The BNP and The Garden Party

dreamdaisy

I've just been listening to Radio 5 Live - apparently Mr N Griffin was turned away from the Garden Party at BP today - his deputy said the decision to refuse his esteemed leader entry was a political one, with 'David Cameron's grubby finger marks all over it . . ' Hmmm. Grubby finger marks? Who has the grubbiest fingers? The BNP or the Conservatives? Discuss! DD

barbara12

Hi DD good point , I think BNP...but they had no right turning him away, I dont agree with what he is, but he was voted in. :roll: he will love the publicity :?
Barbara x

frogmorton

I wouldn't want him at my house either....

Jan refused him entry to her pool party the other night too....

joanlawson

By giving an interview, and writing a blog, in which he described his invitation to BP as a ''highly significant breakthrough for the BNP'', Nick Griffin was seeking to gain publicity for his party. He had been invited as an MEP, and not as leader of the BNP.

He is very skilled at manipulating the media, and he probably calculated that his comments would cause a reaction of this kind. I don't think he could care less about not going to BP. He will be congratulating himself on gaining publicity for the BNP. In his book, any publicity is better than none.

A BP spokesman said, 'The decision to deny him entry is not intended to show any disrespect to the democratic process by which the invitation was issued.

'However, we would apply the same rules to anyone who would try to blatantly politicise their attendance in this way.'

BNP member Andrew Brons was still allowed to attend because he had not 'exploited' the party for political ends

I think that is fair enough.

mellman01

Griffins eyes are to close together for my liking, that said why did he get an invite in the first place?.

ninakang

Yep, he was invited because he is a MEP, not because of his BNP leadership status. I think anyone has the right to refuse entry to their garden party anyway, especially if they behave like that.

But he is only doing it for the publicity anyway... He's entitled to his own opinion though... it's very confusing, isn't it?!

Nx

joanlawson

He's got the right to free speech, but he is skilled at maximising publicity, always tipping off the press, and having cameras etc, on hand at any time he causes a stir. It's a shame that the press don't just ignore him, but I suppose they are only doing their job by reporting on his activities.

robertls

joanlawson wrote:

He's got the right to free speech, but he is skilled at maximising publicity, always tipping off the press, and having cameras etc, on hand at any time he causes a stir. It's a shame that the press don't just ignore him, but I suppose they are only doing their job by reporting on his activities.

But don't they all do that????? All polititions.........

joanlawson

That's true, Rob, but Nick Griffin has cornered the market in appearing to be the injured party in order to gain misplaced sympathy.

dreamdaisy

He's an odd and unpleasant man, there's no doubt about that, but as he was invited as an MEP he should have been allowed entry. This was not a good decision, it will only give him the opportunity for more publicity. Not a wise move by the powers-that-be. DD

joanlawson

For the powers that be at BP, it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If they had allowed him to attend, he would have been crowing about ''having tea with the Queen'', and ''a highly symbolic breakthrough for the BNP'' forever more. He was determined to gain publicity from his invitation one way or another.

The BNP leader is quoted as saying: 'I am held to a different standard to everyone else in the country - that is thoroughly anti-British''.

No he's not! Anyone seeking to make political capital from an invitation to BP would have received the same treatment, and rightly so in my opinion.

oneday

if he had an invite it was rude to refuse him...policitics aside..they should have thought of that first.

joanlawson

..policitics aside..

Nick Griffin would never put politics aside, and he knew full well what he was doing.

oneday

joanlawson wrote:

..policitics aside..

Nick Griffin would never put politics aside, and he knew full well what he was doing.

what i meant was...BP know what he is,who he is, so they shouldnt have invited him in first place if they werent happy to have him there on the day.

joanlawson

He was automatically eligible for a ticket as an elected member of the European parliament.

mellman01

Well being a white middle aged male I can relate to some of the things Griffin comes out with, he isn’t wrong all the time, he does tap into concerns about immigration and the headlong pursuit of a “multicultural” Britain with no or little regard for the indigenous population, in my view this kind of social engineering should be done slowly to avoid some of the problems we are having today.
That said Griffin is no Churchill and a lot of people see him for what he really is a nasty little thug who surrounds himself with middle aged neo Nazi thugs, as Joan said if he had been allowed to attend it would have been a big propaganda coup for him and his party the Queen did the right thing this time.
But on the other hand if we don’t allow him room to debate his concerns and views then we are not allowing free speech, it’s better to have him talking in public than behind closed doors to a hard core faithful who might well grow in numbers in the shadows, better to allow free and open debate so his less palatable views can be shot to bits in the public eye, debate might even bring out some genuine concerns a lot of people have and finally start to address them.
I saw his Question time appearance and felt he did have some points but not many and in the end he was a light weight who was way out of his depth, but what I didn’t like was the way the BBC had organised a lynch mob of activists who constantly berated and shouted him down whenever he tried to speak, it was almost like some reverse Fascism was at play, anyone trying to mention concerns over immigration etc even now is treated with deep suspicion of harbouring racist values when a lot of people are just very concerned, if debate isn’t allowed then things will just fester until something boils up, and if it does it will play right into the hands of the likes of Mr Griffin.

oneday

joanlawson wrote:

He was automatically eligible for a ticket as an elected member of the European parliament.

I didnt know that!

frogmorton

mellman01 wrote:

Well being a white middle aged male I can relate to some of the things Griffin comes out with, he isn’t wrong all the time, he does tap into concerns about immigration and the headlong pursuit of a “multicultural” Britain with no or little regard for the indigenous population, in my view this kind of social engineering should be done slowly to avoid some of the problems we are having today.
That said Griffin is no Churchill and a lot of people see him for what he really is a nasty little thug who surrounds himself with middle aged neo Nazi thugs, as Joan said if he had been allowed to attend it would have been a big propaganda coup for him and his party the Queen did the right thing this time.
But on the other hand if we don’t allow him room to debate his concerns and views then we are not allowing free speech, it’s better to have him talking in public than behind closed doors to a hard core faithful who might well grow in numbers in the shadows, better to allow free and open debate so his less palatable views can be shot to bits in the public eye, debate might even bring out some genuine concerns a lot of people have and finally start to address them.
I saw his Question time appearance and felt he did have some points but not many and in the end he was a light weight who was way out of his depth, but what I didn’t like was the way the BBC had organised a lynch mob of activists who constantly berated and shouted him down whenever he tried to speak, it was almost like some reverse Fascism was at play, anyone trying to mention concerns over immigration etc even now is treated with deep suspicion of harbouring racist values when a lot of people are just very concerned, if debate isn’t allowed then things will just fester until something boils up, and if it does it will play right into the hands of the likes of Mr Griffin.

Mell

Is your sleen ok mow?

I worry about you :shock:

Love

Toni xx

dreamdaisy

I wondered who decided to invite him in the first place? Does automatic qualification mean automatic invite? If it does, then he should have been allowed entry: he wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near Her Maj and nobody would want to talk to him anyway so he would have been Billy-No-Mates. Not the image he wants to portray, methinks. I didn't watch him on Question Time but I think, from all accounts, that he magnificently displayed the empty vessel which he is. Free speech is an important right in this country, one which I hope we never lose: he can voice his opinions, one or two have some validity, the rest are rubbish. He is a strutting turkey-cock, blind to his limitations, a poor speaker that lacks charisma.

Send me a slice of lemon drizzle please, babycham. DD

joanlawson

Well being a white middle aged male I can relate to some of the things Griffin comes out with, he isn’t wrong all the time, he does tap into concerns about immigration and the headlong pursuit of a “multicultural” Britain with no or little regard for the indigenous population, in my view this kind of social engineering should be done slowly to avoid some of the problems we are having today.

I've probably said enough on this subject, but I would just like to add one more point.

Nick Griffin does tap into concerns about immigration, and I would defend his right to free speech. I do think there should be debate on this topic, but the BNP use these concerns to further their racist policies.They have publicly toned down their message on repatriation but they still want an all-white Britain. The BNP constitution says that anyone who cannot prove a link to Britain before 1948 can never be considered British.

The BNP is dedicated to imposing apartheid-style rule in Britain. It wants to create a system that is based on the nonsense that white people are superior to all others. Black and Asian people would become second-class citizens under the law.

mellman01

Yeah Joan he's a bit of a loon I don't know how he would do it, I also wonder how far back he would go in a person liniage, I mean my lot came from France in the 11 hundreds so I could well be deported!.
For me I don't care about your colour, if you love Britain and want to be british and are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with me when times are bad then that's fine by me, I can't however get my logic box around the argument for unhinderd mass immigration, we have to control numbers it's not posible to allow everyone who has been done an injustice in.
Australia Canada etc control numbers and have done for years they also only allow in the healthy with the skills they need, we don't which is bloody crazy.
The reverse logic here can be seen with people like Hamza and Binyamin Mohammed V's the Ghurkas, we all the ones who hate us and who are decidedly dodgy to come here and won't deport them due to their "human rights" but are quite happy to use the Ghurkas to do our dirty work and then deport them if they get sick or old or both, that's what really makes me angry.
Also if a person comes here and commits a serious crime such as rape or murder they should be deported after conviction and not put in prison, as when they come out they use their crime as an excuse to manipulate the "human rights act" to stay here by saying they will be hurt or worse if we send them home, sorry but if you break the rules then that's a tad tough in my book, and anyway my priority is with the human rights of our own citizens.
Sorry I went off on one there!.