Reader comments · Nick Griffin pulls out of Queen’s garden party · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Nick Griffin pulls out of Queen’s garden party

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 27 May 2009, 4:29pm

    I’m pretty certain that queenie would have gotten on rather well with Nick Griffin. She’s the unelected head of state in Britain and the head of a monarchy which does not allow women equal rights to succession and which punishes its members for marrying catholics (whether they are practising or not). And considering how racist her husband is I reckon queenie and Nick Griffin would have had a lot in common

  2. Ironic that Nick Griffin wants to use the image of Winston Churchill in his campaign, considering that Adolf Hitler’s politics would be a closer match.

  3. vulpus_rex 27 May 2009, 5:33pm

    Although Prince Phillip is well known for making gaffes inspired by ignorant stereotypes, he did spend the second world war fighting fascism and oppression as part of the Royal Navy (This despite his strong family connections to Germany).

    I thus think it highly unlikely either he or his wife would welcome a vist from Mr Griffin, given that Griffin represents everything that royal Navy fought so hard against.

  4. I think that Griffin did the right thing here by stepping down. I also think that Barnbrook made a noble gesture when he said he would take the mum of a dead Iraqi squaddie to the Garden Party. I hope she gets time to talk to the Queen and tell her what SHE thinks about the government’s illegal invasion of Iraq with the US, and the killing/displacement of upwards of 1.5 million Iraqi citizens from their homeland.

  5. Simon Murphy: I suppose elected people make *such* a better choice. Just like the elected peers* in the Lords have their snouts in the trough already whilst the life peers accept the position as an honourable appointment.

    (*For elected, read = Made by Blair, Chosen by socialists feathering their own nests)
    The royal family have more class in their little fingers than you bunch of Trotskyists have in your entire collective bodies.

    Oh, and what’s so wrong with not marrying Catholics? Most of the people on here are majorly anti-religion. You like to change your tune when it’s convenient to use in an argument.

  6. Sister Mary Clarence 27 May 2009, 11:21pm

    Caroline, I’m not sure the Queen actually had a huge amount of influence over the decision to deploy troops to Iraq – you may be confusing her with Elizabeth I – although, I’m her beef was with Spain as I recall.

  7. Ha, Ha, Ha!!!!! Vote Greens in the North-West to keep this guy out of the European Parliament.

  8. Simon Murphy 28 May 2009, 1:07pm

    RobN – when I say elected I mean elected by the public. The appointments to the Lords made by Blair are not elected representatives. In the US both Houses are elected. Why are British people not allowed to elect their Upper House? I mean the House of Lords is allowed to kill legislation. BUt they are not then answerable to an electorate? That is not democracy.

    As for the monarchy – well that is a parasitical organisation. Don’t get me wrong – I detest the catholic cult (as much as I detest the anglican; muslim; sikh; hindu cults) but the fact that catholics and women are discriminated against in the royal laws is vile.

    Britain should have an elected president. Many countries have a ceremonial Head of State who represents the country. The real power would remain with the PM. That would make abolishing the monarchy very easy. All that it would mean is that every 5 or 7 years a new ceremonial president gets elected. Lizzie herself would probably get elected.

    It’s no coincidence that the BNP is a huge fan of the monarchy. Neither the BNP or the monarchy cares about democracy

  9. RobN

    You’re a bit of a winnet mate.

    “The royal family have more class in their little fingers than you bunch of Trotskyists have in your entire collective bodies”

    The royal family are BORN into this institution, they do not earn it, and they need hardly any education for this role; whilst still having the responsibility of Head Of State. The Queen is not thick by all accounts, but I attained much better A-Levels than both Harry and William combined. Plus the royals have a centuries long tradition on in-breeding. Phillip is a cousin on the Queen, even poor Lady Di was related along the line. That is NOT class. In-breeding is not class. Neither is preventing older females from gaining the throne over their younger brother…..want an example of how this is/was flawed? Elizabeth I. Discrimination against Catholics is anohter example of how draconian their ideals are. Not to mention the amount of animals they kill via hunting. You are not born with ‘class’, that’s a pre-1950s ideal. In this day and age it’s about decorum, manners and personality. Even the poorest amongst us have these.

    And atleast Blair partly reformed the House Of Lords, the ‘born to rule’ Tory’s kept it the same.

    The ‘snouts in the trough’ comment is the most, boring, predictable and over-used phrase during this expenses row. I take it you’re a Sun reader?

    Oh and by the way, I am not a Trotskyist, far from it; but I would rather be accused of that than be an actual Thatcherite like you!

  10. Simon / Lezabella: No surprises here that the lefties would start screaming “democracy”. The fact that Blair threw out years of hereditary peers just to inveigle his own cronies into their positions is certainly no surprise, and most certainly NOT democratic.

    The whole point of having unelected peers is they have no axe to grind, they have no party politics, they see their role as a duty, not a job and act as individuals and arbiters of the people. Had it not been for the Lords, many a rushed through, badly thought out bill would have become policy without a second thought. Labour have made more laws in the last fifteen years than the rest of the governments put together since the war. By introducing Blair’s “Yes-men”, it has allowed all this crackpot legislation to actually become a reality. If that’s what you call democracy, we are all fucking doomed.

    Ditto for the Royal Family, again, they are not party political, they are recognised and respected throughout the world, and represent this country far better than any faceless suit that will be recycled every so often for more of the same. The Monarchy has a lineage, and that counts for a lot when the most powerful country in the world cant count far beyond two hundred years. Their power is limited, but their effect is huge. Socialists may complain they are born into wealth, but equally, they are born into a role, whether they wanted it or not, and they carry out their duties with considerable ability and aplomb. You won’t find them fiddling their expenses.

    Oh, and “snouts in the trough” is the most appropriate, succinct and descriptive terms for the fat, money-grabbing pigs that run this country, party politics aside. And no, I wouldn’t wipe my arse with a rag like the Sun. I read the paper that started it all: The Daily Telegraph.

  11. Ciaran McMahon 28 May 2009, 3:18pm

    “I suppose elected people make *such* a better choice.”

    Yes. They do. The opposite of this is a dictatorship, and that didn’t really end well for Germany in 1945. Or France in 1814. Or Kampuchea in 1975.

    “recognised and respected throughout the world”

    No, they’re not. What a load of bollox. I’d like you to see if the side of the population of Northern Ireland who call themselves Irish would think so. I doubt it.

    “The Monarchy has a lineage, and that counts for a lot when the most powerful country in the world cant count far beyond two hundred years.”

    Sure, if you count interbreeding. I don’t think that’s the same thing as class.

    “I read the paper that started it all: The Daily Telegraph.”

    No surprise there. Nothing but a right wing propaganda rag for the intellectually barren.

  12. Royals fiddling their expenses? Mate they don’t need to fiddle them, they get millions out of the Privy Purse despite being the richest landowners in the world. Money that they don’t need, but still demand. I really don’t get why people love them, I don’t have a feeling on them generally and I can see both points of view. But at the end of the day they’re just a billionaire family who live in big houses. And just think, in the olden, olden, olden days they must have become King/Queen by being nothing more than a bully, seizing land and valuables paving way for this to continue for hundreds of years afterwards. The amount of people that were slaughtered by their ancestors request (right up until a few hundred years ago) should make people ashamed of the royal’s lineage not proud with some distorted nostalgic view.

    Again, the House Of Lords may have been filled with Labour’s appointments, but that doesn’t mean they will agree with everything Labour does/says. They need an elected House Of Lords , what Blair did was the first step. When it was solely heriditary, we looked a laughing stock to the world, these Lords that just happened to be born actually held power, they could be anyone with any views; and they hardly ever turned up to debates! The fact that it was a ‘tradition’ means fuckall; it used to be tradition to drown ‘strange’ women suspected of witchcraft. Doesn’t make it OK.

    I’m glad you don’t wipe your arse with the Sun, it’s a scumbag paper, with scumbag ideals and should never be forgiven for it’s ‘coverage’ of Hillsborough.

    The telegraph is still a Tory rag.

    Do you mind me asking, but are you gay? And are you a Tory supporter too?

  13. Simon Murphy 28 May 2009, 3:42pm

    RobN – you are entitled to be opposed to democracy. That’s your business. However I would like the House of Lords abolished in its entirely and replaced by a fully elected (by the public that is – not the PM) upper house. The US / France /Germany etc etc ALL have fully elected Upper and Lower Houses. Your justifications for keeping the ridiculous anachronism that is the House of Lords makes no sense when you realise that countries are able function perfectly well when the electorate votes for both Houses.

    As for the Royals – well again you are entitled to your opinion that the queen is allowed to be head of state by accident of birth (and you are entitled to be of the view that the institution of monarchy discriminates against women and catholics). I am Lizzie is a very nice old dear. But I want to live in a country where I am allowed to choose who leads my country.

    The BNP and the monarchy have LOTS in common. I’m certain Lizzie would vote for them.

  14. vulpus_rex 28 May 2009, 4:05pm

    Elected head of state = George Bush, or even worse President Blair.

    I am glad we have a politically neutral head of state who puts duty and service to the country ahead of party politics.

    If you read the BNP manifesto you will find that they have a lot in common with the Green party – that doesn’t make supporters of the Green party racist, fascist thugs though.

  15. Brian Burton 28 May 2009, 4:56pm

    A piece work is Simon Murphy, he’s so mean he hates himself. He just dos’e not know when he is well off. He should try living with the Tallyban, he would have more in common with them I suspect!
    It has been alleged Nick Griffin is Gay, I don’t have any confirmation about that.

  16. Shame really. How would Griffin embarrass Liz? Was there a chance they could turn up in idential outfits?

  17. Ciaran McMahon 29 May 2009, 6:45am

    “A piece work is Simon Murphy, he’s so mean he hates himself.”

    And where do you get that from, Brian? Quite a leap of imagination, simply because Simon makes good points. What’s wrong, can’t understand them, so you have to attack him? And what’s it with the “Tallyban” crap, can’t you spell, or are you 5 years old? Grow up.

    And Simon makes good points. The UK could take a leaf out of Ireland’s book, one of it former dominions. The head of state, the President, is elected. The Upper House is elected, as is the lower house, and to fixed terms of office. And we have a WRITTEN Constitution, one that can only be changed by the will of the people. Hence we were the only state in the EU to vote on the Lisbon Treaty… that’s not down to our “kind” government, that’s down to the Constitution being above government and the government had no choice but to put it to the vote of the people. That’s how a modern democracy and government should work, should operate, only by the will of the people. I know old RobN isn’t a fan of democracy, and I would love to hear his alternative form of government. But he reads the Daly Telegraph, and we’ve all seen how angry he is, so no doubt he votes BNP and pats himself on the back for it.

  18. Brian Burton 29 May 2009, 10:16am

    Ciaran McMahon,
    You and Simon Murphy should ‘pair up’ if you are not already!
    I will not listen with out reply any anti-establishment moron running down our Royal Family. ‘Brittain is ‘MY Country’ and I would willingly die for Queen and Country. If you and Simon are not Brittish, It dos’e not qualify either of you to run down Brittains Royal Family. So with great respect to both of you–GET STUFFED.

  19. Ciaran McMahon 29 May 2009, 10:23am

    “Brittish, It dos’e not qualify either of you to run down Brittains Royal Family”

    Oh, boo-f*cking-hoo, Brian. I’ll say what the hell I want about the “royal” family, and neither you or any of your “what-hoe-chappies” brigade can stop me. Its my entitlements, as a free citizen in a democratic society, you neanderthal.

    The “royal” family are a bunch of inbred parasites of British society, and that tear in your eye for god, queen and country won’t detract from that truth one little bit.

    How about you get a dictionary, you look like you have the mental prowess of a dyslexic 4 year old.

  20. Ciaran McMahon: What’s the bets you are an Irish Republican that’s living in the UK, and poncing off my country?

  21. Ciaran McMahon 29 May 2009, 10:51am

    Well, RobN, what’s the bets you completely wrong, you arrogant idiot. And I am not an “Irish Republican”, I am an Irish citizen. Buy a map made after 1820 and take your nose out of that gutter rag the Daily Mail, and you might learn something.

    Wake up call for you, mate, the internet is global.

  22. Oh, dear. No doubt we’re on for ANOTHER spectacularly intelligent racist attack by RobN again all things not “British” and not in agreement with his angry view of the world.

    Maya Angelou once said “Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.”

    Maybe RobN should read more.

  23. When describing the royal family as parasites because they live off the state, it might help to remember why they do so.

    One of the King Georges recognised the enormous wealth of the crown and realised it could be put to much better use if it were managed for the population’s benefit. He therefore surrendered all title to the significant majority of the crown’s wealth in return for an income in perpetuity for the royal family – hence the civil list.

    Whilst this income is beyond the dreams of most of the UK’s population, it is far less than the wealth that was surrendered.

    Do also remember that as we are not a republic there are no citizens in the UK, like it or not we are all subjects of HM Liz the seond.

  24. Wisdom is not hereditary and mammals should not be worshipped, Vulpus Rex…

    That said, for now, I am happy for Liz to stay in her post. At least we can see what the Queen and co are spending their money on (including about half a million for the helecopter that Prince William recently crashed, after f**king up the gear box).

    It seems at the moment, the people we elect are far more likely to be parasites…. In fact, I would respect her far more if she used her executive powers and dissolved parliament right now.

    On the BNP – see fraser nelson’s very cogent article on the rise of the BNP in this week’s Spectator. I suggest people read that, take on board the warnings. I think the best thing to do is give them airtime. Let them argue their views and destroy them in the public sphere. Otherwise, they have this ‘maverick’ appeal.

    I think the extreme right wing has capitalised on the failure of the main parties to distinguish between religious fanaticism, multi-cultural etiquette. They elevate self-serving, self-elected extremists like the muslim council of britain to community spokespeople, they don’t stand up for universal human rights – as seen by allowing sharia tribunals, turning a blind eye to abuse and indoctrination which is rife in those appalling faith schools as well (Holy Tony’s ludicrous idea). Meanwhile, moderate and ex-muslims are sidelined, especially by the media.

    ‘There’s one law for everyone and that’s all there is to be said’ – Lord Mansfield would be turning in his grave if he saw how the woolly minded have perverted justice in this country with such stupidity. By the way, ‘woolymindedness’ is a cross-party phenomenon.

  25. Typical Lefties using their famous “humiliation tactics”:
    If you are not dyed-in-the-wool Labour, you must be a Tory, (or worse).
    If you oppose immigration, you are a racist.
    If you oppose police operations, you are an anarchist.
    If you stand for tradition, you are an old fuddy-duddy.

    I for one won’t bow down to this crap, and if you want to pigeon-hole me with the intent of trying to make me look bad, go ahead.

    The point is, the Labour government has done such an appalling job of running the country, that the average British person is sick and tired of this crap and is going elsewhere, and if many of them vote BNP, it will be this government that brought it upon themselves.

  26. Seig Heil, RobN!

    Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!

    Fucking idiot that you are.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.