What has happened?
The National Council became aware on Tuesday of an organised attempt to disrupt the party and discredit its leadership.
When RO Mike Lynton learned that a circulating letter was being drafted, he told those behind it to stop, list any genuine grievances and send them to him—a routine and fair way to resolve issues. We have always asked members to pick up the phone and speak to their RO or the relevant department head. The instigators refused.
Instead, they have passed a letter around, adding membership numbers to imply support, then editing the text so signatories cannot possibly agree with every word. The result is a diatribe containing more demands and confusion than genuine complaints, including the outrageous claim that the chairman must resign or the signatories will go public. They set an impossible 24-hour deadline, knowing we have ongoing party business and our own work commitments.
This is nota request for redress; it is a document filled with rumours and lies, designed to be leaked to social-media, the reds and the lying press to cause maximum damage. Their group chat is even named “homeland self-destruction club”, revealing clear malicious intent. They have stated that, if thwarted, they will simply invent further allegations.
We have now received three different drafts of the letter—the latest at 03:45 this morning. Even if we wanted to reply, which version are we meant to address? It is astounding that those who presume to instruct us how to run a political party cannot even produce and circulate a single coherent letter.
Furthermore, Kai Stephens appeared tonight on a Steve Laws live-stream. Laws has refused to speak to us since April yet attacks us continually. This proves the ultimatum was issued in bad faith; they always meant to air the letter publicly.
They even claimed to be “those who have been loyal from the start” and to “want nothing more than for nationalism to succeed”. However, broadcasting internal grievances on a hostile channel is the very opposite of helping nationalism to succeed.
Mike Lynton was in attendance on that space, but Laws refused to allow him to speak to challenge the lies.
What has been the immediate response?
We recognise that some concerned members have been swept up in this and are not responsible for its authorship; the total number of signatories is exaggerated to be 61 (out of around 1,400 members).
On Wednesday, the National Council met with all ROs to agree a response. First, the ROs contacted everyone named (or numbered) in the letter to confirm their intentions. Most replied that, while they have some concerns, they were unaware that letter has been changed several times to include demands that they would never endorse, and will not resign.
Several names or numbers do not belong to members at all; those individuals will not be contacted.
Why is this happening?
Almost all of what’s going around stems from classic Chinese whispers – people chatting online in private without proper context, repeating odd claims to each other, and then reinforcing it because “they’ve heard the same thing elsewhere.” This kind of echo chamber nonsense is how falsehoods gain momentum.
Much of what is said is not only false but *easily* proven false – down to specifics like “so-and-so said this at this location” when they were actually miles away at the time.
Worse still, some of it involves people *outside* of the party – people with a grudge, behaving like jealous ex-girlfriends, doing everything they can to sow disruption.
What can those with grievances do?Genuine grievances are always taken seriously. Please do not hesitate to contact any member of the team if you feel you have genuine concerns. Speak to your RO, department head, or the Chairman whenever clarity is needed. Ask direct questions. That has always been encouraged.
Even if its just a worry, or something that are not happy about: talk, don’t hold it in.
Why are we sending this email?Because we know the content of that letter will inevitably be passed around and made public. It is better to set the record straight now, no matter how much it pains us, than allow rumours to spread unchecked.
Predictably, a communist outlet already has the draft because the letter’s authors share it in anonymous online groups that are easy to infiltrate.
So who is behind this?
Primarily, a tiny minority of people we have repeatedly given chances who have let us down in serious ways. Some walked away themselves, others we’re asked them to step aside yet stay in the party, keeping their shortcomings private so they could preserve their honour, remain involved and improve. They have repaid that leniency with bitterness, spreading dissent and lies that drain morale and deter new volunteers who were never part of the original issues.
In hindsight we should have been firmer. Our empathy has been a weakness; we should have acted sooner against those who mask their own inadequacy by slandering others.
We have always considered it beneath the party’s dignity to engage in online drama and have urged members to ignore it, dealing with concerns face to face or by phone. After much deliberation we accept that this stance has sometimes worked against us, allowing the dishonourable to pose as virtuous and attack us with impunity.
It is therefore useful for members to know who is behind the current attacks.
Kai Stephens
A troubled young man who acts on impulse with little regard for others. We have invested heavily in him, shielding him during serious personal and legal difficulties and absorbing public criticism on his behalf. We have apologised for him countless times to our own members. We thought he was improving, but evidently not. After much support, this is how he repays us.
Jerome O’Reilly
No longer a party member. Originally appointed treasurer, he proved less than competent and even lost the keys to £2,000 of Bitcoin. We replaced him with the very efficient Daniel Gale in January, and promoted Tom Batten to East Mids RO in his place. Jerome remained Wales RO but achieved little and leaked snippets of National Council business. In April, we thanked him for his good work and asked him to resign quietly so he could keep his reputation; he has repaid that discretion by spreading dissent. He didn’t renew his membership, so we don’t know why he thinks he should have a say in how the Party is run now.
Sam Wilkes
An immature online commentator hiding behind a pseudonym who cannot work in a team. He recruited a group of non-members to attack the party rather than resolve disagreements face to face, then ran away when confronted. He claims to be a Nationalist yet contributes nothing to the struggle, while attacking those who do. He pushes a hard line he will not follow himself: when Kenny said on a livestream that he would not deport someone’s Portuguese wife, Wilkes attacked him even though Wilkes has brought his Latvian wife and children to the UK.
The authors of this letter have been so cowardly that they have not even admitted to being the authors, but we know these people are heavily involved.
There are others displaying similar behaviour whom we have tolerated so far; they are not worth exposing at this stage.
Dealing with the nonsense in the letterIt is difficult to respond to its contents because it is so meandering and incoherent, but we will do our best.
Media Management
Much of the criticism focuses on our media output, as though the sole measure of success were the volume of posts. That might apply to a media outlet, but we are a political party with finances, regulatory duties, administration, councillors, boots-on-the-ground activism, and press enquiries to handle.
We accept that our media output is not yet where it should be and are putting measures in place to improve it. The root problem is simple: everyone involved is a volunteer with a busy life and we do not yet have enough helpers.
The outlets we are routinely compared with are not even parties; they employ paid staff to run their social media and therefore produce much more content.
Media work is the hardest area for us because it demands constant attention and professionalism, yet we have no paid staff. When volunteers are pulled away from their normal duties to cover media, other areas inevitably suffer.
Many of those now complaining were given media tasks and did not complete them, or joined the media team only to be removed for ignoring instructions or disrupting others. There is also a fair amount of back-biting: people who have never contributed anything constructive to our media output are quick to lecture others instead of leading by example.
No team can function if members refuse to be team players.
Solutions:
- Grow the media team: we are actively recruiting volunteers with proven skills.
- Quicker turnaround: tighten production timelines so content goes out faster.
- Clear expectations: every media volunteer will work to written terms of reference and output quotas.
- More faces, more reach: build a roster of young, relatable spokespeople who release regular videos on current affairs, party policy and leadership updates.
- Timely statements: aim for same-day responses on major issues.
“Too much focus on foreign allegiances, not enough focus on domestic politics”
A brief version of this “grievance” is that Kenny and Martin went to Vienna the same week as an Epping protest, showing misplaced priorities, that there is a systemic misuse of party funds, and that Epping was not supported adequately. The truth is as follows:
- Trip agreed months earlier
We were invited to Vienna months in advance; it was a pre-arranged working visit, not a demonstration. Travel and accommodation for such trips are paid either by the host or by a wealthy supporter’s earmarked donation – never from general funds. Had the authors asked, they would have been told this. - Transparent finances
All costs are reported at each AGM. Allegations of hidden spending are baseless. - Strategic gain for our people
Direct contact with successful nationalist parties brings campaign skills and future funding we can deploy at home. These trips are demanding: delegates work very long hours and sometimes have little desire to go. They are not sightseeing holidays. - Community politics in Epping
The Epping protest had to be led, and be seen to be led, by local residents. Kenny lives nowhere near Epping; had he appeared, hostile media would have cried “far-right hijack”, undermining the residents’ effort. We criticised others for doing exactly that and issued press releases to distance ourselves from such practices. The authors know this. - Support was delivered
After the assault on a local girl by a migrant, we gave activists, particularly Callum Barker, hours of coaching, dealt with endless press enquiries and defended him publicly. Press releases were prepared where needed. - Social-media output
We cannot publish photos or updates we never receive. Despite repeated requests, key material was not passed to the media team. Even so, we shared what Callum supplied online and thanked him. It is notable that at one point Callum asked London RO Sam Sibbons to take down a post due to his nervousness. - Local leaflets
In a fast-moving situation a leaflet can become redundant before it is printed, especially when everyone is spinning plates. - Logistics resolved
No pre-made wooden placards or A3 printer were available locally, so we couriered placards overnight and used existing fronts that were more than adequate. Turning that rapid response into a criticism is baffling.
Our relationships with European nationalist parties have provided us with resources, insights, and solidarity in a shared cultural struggle. We have alliances, some of which have resulted in members now getting work experience within parliaments to understand the process and dynamics of politics. If there is not enough activism in an area or enough media output, then those are unrelated issues.
Appealing to the Public
Our aim is to promote Nationalism to as broad an audience as possible; pitching it so narrowly that it appeals only to a select few would be political suicide. We don’t apologise for that.
Joe Public is not a myth, they are the average disaffected men and women, who might be naturally nationalistic but turned off by aggressive aesthetics or erratic rhetoric. Our goal has never been to dilute our ideas but to present them with maturity and nuance.
We are trying to build something new. It is notable that authors of this letter do not want to help build, but want to tear us all down.
The National Council
No member has ever been “purged” from the National Council. Some have stepped down for normal reasons(work, family or time constraints) and remain loyal members. A handful have resigned over irreconcilable differences or because the intensity of Council work did not suit them, or the they simply stopped turning up, but none were forced out.
A majority-voting governing body is essential to any serious party. We encourage robust debate in formal meetings but discourage endless back-and-forth in group chats. There is no “culture of compliance”, only the normal acceptance of majority decisions and the principle of collective responsibility once a vote is taken.
Council portfolios are: Chairman, Treasurer, Administration, Technical, Policy, Nominations, Stewarding, Media and International. In addition, the Regional Organisers for the four highest-performing regions (Scotland, South East, Eastern and West Midlands) hold seats.
Not every party member will know each National Council member personally; some work solely behind the scenes on specialist tasks.
The Chairman’s role is to keep the organisation running smoothly and enforce party discipline when needed. From the very first draft of our constitution we allowed for a separate political-leader post, but that seat will stay vacant until someone able to carry its weight comes forward.
Strong leadership is not tyranny. Kenny Smith and the NC have had to make difficult decisions under pressure, often while facing infiltration and sabotage. Direct language used in private is being quoted selectively and out of context. Many of the accusations are unsubstantiated, exaggerated or hearsay.
Whilst this is a nationalist organisation, it appears that some members feel comfortable being radical in their speech but they are not comfortable being spoken to in a matter-of-fact tone.
Party Stagnation and Denialism
We are in a phase of recalibration, not stagnation. New branches, fresh recruits and successful protests show we still have momentum. Every organisation experiences peaks and troughs; growth cannot accelerate constantly. We do accept, however, that our communication on recent progress has been lacking. If those who signed the letter saw the work under way nationwide, they would recognise that our overall trajectory is up, not down.
The charge is that we are not expanding quickly enough. In truth, we are prioritising quality over sheer numbers. Recruit the right people and more of the right people will follow. The approach suggested by those who left would attract the undisciplined people, serving their own egos rather than genuine nationalism.
The party has been growing steadily all year. The only dip was the loss of 22 members in April; swiftly offset by new joiners. The notion that the Administrator, every Regional Organiser and the entire National Council are lying, while a handful of disgruntled ex-members with no access to the data somehow know the “real” numbers, is farcical.
Democratisation
Every demand, even if we agreed to them all, remains un-implementable. The authors of the letter confuse pressure with power. They propose votes that have no legal standing and ignore the Party’s governing document.
The Party is bound by a Constitution ratified by the membership. No false signature tally or social-media poll can override it.
Clause 1.5: “At a General Meeting, the Party Members must approve this Constitution and any amendments by a special resolution.”
Any change must go to a General Meeting and secure a 75 per cent vote of members in good standing. That is the law. Anyone who does not understand this is not ready to lead.
The ultimatum demands immediate “reforms” that would break our legal compliance. Throwing the Constitution out of the window is not leadership; it is fantasy.
There is a lawful route to change:
- Draft a motion to amend the Constitution. Call a General Meeting.
- Present the case to the membership.
- That requires patience, strategy and maturity, not an ultimatum that gifts ammunition to the press and our opponents.
Already in progress:
A draft fourth edition of the Constitution, with measured democratising reforms suitable for a party of our size, is being prepared for consultation; target date September. Had the authors asked, they would have known this. And we have said it would happen as the party grows at least twice during Q&A sessions.
Policy
The letter claims our remigration policy is “less authoritative than UKIP, Britain First or Rupert Lowe”. Yet they have no coherent policy of their own, only scattered social-media posts. Writing policy and reinforcing it online are different tasks. Gaps in media output do not mean the policy is wrong.
If the authors had asked, they would know a 10,000-word updated remigration policy is already in draft. It details eligibility, legal mechanisms, timelines and costs.
British family non-issue
A clipped livestream segment shows Kenny saying he would not deport an Englishman’s Portuguese wife who is the mother of his children. Critics leap from that remark to the fantasy that we have adopted a “civ-nat” line where “anyone can be British.”
Bad actors lifted a few seconds of a much longer broadcast, ripped it from context and circulated it to smear the party. Kenny was speaking about a hypothetical involving a family; he was not announcing new policy on air.
We do not make policy ad hoc in livestreams. All policy is published in writing and is crystal-clear on genuine nationalism; there is no mention anywhere of a wider “British family” concept.
One off-the-cuff remark, months ago and taken out of context, does not override our written positions. Anyone can confirm this simply by reading our policies. The fact that the authors still go on about it months later as though it was a significant gaffe, shows their own lack of perspective.
This was even tacked in a tweet here:
https://x.com/KennySmithHP/status/1936531189155721353
Responding to all sorted nonsensical claims
- Nobody here is courting “civ-nats” or “London-set conservatives”; we don’t move in the same circles.
- There is no “gay spaces policy” and never has been. One or two lines in a detailed policy opposing Gender Ideology merely note that some gay people reject that ideology and do not wish to be bundled in with it. Bad actors ripped those lines out of context and built a fantasy around them. Not a single person resigned over this, and nobody lodged a formal complaint.
- The letter cites no examples of Kenny “adopting diluted, mainstream positions” on multiple livestreams. Claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We are rarely invited on livestreams precisely because most hosts see us as too radical.
- Nobody has ever said, “There are only 1,200 nationalists worth having.” Membership is growing and currently stands at around 1,400.
- When allegations surfaced about a new Branch Organiser, Carter MacAfee in Northern Ireland, it was during a busy workday, yet people demanded an immediate response from officers who were simply unavailable. Discipline is a matter for the relevant RO and the Chairman. The full facts were not there until 48 hours after. When Carter was presented with the information, he chose to resign; although he had renounced the objectionable behaviour long ago, he accepted that it would limit his effectiveness. Case closed—we made no further public comment. Our refusal to jump at online demands seems to be the real issue. We always try to deal with these things internally and discreetly.
- There are no “constant attacks on former members.” Our rule is to ignore online drama and move on. When ex-members keep attacking us or sowing dissent, some people will naturally form negative opinions and voice them if asked. This is something we cannot police.
- Reporting concerns is not “snitching” when it’s done to preserve integrity. A party that tolerates mutiny and disloyalty soon ceases to exist. That said, we acknowledge that our internal channels may have contributed to a sense of paranoia for some members who don’t understand the need.
- The call for the Chairman’s resignation is farcical. He has delivered steady growth and, crucially, the critics offer no credible successor. Forcing him out would create a leadership vacuum and gift our opponents an easy win.
- “aversion to taking any firm stances on any hot button political issue of the day”. We do take stances, but don’t always have people available to read the news and react real-time. We are volunteers with jobs and families. The party has consistently opposed involvement in foreign conflicts, including those linked to Israel. If our coverage appears limited, it is either because the author is unusually fixated on the issue or because, as a volunteer organisation, we do not always have people free to comment all day.
- Pete North left the policy team months ago, citing creative differences. Apart from some helpful input on housing, he has had no lasting influence on our work. Any suggestion that he, or any “Zionist influence”, now shapes party policy is a complete non-sequitur and shows how far the letter’s authors have drifted into paranoia.
- The notion that anyone on the National Council or within today’s policy team would tolerate influence that runs counter to our nationalist principles is absurd. We have just added first-rate new talent; three young professionals now developing genuinely radical proposals.
Conclusion
As a Party we are always looking to improve. When people have ideas, suggestions, or want to contribute we are always open to that. It is written into our constitution that Officers should be seeking out new talent and people with skills that the Party can utilise. The notion that we do otherwise is absurd.
We are a volunteer organisation which has achieved incredible things in our short history. The level of sacrifice from our core Officers and activists is incredible. Sometimes we take a chance and add people to our team to advance the Party, but then discover that these people are unable to work under in a pressurised or team environment.
We will always work in the best interests of the Party, to protect the good name of nationalism and allow people who don’t measure up to walk away without any stain on their character. Unfortunately, some people choose to besmirch others rather than hold their hands up and admit they weren’t cut out for the real world of frontline nationalist politics.
We don’t do online drama, we simply want to do what’s right for our people. We also know that the vast majority of members are unaware of this minor irritation, and we take no pleasure in making this statement. It is however necessary to protect the integrity of the Party and to demonstrate that those individuals currently attacking the Party are people who have not been able to work to the high standards expected of those who are promoting Sensible Nationalism.
What we have accomplished in two years outshines everything that has gone before in the previous decade. We will not be diverted from the path we are on by those who only want the freedom to post online in an undisciplined and stereotypical manner. We will always take on board constructive criticism, and have implemented changes as a result of members’ feedback in the past.
We ask Party members to speak to Branch Organisers, Regional Organisers or anybody on the National Council if you have any concerns or ideas. We are keen to expand our Officer and working group base. Our slogan ‘be the change you want to see’ is not just rhetoric; we want to be a Party of a thousand leaders.
Every community needs a Homeland Party leader.
