Nick Griffin's *supposed* Twitter account suspended.

[MKR&*42]

Nick Griffin’s Twitter was suspended yesterday amid a police investigation into alleged comments he made about a gay couple at the centre of a landmark legal ruling.


The BNP leader is alleged to have 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. The Twitter account appears to have been reinstated today.


The alleged 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.


One of the tweets read: “So Messrs Black & Morgan, at [ADDRESS DELETED]. 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!”



Oh that's from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nick-griffins-twitter-account-suspended-as-police-investigate-accusations-he-tweeted-gay-couples-address-and-urged-supporters-to-demonstrate-outside-their-home-8217914.html , but there's others obviously.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I hate to say it, but I actually agree with him but obviouslty provided any protest is in a non-threatening manner.

Why? because I support property rights (the hotel owners) and freedom of speech (right to protest).

[GommeInc]

It was a bit stupid to publicly announce where the couple live :P

Personally I'm not too fond of the couple. I think the way they made a private offense public, gathering support from charities and angry supportists, was incredibly rude and incredibly stupid. As for the couple owning the B&B, it really depends how they went about it. As far as I am aware they were quite polite about it at first, and if they want to turn away custom then surely that's their problem?

[-:Undertaker:-]

It was a bit stupid to publicly announce where the couple live :P

Personally I'm not too fond of the couple. I think the way they made a private offense public, gathering support from charities and angry supportists, was incredibly rude and incredibly stupid. As for the couple owning the B&B, it really depends how they went about it. As far as I am aware they were quite polite about it at first, and if they want to turn away custom then surely that's their problem?

Indeed, in a free society where property rights are respected you ought to have the right to turn anybody away for any reason or no reason.

[MKR&*42]

Hmm. I don't actually know where I stand on this. He didn't exactly promote anything criminal nor say anything homophobic. So I don't get what they're going to do?...

I've always been a bit "uncertain" of issues regarding same sex couples. Only thing I'm definitive upon about them, is where I stand on same sex marriage.

[GommeInc]

Hmm. I don't actually know where I stand on this. He didn't exactly promote anything criminal nor say anything homophobic. So I don't get what they're going to do?...

I've always been a bit "uncertain" of issues regarding same sex couples. Only thing I'm definitive upon about them, is where I stand on same sex marriage.
You tease us, what is your view on same sex marriage? :P I think he got told off for posting their address than anything else. At least, that's what seems to be the first thing to come up. He doesn't seem to have any views, other than to cause a bit of a stir :P

[MKR&*42]

You tease us, what is your view on same sex marriage? :P I think he got told off for posting their address than anything else. At least, that's what seems to be the first thing to come up. He doesn't seem to have any views, other than to cause a bit of a stir :P

Don't expect him to have any major issues over that - a telling off in the simplest form I suppose.

I don't support same sex marriage :P

[GommeInc]

Don't expect him to have any major issues over that - a telling off in the simplest form I suppose.

I don't support same sex marriage :P
Indeed, Twitter could have a go at him for breaching a term of service (if they have one, never checked :P)

I'm sitting on the fence. Marriage seems a bit old fashioned and quite a few rights are conferred to people who aren't married but have their relationship recognised. It's all that is really needed.

[MKR&*42]

Indeed, Twitter could have a go at him for breaching a term of service (if they have one, never checked :P)

I'm sitting on the fence. Marriage seems a bit old fashioned and quite a few rights are conferred to people who aren't married but have their relationship recognised. It's all that is really needed.

It probably does seem a bit old fashioned to some people (I think atheists would argue that having a vicar or whatever present is extremely outdated as well - not that I believe that) but I don't really consider change a necessity. I think surveys have shown that very few same sex couples enter a civil partnership anyway and even fewer care about marriage/consider it a priority. I wish the government would focus on more important issues that the campaign for gay marriage imo :P

Lord knows if they'll ever legalise it. There's going to be such strong debates over the matter in the coming months/years, and 600,000 people have already signed that online petition (campaign for marriage or something) against the change.

[GommeInc]

It probably does seem a bit old fashioned to some people (I think atheists would argue that having a vicar or whatever present is extremely outdated as well - not that I believe that) but I don't really consider change a necessity. I think surveys have shown that very few same sex couples enter a civil partnership anyway and even fewer care about marriage/consider it a priority. I wish the government would focus on more important issues that the campaign for gay marriage imo :P

Lord knows if they'll ever legalise it. There's going to be such strong debates over the matter in the coming months/years, and 600,000 people have already signed that online petition (campaign for marriage or something) against the change.
Ah that's a different way to look at it. It is always promoted as something all or most gay couples want when, as you said, there isn't a strong demand for it. I think American states legalised it for a bit, but there wasn't a strong demand in the end so they revoked the laws keeping to more civil based laws on rights between couple (recognised and unrecognised).

It's interesting, but equality shouldn't swing in favour of one particular thought. In this case I just see it as the B&B owners declining a service which is their loss, they're not gaining anything from saying no. If anything the only fault they have is not saying it sooner, like on their website which is where I believe the gay couple found the B&B. Not that it matters, as I find these cases lose their appeal when obviously private cases like this become public.

[David]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/19/article-2219993-15911688000005DC-347_634x446.jpg

[MKR&*42]

Ah that's a different way to look at it. It is always promoted as something all or most gay couples want when, as you said, there isn't a strong demand for it. I think American states legalised it for a bit, but there wasn't a strong demand in the end so they revoked the laws keeping to more civil based laws on rights between couple (recognised and unrecognised).

It's interesting, but equality shouldn't swing in favour of one particular thought. In this case I just see it as the B&B owners declining a service which is their loss, they're not gaining anything from saying no. If anything the only fault they have is not saying it sooner, like on their website which is where I believe the gay couple found the B&B. Not that it matters, as I find these cases lose their appeal when obviously private cases like this become public.

Found it.


Polling shows that only a minority of
gay people (39 per cent) believe gay
marriage is a priority. And according to
the Government only 3 per cent of gay
people would enter a same-sex marriage.

Wouldn't call 39% a minority, think that's pushing the boundaries really. But 3% is really un-necessary, as you said, it shouldn't be changed because of one thought. Legalising gay marriage and then having 3% of same sex couples using it is a tad silly.

I'm sure couples in a civil partnership have identical rights to those married currently? (Excluding very few differences regarding the actual 'wedding'.) By that logic, there really isn't any need to change it to marriage if the wedding is the only partial difference. But then, someone could quite easily argue "Why can't they be called the same then if they're almost identical" which is why I usually never say that :P

It seems highly un-needed to practically force churches into same sex marriage. I think they should be allowed to decide individually; I'd approve that approach more than taking action against people (like the B&B owners) for very minor issues.

Can't wait 'till someone who supports it starts debating with me :/.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I signed the Coalition for Marriage petition based on the fact I reject the proposals as they stand for legalising gay marriage. Ideally, i'd like the state removed from marriage so that although gay 'marriage' would be de facto legalised... it'd break the monopoly of the state and the state defining it. Also, with equality laws - I see numerous situations where equality laws will be used against Christians and those who speak unpolitically correct views.

My personal view is that I don't view it as genuine marriage at all, Ann Widdecombe did an amazing speech on this topic that i'd urge anybody to watch especially as social conservatives are never given any airtime or coverage - passionate in defence of marriage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIZ3WnE7U1I

[MKR&*42]

I signed the Coalition for Marriage petition based on the fact I reject the proposals as they stand for legalising gay marriage. Ideally, i'd like the state removed from marriage so that although gay 'marriage' would be de facto legalised... it'd break the monopoly of the state and the state defining it. Also, with equality laws - I see numerous situations where equality laws will be used against Christians and those who speak unpolitically correct views.

My personal view is that I don't view it as genuine marriage at all, Ann Widdecombe did an amazing speech on this topic that i'd urge anybody to watch especially as social conservatives are never given any airtime or coverage - passionate in defence of marriage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIZ3WnE7U1I

I believe I got an email from C4M containing that video, been meaning to watch it. Brilliant speech from the woman. I knew there were quite a few pieces of legislation containing reference to marriage/husband/wife etc. but was unaware that it was as high as 3,000 - which, as she said, "... likely to take up a rather a lot of time - and many of us would say we've got plenty to do without that".

"Party to a marriage" goodness.