BNP 'Koran burn' candidate Sion Owens due in court

Sion Owens, the BNP candidate in question

A BNP candidate for the Welsh assembly is due in court on Monday after police were passed a video appearing to show him burning a copy of the Koran. Sion Owens, aged 41, has been charged with a public order offence.

How can it be a public order offence when the act took place in a privately owned garage? Do South Wales Police believe in this prosecution or were they put up to it by the Crown Prosecution Service? Or maybe politicians keen on silencing the BNP?

It is a prosecution that makes a mockery of democracy. Let the debate begin for the Welsh Assembly on the hustings and not in the courts!

BNP Koran burner gets arrested - Florida preacher goes free!

Fiery Fury from a Foolish Man

A tale of two countries. In Wales and no doubt the rest of the United Kingdom, Koran burning is seen as a criminal offence. I'm not sure it should be. What I do know is that it is offensive as much as burning the Bible is. I have a guess that South Wales Police would not get out of bed on a Sunday morning for a Bible burning incident. Most Christians would be highly embarrassed to be seen publicly venting fury at such a display. Sadness, yes. Much else, no.

A BNP candidate for next month's Welsh assembly elections has been charged with a public order offence, after police were passed a video appearing to show him burning a copy of the Koran.

What a different story it is in Florida. Pastor Terry Jones has a "service" for Koran burning. Most of America is revulsed but stay rooted to the spot as the constitution is on the pastor's side. So no arrests as no offence is caused (in that sense).

Freedom of speech meets political correctness? In a way, I think. Both sides take an uncompromising view. In Britain you are free to speak your mind only if that mind finds favour with the majority. In the USA the majority has to sit back and take every insult because they are told the constitution holds that the state has no place in deliberating or curtailing a citizen's freedom of speech.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." When it came to the Florida pastor, Congrees knew there was a "clear and present danger" and lo and behold United Nations workers get beheaded. I believe in freedom of speech but not to the extent that danger may be created. But neither do I believe that the police should be the instruments of a politically incorrect moral high ground that ursurps freedom of speech.

Richard Barnbrook AM to join English Democrats?

Richard Barnbrook is the Assembly member on the Greater London Assembly who was elected as a list member for the BNP. Somehow he fell out with the BNP and drifted off into the nether regions of nationalist politics. Now I see that he is being courted by the English Democrats. Barnbrook is not one for membership of a party that says it is an inclusive organisation I would have thought.

The leader of the English Democrats is Robin Tilbrook, a pillar of legal and Anglican circles. I cannot understand why he thinks Barnbrook would be a suitable standard bearer, unless of course it's just opportunist politics with integrity on the back burner.

This from The Cross of St George Forum with all the shinanigans!

BNP candidate Derek Adams ejected from hustings by police

Democracy is on our minds now. In Arizona and in Oldham. A nutter goes on the rampage in Tucson. In Oldham it's a different matter. Greater Manchester Police are now the arbiters of democratic free speech. Whatever the chief constable might think, and "think" is something that he might be short of here, Derek Adams is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Who are the police to meddle in democracy?

Adams may not be the brightest candidate. He may have petty prejudices. His party is a rather authoritarian statist outfit. If allowed to speak he may well have put his foot in it. Now Greater Manchester Police have just given him every incentive to go out and say we live in a police state. What fools they are!

Let the people decide. Not a bunch of coppers doing some sort of political cleansing on behalf of apparatchiks.

BNP in new court battle over membership

It seems to me that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is on a crusade to impede democracy and stifle debate. They have an idea that, by going after the BNP, they can get the party to implode under a mountain of court costs. So they have come up with the ridiculous notion that loads of ethnic minority people should be allowed to join the BNP. All this in the name of equality. Of course, it has nothing to do with equality or discrimination. It has everything to do with trying to outlaw those you find objectionable.

The EHRC is alarmed at the 1 million voters who support the BNP. So by killing off the party they hope to change the minds of those voters. An absurd notion, but only those with absurd notions run the EHRC. If the BNP goes, another will take its place. Far better to debate and show why the BNP policies are not right.

If this ridiculous court case results in a form of entryism, then there will be all sorts of bogus demands, such as women forcing themselves into the Catholic ministry. It is a can of worms unleashed by those who are no better than Pharisees.

Mindsets are not changed by draconian laws. If that was so, then the glorious German Democratic Republic would still be up and running.

BNP in electoral oblivion?

Whilst the top brains of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats circle the wagons and decide on the best options open to them, other things are going on in domestic politics. The side show is The Sun getting steamed up about a 59-year old squatter in a posh London home. Getting further up the billing is the plight of the BNP. Most commentators have written them off as a joke. However, I think that is misplaced. We have now a form of multi-party politics. The BNP is a small player in this new agenda. What most forget is that the BNP can command the support of around one million voters if all UK voters get the chance to vote. On top of that my inclinination is to suggest that another two million let the possibility of supporting the BNP pass their minds. This is no insignificant part of the electorate.

So where are we now? The BNP is led by a man who is clever but prone to childish pranks, poses and postures. He also has rather an iron grip on the party. Most of the campaigning "skills" are his. This has led to a catastrophic result as far as seats are concerned, but votes have increased slightly. The party is in meltdown, though. The website is offline due to the fact there is a tussle between Griffin and the former webmaster Simon Bennett. The site was taken down because Bennett was landed with the legal mess due to Griffin's crazed campaign with and against Marmite. Council seats fell faster than the ten green bottles. Barking was skittle alley for Margaret Hodge. The anti-BNP coalition of oddball anarchists, self-righteous lefties and political streetfighters think they have won the war. I think it's no more than a battle at best. Probably a skirmish.

The BNP has been the most successful "far-right" political party in the UK. Such politics as it represents, that of nationalism and populism, attracts a percentage of the electorate. And it always has. However, it will never be a mainstream political choice. Margaret Hodge thinks the BNP will run off like a dog with its tail between its legs. I think she is wrong. This election never addressed the matter of the thoughts of people about immigration. They hear statistics and well-meaning phrases, but precious little understanding. Gordon Brown flew off the handle over "that woman" because he thought he heard her say racist things. He never attempted to understand where she was coming from, that is why her postal vote stayed where it was.

The BNP under Nick Griffin is not the answer to the questions that people want answered. Many say that when BNP councillors get elected they are hopeless at the job and this is mainly true. But some are not. I sense there may be quite a few who see a different leadership as being the BNP's salvation for future electoral forays. Time will tell. And that will be when we need to get serious about responding to the debate.

BNP "Vicar" is no Holy Man!

I do wish the BNP, the media and anyone else who thinks as such would refrain from calling Mr.Robert West a "vicar". He is definitely not a priest in the Church of England. He is not a clerk in holy orders. All he is is a self-styled itinerant preacher following his own version of the Christian Faith.

Most people in England have no idea what a vicar is or does. That's because the likes of The Sun use "vicar" in much the same way as they do "tragic tot", "terrorist", "beast" or "victim". Mr.West is very much a civil Christian in his public utterances. He panders to those who never set foot in church, yet who somehow believe they live in a protestant wonderland where a divine creator has given them complete control to command the lives of others.

The BNP has no vicar with a megaphone shouting the odds. It has a man in a clerical collar whipping up the political debate with falsehoods and fantasies. A vicar is a priest who has a parish where the stipend (salary) was historically mainly derived from lesser tithes. A rector, on the other hand, was a priest who received both the greater and lesser tithes. A rector therefore could be assumed to be better off than a vicar, but a vicar was definitely better off than a perpetual curate, who got no tithes but was given a small stipend from the diocese.

The term vicar has become a loose expression for a priest in the Established Church. In the folk pysche of English society, a priest is only to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. I was once asked by a cradle Anglican, a woman who attended church regularly, but who had all the hallmarks of a C of E background, "Is your uncle a priest or vicar?". "He's both", I replied, without further comment. She looked at me blankly, wondering how on earth such a thing could be possible.

The Church of England may be pleading with people not to vote for the BNP, but I somehow think that the dearth of any real understanding, any proper appreciation of the Faith in the mass of the population, is partly down to ineffectual leadership by the hierachy of the C of E. The BNP can call on the English people with some vague gospel of mumbo-jumbo religious rhetoric and it has an ability to stir latent protestant sentiments. Nothing too deep, no real spiritual basis, just a primeaval approach to the problems that beset people in their daily lives.

The Church of England is always put down as the religion of those who don't tick the box for anything else. "I'm C of E, I suppose" is the reply you often hear. It is this mass of unbaptised, non-churchgoing people that the media includes in their headcount of Anglican adherents. However, to be a Christian one has to be baptised. By all means, we should encourage those with a desire to explore faith and to embrace those who have no faith. My point is about the vast bulk of secular Britons who are no longer part of the Established Church but who claim a Christian heritage based on myths, fables and folklore. It is this group of souls that the BNP is exploiting.

BNP accounts to be investigated

The BNP is to get its accounts for 2008 investigated so the Electoral Commission has been telling the media. So the media has splashed it about suggesting that the BNP is running a kind of political ponzi scheme. I've become very suspicious of quangos lately but not for the same reason as the BNP. I think they think they are doing us all a favour by these antics. The truth is nearer to them being cackhanded helpers of the BNP cause.

According to the BNP they have had mega hits on their site. They are being watched daily by loads of people. So what do they say about their 2008 accounts?

Quote - "Responding to the EC’s announcement, BNP treasurer David Hannam said that he had spoken with that organisation’s head of enforcement, Natalie Birtle, earlier in the day. “I received an assurance from Ms Birtle that the investigation would be closed next week after we had met with her to discuss some final points. To open an investigation on the basis that it will be closed the following week, seems to me to be lacking in logic and indicates there must be some ulterior political motive,” Mr Hannam said. “This is further evidence of the increasing politicisation of the Electoral Commission, which is supposed to be an independent body,” he continued."

So basically there's nothing much wrong with the accounts. But the media is flagging it up as if it were. When will those opposed to the BNP get it into their thick heads that trying to undermine this party by furtive methods is never go to work. In fact it does the complete opposite.

Hard on the heels of the Electoral Commission and their antics come the church forums who are totally against inviting BNP candidates along. A lot of poncy clerics and self-righteous spokesmen talk about "giving them the oxygen of publicity". But all they do is pour loads of petrol on the BNP's network of publicity beacons. Surely these fools should know that they could out-debate a BNP candidate? Or are they so feeble-minded as to know what to say?

Thin end of the political wedge

A judge has seen fit to throw out the BNP's new constitutional rules. This is on the basis that they are still discriminatory on the basis of race. Maybe they are, but what these liberal minded baters, who are trying to use legal methods to implode or explode the BNP, forget is that such tactics backfire. For much of the past 25 years they have had a prissy policy of holding to a "no platform" approach. They hoped the BNP would drift away. However, as many of these libertine types are responsible for passing bad laws, defending immorality or just brushing unpleasant facts under the carpet, there is plenty of stuff for the BNP to say "I told you so".

Today we have had the conclusion of a review on whether teachers can be members of the BNP. The teaching unions are up in arms over the decision which says they can. Ms Chris Keates, of the NASUWT, is in a lather. She says, "The idea that a person who signs up to membership of the BNP can simply leave these beliefs at the school gate and behave as a 'professional' when they walk into school is risible." That is taking the typical leftie approach. What is definitely risible is that it seems OK to be a left-wing union activist but not be a member of a legal political party. I am all in favour of making sure political parties obey the law but attempting to outlaw personal beliefs, however odious one may find them, smacks of undemocratic actions. Ms Keane just plays into the hands of those in the BNP.

Personal politics have no place in the classroom, BNP or any other party. However, Ms Keates and her chums have infected schools with left-wing propaganda for decades. I know of many members of the Conservative Party, who are teachers, being held as suspect by the likes of Ms Keates. She seems to want a political-cleansing that suits her own propaganda.

I fear that the BNP are going to do well in the general election. They are parading themselves as white knights (literally) in the face of political ineptitude, bonus bagging bankers and corruption in high places. It shouldn't be that way. If the politicians had not seen fit to feather their own nests and the New Labour regime had not interfered on almost every level by imposing crazed ideas on social experimentation, we would have no rise in far-right politics.

The likes of Ms Keates are the cause of Nick Griffin's advancement. She needs a long hard look at herself in a mirror!

A Sign of The Times!

The Times may have changed quite a bit since Murdoch got his hands on it but that's no excuse for the BNP to manhandle a reporter in such a way that he nearly got his nose ripped off. Dominic Kennedy is quite at liberty to write what he wants to write. If the BNP bosses think this behaviour is likely to get them votes then they are living in a dream world. If Nick Griffin thinks that the House of Commons will be a delight, he needs to tone things down. In the unlikely event of him being elected he better not let his goons near the place. Anyway, he will be on his own.

This picture is a good example of why nationalist politics is so odious. Mr Kennedy was only doing his job in a democratic environment. I'd give them a wide berth but then I'm not an investigations reporter.

From Bombay to the BNP

It strikes me that certain people, whatever their background, have a propensity to think they know better than others when it comes to an opinion on racial matters. We have the prize example of Trevor Phillips, head of the Equalities Quango, going off to the courts in the hope of giving the BNP a fatal dose of legal judgement. He was hoping that the law would assist him in getting the BNP to implode. It backfired. All it did was to get the BNP writing him endless letters asking what he intends to do about the National Black Police Association and their non-white membership criterion. This is now being used by the BNP as a bit of propaganda.

So the BNP welcomes ethnic minority members and the more fired up they are against Muslims the better. Take Rajinder Singh, who is in his late 70s, and is quite open about his criticism of Muslims. He thinks they acquire a collective identity. "The Muslim answer to reasoned argument is knife, dagger and bomb," he says, neatly lumping them all in a collective identity. So he's going to do well in stirring things up.

Now I've long known that deep-seated resentments emanating from the sub-continent can flare up like a latent volcano. I've witnessed first hand a verbal insult session between a Muslim and a Hindu. Not a pretty sight. Only today I read in the Daily Mail (must be true!) that a BT customer who is of Pakistani background came in for a tongue-lashing from a BT call centre worker in India. He was called a 'Pakistani b******' and a 'mother****** and bombarded with hundreds of sinister silent calls. India is full of people keen to give others a bit of racial abuse. Egged on by the BJP, they have a go at the likes of McDonalds for opening hamburger restaurants, they round up Christians and others for being so-called "non-Indian" and they encourage the PC sycophants in the BBC to accept their name changes for cities like Bombay.

Racists are all over the world. It's a kind of base level one-upmanship. But surely we are above the level of dogs sniffing bottoms in the park. I've seen that too. A disparate group - a poodle, a Jack Russel, an odd cur and an overweight bitch. All seems sweetness and light until one sniff too many and all hell lets loose with teeth bared and a canine punch-up is in full flow.

If we kept the PC brigade and the racists at bay perhaps we might all get along quite nicely.

BNP do better in the Bahamas!

The BNP is trumpeting the fact that they are the most visited political website in the UK. As my mother would say, bully for them! I visited Alexa, the web tracking service, to find that the BNP is warmly received in the Bahamas. 230th most popular site. In India it ranks at 89, 566 but that is curiously interesting given the number of sites emanating from that country.

So the BBC has helped to unleash something. Are we capable of debating the points that arise or are we not? Given Jack Straw's lamentable performance last week, I think a new drawing board is required!

Lord Carey takes on the BNP

Lord Carey has come out to denounce the BNP and to pronounce an unsettled view of the Pope's invitation to Catholic Anglicans. The two topics are not related, but have been scrambled together as a soundbite piece. The former Archbishop came onto the Today programme yesterday to say he didn't say this and he didn't say that about the Pope's announcement.

So what did he say about the BNP. Apparently that their views are 'irredeemably evil'. I'm glad he said views and not the people themselves, because the Christian gospel tells us that nobody is beyond redemption. The archbishop should have clarified this point. In the heat of the moment all kinds of things can be misinterpreted.

Lord Carey spoke of views, plural. I have an overriding problem with the BNP's policy on promoting racially based policies likely to cause favouritism for white people (DNA tested, no doubt!) above others. However, on paper, this is the only detestable policy. All their other policies seem fairly anodine and stand up to scrutiny. I have an issue with the emphasis on "command and control" but that's about it.

What we have now is not a debate, because that would allow the BNP to become "equals". No, we have a crazed demonisation which allows Nick Griffin to sell himself as a political martyr. If all the media has in their arsenal is likening Griffin to Hitler and telling us what a bigot he is, then that won't change a thing. Tell us something we don't know.

So, my question is this. Can the mainstream politicians debate the policies of the BNP other than turning Griffin's personal bigotry into the main discussion topic? If they can't, then the BNP gets to go under the political radar and into pastures new!

Lies, deception and press claptrap!

I'm not in favour of dealing with political opponents in the way that the liberal elite and chattering classes have with regard to the BNP. All they do is conveniently cover up their own political crap and try to rubbish the far right with juvenile epithets and illogical soundbites.

The BBC is now being exposed as having entered into some kind of conspiracy to debunk Nick Griffin. All they have done is succeed in looking mightily dodgy as far as "a duty to impartiality" is concerned. In fact, the Deputy Director General of the BBC, Mark Byford, might as well have said the reason they wanted him on was to have a kind of "man in the stocks" reality show.

The audience was partially selected. Dimbleby is said to have encouraged booing. With what result. The BNP goes up in the polls because the programme was seen as a martyr's slaying. What a stupid lot they are.

Now for some real fibbing and deception. In the Daily Mail, a paper known for its epistolic abuse of asylum seekers and people of an economic migrancy tendency, Edward Heathcote-Amory says this of the BNP -

RHETORIC: 'Our immigration policy is supported by 84 per cent of the British people at present.'

REALITY: The BNP's immigration policy is voluntary repatriation of 'immigrants' (ie non-whites) regardless of whether they were born here. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people support such a plan. Mr Griffin himself recently suggested that if there was a problem working out where to send immigrants back to, he would 'drop them out of a plane somewhere over Africa'.

The inference is that the BNP is the only party to have a policy of voluntary repatriation. Edward is being partial with the truth. Ever since the Immigration Act of 1971 came into force, the government has a policy of voluntary repatriation.

The BNP’s policy is to:
- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

The New Labour government is trying to deport people, they are trying to reduce immigration and they have a voluntary repatriation scheme in place (not rescinded!).

If we are to have a debate let's cut out the lies and deceit. I do not favour or support the BNP because they do not give me the feeling that they will treat all Britons with equal fairness. Neither do I think their draconian policies will help. But we have to find a way to argue on the facts.

It seems those in positions of authority have abondoned arguing on facts in favour of demonising and deceiving. Question Time has come up to give the BBC a kick up the backside. Those who manipulate the truth will be found out. By all means attack Griffin on his ideas to 'drop people out of planes' but do not add untruths into the bargain!

One in five "considering" voting BNP!

Would you Adam 'n Eve it! The BBC has done the BNP proud. Not just by putting Nick Griffin on Question Time, but by allowing a dodgily selected audience (enticed to boo at appropriate moments like a 19th century music hall crowd) and by the fellow guests ganging up on him, thereby making him look "got at".

As Griffin himself says, this parody hardly touched the BNP policies. Now we have, according to Sky News, an opinion poll suggesting that 22% of the British people have allowed their minds to loosen overnight and for them to consider voting BNP. With a crowded field in many constituencies, that could see MPs elected. Now that would turn the House of Commons into a bear pit.

Remember, New Labour, who trumpet the fact that they "won" three general elections in a row, only managed to get 20% of the total electorate's support last time. Put's it into perspective a bit!

The BNP needs to be quizzed not on immigration or race - we know what they stand for there. Let's confront their command and control economic policies and their quick fix law and order solutions. But above all, please, please let the mainstream parties just stop the spinning, deceipt and cronyism. It's just helping to bolster the 22% as they mull over the benefits of a BNP government!

The hype was better than the show

So Nick Griffin has done his Question Time. I can't say I was impressed, by him or the BBC. In fact, the hype was more exciting than the actual programme. The only person to come out of it well was Bonnie Greer. She did her best to chivvy Griffin along and I think she succeeded. At one time I thought they had the making of a double act.

David Dimbleby seemed to have come with a type of Twenty Questions format, all ready to grill Griffin. The audience, which appeared anything but a cross-section of British society (more the BBC's insurance policy against being labelled a patsy for the BNP), were there to lob pot shots at "Nick". Chris Huhne did OK and Baroness Warsi was able to stick a few damp squibs on Jack Straw. I thought Straw was his usual evasive self when the questioning got tough on immigration.

But truth to tell, I don't think this will harm the BNP or do it many favours. My wife, who is anything but a BNP sympathiser thought Griffin enhanced his situation. That surprised me. I thought he looked like a controlled but shifty character, his bottom lip quivering as one insult too many struck home.

On tonight's showing Jack Straw won't cut the mustard nationally with the BNP. He might stir it up a bit in Blackburn, but he's got too many dodgy skeletons in his political cupboard. I'm surprised Griffin didn't use any (apart from his father's war effort). So the end result for me is that the BBC came off best with regard to the ratings and Bonnie Greer came off best with regard to the best way to treat your foes - with a grand mixture of humour, dignity and slight chiding!

BNP given succour by Labour's failures

This quote from BBC Newsnight on the BNP in Stoke-on-Trent -

"Dave Gore is a 40-year-old tradesman. He has just been made redundant. He says there is work out there but immigrant workers have pushed wages so low, he refuses to do it. He has voted Labour all his life. Now he is getting ready to vote BNP for the first time. "Labour took us for granted," he says. "They've done nothing for us. Now I'm going to give the BNP a chance."

Give the BNP a chance! That's what New Labour has given us. Because of their poncy behaviour with the banks, sucking up to dodgy corporatists and generally paving the way for self-engrandisement (Blair's multi-million pound financial caravan is a good example!), we have been left with an underclass that is bitter and resentful, together with an artisan class that is fearful and demotivated.

Perhaps Gordon Brown might do the decent thing and hand the keys of No 10 back in the morning! Oh, and Darling's borrowing bonananza. It won't be an extra 7% on income tax at payback time. It will be Denis Healey's squeaking of the pips for all of us. OUCH!

For once I agree with Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips is often too acerbic, too censorious for my catholic Anglican mind. However, I find that I am in agreement on occasions with many that I mostly disagree with.

This is one occasion. She says this, in her Daily Mail column, about the BNP and Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time.

"Alas, despite all the uproar, his opponents have settled upon the wrong strategy. And the reason they have got it wrong is precisely why Griffin has made the headway that he has. In a democracy, politicians from distasteful but lawfully constituted political parties - and the BNP is a legal organisation, with two MEPs - should not have their views suppressed but taken on and defeated in argument. But to do so, the positions they take and the source of their appeal have to be honestly acknowledged."

It is precisely because Peter Hain and his ilk have no clue about acknowledging how the BNP got nearly a million votes in June that the BNP succeeds. If Hain is so politically closet-ridden that he cannot "take on and defeat the BNP in argument" he should SHUT UP and let those that are going to do it DO IT!

BNP debate 'illegal', warns Peter Hain

Peter Hain is scrabbling around in the gutter trying to curry favour with every anti-democratic faction going. He's got apoplexy because the BBC has invited Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP and now an MEP, onto Question Time.

Hain's trumpeting the "fact" that the BNP is illegal. No more illegal than half the stuff he's been involved in. The man is a veritable plonker!!

The BBC has a duty to be impartial. It is absolutely right that the BNP is involved if a level of British people see fit to go out and vote in their dodgy candidates. Democracy throws up the rough with the smooth. All that the salivating Hain is doing is helping the BNP cause. So he's threatening to take the BBC to court!

The BNP is not illegal as far as the courts are concerned, or as far as the government is, or the Electoral Commission. Let this pompous prat waste his time in court on a frivolous legal challenge. My advice to all democrats is to debate with the BNP and take on the arguments.

Toffee-nosed Peter Hain in BNP disdain!

Peter Hain is the arch hypocrite. A man of self-serving self-righteousness, who demands that the electorate obeys his whims and fancies rather than thinking for themselves. As the BBC contemplates having a BNP presence on Question Time, Hain is in apoplectic fit mode. He is beginning to rant.

“I was horrified when I heard about this, because it makes them (the BNP) appear as if they are another political party sitting on a panel along with democratically-elected parties.” So Nick Griffin was not democratically elected? Was he shoe-horned in by a bevvy of sly operators all keen to see British democracy destroyed? Of course not. It's Hain's fantasyland, that's what!

If Peter Hain is too chicken to debate with the BNP, let somebody else do it. New Labour is the biggest recruiting agent for the nationalist agenda, so by just ducking out, Hain scores an own goal before the match has even started. Anyway, is Hain a loss to the debate? I hardly think so. He's probably more scared of Griffin picking through his expenses and his deputy leadership contest coffers.

Democracy? Not if you let Peter Hain control it. Free speech? Not if you let Peter Hain control it. What a pompous oaf!