Nick Griffin tweets investigated by police

[EauRouge]

Story here

I still can't believe he tweeted their address, called for people to protest outside their house and then had the gall to complain about bullies.

[picnicbasketcase]

I saw someone retweet him, calling for as many people as possible to report him for it, and quite rightly so. What a detestable man he is.

[trockodile]

It is unbelievable that this man (presumably being paid from the public purse) is allowed to remain an MEP. Really hope that he is prosecuted for threatening behaviour and inciting hatred.

[picnicbasketcase]

Thick ficking thugs - BNP tongue twister

[zombieplanmum]

I hate the BNP, and i especially hate nick griffin - i think he does make a good point, anyone who doesn't stand up for the good of this country should be deported - I'd happily conrtribute to the cost of his flight to some remote island off the coast of nowhere, he can set up his only little colony, he'll be much happier there.

[sieglinde]

This is part of a new scary pattern in European fascism - Golden Dawn in Greece are doing the same thing to immigrants. They send their lads round, attack the families, and then clear them out of the neighbourhood. Story is in the Guardian world news.

I HATE Griffin too. But if we say THEY are inhuman then we become part of the problem, not part of the solution. While I love zombie's suggestions, I hear uncomfortable echoes of the very 'cleansing' Griffin himself wants. Which is NOT to say she is a fascist, but that we can't be too careful. hard times are good times for fascists; they always have been.

[EmBOOsa]

Absolutely fuming, has anyone heard the radio interview? He said, about the gay couple, "they asked for it"

Surely this falls under inciting hatred? I hope to god those two men are safe somewhere

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It probably falls under inciting disorder.... rather like the thickos that were urging people to go looting in Northwich the other summer. Griffin is another such thicko.

[EdithWeston]

Didn't the person who sent messages adjudged to have been inciting people to riot receive a custodial sentence?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

If you mean Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan, yes they were jailed. I haven't seen Griffin's tweets - not a follower surprisingly - but, even though he is a bit on the thick side, I expect he will have worded them to avoid the accusation of inciting a riot. Disorder more likely...

[EmBOOsa]

According to BBC, this is what he tweeted
"So Messrs Black & Morgan, at [their address]. A British Justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a..." then "...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!."

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Must be illegal surely...

[somebloke123]

I think I read recently that the BNP is essentially imploding. Their popular support is also massively down on what it used to be, which was never very high anyway (not that much more than the Greens). I suspect Griffin is just trying to get back into the news. I suppose he is succeeding to an extent.

There is actually a real debate to be had about where the boundary between public (and legitimately subject to state intrusion) and private (and not) should lie. Does the principle "my house, my rules" apply if you let your spare room to a paying guest, or not. There are two sides to it.

But to call for the gay couple to be harassed is indefensible, whatever view you may take about their legal action against the Christian B&B owners.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"Does the principle "my house, my rules" apply if you let your spare room to a paying guest"

It does, but your house rules have to be legal ones. In the bad old days the famous landlady sign said 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs'.... and we've, quite rightly, said that these kinds of house rules are unacceptable in a civilised society.

[somebloke123]

So it doesn't?

[WorriedBetty]

If "my house my rules" applied then we could all have cannabis factories.

[picnicbasketcase]

Surely it comes down to the fact that while its their home, they're running a business from it and have to abide by the discrimination laws. If they only want their version of the 'right kind' of guests, they shouldn't be running a B&B. And I assume that if they can't advertise it as only being for heterosexual married couples.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"So it doesn't?"

Yes it does. A B&B is a home-based business and the owner can refuse to let someone stay for all kinds of discretionary reasons. I should think if someone turned up filthy dirty, demanding to smoke or using abusive language they'd have every right to turn them away.

[trockodile]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1591406-to-think-you-shouldnt-have-to-accommodate-gay-unmarried-couples

[somebloke123]

I do understand what is being said here and maybe I'm coming across as obtuse.

I can see that if you advertise a room for rent then you could say that you are subject to exactly the same rules as a hotel. This may be indeed the "cleanest" way of framing the law.

(A) I don't think anyone would defend a big hotel which tried to ban gays sharing a room.

(B) Also I don't think most people would question the right of a private home owner to have their own rules about who may share a room with whom.


I guess what many people (plus the law of the land as it stands) are saying is that if you let your spare room you immediately go into category A rather than B.

But my own gut feeling (and it is that - it can't be totally rational) is that really it's more like B. After all it is still your home, you are in close proximity to your paying guests, very different from the manager of a hotel where everything is impersonal.

If you have, say, traditional Christian views which inform your everyday life, not just on Sundays, and feel uncomfortable about 2 gays sharing a room, which goes contrary to your religious beliefs does the secular state automatically trump your religion in what is still your own home? Has it in fact ceased to be your home by your letting out a room?

What is wrong ultimately with a couple running a B&B, and advertising it as a traditional Christian house with rules to match? And why would a gay couple, or someone hostile to traditional Christianity, even want to stay there, especially when there are many more establishments around where they would be more at home? Of course if push came to shove, the Christian couple might well get out of the B&B trade altogether rather than go against their own beliefs.

And good riddance, some would say. But it does make me a bit uncomfortable, even though I don't particularly sympathise with old-style Christianity.

[pointyfangs]

I'm sorry, but I'm with the hardliners on this one. A B&B is a business, run for profit, providing services, therefore it has to conform to the same laws as any other business. Comparing being gay to being filthy, abusive etc. is just plain offensive. The refusal should always be based on sensible grounds, like safety. So a pub landlord can refuse to serve a customer who is manifestly drunk, who is being physically and verbally violent - all those things are fine. Refusing to serve on the grounds of sexual orientation - not fine.

I would also like to see religious pharmacists barred from refusing to prescribe the pill or the morning after pill, religious GPs barred from refusing to refer a patient for an abortion, religious registrars barred from refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies. There are many professions where religious convictions do not impact on the workplace. Want to be a doctor but object to abortion? Be a urologist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist. Plenty of options available. Most of us don't get to pick and choose which bits of our job we do - why should religious people be exempt from that? And all religions should be included in this removal of exemptions, not just Christianity.

Having said this, I have no problem whatsoever with people wearing crosses, Karas, whatever. As long as they don't start trying to convert me.

As for this stunt of Nick Griffin's - I think it is offensive, and I also agree that it's probably a desperate gamble on his part to raise his profile.

[somebloke123]

Who ever compared being gay to being filthy or abusive? I thought Cogito was making the exact opposite point, that a B&B did have the discretion to turn someone away for being filthy (as of course does a large hotel) but should not for their sexual orientation.

Incidentally I don't think anyone is suggesting turning anyone presentable away, just that a traditional Christian might want to have rules about who may share a room with whom. It's in no way comparable with the "no blacks no Irish" situation.

[pointyfangs]

I'm sorry, but it is exactly comparable to 'no blacks no Irish' - it's blatant prejudice. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this - I'm in the camp that says a B&B is a business and as such must obey the laws on discrimination. As I mentioned above - these people did not have to open a B&B, they chose to.

[Pendeen]

The B&B owners could have turned the two men away by claiming that they were "unsuitable guests as they were smelly, abusive" or any other trumped up reason. The men may have then instigated legal action but probably with little chance of success.

The owners were honest in their reasoning and have thus paid the price for their views.

I suspect that in future B&B owners who do not like a potential guest will have to be a little more creative with their reasons.

BTW - I am not agreeing with this - the law is fairly clear on open discrimination - however...