Griffin banned from palace garden party


by Rumbold
22nd July, 2010 at 9:32 pm    

Nick Griffin has been banned from a Buckingham Palace garden party after attempting to hijack the event for party political gain:

Before the ban was imposed Mr Griffin, an MEP for North West England, described the Buckingham Palace invitation on the BNP website as a “highly symbolic breakthrough” for the party and e-mailed supporters asking for questions they would like him to ask the Queen.

Mr Griffin also appeared on GMTV to talk about his invitation to the garden party.

But, in a statement, Buckingham Palace said: “Nick Griffin MEP will be denied entry to today’s garden party at Buckingham Palace due to the fact he has overtly used his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media.

Clearly the palace wasn’t withdrawing the invite because he is a member of the BNP, as the other MEP from the BNP, Andrew Brons, is still invited. Yet this decision, though correct, is likely to be used as a way for the BNP to continue to claim they are being persecuted. Their portrayal of themselves as outsiders and victims is their strongest weapon, and distracts attention from their actual policies and performance whilst in office.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,The BNP






50 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Griffin banned from palace garden party http://bit.ly/bLfaZq


  2. Bryony Victoria King

    RT @sunny_hundal Blog post:: Griffin banned from palace garden party http://bit.ly/bLfaZq < agree 100% is actually good for him.


  3. Mike Long

    Pickled Politics » Griffin banned from palace garden party http://bit.ly/9LpeDO


  4. darwin danielle

    Pickled Politics » Griffin banned from palace garden party: But, in a statement, Buckingham Palace said: “Nick Gri… http://bit.ly/ahpSh6


  5. tom serona

    Pickled Politics » Griffin banned from palace garden party: Before the ban was imposed Mr Griffin, an MEP for Nort… http://bit.ly/ahpSh6


  6. The Moral Liberal

    Is Joseph Smith A Christian Prophet? By Steve Farrell…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)


  7. The Moral Liberal

    Americanus Speaks to Arizona’s Immigration Crisis and to All of Us…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)


  8. The Moral Liberal

    Right, Wrongs, and the Law, by Steve Farrell…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)


  9. The Moral Liberal

    Penn: Only Path to Heaven: Christ, His Atonement, Our Humble Obedience…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)




  1. Sunny — on 22nd July, 2010 at 9:57 pm  

    Yet this decision, though correct, is likely to be used as a way for the BNP to continue to claim they are being persecuted.

    Maybe maybe… but frankly – their victim card playing hasn’t yielded much in the way of political gain.

    And lastly – I think the monarchy is the last institution they can attack properly. Attacking other politicians is easy. What are they going to claim? The monarchy is ALSO controlled by ZOG?

  2. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 5:07 am  

    Rumbold,

    Why should we care about this? The BNP are unacceptable lunatics. Whether they are banned from a garden party or not is the least of it..

    I think.

  3. boyo — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:25 am  

    Er… so it appears your belief in civil liberties is restricted to those people you agree with?

    Plus ca change…

  4. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:28 am  

    Sunny:

    Maybe maybe… but frankly – their victim card playing hasn’t yielded much in the way of political gain.

    Not in terms of seats. But it is their main selling point, along with stereotypes about things like housing. It gives people voting for them a sense that they are rebels, bravely battling against the establishment.

    Douglas:

    Why should we care about this? The BNP are unacceptable lunatics. Whether they are banned from a garden party or not is the least of it.

    My angle was more on the potential benefits which the BNP could reap from this.

  5. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:29 am  

    Boyo:

    Sorry?

  6. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:50 am  

    Rumbold @ 4,

    Cool.

    I understand where you are coming from. I am a bit slow, sometimes..

  7. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:55 am  

    Douglas:

    You are not slow. It was just you were reading it at 5:07am (are you Sunny in disguise?).

  8. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 9:42 am  

    Ha hah ha!

    No, the wee bugger is a lot better looking than me!

  9. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 9:51 am  

    Though Male Pattern Baldness, and ageist stuff would tend to make oor Sunny a bit less attractive.

    The boy should get married, tout suit..

    Dunno who he is with. But he should ask the question.

    As should somone else.

    :-)

  10. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 9:54 am  

    Love you Rumbold,

    Honest!

    :-)

  11. Don — on 23rd July, 2010 at 11:05 am  

    Normally I have little to no interest in communications from the Palace, but in this instance it was a good call. I seriously doubt will gain more from the refusal of entry than they would have from Griffin preening himself in the garden.

    Boyo, how is this a civil liberties issue?

  12. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2010 at 11:14 am  

    Back at you Douglas. Heh.

  13. boyo — on 23rd July, 2010 at 12:11 pm  

    Oh it’s not, i just had my contrary button switched to default. It’s off now, apologies Rumbold.

  14. Rumbold — on 23rd July, 2010 at 12:15 pm  

    No problems- it is that Friday feeling.

  15. Jai — on 23rd July, 2010 at 1:07 pm  

    This was pretty straightforward:

    - Both Griffin and Brons have an established and very well-documented history of being deeply-entrenched racists.

    - Both Griffin and Brons were legitimately invited to the Palace as democratically-elected MEPs.

    - The event is supposed to be a friendly garden party enabling guests to chat and mingle in relaxed surroundings, not a forum for the promotion of propaganda, the associated political agenda, or political debate – not with the other guests present and certainly not with the Queen herself.

    - Griffin began shooting his mouth off both on GMTV and on the BNP’s website.

    - Brons, apparently, did not engage in the same type of grandstanding behaviour.

    - Griffin’s own conduct resulted in his invitation being terminated, particularly due to him exploiting this event as a publicity stunt and the question mark of his own potential conduct towards the Queen if he had been allowed to attend.

    - Brons’s invitation was not withdrawn, and according to journalists he did not talk to anyone at the event apart from his daughter, whom he had taken along. He certainly didn’t get to meet the Queen herself, and apparently ended up several rows towards the back while the Queen was chatting with people. Nobody else spoke to Brons during the garden party either.

    - During subsequent television interviews, Griffin was unrepentant about the behaviour which had caused his own invitation to be terminated. In fact, he repeatedly stated that if he had indeed been allowed to attend the party, he would still have exploited it as a forum to promote his various political views and he would also have directed any statements or questions on his mind at the Queen herself if he had met her, irrespective of the established protocol during these events and irrespective of the usual courtesies and polite decorum they involve.

    - Considering how much Griffin had been milking the invitation beforehand, especially his remarks about this representing some kind of breakthrough for the BNP, you can bet that if any photographs emerged of Griffin either meeting the Queen or standing anywhere near her, the BNP would similarly have milked this as much as they could via the image of the implied endorsement/support of the Queen, much as they’ve recently tried to hijack Churchill, the Allied war effort in WW2, and even Jesus & Christianity.

    - In that sense, the Palace therefore made the right decision.

    - The other option they would have had would have been for the Palace to let Griffin attend anyway, and then possibly eject him from the event if he had behaved in the way he planned to.

    - Either way, Griffin did not keep his mouth shut beforehand, and he subsequently confirmed that he’d been intending to act in exactly the way which the Palace was worried about.

    - This was a private event on the Royal Family’s private premises, and the Queen is therefore entirely within her legal and moral rights to uninvite whomever she wants to, for any reason.

    - Therefore, what happened was completely Griffin’s own fault, and his subsequent claim of being “the victim” and the complaints of the Palace’s decision being “anti-democratic” are both totally false in all aspects. Basically, Griffin proved (as always) that he’s not civilised enough for people to be able to rely on him to behave appropriately and with the requisite level of maturity, especially during prestigious formal events.

    Griffin had his big chance, and once again, he blew it; and although this has still enabled him to gain the desired attention-seeking publicity, in reality the only person to blame is himself. Griffin’s persistent desire to hijack any situation whatsoever and opportunistically try to exploit it to push his twisted agenda, and the resulting behavioural issues and social ineptitude, are the root causes of his problems.

    It’s also interesting how he keeps pointing the finger at “the Establishment”, “the media”, “the LibCons”, “David Cameron” etc etc for what happened (in fact, anyone but himself), but is curiously reticent about publicly blaming the Queen.

  16. joe90 — on 23rd July, 2010 at 5:43 pm  

    Is griffin any more racist than prince phillip? But on a more serious note another member of the bnp was allowed to attend the queen’s tea party. So to claim the bnp is being picked on is kind of hollow.

  17. Don — on 23rd July, 2010 at 6:46 pm  

    joe,

    Precisely. As Jai pointed out, Bron kept his trap shut and was admitted. Griffin bragged and postured and was barred.

  18. John Christopher — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:04 pm  

    Sunny

    For crying out loud, yesterday the Met Police got away with murder of a innocent man in broad daylight. Let’s get real here…..

  19. Jemmy Hope — on 23rd July, 2010 at 8:45 pm  

    What a pity! HM would have had so much to talk about with Mr. G; Uncle David’s friendship with Herr Hitler, hubby’s relatives in the Nazi Party, grandson Harry’s choice of fancy dress.

  20. douglas clark — on 23rd July, 2010 at 9:35 pm  

    John Christoper @ 18,

    Perhaps that ought to be the subject of another thread?

    Just so’s you know, I agree with you..

  21. KJB — on 24th July, 2010 at 12:32 am  

    Yet this decision, though correct, is likely to be used as a way for the BNP to continue to claim they are being persecuted. Their portrayal of themselves as outsiders and victims is their strongest weapon, and distracts attention from their actual policies and performance whilst in office.

    And that is why those who combat them must stick to the (proven-effective) method of exposing them for the useless bunch they are, as well as toxic racists.

    The anti-racist cause must always be upheld, but it is also important to recognise that a certain fraction of people are always going to be hateful gits, and that there is likely to be a racist fringe for the foreseeable future. What we must do is make sure that groups like the BNP get seen as what they are – the equivalent of Al-Muhajiroun and all extreme reactionary groups. We should be as worried about people turning to the BNP AS MUCH as we are people turning to terrorism – because it seems at times like people obsess much more about the former, and on a subconscious level that almost legitimises their deluded belief that they are ‘indigenous’ and have a ‘right’ to not only live here, but be pandered to and privileged by, society.

  22. Sunny — on 24th July, 2010 at 4:01 am  

    Er… so it appears your belief in civil liberties is restricted to those people you agree with?

    Err, do you understand what civil liberties mean?

  23. Robert — on 24th July, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    “As Jai pointed out, Bron kept his trap shut and was admitted. Griffin bragged and postured and was barred.”

    Not true Don, Bron’s gave interviews about the garden party, including this one on the very morning:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgJ_DvpxWVo&feature=player_embedded

    But there is no written protocol that says media interviews and releases cannot be given and mention of it is in the rules they sent out.

    Everyone knows that this reasons were ‘spurious’ (quote from the guardian) and the motivation was political.

    Given the number of war criminals and outright murderers that have graced the confines of the walls of that palace throughout her reign it is hard to see any justification for this blatant anti-democratic stance.

    Certainly none of the feedback section in the TV news reports supported it as far as I could see.

  24. Kris — on 24th July, 2010 at 5:35 pm  

    @ KGB

    “Their deluded belief that they are ‘indigenous’”

    It’s not deluded at all. 80% of Britons can trace their genetic linage back at least 12000 years whereas the Maoris, with undisputed indigenous status only arrived in NZ around 1300 AD.

    “We should be as worried about people turning to the BNP AS MUCH as we are people turning to terrorism”

    What lunacy. The only people that have proven their racial hatred in this country by blowing themselves up on British public transport in order to kill British people are Muslims. Homegrown ones at that.

    The BNP are a legal political party and as much as you may disagree with them that is the price of living in a democracy.

    “… and have a ‘right’ to not only live here, but be pandered to and privileged by, society.”

    A hateful racist statement if ever there was one.

    Of course the British people have every right to live here and have every right to speak their own mind in their own country.

    And where is this ‘pandering’ and ‘privilege’? They are the only people in this country it is legal to discriminate against.

    I think you need to get off the internet, into the real world and cast that chip off your should.

  25. Don — on 24th July, 2010 at 10:48 pm  
  26. Rumbold — on 25th July, 2010 at 9:44 am  

    Kris:

    The only people that have proven their racial hatred in this country by blowing themselves up on British public transport in order to kill British people are Muslims. Homegrown ones at that.

    On the contrary. We have seen a number of far-right extremists jailed recently for terrorist offences. Their lack of success is not an argument in their favour.

  27. Kris — on 25th July, 2010 at 3:24 pm  

    “On the contrary. We have seen a number of far-right extremists jailed recently for terrorist offences. Their lack of success is not an argument in their favour.”

    Were they planning to blow themselves up and take as many people with them as they could? I think not. No, that particular demented fanaticism is reserved for one group alone.

    And I assume you include people like Copeland in your assessment? The guy was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and his actions are attributable to that illness rather then any political ideology. I think you will find similar mental issues with some of the others too.

    But the main difference is that these nutters acted alone and without orders or support from any organisation, unlike the 7/7 bombers who are linked to Al-Qaeda groups.

    So we are talking about individual crazies who incompetently succumb to their own delusions, not the responsibility of the BNP or any other organisation, whereas the Islamic terrorists are doing it with the justification of their core text, incitement from many imams, with support and on the orders from interlinked groups and with a coherent plan.

    And they are the biggest internal threat this country and every other western country faces.

    Don,

    If you want to go down the Nazi route, can you provide evidence that the BNP’s policies mirror those of the Nazis?

  28. Jai — on 26th July, 2010 at 11:57 am  

    Don,

    Griffin bragged and postured and was barred.

    Even if Griffin had been allowed in but had proceeded to act in the highly inappropriate manner which the Palace was concerned about (and which he confirmed in subsequent interviews that he had indeed been planning to do), you can bet that if he was subsequently ejected by Palace staff, he would’ve kicked up a huge fuss either while he was being led away or (definitely) in interviews and official statements afterwards. I’m sure he would have enjoyed the notion of being escorted off the premises in front of thousands of assembled guests, no doubt accompanied by press cameras clicking away and of course Griffin himself making faux-outraged remarks about free speech and democracy and so on.

    In any case, this incident demonstrates, yet again, that Griffin’s desperate need for publicity at any cost and his complete disregard for the concept of his own dignity have caused him to have basically become the Paris Hilton of British politics.

    I stand corrected.

    Following on from that…..

    Nick Griffin, speaking on the record, caught on video stating that “In 1938, if Hitler hadn’t been so daft…..they’d have exterminated the German Jews”:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/dominiccarman67#p/u/4/9LR8-uXEHAM

    Nick Griffin, speaking on the record, caught on video stating that “The Jews have bought the West and control the press for their own political ends”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LR8-uXEHAM&feature=channel

  29. Jai — on 26th July, 2010 at 12:02 pm  

    One more:

    Nick Griffin, speaking on the record to a BNP meeting in Burnley in 2006, caught on video stating that he is deliberately hiding his hostility towards Jews from the public and is scapegoating Muslims as a vehicle to achieve power:

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1269630805284168668

    Quote: “We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it’s the thing they can understand. It’s the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group—some people say we should attack the Jews… But … we’ve got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don’t talk about it … the public would just think we were barking mad. They’d just think oh, you’re attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You’re attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That’s what the public would think. It wouldn’t get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think “extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me.” And we wouldn’t get power.”

  30. Kris — on 26th July, 2010 at 5:22 pm  

    Jai, how very interesting how that first clip had to be ended immediately after Griffin made that remark.

    What was said after it that had to be suppressed? It all seems very underhanded in a Shirley Sherrod type way.

    Anyways, given that Griffin is not the BNP (and will be gone, one way or another in a year) and the BNP is formed by thousands of members, constitution and policies, what evidence is there that the BNP have any polices that mirror the Nazis?

    And incidentally, the factual opinion about who “runs” Hollywood from a Jewish journalist:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

  31. Jai — on 26th July, 2010 at 7:01 pm  

    Nick Griffin and his deputy Simon Darby have claimed in an audio message that an international Jewish conspiracy has created (and is continuing to control) the EDL, ultimately designed to trigger a nuclear attack against Arab countries:

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL

  32. Jai — on 26th July, 2010 at 7:05 pm  

    Nick Griffin, speaking on the record, caught on video boasting about repeatedly breaking numerous British laws:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yz7s0DL8FI

    Nick Griffin, already a convicted criminal himself, speaking on the record and caught on video hypocritically advocating a Nazi-style eugenics policy involving the forced sterilisation of criminals on the basis of his claim that there is a “criminal gene”:

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=dominiccarman67#p/u/41/7tp0fOPEMnU

  33. Kriss — on 26th July, 2010 at 7:50 pm  

    Well now Jai, I see you are studiously trying to avoid the perfectible reasonable question posed and instead are churning out these pieces of fluff.

    But OK, for a start in the latest piece you are linking to the communist front site of a convicted criminal who is / was also very likely a state informer, and you are either misunderstanding what is being said or deliberately twisting it. Either way it is most unsavory:

    Jews are not mentioned at all, but rather Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews just as not all Jews are Zionists so there would appear to be some underlying racial stereotyping going on here.

    The second video relates to thought-crime laws as does the reference to the third video of Griffin being a convicted criminal. He was convicted for saying something the state didn’t approve of. Not exactly most peoples definition of a criminal, expect for fascists really.

    And it would appear that science agrees that he is quite correct in any case that certain genes (or enzymes in this example) are responsible for violent and other anti-social behavior. Interestingly, the findings also have a strong ethnic element to them as well:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase

    So now Jai, old bean, could you possibly answer the question posed? There’s a good chap:

    Given that Griffin is not the BNP (and will be gone, one way or another in a year) and the BNP is formed by thousands of members, constitution and policies, what evidence is there that the BNP have any polices that mirror the Nazis?

  34. Jai — on 27th July, 2010 at 9:29 am  

    Nick Griffin, speaking at a meeting of white supremacists in America alongside ex-KKK leader David Duke, caught on video giving yet another speech about how the BNP are deliberately hiding their true agenda from the British public:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw

    Quote: “There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. And the BNP isn’t about selling out its ideas, but we are determined to sell them. Basically that means to use saleable words such as freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas – they are saleable. Perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, once we’re in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say ‘yes, every last one must go’. Perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re not going to get anywhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.”

  35. damon — on 27th July, 2010 at 11:49 am  

    BNP BNP BNP – all the time. Who really gives a stuff about Nick Griffin and the BNP?

    I know a couple of people on this site particularly dislike the following site. One mod won’t even have a peek at one of their articles because they ‘wind her up’.
    But reading all this BNP coverage on Pickled Politics – and then reading this, I can’t help but side with those ‘awful cliamate deniers’ from this online magazine.

    ‘The expulsion of Nick Griffin from a palace garden party shows how desperate the political class is to keep the BNP as their pet bête noire.’
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9297/

    If we didn’t have Nick Griffin, life in Britain would surely be poorer, as we’d be denied someone to boo and hiss at and make ourselves feel better as people because we were so against him, and publicly so.

    What do you reckon Refresh? Have you got anything to say about this? I think it’s rather good (from the article):

    No matter which institution, hating Nasty Nick has become the new Good War. It’s just so easy: politicians of all stripes can declare how abhorrent they find the BNP; the Church of England can ban BNP members from becoming vicars on the grounds that they have committed ‘the sin of racial prejudice’; even the British Army, that bastion of British interests in dark foreign lands, can attack the BNP for using images of Spitfires and Winston Churchill in its campaign material for the European elections. Any institution struggling to justify its existence or scrabbling around for something that looks like purpose can find a quick-fix in a spot of BNP-baiting.

  36. cuckoo — on 27th July, 2010 at 7:22 pm  

    Jai, how strange. It doesn’t say much for your ‘cause’ that you are unable to answer a simple question but instead keeping posting random bits of fluff ‘Rain Man’ style.

    Besides the fact that the previous bits of fluff have been swept aside with a little truthful glare, they are all aimed at a man who will not even be in the BNP leadership in a years time, one way or the other. What will you do then?

    OK, with the latest piece of fluff Duke had actually left the KKK 20 years before hand and went on to be elected to the House of Representatives in Louisiana.

    As for Griffins decade old speech, it was clearly to moderate the hardliners but it doesn’t matter a toss anyway as Griffin will not be in the BNP leadership in a year anyway.

    (And you seem to have no problem linking to a communist front site of a convicted criminal.)

    So now Jai, old bean, could you possibly answer the question posed? There’s a good chap:
    Given that Griffin is not the BNP (and will be gone, one way or another in a year) and the BNP is formed by thousands of members, constitution and policies, what evidence is there that the BNP have any polices that mirror the Nazis?

  37. persephone — on 27th July, 2010 at 11:30 pm  

    Isn’t the real question whether the bnp have any policies. Which PP unmasked.

  38. Sunny — on 28th July, 2010 at 3:56 am  

    damon – if we didn’t have Spiked online, then we wouldn’t have a bunch of middle-class wankers who make money by publishing contrarian opinions for their own sake, and get excited another group of wankers who think they’re clever merely by challenging ‘the orthodoxy’.

    Maybe we do need Nick Griffin in society. Do we need rapists and murderers as well so we can ‘feel better about ourselves’?

    I suppose it depends on whether you’re on the other side of the house which has its windows smashed with a brick saying ‘paki scum’.

    Personally, I try and avoid reading contrarian wankers who went bust a few years ago for publishing lies because they thought they’d be clever and contrarian. It kind of kills my faith in their credibility.

    But each to their own.

  39. Jai — on 28th July, 2010 at 9:06 am  

    Nick Griffin’s elderly parents speaking on the record about how their son has completely ruined their lives and left them poverty-stricken in their old age:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ9mJq-prNA

  40. damon — on 28th July, 2010 at 2:02 pm  

    But each to their own.

    It’s a pity you have that opinion as to me that’s the problem with the left and a kind of glass ceilling that it cannot or just will not rise above.

    The ”middle class” jibe is particularly useless, because it’s such a lazy barb.
    Maybe ALL of these people a middle class.
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/speaker_index
    The first one on the list is, what about the other 200?
    Most of them probably are these days.

    Just for the record, I know this guy came from the middle of a war zone in Belfast. But even his article about the attacks on the catholic church go about a mile above this glass ceilling I just mentioned.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9355/

    I suppose that’s what’s called contrarian.
    Because the mainstreem of leftism would rather be asking the question ”Why is the government protecting the Pope from arrest?”

    I think that’s about the long and the short of it really. You would take Jai’s side with his ”killer questions for the BNP” and those ridiculous links to ”One Million United” over the sober assesment of the real danger of the BNP that I think Spiked often have?

    The bricks through the window thing is much more serious – but coming from london, it’s not something that I really know much about, as victims of crime and even racist crime can be of any race the same as the perpetrators can.
    And how much influence the BNP have on such attacks I have no clue, as apart from having a couple of leaflets put through my door in the last few years, I’ve never seen them.
    I know a couple of pubs where supporters of their’s might go in Croydon, and that’s about it.
    It’s actually too dangerous for them to opperate openly, and if they tried to set up a stall in the town center they’d last about ten minutes.
    But that’s just down south.

  41. Jai — on 29th July, 2010 at 9:39 am  

    Isn’t the real question whether the bnp have any policies.

    Good point, Persephone.

    Nick Griffin, being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight shortly before the 2010 General Election, admits that the BNP’s policies don’t actually solve the problems they claim to identify:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vQPYzg8OBE

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.