BNP leader Nick Griffin called to give evidence at employment tribunal

Michelle Harrington has accused Andrew Brons of sexual and religious discrimination and unfair dismissal.

BNP leader Nick Griffin has been called to give evidence at a Scottish employment tribunal between a punk singer and far right politician.

Michelle Harrington – also known as Mish Bondage – has accused the BNP’s Andrew Brons of sexual and religious discrimination and unfair dismissal.

American-born Mrs Harrington, singer with punk band Sado-Nation, was also an assistant to Mr Brons, the MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber.

The 49-year-old, from Edinburgh, worked for Mr Brons at an office in the centre of the city.

Mr Brons is embroiled in a bitter dispute with Mr Griffin after he contested the leadership of the party last May.

At the start of the employment tribunal last week it was revealed that Mr Griffin is due to be called as a witness.

It is believed Mr Griffin will give evidence for Mrs Harrington

As her alter-ego, Mish Bondage, she is plastered across the internet wearing leather and fishnets, sporting tattoos and with bright red hair.

But Mrs Harrington adopted a much more demure look for the preliminary hearing in Edinburgh, dressing in smart and sombre black clothing.

She was represented at the hearing by her husband, Patrick Harrington, the general secretary of the BNP-affiliated union Solidarity.

Mr Harrington said his wife had been subjected to months of internet abuse by anonymous bloggers while she was employed by the BNP.

In a bid to get a ruling that his wife’s identity was not reported, Mr Harrington spoke of her “deteriorating health conditions”, saying she suffered from “very severe stomach conditions, asthma and various other conditions affected by stress.”

Andrew Brons is the MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber

Mr Harrington said his wife had been the victim of “a public campaign of hatred when she was just doing her job”.

She had been described in one blog post as “a foreign bondage freak with contradicting decency and brutish values”.

Another, he said, described her as a “reprehensible woman of no worth and a degenerative”.

He added: “People seem to think its ok to vilify her on sexual grounds. Sexual discrimination and harassment is not acceptable in the workplace.”

Mr Brons’ legal representative opposed reporting restrictions, describing the Harringtons’ argument as “weak” and claiming: “Much of the allegations and evidence is in the public domain already.”

Mrs Harrington is also bringing the case against the BNP’s former national elections officer, Eddy Butler, claiming sexual and religious discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Employment judge, Ian McPherson, said he would issue a written ruling on whether Mrs Harrington should be anonymous at future hearings.

The case continues.

Previous articleLocal firms get orders from Forth Bridge subcontracts
Next articleCare home nurse attacks colleague


  1. I find it interesting that what the Claimant wore to court is highlighted in this article and contrasted with what she wears on stage. It’s not difficult to understand that people dress differently for different events. Everyone does this. That doesn’t make them deceitful or hypocritical just sensible.

    The sustained campaign of hate directed against Michelle and supported by a co-worker is unacceptable. No one should have to suffer discrimination and harassment of this nature when simply doing a job. The fact that Andrew Brons is an MEP makes his guilt far worse in my view. He failed to adequately protect the Claimant and terminated her contract early after she complained. For a public figure to seek to evade his duties to combat sex discrimination and counter harassment is a disgrace.

    I understand that the Claimant has suffered health problems which have been worsened by the stress she has been subjected to. As a woman and someone who believes in fairness and equal treatment I hope that she will find Justice in the Tribunal and that the evil people who have villified and harassed her are brought to book.

  2. Most people turning up in court dress accordingly. They dress differently according to the circumstances. This claimant’s stage persona is not who she is – it’s part of who she is.

    Her work for the respondent, Andrew Brons, was beyond reproach. [Her]’sins’ appears to be that she has her own mind, she’s not a member of Mr Brons’ party she sings a type of unapproved music and she is an educated woman who brooks no nonsense. I get the impression that folk around Mr Brons don’t like women much and that they expecially don’t like women who are cleverer than them. Hence the campaign of vilification, sexual slurs and harassment they encouraged and took part in against the claimant.

Comments are closed.