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 Oxford University. 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 greatful 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