UK & World News
- 19 October 2012, 9:33
Nick Griffin: Gay Couple Tweets Investigated
BNP leader Nick Griffin has defended comments he made on Twitter about a gay couple at the centre of a landmark legal ruling.
The MEP published the address of Michael Black and John Morgan on the social networking site and called for a demonstration to be held outside their home.
Cambridgeshire Police is investigating the incident and Dyfed-Powys Police said it was liaising with the force.
The tweets, under the username @nickgriffinmep, followed Mr Black, 64, and his 59-year-old partner Mr Morgan's win against the owner of bed and breakfast accommodation who refused to let them stay in a double room because of her religious views.
The couple, from Brampton, near Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, sought damages from Susanne Wilkinson after she would not let them have the room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, in March 2010 despite them having made a reservation and paid a deposit.
One of the tweets read: "So Messrs Black & Morgan, at (their address). A British Justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a...
"...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!"
Mr Griffin later defended his tweets, saying he was elected to "speak out for silent majority".
"I'm not behaving like an ordinary MEP because I'm not an ordinary MEP," he told BBC Five Live.
"Millions of Christians are deeply distressed by the effective outlawing of their faith by (the court ruling).
"The Christian faith imposes on people the duty to follow their faith in their daily life."
He said the legal system had been "used and abused" to "persecute" the bed and breakfast owner.
A Cambridgeshire Police spokeswoman said: "We have received a number of calls in relations to the tweets and are looking into the complaints we have received.
"Officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."
One of the tweets included a home address, she confirmed.
The case at Reading County Court concluded the couple had suffered unlawful discrimination.
At the time, Mr Black, an exams consultant and writer, protested at their treatment but the owner refused to allow them to stay as it was "against her convictions".
Mrs Wilkinson, a married mother-of-four, considered that providing a double bed to the couple, who are not in a civil partnership, would involve her in promoting what she believed to be a sin, namely sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage, the court heard.
Recorder Claire Moulder found that Mr Black and Mr Morgan, a computer consultant, had been the victims of direct discrimination.
what do you think?
Adrian Wagstaff
So far as I understand this article, it merely is stating that Nick Griffin is suggesting property owners should be entitled to say who stays in their rooms and who doesn't, which I always assumed was already the case? I don't think he is necessarily targetting g.a.y people so much as everyone. I just read it again and he doesn't seem to be attacking g.a.y people, unless I read it wrong. He is just saying people should be allowed to choose who stays in a room and who doesn't. [The news article includes the word "g.a.y" many times and I'm not removing it just because the red words say so. After several years of happily commenting away I'm going to do what everyone else does and mask the word, which I've never done before 'cause they tend to mask bad words].
Emma Doolallytap
Isn't a guest house a business? (so subject to anti-discrimination law same as other businesses).
Adrian Wagstaff
As far as I know, yes. What Nick Griffin seems to be asking, though, is does that business have any right to say who can and can't stay in a room, whoever they are?
Adj Jackson
Emma a pub is a business but can serve whoever it likes for what ever reason The lady was polite in explaing her belifes they just wanted money and they got 3600 for one night now thats the disgusting part of it all
Chris Robinson
Politics of the gutter.
Name witheld
This comment has been removed for violations of our Terms and Conditions.
Adj Jackson
What TERROR THREAT did he make god squad????? C
TIM x
Ok the couple felt discriminated against fair enough. Now lets see them try to book themselves in at a Muslim run guest house instead. .not that I would for one minute condone anything nasty nick and his little bunch of thugs mind you. And orange. .why am I not allowed to use the word ga y? When you can in your report? Pathetic as usual
Edgar Beckett
This is 2012 do as you are told.
Russell Beaumont
Like millions of others Nick Griffin is showing his disgust at the courts decision.
Edgar Beckett
Perhaps Nick Griffin did not take quite the right line of action but it is the owners of the guesthouse who are the victims of discrimination.
Ben Ralph
Good, Christian behaviour from Griffin..
David Rankin
what if it was 2 guys covered in scabs and unclean infested with lice ,,,would they have a claim if you said your not coming in here,,same with a restaurant in you had B.O. and was stinking you would not be allowed in,,so whats the problem .and i have nothing againsy gays
adam
That would be a public health issue,nothing to do with a persons sexuality.
Adj Jackson
More to the point David it is not persecuting two g ay men who needed some headlines and 3600 quid. I have 4 g ay friends 3 of them think these men are an embarrassment the other is on holiday
ali baba
would this hotel let an unmarried couple to share a bed?
Emma Doolallytap
no, don't think they would.
andy may
if this couple had the strength of their convictions to sue the guesthouse owner and, basically, publically flog her (her guesthouse is also her home!). why are they now such shrinking violets who are against any person of a differing point of view displaying that view outside their house?
Angela Gildea
Nick Griffin only does what he can to try get voters on site. He is full of poison and no Christian. Publishing home address of these men have put them at risk of attack. I do not agree with the legal decision as a landlord of a pub has the right to refuse entry or serve at discretion so the owner of a b&b should be able to do the same. However, let the legal system sort this out. Any new precedents often have stumbling blocks while these are being sorted out. If I published Nick Griffin's address for protest purposes, are you telling me that someone who is very anti BNP won't torch it. Nick has now given them means for more legal suits at the cost of the tax payer and we may have to pay for them to be protected and rehoused.
andy may
the g4y couple didn't seem that bothered about the lady owner of the guesthouses address!!!! she is now vulnerable to "g4y obsessed crusaders". and before people start crying, most gays conduct their lives bereft of obsessional action against peole who do not have a similar mindset. extremists come in all, shapes, colours and sexual orientations.
adam
I am a white,heterosexual,middle aged Englishman and the courts decision was 100% correct. If you are opening uyp part of your home as a business then you cannot discriminate against who stays there and a pub would not be able to bar entry to anyone on the basis of their race,colour or sexuality as Angela suggests. If the courts had not taken this action then it wouldnt be long before we are back to the days of signs in Hotel windows saying" No dogs,Blacks or Irish....etc". Nick Griffin is just a one eyed nutjob trying to rouind up any votes he can in any way he can and anybody that votes for that maniac or his party needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.
andy may
lets agree the law is there to protect everybody. it just appears that this g4y couples privacy trumps that of the lady guesthouse owner. the couple knew very well the publicity the woman would get in the media, they are bullies and she needs to realise, whatever her beliefs, there are less overt ways of following them. no, i'm not a bnp fan or homophobic, i just wish that equality laws were for everybody, whoever and whatever they are.
adam
Yes,the law is there to protect everybody and that same law would also protect the Christian couple if they were to book into a Muslim guesthouse and be turned away at the door because of their religion.The couple did not go to court to put the woman in the spotlight and its just madness to suggest that because they were wronged and decided to fight that injustice that somehow they deserve to have that nutcase Griffin rounding up his Gorillas and sending them to their house . The law in this case came to the correct conclusion and acted against discrimination and hopefully people will learn that you cannot run a business and act in a discriminatory way against certain sections of society.
ali baba
agree adam
andy may
adam, you must have either, read somebody elses reply to your post, or tried to put an absurd twist on what i have written and is there for all to read. i did NOT say the couple went to court to put the women in the spotlight, i said they would have been aware of the consequences of their action. secondly, you appear to imply that all people who disagreed with the judgement are gorillas associated with nick griffin. life is not black and white, there are many shades and you are as bad as the homophobics if you make such sweeping generalisations. it may also be worth you noting that i have not said the court came to the wrong decision.
adam
First off Andy, I didnt say that anybody that disagreed with the judgement was one of Griffins gorillas,i said that the people who turned up at the couples house as a result of Griffins tweets would be his Gorillas,they are harldy going to be members of the Christian Womens Alliance are they...Secondly,you did say that simply by fighting their corner and not just sitting back and putting up with being discriminated against that this couple were bullies? So anybody that has the temerity to stand up for themselves is a bully?
andy may
people that turn up to protest do not need to be gorillas, people of all types take positive action by protesting. i see a bully as somebody who is happy to deal out but complains when the same happens to them, i.e. happy for her address to be public but not theirs. she should be afforded the same rights as them whether or not her personal views conflict with current law.
adam
But they did not put her address out into the public domain and they have not been organising protests outside of her property and lets be very honest about this. Anybody that is following the tweets of Nick Griffin or listening to the nonsense that he spouts is not going to organising any kind of sensible,peaceful protest. Plus, if there was going to be a protest of any kind with regards this court decision then surely it should be at Parliament and should be about trying to change the law that they disagree with,not protesting outside the house of a couple of people that have been discriminated against and had their case upheld.
andy may
as i said, they were aware of the ramifications. also protests are often conducted at the "coal face", eg animal exports etc, etc. i think we both have a differing slant on motives of the parties involved btw, the couple were on radio 2 today!
Alan Anderson
the cops will try and prosecute Griffin just because of who he is. I believe the owners had the right to deny the couple, but this will be spun all over the place
andy may
the couple who don't want their address known have just been on radio 2, talking about their plight. the woman who owns the guesthouse who's address is available to all, declined to appear. does anybody else see the irony in that?
dave
Loony right are at it again. Watch them...they are dangerous. Breivik showed the world what these idiots are capable of doing.
stevie may
10:40pm on 18/10/2012
Who cares what extreemists say. . . Dont give them the oxygen of publicity
Edgar Beckett
8:25am on 19/10/2012
We are all extremists of one sort or another.