Reader comments · Peter Tatchell blasts BNP leader Nick Griffin over ‘smears’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Peter Tatchell blasts BNP leader Nick Griffin over ‘smears’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Peter Tatchell is absolutely correct about the BNP being a bunch of sad, pathetic losers.

    What serious mainstream political party would Photoshop a picture on its website to alter words on a placard held by one of its most articulate opponents?

    They are an amateur bunch of immature, idiotic, misfit propagandists.

  2. Sad, pathetic, desperate losers they are, but people are actually voting them into power. Those supporters are even more terrifying.

    1. GingerlyColors 21 Oct 2012, 8:00pm

      We should be asking people why they are voting for the BNP. Many voters feel that the mainstream political parties are ignoring them. I personally want to know why David Cameron has granted the Scottish National Party the right to hold their referendum on Scottish Independence (although only about 1 in 3 Scots want to leave the Union) yet Cameron won’t grant us a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU although 2 out of 3 voters want out. Because of attitudes like that people are flirting with extremist parties like the BNP.

  3. Bill (Scotland) 20 Oct 2012, 8:07am

    Whilst I support Peter Tatchell in his efforts, I do wish he would stop peddling the lie that the BNP, vile outfit that it is, is a “far right” party, when a cursory examination of their policies reveals it is in fact a “far left” party.

    BNP supporters would, if they were not supporting that party probably be supporters of Labour, whereas Conservative ‘recidivists’ tend more toward supporting UKIP. Whilst I accept that former Conservatives might theoretically support the BNP I have never heard of any.

    1. Once again more nonsense claiming that the BNP are “left wing”. Let’s look at what the definition on Wikipedia of left wing is shall we;

      “In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality.They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.”

      Nick Griffin yesterday said that discrimination “was a right” and discrimination also means that you support inequality. Parties like the BNP don’t look kindly on those who are in need or vulnerable. If they were to gain power trade unions and strikes would be the first thing to be abolished. People will say anything to suit their agenda.

      1. Bill (Scotland) 20 Oct 2012, 7:05pm

        Once more the left-wing naked propaganda that its extremist wing, the BNP, is instead right-wing. I don’t need to look at Wikipedia to learn the truth – just read the BNP website and look at their policies. Almost all its supporters are former Labour supporters. These are the facts, however, much left-wingers wish to dispute it. It is illuminating to see the number of negative comments my truthful post has generated – it just goes to show that some of my fellow-gays are just as biased and subjective as the worst homophobes.

    2. Frankly, it doesn’t really make very much difference when things are that far off the scale; all the wing nuts meet up on the far side.

      It’s a bit like plunging your hand into boiling water or liquid nitrogen, the salient point is to steer well clear or you’ll get burned either way…

    3. The assertion that the BNP is a “far left” political party is as ridiculous as the BNP’s own claim that the British political establishment is “fascist”. With the utmost respect to Bill, he really needs to go and read a textbook on political theory, or even just modern history, because he is 100% utterly wrong, and would be recognised as such by any academic or student in the area of politics.

    4. Spanner1960 21 Oct 2012, 12:06pm

      I do wish people would study politics a little more.
      It is not a linear left to right concept, but actually a circular one, with socialism to the left, capitalism to the right, liberalism to the bottom, and extremism to the top. One only has to look at the likes of Stalin and Hitler to see the ends actually join in the middle and there was very little difference between their politics, and that N@zism was actually a socialist party that acted extremely right wing and that true fascism encompasses both left and right ideologies.

      1. Yes N@zism or the National Socialist German Workers Party was socialist just like The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic. What a load of b@llocks.

  4. I’m increasingly of the opinion that what Nick Griffin is currently engaged in is dogwhistle politics in its crudest form.
    In fact it’s dogwhistle politics with a foghorn hooked up to an amplifier.
    He’s playing to his natural constituency of far-right thugs who resent any minority being granted equality in the expectation that they will decend on Black and Morgan’s home with bovver boots for the sole purpose of intimidation and causing damage.
    His every press release is trolling for maximum impact.
    I do sometimes wonder whether the best ploy for the likes of him and the Westboro crowd are simply to deny them the press coverage as they act like attention-seeking missiles.

  5. Tatchell has actually said *some* of these things, of course… in a letter to The Guardian he did say that some of his friends had had sex with adults between the ages of 9-13, and that it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. Though it seems to me that given the context of those comments, Tatchell was merely pointing out something that’s very much the truth, even if it makes us uncomfortable – older kids do have a sex drive, and not every sexual experience of a person under 16 is going to cause psychological damage… or in other words, the world is a lot less black and white, and a lot more shades of grey, than we generally like to admit as a society. Then again, all he ever wished to do with the age of consent was to lower it a little and introduce close in age exceptions, so Griffin is still a lying fascist wanker.

    1. between the ages of 9 – 13? thats still a child if you want to lower the age of consent I would say 15 should probably be the lowest at the moment any younger and there will be people taking advantage of them.

      1. No, 16 should be the lowest possible age. I was a BNP supporter but this anti-gay thing too many people on the so-called ‘far right’ have is stupid and has lost the party many possible votes. Personally-speaking I have never understood homophobia. It should be relegated to the party it truely belongs to ie the ‘nasty party’ aka the Tories.

        The BNP is indeed in its dying days and this mainly due to Mr Griffin and his many bad decisions. A new nationalist party will be launched soon with a more liberal stance on the subject.

        1. Mister Fister 22 Oct 2012, 4:03pm

          A friend of mine who is not on the far right but on the ultra-exrtreme far right tells me that his political associates think the BNP are a bunch of morons who give racists a bad name. Even more surprising is how largely unconcerned these hate groups are with us or so he claims. I was more than sceptical when he told me this but he maintains that, although they are never going to be inviting us round to dinner, they have ‘greater concerns’. Go figure!

          1. That is true. You gay people are a very small minority who don’t fundamentally harm our country so why should any ‘far right’s supporter be logically against you? Of course, it stands to reason that just because someone is gay/bisexual it doesn’t mean they can’t love their country or their nation. Only morons think there is a fundamental contradiction between being gay/bisexual and being a patriot/nationalist. Gays/bisexuals are active in every sphere of politics from the Socialist Worker’s Party on the one hand to the BNP/NF on the other. Martin Webster was one of the NF’s most senior organisers yet he was gay.

          2. That is true. Being gay or bisexual is no bar to being a patriot or a nationalist and as gays/bisexuals don’t fundamentally
            harm our country why should so-called ‘far right’ groups be against you? Gays and bisexuals are involved in politics from far left groups like the Socialist Worker’s Party to ‘far right’ parties like the NF/BNP. Indeed, Martin Webster who was one of the NF’s most senior activists was gay.

  6. Paul from Brighton 20 Oct 2012, 10:53am


    Surely Nick Griffin is entitled to the freedom of speech caveats that Peter so likes to afford to criminals who walk around with slogans calling for police officers to be murdered and lamenting that more haven’t been killed?

    Or, radical clerics who call for the execution of gays?

    Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, apologise in advance, but my understanding of Peter Tatchell’s viewpoint is that Peter is a firm believer in the right of individuals and groups to speak out their mind, regardless of the hurt injury of determent caused to others.

    The fact that those who speak out, invariably lie and mislead as in the case of Nick Griffin, should surely have no affect of the absolute right of freedom of speech that Peter so widely champions for?

    1. Hard to say without trawling through the entire Tatchell Archive, but his latest statement would seem to be in agreement with the philosopher John Stuart Mill:
      In response to criticism of Griffin’s tweet, BNP supporters are whingeing that he is being denied free speech. I’m the first to defend freedom of speech, even the free speech of people with whom I profoundly disagree. However, Griffin’s tweet is not a simple free speech issue. He seems to have crossed the line from free speech into the realm of menace, threat and intimidation…
      …Free speech should normally only be criminalised in two circumstances. First, in the instance of damaging untruths, which harm a person’s reputation or put people in physical danger, such as false allegations of tax fraud or child sex abuse. Second, in the case of threats, harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence.
      Compare John Stuart Mill’s Harm principle:

      1. He should not be the one who does the deciding over what crosses the line and what doesn’t. It seems he only made this distinction because HE was the target this time and he didn’t like it.

        1. Do you disagree with where the line is?

    2. I absolutely agree that freedom of speech should be for everybody but what irritates me about Nick Griffin and the BNP is that although they always complain about “a lack of free speech” if they came to power free speech would immediately be silenced. Nick Griffin does not support freedom of speech, he only complains because his party and their views are becoming further marooned on the political margins where they belong.

      Let him speak of course but we must stand up to his bigoted and delusional claims.
      Anybody out there who thinks Nick Griffin is “a hero fighting for freedom of speech” is an idiot.

    3. Being the victim of homophobic abuse where I used to live, if I had a troglodyte like Griffin encouraging more of the same, I doubt I’d have survived it. I eventually moved away from that small-town mentality and escaped it, but it was there on a daily basis, every time I went out of or returned to my home, they even gave people who visited my home abuse. You can only successfully dodge so many beer bottles thrown at your head with anger.

      I think you misunderstand Tatchell on this. The man in question didn’t encourage anything and would have been seen for what he is by everyone in his local community. I doubt anyone would have had anything to do with him afterwards. He still has to live there doesn’t he. A fine or a community service order would have been more appropriate in his case because his actions encouraged nothing. Griffin on the other hand was clearly encouraging hate and violence towards particular individuals.

  7. Isn’t Nick Griffin breaking section 2 of the public order act 1986…?

    Peter Tatchell is trying to reform this law, no? I presume Peter feels insulted due to the defamation of his character.

    I completely understand his anger, but you can’t have one rule for one and another for someone else.

    I hope this vile creature, Griffin, is prosecuted. Why can’t he be Peter Griffin – get it? ;) haha

    1. Sorry, I meant section 5.

  8. Nick Griffin’s comments over the pat few weeks have been terrifying, truly. However the comments made in the guardian are deeply disturbing even when not taken grossly out of context

  9. Bill (Scotland) 20 Oct 2012, 7:08pm

    Whilst I support Peter Tatchell in his efforts, I do wish he would stop peddling the lie that the BNP, vile outfit that it is, is a “far right” party, when a cursory examination of their policies reveals it is in fact a “far left” party.

    BNP supporters would, if they were not supporting that party probably be supporters of Labour, whereas Conservative ‘recidivists’ tend more toward supporting UKIP. Whilst I accept that former Conservatives might theoretically support the BNP I have never heard of any.

    The last time I posted this truthful comment, however uncomfortable left-wingers here find it, it attracted 18 negative votes. I wish some of these idiots would read the BNP website and learn the truth – it is a hate-spewing far-left organisation with most of its support coming from former Labour supporters. Those are the facts – negative my comments all you wish, but you won’t change the facts!

    1. Frankly, it doesn’t really make very much difference when things are that far off the scale; all the wing nuts meet up on the far side.

      It’s a bit like plunging your hand into boiling water or liquid nitrogen, the salient point is to steer well clear or you’ll get burned either way…

    2. Bill, it seems abundantly evident that you have no intellectual background in political studies, hence why you make such a bizarre and ridiculous statement. The “fact” that some former Labour Party voters have turned to the BNP does in no way prove your initial assertion that the BNP are far left; it is indicative, however, that both parties have focused much of their campaigning strategy on the white working class. This is well documented. You will fail to find a single political analyst, historian or respected journalist who would concur with your claims; honest love, you’re in cloud cuckoo land if you actually believe that…

    3. I was a supporter of the BNP and have previously voted Tory so it is possible. The Tories used to have a fairly large ‘working-class Tory’ vote – a vote which is now virtually non-existent

  10. Hanging should be allowed for scum like Nick Griffin. There is no difference between the likes of Nick and terrorists IMO

    1. Too far… We’re civilised humans. No longer living in the dark ages.

      1. Spanner1960 21 Oct 2012, 12:09pm

        Oh I don’t know.
        There’s a lot to be said for peasants with torches.

    2. It’s a little ironic that the BNP are the only one of the ten largest parties in the United Kingdom to actually argue for the reintroduction of capital punishment… perhaps that is the only issue where they really are reflecting genuine democratic public opinion; most polls suggest strong majority support for the death penalty in extreme cases, and have done ever since it was abolished back in the ’60s….

      I wonder if those extreme cases would also include the crime of being a bigoted, fascist dick-wad ? Although I’m not sure that I agree with the death penalty, I wouldn’t be too concerned if someone bumped that frumpy old man off…

  11. Peter Tatchell not so supporting of freedom of speech now is he when hes the target.

    1. This is why free speech is such a misunderstood beast – it comes with caveats.
      Simply saying whatever the hell you want with total impunity is not the principle set out by the likes of John Stuart Mill, who’s “On Liberty” informs legal decisions around free speech.
      I can’t libel you with impunity, and neither can I broadcast a thinly veiled instruction to a rent-a-mob to kick in your front door and beat you up with impunity as both would violate Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’.
      From Peter Tatchell’s recent statements it would appear he gets this distinction, though I’m not sure whether he uses the more Voltarian model in other announcements, the famous “I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it”.

      1. I am fully aware of that particular essay flapjack having used and referenced it in my own work – that is my approach to it but Peter Tatchell wanted before complete freedom of speech, it appears this recent event has caused him to rethink his position.

        1. Peter Tatchell has always been very clear that causing offence is not a crime whereas causing harm is. Show us an example of where Peter Tatchell has argued for the right to slander, libel or incite to violence and I will call you out as a bigger liar than Nick Griffin.

          1. “” is not inciting violence?

            Had it been “” PT would be the first to demand prosecution.

  12. Mister Fister 22 Oct 2012, 3:52pm

    I am becoming increasingly tired of these irrelevant postings littering these pages. I do not fully understand the message you are trying to get across but I would like to.

    Please submit a cogent account of the grievance you have to Pink News so all of us can read and understand your obviously sincere beliefs that something wrong has been done. These sniping attacks give the impression that you are crackpots which I am sure you are not. Please do us all a favour and give us an intelligible account.

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.