obviously the intermediate pages were too 'close to hoolie literarture for comfort' for an academic distanced from his topic
I read it a few times now, and still can't work out the logic used for his rubbishing of the book's point about him being wrong and AFA being right about the electoral breakthrough of the BNP
So even though back then at the time he completely dismissed it as a possibility and AFA predicted it - and then a decade later it happened - he's somehow still correct in what he said back then because even though something he said would not happen, did happen, it might not have happened. And also according to him he was correct to predict that it wouldn't happen because at the time it didn't seem obvious (to him) that it would happen - you would have thought in this context (i.e it not seeming obvious to him) he would have afforded more respect to the prescience of AFA's analysis - rather than attempt to rubbish it, even though it's as a clear as day whose analysis was left wanting
As 39th Step says, he doesn't seem to pleased at the entrance of this book into the academic world and seems intent on dismissing its contribution either intellectually, academically or otherwise
edit: also shows the huge distance from reality that academics inhabit - his justification for his dismissing of the prospect of an electoral breakthrough for the BNP was that at the time in 1998/1999 Tyndal was still in control, but it shows how little the developments both within the BNP over the 6 years or so prior plus the emergence of new labour etc. had completely passed him by (or at least didn't form any input to his analysis of the direction the BNP was going in and the opportunities that were opening up for it)
