Heritage and Destiny is an organisation launched by Searchlight to torpedo the Nationalist Movement
UPDATED on December 14th 2018
Peter Rushton, Michele Renouf and Richard Edmonds are some of the personalities linked with Heritage and Destiny, an organisation that portrays itself as Nationalist but its origins are linked to Searchlight - a long-time concern of Gerry Gable and his wife Sonia Gable. Gerry Gable was dedicated to the fight against organisations like National Front.
 |
| Sonia Gable |
 |
| Gerry Gable |
Sonia Gable spent considerable time "mole-ing" with almost every single high ranking member of National Front so that she could get "first hand" information about National Front members, activities and intentions.
 |
| Peter Rushton |
Peter Rushton wants to present himself as a respectable Nationalist but, incidentally, a dossier compiled against him tells a completely different story. Two other pieces of the puzzle are Michele Renouf, former celebrity, and Richard Edmonds that at times has been member of National Front and of the British National Party. Michele Renouf attended practically all court trials of those accused of anti-Semitism presumably to support those standing in the dock but then again appearances might be deceiving.
 |
| Michele Renouf |
The third protagonist in the story, also linked to Heritage and Destiny, Richard Edmonds is shown with very graphic images.
 |
| John Tyndall |
 |
| National Front Richard Edmonds |
Heritage and destiny, far from being a true Nationalist organisation, is an orchestrated shambles promoted by Searchlight with the sole intention of presenting real Nationalists as Nazis with individuals that portray themselves as Nationalists. It is their way to ensure that any real Nationalist organisation in the United Kingdom is destined to fail from the very beginning because as soon as the real nature of the individuals comes to the surface, respectable people walk away.
Latest Addition from Historical Records December 14th 2018
Richards Edmonds having occupied several high ranking positions both in the National Front and in the BNP contacted us to tell us that all what has been said about Peter Rushton is untrue.
(*) Richards Edmonds begins his statement by saying that 'Firstly Gable does not run his agents and infiltrators from his office; Gable is much too careful to do that'. Gerry Gable, former Communist Party organiser, has worked with branches of Police including the Metropolitan Police.
Latest Addition from Historical Records December 14th 2018
Richards Edmonds having occupied several high ranking positions both in the National Front and in the BNP contacted us to tell us that all what has been said about Peter Rushton is untrue.
Subject: Response to gross defamation of Peter Rushton
and colleagues, Lady Renouf and Richard Edmonds.
In the year 2002, the then BNP chairman, Nick Griffin
issued a members' bulletin, later expanded into a special booklet, in which
Griffin defamed Peter Rushton as an "enemy agent". The author of the
special booklet defaming Peter Rushton was Arthur Kemp. Kemp claimed that a
South African woman journalist, called Jani Allan whom Kemp knew, had told Kemp
that she had gone to interview 'Searchlight' editor, Gerry Gable in her
capacity as a journalist. Arthur Kemp claims in the booklet that Jani Allan
informed him that arriving for the interview, she witnessed Peter Rushton
leaving Gable's office. She was able to recognise Peter because she had met him
on a previous occasion. Jani Allen was writings articles on the British
Nationalist scene during the early 1990s for the South African press..
This is the core of the accusation made by Kemp and
Griffin in their booklet accusing Peter Rushton of being an enemy agent. You
will notice that the accusation hangs on the claim of what Kemp says Jani Allan
allegedly told him. I do not believe any of this.
Firstly Gable does not run his agents and infiltrators
from his office; Gable is much too careful to do that. (*)
Secondly, the "witness" Jani Allan is a whore.
Jani Allan was the whore who set up the Boer leader, Terre Blanche, in the honey-trap that ruined him.
Kemp had to concede in his booklet defaming Peter Rushton that his one and only
witness was Jani Allan who had been involved in "a sordid sexual scandal
with Terre Blanche".
In an interview with
the Daily Mail of 17th. April 2010, Jani Allan said of herself, "I
will always be known as the tart who slept with a racist buffoon, the white
supremacist Eugene Terreblanche."
Frankly who but a scoundrel would attempt to blacken the
name of a good man by quoting the lies of some whore ?
The rest of the piece accusing Michele Lady Renouf and
Richard Edmonds of being agents of 'Suchlies' (sic) is also disgusting trash of
the same gutter-level.
F I N I S.
(*) Richards Edmonds begins his statement by saying that 'Firstly Gable does not run his agents and infiltrators from his office; Gable is much too careful to do that'. Gerry Gable, former Communist Party organiser, has worked with branches of Police including the Metropolitan Police.
Together with the message received from Richard Edmonds here is a piece of historical records involving Peter Rushton:
PETER RUSHTON --
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROSCRIPTION
A BNP Booklet
Introduction
Recently North West
members were surprised to hear that occasional speaker Peter Rushton has been
identified as a Searchlight spy. While some have been surprised by this, there
have been others who have wondered why it has taken so long. Out of
considerations of fairness, it has always been the case that people are given
the benefit of the doubt – and with regard to the historical ‘cry wolf’
tendency within nationalism – this is undoubtedly the right thing to do.
Peter Rushton was first
suspected of being an enemy plant more than ten years ago. A high-level meeting
was convened to discuss the affair presided over by the then Chairman of the
party, Mr John Tyndall. The view of the meeting was that while there were
several grounds for concern, one piece of information that Rushton was privy to
– that of an E. European tour of the then National Organiser, Richard Edmonds
and up to a dozen party members – had not been shown to have leaked and
therefore, Mr Rushton was given the benefit of the doubt. At around this time,
other nationalists formed a different view and proclaimed it quite loudly. In
the context of faction fighting between different nationalist groups, however,
it was felt by the leadership of the party that no credence could be given to
such statements.
The case for Peter Rushton
being an enemy plant comes primarily from North West Regional Organiser
Christian Jackson, former Manchester Organiser Alan Payne and former South
African Conservative party activist Arthur Kemp with small contributions from
several others. Some of the observations are small things and, taken by themselves,
of no great importance. But as anyone who knows how picture building works and
where definite proof is hard to find, they add up. Other points made are far
weightier and are, of themselves, sufficient testimony.
Chris Jackson has been the
party’s NW Regional Organiser for some years and so has been in a position,
over a long period of time, to witness events, know those to whom restricted
information has been given and draw conclusions. Alan Payne, likewise, has been
the party’s Manchester Organiser for many years until quite recently. Arthur
Kemp came to Britain in 1996 whereupon he met Peter Rushton. Both Chris Jackson
and Alan Payne have said that anyone wanting to know more should phone them –
Chris on 01706 814514 and Alan on 0161 794 5013.
The North West Case for
the Prosecution
It is believed that Peter
Rushton has been a long-term enemy plant from the very outset of his
association with the BNP and that ideology – Marxism-Leninism – has been the
prime motivation.
Peter Rushton has been proven
to participated in a vote and discussions on a Marxist-Leninist website.
Rushton admits this but says he was merely ‘mischief making’. However, he made
postings on the Usenet using his own name and home email address which suggest
going beyond mere mischief making.
1) All these Usenet
postings are still available on the Internet, and can be searched by any person
wishing to check: all that has to be done is to go to Google
(http://www.google.com); select ‘groups’ (just above the Google text search box)
and then type in ‘Peter Rushton’. This will reveal: a) Rushton’s ‘home’ email
address; b) Rushton voting yes to the creation of a Marxist newsgroup; c)
Rushton claiming ‘close contact’ with Trotskyites in response to an appeal for
information on the UK Marxist scene; d) Rushton saying he knows the people at
Living Marxism magazine; e) Rushton lecturing a ‘non-Marxist’ on the Marxist
view of the Russian elections; f) Rushton praising a homosexual Labour MP’s
election as the ‘best news of election night’ in a discussion on homophobia; g)
Rushton declaring the ‘importance’ of a Marxist interpretation of the English
Civil War.
Choice snippits include:
‘Your surprise may result from a non-Marxist misunderstanding of the Russian
Communist Party and its presidential candidate, Gennady Zyuganov’ (1996). In other words, the questioner does not
understand what is going on because he is not a Marxist – so now Rushton is
going to tell him!
And: ‘Steve Twigg’s
election was of course the best news of election night (especially for those
who remember his tragic defeat in OUSU)’ (1997).
2) Likewise, Peter Rushton
has also admitted to being a wide and avid reader of quite obscure and not so
obscure left-wing literature. Reading because of an interest in what the enemy
say? Or reading for pleasure?
Chris Jackson’s chief
observation of Rushton is that he never actively helped the party where he
could easily have done so. This is in marked contrast to those known enemy
agents within nationalism who joined for all the right reasons, worked hard and
were then ‘turned’. Tim Hepple (BNP, 1994) and Matthew Collins (NF, 1998) are
the two most recent examples.
3) Peter Rushton was
supposed to help form a Tameside unit some 8 years ago but didn’t.
4) Peter Rushton was given
the money to open a PO Box number for the area but didn’t. Local Hyde member
Frank Dawber saw him in the street and asked: “What are you doing about opening
the PO Box then?” Peter Rushton’s reply was to spit full in his face! There was
no provocation, simply copious spittle from Peter Rushton. Mr Rushton is an
educated man. Indeed, he is highly intelligent and would not have been at a
loss for words. As Chris Jackson said, Rushton’s action betokened hate. It
should also be known that Frank Dawber was an OAP even then and so would not
have been able to take Rushton to task for this, weedy though Rushton is.
5) Peter Rushton was
always given follow-ups by Chris Jackson to do in the
Stockport/Hyde/Stalybridge area. He never did anything with them.
6) Peter Rushton was
forever going by train to visit the party’s then bookshop in Welling, S.E.
London. Chris Jackson would always ask:
“Can you pick up 2,000 leaflets” etc. (to save money on the chronic cost of
postage), but Rushton never did.
7) Peter Rushton is a
card-carrying member of NUJ as a free-lance journalist. He has a 1st class
Honours degree from OxfordUniversity . He has talent in abundance. Yet what has
he done to help our cause? The answer is one article for Spearhead in the last
12 years under the name Peter Wilson. (Contrast this to his current “work” for
the “Heritage and Destiny” journal where he writes pages and pages of diatribe
against the BNP, looking as if the magazine is little more than another version
of Searchlight).
The pattern here (points
3-7) is that Peter Rushton never actively helped in any way. Nor has he helped
financially through donations or even the act of giving the party membership
dues, for Peter Rushton has only ever been a member for one year – 1995.
There have been several
meetings to which Peter Rushton has been to and which were leaked to
Searchlight, an anti-British hate group. This is an area fraught with
difficulty because the number of people who know a particular piece of
information from a meeting is usually wide and gets wider in the telling.
Nevertheless, Chris Jackson has narrowed down two leaks to Peter Rushton.
8) One occasion was a
meeting rendezvous at which the only people who knew about it were Chris
Jackson, Peter Rushton, the then Manchester Organiser Alan Payne, Nick Griffin
(the guest speaker) and Calvin Richards from Nottingham who was the r.v.
steward for redirection purposes. Chris Jackson had given everyone else a
different r.v. – precisely because he was unsure of Peter Rushton.
In the words of Mr
Richards: “I first met Nick in 1995 or it could have been 1996 at a Rochdale
meeting. Prior to the meeting, only five people knew of this particular
re-direction point including myself. I was dropped off there by Chris Jackson
just before 10.00a.m. Shortly after 10.00a.m. – the time given for the r.v., a
car with two Asians plus a cameraman drove past taking pictures. I had seen the
cameraman before and I recognised him as Searchlight’s usual Manchester
cameraman. Nick Griffin had phoned Chris to say he would be late and would go
straight to the meeting venue. Peter Rushton didn’t show up. Chris then picked
me up and went back for Rushton later on.”
As an aside to this, at the meeting itself Peter Rushton spoke to
Calvin (who had some wholesome ballad-type CDs and badges to sell at the
meeting – and the only time ever that he had done so). Rushton said he knew
some wealthy South Africans who wanted to make contact with Paul Burnley, the
then lead singer with white rock group No Remorse, to do a CD and ‘get one
over’ on Blood & Honour (the co-ordinators of such white rock groups). Again, in Calvin’s own words: “I told him
that I didn’t know Paul Burnley or how to contact him and that the CDs &
badges I was selling were a one-off fund raiser, but in the next issue of
Searchlight magazine, it was claimed that I was the E. Midlands Organiser for
B&H.”
9) At another meeting, the
rendezvous was, again, in Rochdale and Peter Rushton travelled in Chris
Jackson’s car. It was therefore believed by those attending that the meeting
would also be in Rochdale . However, the meeting was in Oldham (at a time when
the party didn’t have a group there). The further from Rochdale Chris Jackson
drove, the more agitated Peter Rushton became. Upon arrival at the Oldham
meeting venue, Peter Rushton said he had to go out and find a post box to post
a letter. This is Saturday, early afternoon now. Yes, most of you will have
twigged it – Saturday last post is midday! Having got thus far, it takes little
imagination to see that what Peter Rushton would have been looking for was not
a post box, but a phone box.
The interesting thing with
regard to informants is that very often they will boost their snitch money by
widening the list of those to whom they inform. After all, the information’s
the same and for just a few pennies for a photocopy of a written brief they can
also be on someone else’s payroll. So too, apparently, with Peter but he could
scarcely have guessed that the party’s influence runs so deep…
10) One of our members in
the North West is an ex-policeman. His son still is. His son told his father
(who, in turn, told Chris Jackson) that Peter Rushton is on the police list of
informants.
With the advent of the
Internet, it was obvious that the BNP would eventually get its own domain name
as American and German nationalists had done. Amazingly, the party leadership
ignored the phenomenon until Peter Rushton got the domain name bnp.net in the
mid-1990s. At the time, Rushton said that he paid for it all himself, but the
reality is that it was paid for by Manchester BNP, although he remained the
domain name owner. Getting the domain name and giving the BNP a presence on the
web is the only thing of note that Peter Rushton has done for the party. Given
that, it could be argued that far from being an enemy plant, Peter had only the
party’s best interests at heart. It certainly could be argued that way.
However, it could also be argued that the net was the future. The party was
bound to get on it, even with a technophobe leadership. Therefore to gain
control from the outset was the best option.
11) After Peter Rushton
got bnp.net, the site (which he never ultimately paid for) which now points to
the current BNP site – bnp.org.uk, was subject to continual problems stemming
from one source - Peter Ruston’s inability to pay the bill for the domain name
and the web space – two separate things. When either event occurred, which
happened without fail twice yearly, the site would be out of action for weeks
until someone within the party – never Peter Rushton – paid for normal service
to be resumed. Indeed, it was for this reason that the party moved away from
bnp.net leaving the latter as a mere pointer. Peter Rushton has been asked on
numerous occasions to write a letter to his service provider to turn the site
over to the party. Despite repeated verbal agreements, he never has.
At a meeting in London ’s
Chelsea Town Hall to hear historian David Irving speak, the BNP’s then
Manchester Organiser Alan Payne first met Peter Rushton. Alan sat with the then
Party Chairman John Tyndall and Peter Rushton. Rushton, as a Manchester boy,
wanted to know where the Manchester meetings were held.
12) Having told Peter
Rushton ‘the Black Lion’ once a month on a Sunday night, Alan was rather
surprised not long afterwards to see on TV’s Northern News a reporter revealing
where the party was holding its meetings.
13) Not long after this,
Alan Payne started to find himself getting quoted in the enemy Searchlight
magazine. Rushton was new and he was suspected. Others were also suspected, but
these over the course of time either moved or left the party. Eventually, Peter
Rushton was the only one left – and Alan was still being quoted.
14) In the early 1990s,
the party held its annual leadership meeting in the Blackpool guesthouse of one
of its supporters for two years in a row. Searchlight duly wrote an exposé and
unsuccessfully tried to financially ruin this party supporter. The guesthouse
owner – Alan – thought the leak was from any of four or five people, but his
personal preference was “the reporter” (Rushton had flashed his press card
around – he was and is a free lance journalist).
After the 1997 General
Election, Alan Payne was given nearly all the enquiries in the Greater
Manchester and Merseyside areas as the party was nowhere near as developed as
it is now. There were approximately 150 – and all received from the TV
broadcast of that year since the party fielded very few candidates in the North
West . Alan divided these into two equal amounts and gave half to Peter Rushton
along with the requisite number of stamps and Regional bulletins inviting
really interested people to get in touch. Alan posted out to those from the
west side i.e. Merseyside, Preston etc and Peter Rushton did the East side i.e.
Stockport, Rochdale, Burnley and Oldham etc.
15) Alan got 12 replies
back (about 1-in-6 of those he posted). Peter Rushton’s ‘posting’ got a nil
response. Alan’s conclusion: “He hadn’t done it.” Was it laziness? or theft and
sabotage?
16) One edition of the
Manchester Evening News ran a story on local BNP man Derek Summers. The
information therein was only known to Manchester members including Rushton.
Alan asked Peter Rushton whether there’d been anything in the newspaper,
knowing that Rushton always took the local paper. Rushton said “no.” A month
later, much the same story appeared in Searchlight. At this time, Alan Payne
said to Peter Rushton: “Have you seen what’s in here?” only to be told by
Rushton regarding the original piece in the M.E.N.: “Oh, didn’t you see it?”
Clearly, he had seen it in the first instance and lied about it.
17) On the occasion of
Oswald Moseley’s 100th anniversary, five Manchester members attended the 100th
Moseley bash. All five were named in Searchlight, but no one else in attendance
would have recognised all of them and they were split up all evening. One of
the five had to be the informant. Peter Rushton was one of the five.
18) Searchlight magazine
always mispelt Rushton’s name as ‘Rushden’. They appear to do this for two
reasons. One is to annoy someone by spelling their name wrongly, as they did to
Richard Edmonds for years – ‘Edmunds’ – and the other is to protect a source as
they have done recently in the case of Londoner Robert Jeffreys a.k.a. Bob
James when they mis-spelt his name ‘Geoffries’. Likewise, while there have been
plenty of photographs in Searchlight of Peter Rushton, they have all been from
the back or, alternatively, not very good.
19) At one Manchester
meeting. Chris Jackson turned up fresh from a job and was unshaven for 2 weeks.
Only Alan Payne and Peter Rushton knew the details of this meeting in advance.
By this time, Alan Payne suspected Peter Rushton and said to him: “If this
meeting gets blown, it’s down to either you, or me.” No report of this meeting
appeared in Searchlight, but a photograph of Chris Jackson did appear in
connection with another story some time later with Chris sporting a light beard
and wearing the work clothes from that time. There could have been only one
place the photograph had been taken – outside that particular meeting venue.
20) Peter Rushton had not
long been to an Oldham meeting. At that meeting, an idea had come forth
regarding challenging would be Asian immigrants as to their identity. Just a
few days later at a Manchester meeting in the Black Lion, Rushton outlined what
had been said. Three days later, the exact same words used by Peter Rushton on
that Sunday evening’s Manchester meeting appeared within an exclusive the
following Wednesday in the Daily Mirror. The story came from a ‘disenchanted
BNP member.’
21) In common with many
‘grasses’, Peter developed a bond with certain members of the target group. A
bond that would not let him betray them – others, yes – but not his friends.
Searchlight, knowing that it was read at that time by a fair proportion of BNP
activists delighted in printing mysterious messages on its back page – usually
to a ‘name’ – the whole thing reeking of a WWII BBC radio broadcast to occupied
France . One such said: ‘We have paid you plenty of money, we want to know who
the north west railway children are.’ The North West railway children were the
two members, including the Organiser Alan Payne, and two supporters who used to
attend the Manchester BNP meetings. Nothing ever appeared.
The South African
connection
Arthur Kemp met Peter
Rushton while visiting the old BNP offices in Welling , Kent , in 1996. Says
Arthur:
“He seemed friendly
enough, and he and I struck up a friendship of sorts. I provided him with a
computer disc with the full version of my history of the AWB which I planned to
produce as a cyber book, but which at that stage had not yet been published
anywhere. Importantly the version of the book which I gave to him contained
some important very recent updates, which no other person – on or off the
Internet – had ever seen before. At the time, I did not think this important,
although later it was to prove vital..
He read through the book,
and when he got back to me, he revealed that he was in close contact with Jani Allan,
the former Johannesburg Sunday Times journalist who features in the book in a
sordid sexual scandal with AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche. Through Rushton, Allan passed on the request
to me to take out a paragraph in the book detailing her addiction to
prescription medication – a request I refused.
I was slightly puzzled why
Rushton would have such close contact with Allan, as she was hardly the sort of
person to be involved with someone from the BNP, but dismissed it at the time
as a quirk – only later was I to understand the real reason behind the request.
In addition, I told
Rushton where I had obtained a job in London and a few other personal details,
including some of my own background. I also discussed with him the possibility
of the BNP raising funds by taking over the European distributorship of
Resistance Records, and I introduced him to another South African, recently
moved to the UK .
The first inkling that
something was wrong occurred when my South African friend’s place of employment
starting receiving telephone calls inquiring about him, and calls to his boss
telling him that he had employed a ‘South African neo-nazi terrorist’ etc, all
based on my friend’s past activities in the AWB in South Africa.
I immediately became
suspicious – as the only person who knew anything about my friend - in fact the
only person who even knew he was in the UK , apart from his boss and myself,
was Rushton.
I got my friend to lay
charges with the local police, as the caller had falsely told his employers
that they were calling from the local tax office, an impersonation forbidden by
law (they had sought his residential details, amongst other things - details
which the scared employer had sadly provided). I then contacted Rushton, and
told him that I had got my friend to lay charges so that if any details ever
appeared about him in Searchlight, the police would know who to press charges
against. The clearly shocked Rushton vanished, and I never heard from him
again.
Then my employer began
receiving the same type of calls. Did they know they had employed a South
African terrorist etc. etc., very nearly getting me fired, something I only
avoided with some very fancy footwork. Within a month, a front-page article on
me appeared in the September 1996 Searchlight.
In it, a lengthy article
on me:-
(a) announced that I was
in Britain ;
(b) ran almost verbatim
large parts of the text of the AWB book I had given Rushton on disc.
Critically, it quoted sections from a very recent update to the book – updates
which only Rushton had ever had access to (if you get hold of a copy of that
issue, you can compare it to the actual text of the book -- and then bear in
mind that I only put it on the Internet in 1999).
(c) said I was planning to
take over the European distributorship of Resistance Records;
(d) contained much
personal detail, which I had mentioned to Rushton, including where I held a
bank account at the time – known to Rushton as he’d seen the unusual Jersey
Island debit card which I had used to pay for a shared meal.
(e) ran photographs of me
taken at my place of employment in London ;
And numerous other things
that made it obvious that Rushton had supplied the information.
Simply put, there was
no-one else who:-
22) (a) knew I was in the
UK ,
23) (b) had the full
updated text of my AWB book;
24) (c) with whom I had
discussed Resistance Records;
25) (d) knew where I
worked; and
26) (e) knew where my
friend worked.
27) Later, when I returned
to South Africa, I established from Jani Allan herself that she had met Rushton
when she and her boss, the ex-SABC journalist, Cliff Saunders, had met with the
Searchlight editorial team in London when they were planning to make a
documentary about the South African right wing. This served to finally confirm
what I had already been able to deduce out of the content of the Searchlight
article: namely that Rushton was a Searchlight agent.
Saunders has since
returned to South Africa . I attach an article which deals with both him and
Allan, for your interest.”
Mail
and Guardian website:
THURSDAY, February 15,
2000
Cliff Saunders exposed as
apartheid spy
CHRIS MCGREAL, Johannesburg
Thursday 11.00am.
SOUTH African television’s
top political correspondent during the apartheid era, Cliff Saunders, has
revealed that he was a spy for the white regime’s intelligence service.
The confession came to
light in unusual fashion when Saunders submitted a demand to the National
Intelligence Agency for more than R100,000 in unpaid expenses.
Saunders wrote to
Intelligence Minister Joe Nhtanhla threatening legal action unless at least
half of the money for work done in London and South Africa was paid
immediately.
A ministry source accused
Saunders of trying to hold the government to ransom by threatening to tell all
in Court. He said the ex-spy had worked for the NIA “for decades.”
The former political
correspondent said in his letter that after the transition to democracy in 1994
he moved to the newly formed South African Secret Service, which deals in
foreign intelligence. He was posted to London where he claims to have recruited
the journalist Jani Allen to spy on prominent members of the Inkatha Freedom
Party.
Suspicions about Saunders
were first aired during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings when
former government agents claimed they had paid him to plant or distort stories.
Saunders, who has had little to say about the revelations, has also been
accused of informing on colleagues, some of whom were targeted by police for
detention without trial.
‘That’ programme
28) The Panorama TV
documentary of late 2001 tried very hard to portray the BNP’s RWB as something
unwholesome and thuggish. The evening’s entertainment in the RWB big top was to
an audience of perhaps just forty people (everyone else having gone to bed). Of
those, at least six were involved with the ‘turns’. The Panorama audio
recording (except for the bogus SS marching music – which was crystal clear and
obviously added onto the tape) was constant in its distortion – none of the
entertainers was the audio source, leaving only a maximum of 35 people.
Naturally, Peter Rushton was one of the 35.
Yes, the source could have
been one of 34 others, but how many more coincidences do you want?
Rushton confronted and
more recent events
After the usual late July,
2002 meeting of Oldham BNP, Peter Rushton was taken aside by party Chairman
Nick Griffin (who had been the guest speaker) and NW Regional Organiser Chris
Jackson and told that it was known that he was acting against the party’s best
interests and that he should “clear off.” Down the ages organisations that have
been betrayed by those who have pretended to be their friends have dealt with
this kind of person in a far harsher manner. Rushton got off lightly and the
fact that Peter Rushton has not been a member since 1995 made any kind of
disciplinary tribunal superfluous.
Peter Rushton is now,
apparently, screaming his innocence and telephoning anyone who will give him
five minutes to tell them of the ‘wrong’ done him. He has claimed that “even
the IRA would give someone a disciplinary tribunal.” His comparison of the
British National Party with a terrorist organisation responsible for thousands
of deaths like the IRA is outrageous. Tribunal? The IRA would have taken him
out and shot him!
Those individuals who have
given Peter Rushton a sympathetic ear and who have read this far should have
now formed a different opinion, for he has lied to them too. Equally, it should
be understood that there are others with an ulterior motive for wanting to keep
the issue alive and cast doubt upon the wisdom of Rushton’s identification as
an enemy plant.
As a dedicated opponent of
the party, Peter Rushton has only one role to left to play – to win sympathy
from the credulous and cause as much unhappiness and dissension as possible
over this affair. It is for this reason that Nick Griffin is his subject for
attack and Chris Jackson painted as not a bad chap, whereas it was Chris who
first identified and wanted rid of Rushton. In addition, upon told of his
exposure, Rushton was most hurt by what Chris had to say. For someone to strike
back out of a sense of hurt, Peter Rushton should have made Chris Jackson his
main target. He has not done so. With true Communist discipline, Peter Rushton
shows us it’s the politics which are most important.
Immediately after he was
told that he was no longer wanted, he was phoning people telling them that the
BNP had ‘kicked him out’ because he dared to speak at an NF meeting. This is
not true, but we are grateful to Wayne, a joint member, who has told us so –
although Wayne needs to be told to sever his NF links. Another supporter has
informed us that since his ‘outing’, Peter Rushton’s business telephone number
is no longer operational.
Since then, Rushton has
published two counterattacks: one supposedly relating to his exposure and the
other attacking the ‘secret witness’ Arthur Kemp, but as everyone who has seen
either this pamphlet or the first edition of Considerations for Proscription,
there is nothing secret at all.
Rushton claims that in the
first few days after his exposure, there was a wave of support for him.
Certainly, with no published evidence to hand at that time and only a garbled
account available of some of the points made in this booklet, it was easy for
Peter to rubbish his exposure. Not so since, however, for when he turned up at
an Oldham social club to win more sympathy, he was confronted by angry betrayed
Oldhammers who flung accusation after accusation against him. His normal cool
demeanour melted into tears as his evasions were uncovered, and his back
tracking led to more realisation that he’d lied. Under pressure, he lied on the
fly hoping to dig himself out of the hole he’d made, but he tripped himself up
again and again. This performance, more than any other convinced those present
that Chris Jackson and Alan Payne were fully vindicated in their assessment of
him.
Rushton’s other thrust of
attack has been to undermine the AWB book story, but the only person who had
seen the up-to-date changes, quoted in Searchlight magazine, was… Peter
Rushton. He then goes on to smear Kemp in order to devalue anything else he might
have to say, namely that he had ‘confessed’ to being an informant for South
Africa’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) and that charges were dropped
against him in the Hani murder case. These are straightforward lies. No charges
were ever laid against Kemp and Kemp was never involved with the NIS – a fact
admitted in a retraction by the extreme left wing Weekly Mail and Guardian
newspaper in Johannesburg which made the allegation. The full retraction
published by the Weekly Mail and Guardian, is on-line and can be viewed
at their website.
After alleging Kemp was an
NIS agent, Rushton goes on to allege that he was also a sergeant in the South
African police security branch. The truth is that Kemp was conscripted into
doing his national service in the police, serving as a uniformed Johannesburg
beat constable.
After this, Rushton
claimed that Kemp ‘gave evidence for the prosecution against his former
comrades’. In fact he was issued with a subpoena – and was a ‘forced witness’.
Contrary to the liar Rushton’s version of events, Kemp’s forced testimony: (1)
made no reference to accused number one (Walsuz); (2) merely backed up Clive
Derby-Lewis’ version of events; and (3) served directly to acquit the third
accused – Gaye Derby-Lewis, as the presiding judge made specific note of in his
final judgement when he acquitted Mrs. Derby-Lewis.
As to the NIS allegations:
the reality was that Kemp was being spied upon the NIS , not the other way
round. In fact, an NIS agent was monitoring everything that Kemp wrote – and
this was the sum total of the “NIS link”, a fact which was revealed in an
affidavit by the NIS agent concerned, submitted during the Derby-Lewis amnesty
hearing in 1997/1998.
Rushton clearly hopes that
no-one will bother to read up the publicly available court records of the case
or the transcript of the 1997/98 Derby -Lewis/Walusz amnesty hearing is
available on-line at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s official website
http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/
In further trying to smear
Kemp, Rushton reveals his own Communist sympathies by following the conspiracy
theory promulgated by the left-wing Weekly Mail and Guardian: The
ANC/Capitalist nexus (Mohammed Amin Laher never existed!); the second gunman
(no evidence – even on the ANC’s own admission); The unsolved Riley shooting
(he committed suicide – widely reported at the time); The ‘Riley warning’ (made
not by Riley, but claimed as such by his girl friend with no evidence when
looking for a story to sell); The missing Hani bodyguards (Hani, although
married, was having an affair with a Black air hostess from the then Transkei
Airways – and he had dropped his bodyguards off so that he could go and visit
her!)
It is also to be expected
that those who have a vested interest in the party’s misfortune will make
common cause with him. Sure enough, soon afterwards he was at the Rochdale home
of Peter Barker who was sacked as Organiser for giving information to the
enemy. Also present was John Tyndall, who was staying with Barker prior to
speaking in Burnley . John Tyndall’s take on the situation is cynical in the
extreme, which roughly translated goes: ‘It doesn’t matter too much whether
Rushton’s a plant – the party’s been full of them for years – what matters is
whether the affair can be used to damage Griffin.’ Indeed, when Peter Rushton
was quite rightly turned away from the Burnley meeting, Tyndall was loudly
complaining that the non-member and spy Peter Rushton should be afforded a
disciplinary tribunal.
It’s not often that a
pamphlet is published regarding one bad apple. The length of time that the
Rushton operation has been going, however, provide so many examples of what to
look for in an enemy plant, that this pamphlet is much like a training manual
in how to spot a ‘wrong ‘un’.
THE END
No comments:
Post a Comment