I read with interest 'A Quick Retort' on the Eddy Butler Blog. I attended Court to advise Nick Griffin (in a personal capacity).

Mr Butler states:-
"Due to these factors and because the case had only been booked for one day and that day had pretty much already gone out the window, when they discussed whether the case should more appropriately be heard in front of a Divisional Court, no one objected. The Equality Commission’s barrister led the discussion on this point of law. It was by no means clear whether had Nick Griffin turned up on time and had he submitted his papers in a timely manner, the case may well have been heard that day. Very strict deadlines on the submission of papers were set in order to avoid a repetition of the same circumstances."

As someone who failed to get enough nominations to mount a leadership challenge Mr Butler obviously wishes to portray Nick Griffin in the worst possible light. It was clear to all those in Court, however, that an error in law meant that the case had gone to the wrong Court. It should be heard by two Judges at the Divisional Court (as opposed to one Judge at the High Court). This problem was pointed out by a Barrister representing one of the Defendants and reported to the Court by the Equality Commissions barrister (as is normal practice). Is Mr Butler deliberately seeking to confuse this point? There was absolutely no possibility of the case being heard on that day at that court as an administrative error meant that we were not before the right one! This was nothing to do with Mr Griffin, the error was made by the Court Service. Mr Butler is either deliberately lying or does not understand plain English. A knave or a fool. I will let you decide?

Certainly the Judge gave directions as to the submission of evidence. Not just to Mr Griffin but to all parties. It is very sensible to have a timetable for this particularly when one of the defendants is representing himself (as Mr Griffin is). Additionally, the Judge directed that the papers be marked to allow the new Judges one day to read the substantial papers in the case in addition to the two days allocated for the hearing. The application by Mr Griffin to have the case struck out will also be heard first.

Communication has been a problem in this case. I think it is fair to say that there is little love lost between the BNP and the Commission. On the initiative of Mr Griffin, however, a meeting was held where all parties to proceedings were able to talk things over. At times this was heated but by the end a clearer picture had emerged of the respective positions. At least now everyone understands what they are arguing about!

The case will now be heard by two Judges at a Divisional Court in November. Loyal BNP members, patriots and lovers of freedom will doubtless protest outside and pack the gallery to give moral support. Doubtless Mr Butler will skulk outside and appear in the gallery again to show his lack of support and further display his envy and spite.