a single word I spoke or a document I produced to show that it is Islam itself, not Islamic extremism or 'terrorism' that is the problem facing the West.

Evidence documents

I'll get all those documents scanned in and up online for everyone who wants to see as quickly as possible. And we'll put my Keighley speech up online as well. But such material, which deals with matters of fundamental importance to the future of our entire way of life and civilisation, should be publicised in the mainstream media, not left to an underfunded, victimised, oppressed and demonised political party. It will not always be like this. Times they are a changing, and, even with the media blackout on the really important bits, this trial - whatever its strictly 'legal' outcome, will hasten the change.

So now I'm off to help our Richard plasterboard the ceiling of his workshop next door. More blogging from the dock tomorrow.

Day 10; Friday 27th January

Day 10 - the end of a second whole week on trial - begins at 10.45 am as Nick takes the stand again. We had an adjournment and a day off yesterday as the prosecutor had a previous engagement in the Court of Appeal. This allowed us a welcome break to re-charge our batteries. As Nick takes the stand we move straight into the examination of his Jury bundle - the key items showing how he formed the basis of the beliefs he expressed in his speeches. When talking about the situation in Keighley, Nick states the only reason that Keighley MP Ann Cryer began talking of the problem of grooming was to "head us off at the pass," in effect stealing our thunder.

As a part of the bundle the Jury will be seeing a number of pages of the Koran of which Nick has marked the pages as he studied it. That particular copy is the recommended copy by the main strand of Islamic thinking, Nick draws attention to the passage where the Koran states that Muslim males are allowed to take women from other peoples. This he points out directly relates to the issue of grooming in Keighley - as he stated in his spech it is acceptable "as their good book tells them it's ok". The Koran states that Muslims can take any woman that their "right hand can own."

Nature of the Koran

Nick states that the Koran is not like the Bible, regarded by Christians as having been written by mortal men. Rather, to Muslims, it is the literal word of God It is undating, unchanging and a guide to how to live one's life. This is in stark contrast to the way that modern Christianity sees the Bible. The Koran he points out is current law to Muslims and always will be. Nick effectively pulls apart the phrase Tony Blair used to state that the Koran is a peaceful and peace loving religion. Blair cleverly left out a small part of the verse, which when put back in place changes the whole meaning of the verse.

He states that all the tolerant verses written by Mohammed were written at the beginning of his career when he lived in Mecca and had only a small number of followers. When he fled with his small band of followers to Medina he gained significant power and the nature of the verses changed. These later verses were completely different to the earlier verses and called for violence and the use of force to spread the religion. What's more the later passages, the ones containing the calls for violence, override the earlier verses. These verses, Nick says, help explain the tide of racist attacks against whites, as well as Hindus, Sikhs and Blacks, in areas where Muslims are a significant portion of the population. A later verse talks of nine sinners and enemies of the Prophet, and goes onto say that their whole city is destroyed, including everyone in it, simply for the ill-doings of those nine individuals. This, Nick said, was the verse he thought about when, post 9/11, other politicians and 'moderate' Muslims kept telling us that the Koran forbids the killing of innocents during Jihad.

He says that verses in the Koran strictly forbid Muslims to follow the laws in the secular democratic countries. In effect, he says, Islam is a complete contradiction of our parliamentary democracy - 'good' Muslims must never follow our laws. A later quote - "Sedition is worse than murder" that means anything that undermines Islam or gets in the way of spreading it is worse than murder, so for example selling alcohol and or advertising posters featuring scantily clothed women are in fact worse - under Islamic law - than murder.

Superb delivery

In a way I really do feel privileged to be sat here having a front row seat at this spectacle. Nick's delivery throughout this has been superb and his excellent de-construction of Islam is wonderfully well thought out. I honestly wish this had been televised as it would have been if it were in a US court, if only everyone in Britain could be presented with these clear calm arguments as to why our nation is at such great risk.

Nick goes on to say that Mohammed is talked of as "the perfect man", who example in life remains the source of the hadiths, the collection of verses about his life that are second only to the Koran as a source of guidance for Muslims. At one point in these Mohammed rejoices as one of his followers hacks off the head of one of his adversaries. This he states is no different to what is going on when Muslims hack off the heads of their hostages in the Middle East, it specifically glorifies that method of killing. He goes on to say that Mohammed himself raped female prisoners of war - this is the example that the Koran sets out as the 'perfect' human being. The real twist to this he says is that it is the rape victim who is at fault under Islamic law for having sex out of wedlock and she can - and in Islamic states does - face being stoned to death for the 'crime' of being raped.

After we were shown sections of a TV documentary shown on Channel 4 (Al Qaeda UK) about Islamic extremism you can see Islamic clerics interpreting the Koran in the same way that Nick put forward earlier. The difference he says between Christians doing bad things and Muslims doing bad things is that Christians doing those things are 'bad' Christians, but Muslims doing them are 'good' Muslims by the definition of their book.

Nick has been ticked off by the judge for straying from explaining how he formed his views and into making political speeches. He is particularly concerned when Nick comments that his researches had shown that so-called 'moderates' in groups like the Muslim Council of Britain follow the very same hardline ideological mentors as the open 'extremists' such as Hamza and Bakri, and are financed by the fanatically fundamentalist Saudi Arabians. "The so-called moderates are are in the pockets of the same people as financed the Taliban," Nick points out, before the judge interrupts and he is forced to move on.

We are given a ten minute break at 12.20 pm as the prosecutor says it was a long morning and everyone, including him, needs a few minutes' break. In fact, it wasn't for him, as everything so far has come out in exchanges between Nick and his own defence counsel. More to the point, Jameson clearly needs to consult with his colleagues. It is almost inconceivable that he didn't have some questions ready to put about Nick's understanding of Islam, by now, however, he must have realised that if he takes Nick on on this ground he is going to be eaten alive and spat out in little bits.


At 12.36 pm the Judge returns. I've been looking forward to this, Nick's cross examination by Jameson, I'm expecting real fireworks. Jameson begins - he wishes to sum up Nick's stance as not being 'critical of Asians as a whole or individual Muslims - but instead being critical of Islam, the Media and the Establishment - Nick agrees. Jameson says there was once a time when the BNP policy was based on race and asks is that not now still the case. Nick comes back with the reasoned answer that race and ethnicity are still very important to the BNP but the emphasis of the party has changed.

He goes on to talk of the repatriation of ethnics who commit crime, as was mentioned in my speech in the Resevoir Tavern. Nick says we have not worked a standard 'cut off point' for how many generations they have been in this country. It is clear now what Mr Jameson is doing, he is trying to tie my speech into Nick's and thus create divisions between us. Jameson goes on to ask whether Nick thinks my speech could have been misconstrued by the audience, Nick says 'No'.

The prosecutor asks if it is offensive to refer to Stephen Lawrence as 'Stephen Bloody Lawrence', Nick states that is may be thought of as in bad taste by some but certainly not offensive. He goes on to talk about the way that the media edit the photo of SL to cut out the clenched fist black power salute in order to make him look softer. The prosecutor is now clutching at straws over issues of what Nick is trying to infer to the audience - Nick clearly states he doesn't have to infer things, if he wanted to make a point he would have made it.

The prosecutor tries to pull Nick into the argument over where he got this information over SL being a drug dealer, Nick boldly refuses to call the policeman in question who gave him this information as he tells Jameson "we both know he would be sacked if he was called to give evidence". Jameson asks if Nick was making the situation worse for the Lawrence family by using their son in this way, he points out that if it wasn't for this case and the BBC then they would never have of heard what was said in a private BNP meeting. The fact all this has come out in court "is you and your bosses fault, Mr. Jameson, not mine." Excellent point and a great slap in the face for the BBC and the prosecutor. The mumour that runs through the public gallery shows that Nick has scored a direct hit.

Nick turns this round on the prosecution further, pointing out that SL could have been killed by another black, as was suggested by the Met source and althougth still tragic this would probably make his death a result of his suggested involvement in drugs and thus explainable as something other than the racist attack "which has been used as an excuse to turn our policing system on its head."

"Offensive" cartoon dragon decapitated

During the lunchbreak we go outside to meet the BNP free speech demonstrators and Christian Council of Britain demonstrators who habe been there all morning. The media crowd round as we shake hands with a splendid 'St. George', who has spent the morning 'killing' a six and a half foot green Islamic dragon! Apparently the police had earlier made him take off his Arab headscarf in case it 'offended' a passing Arab. The afternoon session commences at 2.30 pm.

Mr Jameson moves straight into Nick's Keighley speech. Nick begins again by pointing out that it is not as simple as the media say it is, it is not Asian males, it is Muslim males. Jameson tries to make out that Nick is being unfair by not stating in his speech that not all Muslims carry out these attacks, Nick states it is not necessary for him to point this out, like it is not necessary for the press to point out that not all whites are racist thugs when they talk of white racist attackers.

Jameson's case becomes weaker still, he is not drawing on evidence, nor is he drawing on the totality of the speech. Just like he did when cross examining me he is simply turning this into a word play, trying to manipulate the slightest thing when it is pulled right out of context. Nick bites back and points out that when he does use the word Asian he is using the correct term again, as the Muslims in Keighley that are the perpetrators of the crimes in question are Asian. He then says this might well be happening elsewhere and the Muslims might be of other colour.

Weak case

The case becomes weaker still, and Nick really rips into him, the prosecutor tries to get a grip of him over saying that these particular Muslims come from Pakistan, when they could have come from Bangladesh. Nick replies "well I could have said Pakistan and Bangladesh but then you would say why didn't I mention other places where Muslims come from". Nick asks him why he is playing on words and taking things out of context.

Again we are into wordplay, and Jameson asks why Nick said these Muslims beat white lads and not 'non-believers'. Nick says the audience were white people in a white working class area and it is the whites in that community that are getting beaten. He is talking directly about this area and it must relate to these people and this area. As we move on Nick again puts things into context and points out he identifies other races and religious groups that have been victims of the 'anti-kuffar hatred' at the root of Islam. Again we see the prosecutor going back on his opening statement and simply taking things out of context and viewing them in a vacuum.

Nick goes on to accept that not all Muslims are involved in these kind of crimes, and that there are moderates, but states that these people are overpowered by the radicals and this is played to by the media and the Establishment. Jameson goes on to say why don't we allow these moderates to join us, and Nick says we don't because we don't need them because we won't bend to these PC notions of having an ethnic on the arm of every white like happens in the media. Nick goes on to say that moderate Muslims are also scared of coming forward and we can't just pluck them out of the air because they're more scared than the white are.

Jameson tries to make our party look racist by attacking the fact that Rajinder Singh is not allowed to join the BNP, Nick is more than capable of answering this an immediately takes him on, pointing out that human diversity is something that should be treasured, yet our Establishment, by promoting race mixing is destroying races. That is why we only let white people in our party but we are more than willing to work with those of other races to help retain our cuture and their culture and not to destroy racial diversity. Friends not family. Nick also points out that if it were anything other than the white race being wiped out then Greenpeace and the like would be doing something.

Greatest show on earth

This is the greatest show on earth. Watching Nick debate with this over paid little man is wonderful, for all his money and the many many times he has stood in court he simply can't get a grip of Nick whatsoever. Nick sounds cool and calm throughout, barely phased by the constant barrage of questioning. Jameson even spots that Nick can see what questions he is going to ask next, he is being outclassed. Nick points out that Jameson has had to trawl very carefully though these speeches to find sentences and phrases to couple together to try to prove points.

Nick knew the next thing was coming, as Jameson brings up his use of the term 'Paki Street Thug'. Nick deftly points out that Paki is used by both Muslims and Whites and is not a solely abusive term. Nick says that a 'paki street thug' is a certain type of Muslim that the entire audience knows about, and says clearly that he is not branding all Muslims as this, again as the media brand whites as racists.

And here's what we've all been waiting for, the assertion Nick made that he could get 7 years for saying what he said. Nick states that he had seen a report about new religious hatred laws and believed them to have come in already. Nick destroys Jameson. He points out that in his earlier use of the term he related it to a sentence just about the Koran. Jameson is trying to tell the Jury that Nick is using the word Muslim as a cover for all Asians. Jameson says why didn't he make this point clearer? Nick says he knows it's a flaw of his to talk too much, but he tries not to bore people with technicalities. Everyone laughs - except the hapless Mr Jameson. Nick is now motoring through this and his confidence goes up and up, Jameson points out that Nick could have made his point better then, and proposes a perfectly worded alternative. Nick agrees and thanks him, saying he will use Jameson's phrase in future. Everyone laughs again.

Nick points out that although he could go to jail for this, he points out that what he has said in the witness box today is far more dangerous for him as Muslims might kill him. Before the startled rabbit prosecutor can get a word in edgeways or stop him, he gives a brief but gruesome account of the murder of Theo van Gogh, of Salman Rushdie's years under police protection, and says he knows that the Labour gvernment won't give him any protection. If he wanted to be safer he could have just broken the race law, because that carries a few years in prison, not the beheading he could receive for exposing Islam today in court.

Jameson is clearly on the back foot, and quickly moves on to the Morley speech.

Careless reports

We go through what Nick had to say about the murders of Gavin Hopley, Kriss Donald and Sean Whyte. Nick has already repeatedly pointed out how the "British Establishment" just doesn't seem to care when whites are the victims, and now makes the point, twice, with cutting asides requesting that the court reports should at least spell the victims' names correctly, then spelling out the proper versions to correct the mistakes in the speech transcripts and prosecution's documents. His anger at the way in which the authorities are so careless when white families grieve is palpable. The passion and emotion charge the court room.

Again the weakness of this case becomes apparent as we are back to the wordplay. The fact that Nick used the word Asian. Nick states he clarified it at the being of this speech when he said "Asians of the Muslim persuasion." But in this speech he was rushed, so rushed that he didn't have time to go into many little sub-clauses which he would usually do. But this speech, he states, was in any case not an attack on Islam or any ethnic minority, but on the mass media.

If it was, says Jameson, why did Nick go into such graphic detail over the deaths of the whites that have been ignored by the media. Nick says he did because it was necessary to illustrate the point in an interesting way. Nick says he wants people to get more involved politically and he wants to motivate them to carry out political activity and build an alternative. He goes on, huge sections of our population are cut off from the political process and they may only turn up at a political meeting as a last resort. Nick states it is his job to get these people involved, and in fact to not channel their energies into political activity would be the irresponsible thing. As for the speeches we use to achieve this: "It seems to me," Mr. Jameson, "that you are saying that we can have freedom of speech, but only if we talk in such flat dull monotones and such boring legal phrases that no-one will be able to keep awake to listen to what we say."

Sensing he is on weak grounds Jameson tries to get Nick on the fact that he has produced press clippings on these attacks, so it is not true that they were not reported. Nick snaps back by pointing out that these horrific murders do get a little coverage in local papers but are criminally under reported. Nick points out that if he wanted to stir people up to hatred, then surely he could do a far better job, he was not stirring people up and that is evident from what he said.

Now back to wordplay, again we are running around in circles over whether Nick was refering to Asians, Iraqis or Muslim fundamentalists. Jameson is clearly losing this battle, the mood of the court is now much lifted. Jameson's points seem to just be falling flat and he seems to be losing his place in the bundle.

Prosecution wilts

Nick now starts assisting him! Not only does he help him find his place, but several times he provides the 'right' word when Jameson can't find it. From behind I can see Jameson wilt and shrink under this subtle humiliation.

I begin to see more parallels with my cross examination. Jameson's thrust of questioning seems to be based around why Nick has said 'criminal elements of the Muslim community' and has just referred to them as the Muslim community. Again simple wordplay and the proceedings slow whilst the Judge asks a question based around what Nick thinks about attitudes that permeate the Muslim community. Nick says that he thinks moderate muslims are a rarity and "a culture of casual contempt for and hatred of other peoples has permeated their community.

Nick states that the only way racial hatred could be stirred up is if these comments were taken out of context and not qualified with the alternative of political activity. It's showing people we understand their problems and that there are genuine social concerns and giving them the motivation to go and do something about them in a political sense.

Although there are many 'awkward' questions that we had identified still unasked, Jameson seems suddenly to lose the will to carry on. Before anyone even realises it, he has finished his cross-examination and sat down. No closing point, no acknowledgement that it was over, he just sat down, smelling of defeat. The judge thanks Nick for his evidence and tells him he can rejoin me in the dock. Nick leaves the stand at 4.05 am. Jameson hasn't earned his money well today.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Finnish protest

On 25th January a delegation of members of the True Finns Party
(Perussuomalaiset) held a protest outside the British Consulate in

Oulu in Northern Finland about the political show trial of Nick Griffin and Mark

They wanted to show their support for Free Speech.

They also delivered a petition to the Consul, Mr Pekka Koskela, who seemed
shocked and confused and knew nothing about the trial at all.

This protest aroused the interest of many shoppers and passers-by.

Day 8 :Wednesday 25th January

Day 8 : Wednesday 25th January

While Nick is in the witness stand I've been left with the task of writing the Blog. I must say I've been overwhelmed by the support both myself and Nick have received. Court 8 has become a regular stop on the internal mail round of the court as letters and postcards expressing support for us have come in every morning. It's a good feeling to walk into the dock and have a pile of letters of support to greet you, and I'd like to thank everyone who has shown us support through this trial, it really has made all the difference.

Yesterday was definitely one of the hardest things I've ever been through. Simply giving evidence is hard enough, but cross examination is incredibly emotionally and mentally draining. The hardest thing about being cross-examined is that every question fired at you is deliberately placed to catch you out, and any words used in your answer can be taken out of context and brutally twisted against you. What's more, as soon as I reached the witness stand I soon realised that the prosecution had changed their stance on my speeches. At the beginning of the case they assured the Jury that the speeches must be taken in their totality, but it soon emerged that Mr. Jameson was not going to view my speeches in their totality, but instead cherry pick what he felt to be the best bits. These sections, when taken out of context of the whole speech, would be twisted and made to sound far worse because of course they were not being qualified by the rest of speech.

Crucial moments

As the cross examination moved back and forth and got into full swing I soon realised just how much was riding on my shoulders. As I debated with Mr. Jameson he conceded many points, however for every point he conceded he was able to move on swiftly, for losing a point he stood to lose nothing. In fact he stands to lose nothing at all in this case, win or lose he'll walk away with his freedom and no doubt be financially better off. However for losing just one point, for one poor answer, for one comment or out of context quote, I could well end up losing my freedom. This system certainly places the defendant fighting an incredible uphill battle. I cannot say how I think I fared against Mr. Jameson, simply because I only know how I felt during the cross examination, anyone looking for an account would be best asking someone who was in the public gallery. However I can say I was never lost for words and there was not a single question put before me that I could not answer.

In retrospect though, after viewing the press coverage on the news and in reading articles in the papers about my cross examination, if the worst thing that people can raise is that I wore a pink tie, I can't really have said too much wrong.

We were initially meant to be in court at 11a.m this morning, however we were again delayed until around 11.15 am for counsel to view video evidence relating to Nick's case. The Judge enters the court at around 11.30 am and we finally begin with more legal arguments. The Jury eventually enter the court at 12.35 am and the Judge states that we can finally get on with the case, however follows his opening comment with the fact that we won't be in court at all tomorrow as the prosecutor has a prior engagement in the appeal court.

Swearing the oath

Tim King finally calls Nick to the witness stand and Nick swears on the Bible. Mr. King begins to lead Nick into his evidence running through his education at Cambridge University. Nick begins by stating he did not intend to use words that may stir up racial hatred and that he did not believe he used language that could have stirred up racial hatred. Nick then tells the court that the police have stated that there was no disorder at the meetings in question, or following them. He goes on to say the police actually interviewed him on five of the speeches he had made, not just the two on which he was charged for in April.

Nick talks of a speech he made at Shelf Village Hall which he was not charged for. In the speech he talked of the racist murder of an elderly Asian gentleman in London. In the speech he says that the person responsible for the attack deserves to hang, for which he receives a spontaneous round of applause. This is the only point in his police interview where he breaks the 'No Comment' interview and states "There's no hate in this audience, and none in me".

Nick then goes on to talk about why the BNP holds private meetings and why we don't advertise our meetings. He describes the pressure we are under from both the Establishment and the far left. He talks further about the audience and the fact that some members will travel to different meetings all over the area, whereas some will only go to their local branch meeting.

The questioning soon moves onto Nick's first speech, the meeting at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley. He talks of how a young mother comes to the meeting to talk to him about what was happening to her daughter, she was being groomed by Muslim males. Nick talks of the problem of grooming and places the blame at the foot of the Muslim community specifically, not the Asian community as a whole. Nick is quoted as saying that grooming is taking place in Keighley because their "good book tells them so" because the Koran contains verses that permit, even encourage such things. Nick doesn't shrink away from a single word he said on that night, he boldly states the Islam is a wicked and vicious faith and he stands by his comments and is more than willing to explain this.

Religion and faith

The afternoon session begins again at 2 pm. Nick Griffin says he is not attacking the people who follow Islam, but the religion itself. It's not the case where individuals have joined a small sect or cult and are aware of all its laws and regulations, but a religion such as Islam is something that most of its followers are born into, and have little knowledge of all of its laws. He goes onto say that he doesn't label all Asians as Muslims and draws a very clear distinction between Muslims and Asians. Nick points out his friendship with Rajinder Singh, and tells of how he learned more about the differences between different groups within the Asian community. In fact it is the media, he claims, who blame problems such as grooming on the Asian community as a whole, whereas he lays these problems at the door of the actual culprits - Muslims.

Nick cites his awakening to the problems of Islam as being related to the events in Oldham surrounding the 2001 general election. At first he thought the problem was due to Asians in general. Both whites and afro-Caribbeans, he mentions, were being attacked. When his phone number was posted on a far left website he began receiving death threats, these though were from Asian Muslims, not simply Asians. Things they said, time and time again, caused him to begin looking into Islam itself rather than just looking at it as an 'Asian' problem. When speaking of his youth in the Nationalist movement he talks of his feelings toward race, and then speaks of how he later realised it wasn’t race that was the problem. Although, he states, he still disagrees with multi-racialism and race mixing for the reason that it destroys the identity and culture of both races whenever it happens. In fact it is culture that is the problem, specifically Islam, at the centre of the vast majority of multi-cultural problems and unrest all over the world.

Sikh friend

Rajinder Singh is spoken of by Nick as a good friend, the Jury is told that Rajinder is in court today supporting us. Rajinder first contacted Nick after his famous appearance on Newsnight, Rajinder claimed that Nick was the only politician in Britain telling the truth on this matter. Nick goes on to say that he purchased a copy of the Koran and studied it extensively.

When questioned on using the term 'Multi-racial hell hole' he qualifies it by stating that multi-cultural Britain is a disaster. He says a homogeneous society is far more productive and stable. But although he hates this multi-cultural society he does not hate members of the ethnic minorities, but more to the point he hates the Establishment who brought this about. He goes on to say, hatred can only be fostered by stifling debate on the issue, and in fact the British National Party eases tension by offering people a legitimate political vehicle through which they can channel their anger through legal political debate and activity, which is in essence the key to a democracy.

Tim then asks what Nick meant when he spoke of the "last white man in Britain". Nick talks about the problem of whites becoming a minority in Britain and says that it is a terrible thing for the indigenous population to become a minority in their own country. Nick, in his speech, says there is "no knight in shining armour coming to slay the Islamic dragon". By this, he says, he means that people will have to build a political movement to stop this 'dragon'. He used the term 'dragon' as that powerful summons up the threat posed by Islam to western society, it is simply a way of articulating this problem in a way people would understand. Then he follows with this statement by talking of building a "political movement" to solve the problem through a legal and democratic process.

Position of love

Nick then attacks the Establishment for encouraging people of different cultures and races to 'mongrelise' themselves out of existence. This he says is a terrible thing as all cultures and races then lose their identity. He does not however blame those of other cultures and is quick to point out this isn't a position of hate, but one of love or his own culture and race and respect for that of other races and cultures.

When using the term "Paki street thug" Nick says he was referring to a particular section of the society. But, he says, this is no different to the negative use of the term 'hoodie' as to describe white people who act like thugs, similar to the use of the term 'white trash', it does not describe all whites. Much in the same way that "paki street thug" does not describe all Muslims, let alone all Asians. Nick also points out that 'paki' is a term used not only by whites, but also by certain sections of the Asian community, Pakistanis included. He goes on to say it is a comment frequently used by the working class in places like Keighley and is simply part of the local dialect.

Nick says in all the speeches, both his own and those of mine, hate was not being disseminated. But he accepts that hate was sometimes already present in those audiences, and that we were in fact calming this hatred by offering a legitimate political solution - in effect turning the hate of hopelessness into the hope of political change. He says we both consistently point out the fact that we blame the politicians who have allowed this to happen, not the ethnic minorities. He talks sometimes having seen young men coming to BNP meetings full of hatred, yet months later they are different people and their hatred had evaporated once they have become involved in the political solution and can see at least a chance of change occurring. He says the British National Party is the only party expressing these legitimate concerns. In his speech he had pointed out that it is no different to the way the early Labour party stood up against the mill owners for the rights of the worker.

He talks of Islamic aggression against Sikhs and states that Sikhs are Asians, but have been among the biggest victims of Islamic terror over the years. You can contrast this with Islam, which has nothing whatsoever to do with race, you see Muslims of all colours, black, white and brown. This goes hand in hand with Nick's assertion in his speech that the problems in Keighley are cultural and religious problems.

The Morley speech

At 3 pm we move onto Nick's second speech which took place at Morley Town Hall.

Nick begins by saying that he is speaking on a different topic, because he wants to make a different point as many people attending that meeting will have heard the previous kind of speech. He talks of Stephen Lawrence and the fact that 10 years after his death the media are still giving the story front page publicity and that his death is simply being used to further the goals of a left-wing media. On this particular day Nick says this over the top coverage or 'Stephen Lawrence Mania', as he calls, it was particularly sickening. He wasn't attacking Stephen Lawrence, but the mass media and the national newspapers which cover up the deaths of young white boys murdered in proven racist incidents. He particularly makes note of the bias from the BBC.

Nick talks of how he spoke to people who knew Stephen Lawrence, people who went to school with him, their families and people who lived in the area. Nick even goes on to say that Stephen Lawrence was even talked of by rank and file members of the Metropolitan police who had stated that he died at the hands of another black man over drugs. Stephen was known in the area for bullying and 'taxing' other youths. He says he heard this from a trustworthy source.

Gavin Hopley murder

When questioned on the death of Gavin Hopley he tells of how he heard of the case, first from local gossip and later on in a report in the Oldham Evening Chronicle. Gavin was initially attacked in Glodwick, a Muslim area of the town ("because," he says "the West Indians who lived there before have been ethnically cleansed from the area) before dying a week later when his life support machine was turned off. He talks of a conversation relayed to him by Mick Treacy, a nurse at his bedside had said, "he wasn't murdered he was butchered". He was chased into Glodwick at 2 am on a Saturday morning when looking for a taxi and was set about by a gang of young thugs from the predominantly Muslim area, he was then beaten for a long period of time, until a "good-hearted and brave" Muslim lady came out of her home and saw what was happening and called an ambulance.

Next up is the case of Sean Whyte and Nick talks of the sources of his information on the case, which was initially local people connected to our branch. He recounts the horrorific case and said when the not guilty verdict was given at the case the police announced the case was closed, no further suspects were to be sought. Nick speaks of BNP members who went to the trial, yet the coverage of the case was ignoring in the national media and only snippits of information were put forward in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. His aim, he tells the court, was to whip up righteous anger over this censorship against the Establishment in this speech, to encourage political activity and motivate activists.

The whole of this speech is based around media inequality. Nick comes on to the case of Lee Martin, the young soldier who came home from Iraq and was subsequently kicked to death by Muslims. He states that is the kind of human interest story you would think the media would love, a soldier come back from Iraq and is killed by the kind of Muslim fundamentalists he has just been fighting overseas. Yet the story received no national media publicity.

Kriss Donald murder

Nick is then brought onto the section of his speech where he talks of Kriss Donald. He describes the murder as the most brutal and sadistic murder he has ever heard of taking place in this country, let alone racist murder. Yet the only coverage it received was in a local Scottish papers, with virtually nothing in the national media. Nick says he was not even talking of the case in "graphic detail" as the prosecution allege; he in fact censored this because he heard, from a close relative of the victim in person, Kriss was also castrated and had his eyes gouged out before he died. He says he talks of the case in no more graphic detail than the detail in which the death of Anthony Walker was described in the press. He boldly states that it is the journalists sat behind him who have covered up murders like those of Kriss Donald who should be in the dock.

It is later quoted that Nick stated during the speech that Stephen Lawrence's death was indeed a tradegy, but something that has been overplayed. He even states that although he believed him to be a drug dealer he didn't deserve to die that way, but surely the death by one single stab wound should be less media worthy than the grotesque torture and death of Kriss Donald?

Nick points out that in the Macpherson report that a racist attack is a racist attack if any person involved in the incident or witness to it perceives it to be so. Thus when he is speaking of Scott Pritchard in Sunderland it should have been classed as a racist attack as that is what the local community in the area - and his family - classed it as. He berates the CPS and police for ignoring their own rules. Nick states his motivate is create debate to prevent those problems growing in our society. He describes Britain as a tinder box, not because he wants to cause it to explode, but because he in fact wants to defuse it.

Pressure cooker

Tim King then points out that in this particular speech Nick accurately predicts the terrorist attacks in London in July of 2005. Nick accurately points out not only the attacks but who the people were who would carry them out. He states that this prediction came about from his studies of Islam, he said it is blatantly obvious what was going to happen when you have seen this happen all over the world the same thing was bound to happen here. In the speech Nick asserts that the Establishment are trying to keep the lid on the 'pressure cooker'. Nick states that he does not want to blow the lid off the pressure cooker, but wants to defuse this by legal political activity. The backlash is coming he states, but asserts he wants it to be political. The British National Party are there to provide this political outlet to prevent a violent backlash.

Nick says the if there ever was racial violence on a national scale, then the Home Secretary would simply lock up and intern leading members of the BNP, so violence is the last thing we want. He goes onto say that if violence ever did erupt, then we would get the blame, hence all we want is the right to peacefully build a political alternative.

At 4.07 pm the court adjourns until Friday. Three TV cameras are waiting for us as we leave the court. Then we're swept to the cars by the security team and it's the end of another day.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Day 7: Tuesday 24th January

Day 7: Tuesday 24th January

Up until nearly 3.30 this morning going through defence material. I've had to go hunting for material to use in response to various allegations made very recently by the prosecution, and this now has to go in all of a rush at the last minute. Up at just gone six for a bath then the journey to court. Have to be there at nine for another conference. Once in the court one of the staff again presents Mark and me with a bundle of what he calls 'fan mail'. Letters and cards from well-wishers all over the country. To anyone who's sent one, many thanks, they're a welcome and touching boost.

"Thank you for saying what we would like to. It is shameful that you have been persecuted for exercising your right to free speech. Very best wishes and good luck," goes a typical one on an animal charity card. "The best of luck to you both, from two angry pensioners" is the message in another. Tear in eye time.

One of the jurors is held up, so we start properly at 11.05 a.m. The judge explains that the arrival of new evidence on my behalf means that the case will have to be adjourned early today once Mark's case is finished.

Then it's on with the last part of Mark's cross examination by his defence counsel. He is asked why he gave a 'No Comment' interview, and replies that it was because he was sure he'd said nothing wrong, and that his arrest was simply Politically Correct harassment.

Cross-examination of Mark

By 11.12 a.m. Mark is being cross-examined by the prosecution's Mr. Jameson QC. My accounts of these exchanges may not be totally literal, not word-for-word.

He starts off by asking if all of his speech at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley represented BNP policy. He asks if I approached him afterwards to say he'd gone "a bit too far" in anything he'd said, Mark replied 'Not that I can remember".

What our policy on dealing with a member of an ethnic minority who commits a crime? Kicking out members of ethnic minorities who have committed crimes but who were born in Britain? The prosecution is trying to get towards a position in which he can claim that our policies are based on fundamental antipathy towards non-whites. Mark kicks back with a measured and gutsy query as to whether the question at issue is BNP policy, whether the BNP is on trial, or just what we said in the speeches?

Moments later there is another low-key clash, and Mark again shows that he won't be brow-beaten.

Flying pigs

"I was preaching to the converted" says Mark. "Suppose there had been Asians or asylum seekers at the meeting," he is asked, " would you have said the same things?" "This is a ridiculous point," Mark replies, "it would simply never happen, so I cannot answer it. It's like me saying to you, 'if there was a flying pig, would you ride it?'"

It gets better, Mark rips quietly into his opponent and uses his own question to show precisely that under the circumstances of the meetings the prosecution's wording indicates that he could not have insulted, abused, or threatened.

"What is the 'hell' that people in Bradford have to go through?" "The muggings, rapes, grooming, attacks, rioting, etc," Mark tells him.

"Did you include in that 'hell' the actions of white criminals?" Mark responds by stressing the sheer horror of the 'grooming' issue in the area. Jameson keeps pressing on this point, and takes advantage of the fact that he suckered Mark into saying that he had only had about twice as many cuttings as submitted in the defence evidence bundle, to say he was exaggerating when he talked of two rapes of white girls happening a week.


Knowing he's on ground which could look weak, Mark tries to shift the discussion back to the grooming issue, "it's not just a problem in Keighley, or even Bradford, it's been happening all over the country." Then he gets in the point Jameson has been wilfully ignoring all along "When we heard on 'Edge of the City' of how one girl of 13 was drugged, and ended up having sex with more than 100 Asian men - that's rape."

"Why did you not give the example of a 'young white lad' innocently picking up an underage girl dressed up to look older than 16, rather than illustrating it by talking of an Asian lad in that position?"

"No. The clubs and pubs I go to aren't frequented by Asians. I was simply giving an example from my own experience. It's what happens in real life."

Mark spots that Jameson is about to say that Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley had been involved on this issue, which would lead on to the proposition that, as the prosecutor actually said moments later, that everybody was disgusted by what was going on and opposed to it (hence there would be no need for us to make an issue of what was going on). Mark wasn't going to let that trick be played, and showed a flash of real emotion and righteous indignation as he pointed out that, if it hadn't been for our campaigning on this issue, then Ann Cryer and the media wouldn't have done anything about it.

Jameson moves on, asking one question about my speech that follows. Not sure why, we'll see where that goes when I'm in the witness box.

Verbal duel

Then back to another of Mark's speeches. Jameson is much exercised by Mark's motive for talking about the dangers of the indigenous population of Britain becoming a minority in their own homeland. Mark attacks by saying the prosecution is trying to say that such comments are not a subject that should be talked about as a legitimate political point. The prosecutor rushes to say that's not the case. Good point scored.

Jameson goes on to say that such things can be discussed, but apparently we're not allowed to do so while pointing to recent historical examples (such as Rhodesia) as to precisely what happens to white populations that find themselves in a minority.

Fireworks! Mark responds to a question with another. Jameson of course doesn't answer it. Mark points this out. Jameson says it's because he's here to ask questions, not answer them. Mark counters "Well I think that's because you can't answer it!" The judge intervenes for the first time to remind Mark that it's the job of counsel to ask questions, not answer them. "I'm sorry, My Lord", Mark accepts. Fun while it lasted, and fair play to the lad!

On to the Bradford riots. The prosecution want him to accept that only a small proportion of the 'Asian' population was involved in rioting. "Yes, and no", says Mark pointing out that although only a minority of them were rioting, this still represents a huge number. Mark once again tells the court that the prosecution is trying to twist his words and see things that aren't there.

Scraping the barrel

Jameson now goes to scrape the barrel. In Mark's speech he had referred to a Muslim businessmen who was arrested and convicted for barricading the doors of Manningham Labour Club, then petrol-bombing it while more than twenty elderly members were inside. Jameson points out that the local press cutting says that the fire-raiser was convicted of arson with reckless endangering of human life, but not of attempted murder. "It was my value judgement," says Mark "If someone locked us in this room here today, and then set light to it, I think it's a fair thing to assume that they would be trying to kill us."

Next stop Mark's claim about "guns under the mosque." Because he can't or won't name his police source, Mark is accused of making it all up, despite the fact that the Crown have given in their unused material a copy of an internal police intelligence report about a tip-off that there were guns and explosives in a named mosque in Bradford. I suspect that this issue will arise when I am cross-examined later in the trial, so will say no more about this for now.

"Why are you only talking about helping white people?" "Because there are other groups out there standing up for the Asian community, the black community and so on. There's the Black Police Officers' Association; the Asian Lawyers' Association. They're there for their people. We're here for ours."

A pattern is now emerging: Jameson is picking up on things like the use of a word such as 'the' rather than 'these' to claim that such tiny differences are intentional and can be picked over at length in an effort to infer politically incorrect thoughts in our heads. Given that the law is clearly that the speeches have to be taken in their entirety, as that is a key part of "having regard to all the circumstances", this is extraordinarily unfair.

Mark makes exactly this point after lunch. "If the media talk about white racist crime, for example, no one expects them to say "of course, we're not saying that everyone in the white community is a white racist criminal."

There's a fair bit on Mark's allegation that Stephen Lawrence may well have been a drug dealer. "What is the relevance of this?" "Because the media have said that it was a racist murder, and I am merely pointing out that he might have been killed for reasons other than white racism, something which would be particularly likely if he was indeed - as is common gossip in the lower ranks of the Metropolitan police - involved in drug dealing."


Jameson has 'teed up' the DVD player to show us the BNP’s audience reaction to this comment. Mark is shown giving a partial list of what asylum seekers get, and includes a car "with which they run over someone like Lee Massey." The list of what they get goes on "these people are cockroaches". The audience gives a huge cheer. Jameson makes a big thing of this, but nothing of the fact that Mark's immediately subsequent point - in which he says that he doesn't hate anyone except the white liberals responsible for the asylum flood - is also rewarded by an enthusiastic round of sustained applause.

Mark repeatedly points out that Jameson is "cherry-picking" his speech by missing out the huge amount of material in them about positive political organisation and action.

Jameson again pushes the cockroach button, and Mark kicks back by asking how the word is so different to terms appearing in the tabloid papers at the time, such as "spongers, vermin and parasites."

Jameson then produces a document taken from Mark's computer and asks if he wrote it? Mark reads it carefully and then confirms that he wrote it. Then there's an exchange about mixed race relationships that the judge effectively cuts short by his concern about the use of such evidence. Jameson backs off slightly, then comes back to allege that all Mark's points go towards creating an image of non-whites to be feared, and hated.

A third week ahead

It's now a quarter past three. Mr. Jameson appears to be nearly finished, but has a point of law to raise so the jury is sent out and my fingers must fall still.

The jury return to be told that the prosecution have finished their cross-examination. Their is no re-examination. Mark returns to the dock with me. Job done very well indeed to my mind.

That's it for the day. My turn tomorrow, and I've seen how the prosecution works. It's pretty clear now that the case is going to run on into a third week. Verdict next Monday or Tuesday from the way things are going.

Rajinder Singh has arrived to give evidence on my behalf if there is any suggestion that I'm not 100% sincere when talking about the particular danger posed by fundamentalist Islam. The prosecution look as though they may well try to claim that I use 'Muslim' as a code-word for Asians in general. Well, if they want a fight on that ground, they're going to get it.