BNP in the Lords – data leak names sitting peer as a party member

You’d think the BNP would have tightened it’s data handling after the leaked list fiasco back in November 2008. Tomorrow may prove their disregard for data protection, as another list will be leaked.

However, this one is causing a lot of controversy on the Twitterverse and blogosphere tonight as it reveals the name of a peer that holds BNP membership. Unsurprisingly there’s a lot of speculation but nothing concrete.

There’s no sign of the list yet, although it’s rumoured to be released sometime tomorrow.

The Guardian – who first broke the news – reports that the following data is also included in the list:

• The BNP had 11,560 members as of April this year, including one peer.

• The party appears to have benefited from a surge in female recruits – one in eight of the party’s members are now women.

• The highest concentrations of membership lie in Leicestershire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire.

No doubt this list has been leaked by some disgruntled far-far-right nutjobs in the party, believing the BNP to have gone soft under Griffin. Either way, this isn’t the best timing for the party – what with BBC Question Time upcoming on Thursday.

So the blogosphere waits with baited breath on the revelation of the BNP peer – and the BNP attempt to better protect their databases. Perhaps hiring people who hold an unflinching admiration of Griffin would be a good start – perhaps not disgruntled nutjobs?

Update: Nick Griffin gives his official response:

“This is all an evil, Marxist media conspiracy designed to spread lies about the BNP and stop them telling the truth of Britain and quash the BNP’s success. It’s them damn Guardianistas, I tell you. And the UAF, it was them too!”

Well, okay – maybe Griffin didn’t say that precisely – but his official response follows the same line.

Meanwhile, Political Scrapbook reports that the Guardian are currently waiting on a response from the peer in question. There had been some suggestion that the peer was an error involving “Lord Adam Murray”, a fake on the first leak. Nothing else is known as yet.



  1. Just to say that the last BNP from 2007-08 list included a “Lord Adam Murray” – he is not a member of the House of Lords, and I can’t find anything to counter the suspicion that he is somewhat self-styled.

    The Guardian have said they have seen the list but are unable to verify its authenticity, and that it ‘appears’ to include one peer.

    If they’ve just seen a redacted version, or have seen the name and assumed he is a real peer (and one who sits in the Lords), then this horrible prospect might yet be an error.

    I can’t believe anyone with the political nouse to get a seat in the Lords – or one of the 92 hereditaries – would be so stupid as to formally sign up for the BNP, esp after last year’s leaks, unless they were prepared to admit to it.

    Something not quite right just yet.

  2. Good points.

    The list is meant to be a snapshot of the membership as of April 2009, so if the “Lord” is clearly the same one listed in the November 2008 leak, then it’s likely to be an error.

    If not, then it’s a dire issue.

  3. Rose – thanks to @psbook, we’ve established that it is a new peer – the Guardian know who, and they are confirming with him/her before publishing.

    The stupidity of joining secretly after the last leak is incredible. Either join and throw a press conference, or don’t allow your data to be held, but to join and hope no-one would find out is criminally stupid.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s