Talk:Solidarity (British trade union)

Popularity

This article desperately needs information about the popularity and power of the union. Heck, that's the reason I came to this page. :-P

They are due to send a report to the Certification Officer in the near future and it will contain an indication of numbers. The report (if it is sent) will also be citable as a source. I don't think the leaderships of the normal unions are losing much sleep over Solidarity. 62.7.129.219 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On June 20th, one report [2] (see the first comment) claimed that Solidarity had 100 members.--Ketlan 10:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since then Harrington and the BNP launched a massive recruitment campaign. They issued leaflets with the BNP members bulletin, organised an email campaign and distributed thousands of leaflets at the Loyalist parades in Belfast and Southport. - Art of War

Harrington has recently stated to the Northern Echo that they have two hundred members. This represents a doubling in quite a short space of time although the Union is still very small. - Art of War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BNP Front Group Category

I deleted the reference to the above category. Solidarity is not a front group. It is an independent group following its own direction. doublethink

Never mind 'doublethink' - it's clearly factual to state that. On the BNP's own website, a report on the current position of Solidarity states 'Both the BNP and Third Way leadership agree that the most important step forward for Solidarity organisationally is to expand its Executive from three to seven members, with one of the new members from Third Way and three from the BNP' thus giving the BNP (and its ally) the majority vote at all times. The union always was a front group for the BNP and will be for as long as it last (which won't be that long by the way it's going at the moment). Oh and please sign in or at least put a name so we can see who is making these arbitrary and needless changes.--Ketlan 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous to the EGM which expanded the Union Exec to seven there were three on it. Two, Hawke and Potter, were former or current members of the BNP. If Hawke and Potter are removed from the Exec (as seems likely) it will be interesting to see who replaces them. By your own argument the Union is currently a coalition of Third Way and the BNP rather than a 'BNP front'. When Executive elections are held we will have a clearer picture. There is no evidence to say that the Exec votes along Party lines. Quite the reverse so far! Art of War

Ketlan should know that Solidarity is holding independently scrutinised elections. Any member of Solidarity could have put themselves forward for a place on the Executive or for the position of President or General Secretary. It was advertised in internal bulletins and on the Union website. No one stood against Pat Harrington as General Secretary or Adam Walker as President. They were therefore elected nem con. The favoured faction of Ketlan and LUAF failed to put anyone forward. This was despite the fact that none have so far been subject to disciplinary action. The remaining five Executive places are contested by six candidates. Therefore, Ketlan, it is our members who have ultimately decided who will lead them. Independent and democratic. Oh, and by the way, we are still here and growing. Art of War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.151.32 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Management Team links to BNP

Relying on a BNP press statement to find out who runs Solidarity? Shame on you. The Gen Sec is Pat Harrington, President, Clive Potter and Vice-President Tim Hawke. Their constitution makes no mention of a 'Management Team' only industry sector heads and regional organisers. Just take a look at their website!

artofwar

Popularity

It looks to me like they are imploding. The Solidarity website has stated that someone else has Harrington's job and he is the only one in their leadership with real connections. Whatever they say they rely on BNP and Third Way support and both parties have removed references and links from their websites without explanation. A Nationalist Union without their support is going nowhere. Hopefully they are finished.

Cassandra

It might be worth having a look at these three reports before making any further changes (particularly the third one) [3] [4] [5] --Ketlan 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)All the information we have received indicates that the EGM was attended by just fifteen to twenty members - at least we assume they were all members - and a number of heavies, presumably to keep out the riff-raff like the rightful President and Vice-President of Solidarity, Clive Potter and Tim Hawke.

Cassandra should know that Pat Harrington and his team remain firmly in control. The lies of Potter/Hawke/McLinden are being nailed one by one. A full commentary on their 34 page illiterate 'Special Investigation Report' has been published in the archive section of the official Solidarity website (www.solidaritytradeunion.net). Scores of new members loyal to the Union have joined in recent months. Potter has been kicked out of the BNP and his days in Solidarity look numbered too. - Art of War

Splitters!

The article as it stands fails to reflect the fact that the Solidarity union has split into two mutually hostile factions, each claiming to be the 'real' Solidarity. Amusingly, each faction has its own website, the two looking rather similar, using the same logo and each claiming that the other is 'bogus'. A few months ago I ensured that the external links section included both of these websites, but one of them was deleted without explanation by an anonymous surfer a few days later. The impression I have is that this article has been hijacked by editors supporting of the factions (the one headed by Patrick Harrington) who have done everything to exclude any mention of the other faction. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which aims to reflect current reality and not merely facilitate propaganda by this faction or that. If there are two factions (which, judging by the websites, there are) then the article should reflect that. I have therefore restored the second 'official' website to the External Links section. Obviously, the text needs work too to correct the bias towards the Harrington faction, but I don't have the necessary knowledge and can't really be bothered! Twilde (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtually anyone can establish a website. Our Union is looking at legal means of closing down the childish spoof which is an attempt at disruption and misinformation. You have been fooled and maybe others too. This website is not anything to do with 'reality'. Members pay dues into bank accounts under the control of the official Union whose General Secretary I am. Elections for office are held by one Union and only one Union campaigns and represents members. The current situataion is that the 'faction' to which you refer has instructed its seven or eight supporters to cancel their membership payment. They have resigned. As you yourself admit you have little knowledge of our affairs so might I suggest that you are not in a position to edit this page or comment? Might I also say that the website link was in any case broken and I have therefore deleted it without regard to any other argument. Patrick Harrington (General Secretary, Solidarity) (Doublethink64 (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I suggest you read our conflict of interest policy if you are the real Patrick Harrington. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read it and I've prevented 'passing off' and defamation so am within policy. Thanks. Doublethink64 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Pat Harrington has obtained a trademark for Solidarity recently so I think he has a point. J Morrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References/citations

I've just tidied up the references, so that in the References section they appear as more than just numbers. Also, replaced a dead link with the citation request. However, it seens that most of the references to the Solidarity website do not back up the text as they should - perhaps the website has undergone a major rewrite since the references were made - so they are, in fact, useless. I don't have time to track down accurate refs if they exist - can someone else undertake this or, alternatively, delete any statements that remain unreferenced? Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One Big Union

How many members does it have ? I understand it is between 42 and 100. Does that include the legal kleagle Barnes? (lol). Perhaps Doublethink64 can help us on this one? --Streona (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just updated the One Big Union (concept) article with referenced information. It includes some new info on how the One Big Union movement was ridiculed, feared, and persecuted. And, there may be more of that to come.

Now it happens that the British Solidarity union's website does not link to the One Big Union Wikipedia article, but the British Solidarity union's Wikipedia article does. In this particular case, i contend that including the link in the text of the article (that is, actually adding the link to their text) may be inappropriate. It is creating an association that may be stronger than what is intended by the British Solidarity union.

I have no doubt that a link to One Big Union is called for in the British Solidarity union's Wikipedia article. But i think under the circumstances it might be more appropriate to demote it to a link in the See also section. Richard Myers (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I'm useless with Wikipedia and not up-to-date with policy and such, but it seems to me that this needs some kind of tag. One of the sections talks about "our" and "we" which is hardly objective. Illegant (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily a problem if it is a quotation. Richard Myers (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Formed by the BNP?

I've read the reference used to justify the statement that the union was "formed by the BNP". Nowhere in the referenced article is any evidence of this given. It just reports allegations and what "critics say". It doesn't appear that the union itself was approached for comment. On this basis I have removed the assertion. Before putting it back in may I ask that those responsible justify this in terms of the reference they have given. If they cannot they should allow the later discussion in the article of alleged BNP links to suffice.Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the link to The Voice article, which you just removed,[6][7] [8][9][10] on that specific point: [11]

Here's John Walker, treasurer of the BNP, discussing Solidarity's role in fund-raising for the BNP. [12] Clive Potter and Lee Barnes both also have major roles within both the union and the BNP. Here's Patrick Harrington of the National Front and Political Soldier signing one of Solidarity's own missives, incorrectly labelling EU workers as 'migrant workers' [13] Here's another independent source linking Solidarity to the BNP [14] Here's Solidarity's own official registration as a union (2017) giving Clive Jefferson (treasurer and deputy leder) of the BNP as an executive [15]

So, own your own history. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the last official return to the Certification Office (2018), Clive Jefferson ceased to be a member of the Union Executive on 3 March 2018. [16][[[User:Belfast Dissenter|Belfast Dissenter]] (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)]

The claim that the union was formed by the BNP is not borne out by the sources quoted. People with BNP associations such as Clive Potter and Lee Barnes don't play any part in Solidarity's Executive Committee today. Potter lost a complaint to the Certification Office in 2009 and has had no role since. Clive Jefferson was the only member of the EC known to be involved with the BNP. I suppose that some BNP folk such as John Walker, their treasurer, hoped to milk the union for funds. If so, it seems that he and his party didn't get their way and have since lost interest. The union doesn't have a political fund and doesn't so far suggest that it wants to establish one. Solidarity seems to paddle its own canoe; its definition of 'British workers' looks miles away from the BNP's. [[[User:Belfast Dissenter|Belfast Dissenter]] (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)]

Be careful not to confuse then with now. Emeraude (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute: introduction

The statement that Solidarity was formed by the British National Party doesn't seem to be borne out by the source cited. The references quoted express the suspicions of opponents of that party. This doesn't mean that their suspicions were untrue, but their assertions are unproven. Nick Knowles of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, said that Solidarity "may simply be a front for the BNP". The headline and the tone of The Voice's article assumes that these suspicions are correct. I suggest that rather than state that Solidarity was "formed by the British National Party", the entry should read was "allegedly formed by the..." or perhaps, "was formed in late 2005. Critics claimed that it was formed by the British National Party."

The evidence does show that BNP members and the party's current chairman, Adam Walker, were involved with the union in its early days. However, there doesn't seem to be have been any BNP involvement in the union's national executive committee since 2018. It's possible that BNP folk were involved initially, but lost interest. It's possible that the BNP did found the union, but then were ousted from power. (Belfast Dissenter (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC))

All of what you say is possible, but the generally accepted view is that it was founded by the BNP or its members for BNP members before it got tied up in the various machinations that led to the BNP itself splitting in faction fights. There is no reason to suppose that those views are not correct. Using "allegedly" might do it, but it ought to be possible to find some more references that will more definitive rather than rushing to make alterations. Emeraude (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

For example:

"At the same time, another split in the BNP was emerging in the struggle for power in the party's Solidarity Trade Union for British Workers." Simon Tomlin, The Fanatics: The rise of European nationalism, p 197 4th edition, 2011, Halkon BooksISBN 978-1-4478-8059-2 I believe this book is available online.

"He [Lambertus Nieuwhof] is also named as the administration organiser for the Solidarity trade union set up by senior BNP members to protect the rights of "British" workers." Matthew Taylor, "BNP avtivist took part in terror campaign", The Guardian, 31 March 2007

"Harrington crept back on to the radar with his involvement in the Solidarity "trade union", a BNP front which quickly descended into factionalism and farce when its two founders accused Harrington of financial impropriety." "'The world is divided into those who have never met Patrick Harrington and those who hate his guts'", Lancaster Unity, 10 March 2011 Emeraude (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to get hold of a copy of "The Fanatics" to check these references.

I can see why BNP members might be attracted to Soldarity if they had been previously expelled by other unions. Quite a few party members were expelled when their affiliations became known. There is one well-documented case in 2008. This was in Lisburn, County Antrim where a member of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance union was expelled when his name appeared in a leaked list of party members. Perhaps the entry could be amended to say that Solidarity was originally founded in 2005 by members of the BNP? Belfast Dissenter (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References