Police Investigating Griffin Tweets


9:34 pm - October 18th 2012

by Sarah McAlpine    


      Share on Tumblr

Police have been informed about a series of tweets by Nick Griffin in response to the ruling of a discrimination case against a B&B owner who refused to give a couple a room on the grounds that they were gay.

Mr Griffin published Michael Black and John Morgan’s address, advocating a demo outside of their home after it was announced that the court had ruled in their favour, referring to them as “bullying ‘gay’ activists”.

“A British Justice team will come up to Huntingdon [sic] and give you a bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple’s home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia.”

B&B owner Susanne Wilkins was ordered to pay £3600 in damages for hurt feelings after it was ruled that she “treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances.” The couple are donating the money to Oxfam.

Cambridgeshire Police have said that they are looking into complaints against Griffin, and will be speaking to Mr Black and Mr Morgan as well (by everette devan). Griffin has since had his twitter account suspended.

Update: Griffin’s twitter account has been reinstated and the tweet including MrBlack & Mr Morgan’s address has been deleted. 19/10/12 08:58
    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sarah McAlpine is a News Editor at Liberal Conspiracy, and volunteer Co-Editor at www.womensviewsonnews.org. Raging Feminist. She likes Politics, Smashing Patriarchy & Animal Videos - though not necessarily in that order.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Crime ,Equality ,News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Chaise Guevara

Y’know, I saw the title of this thread and clicked on the link in the sad belief that I would have to defend Griffin. Then I read that he published their address. So looks like the police really should be involved.

Also: “Say No to heterophobia.” Does the man have to top-up his pillock quota every month or something?

I think what we’re looking at here is, a) a man of “unresolved” sexuality, and b) one rejected by more than his fair share.

I’m getting the unpleasant feeling that Griffin would rather welcome publicity from being prosecuted – as others have been for posting threats on social media websites:

17-year-old arrested over string of malicious tweets sent to Olympic diver Tom Daley
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/london-2012-17yearold-arrested-over-string-of-malicious-tweets-sent-to-olympic-diver-tom-daley-7993820.html

Agreed Chaise. It’s a bit of a non-story because it’s not controversial. What can you say about it other than he deserves to be reprimanded some way?
And is a pollock of course. Why so much attention is paid to the oddball though, I don’t really know.
He’s the left’s equivalent of Abu Hamza.

Damon @4:

Ah, I see what you’rw doing there. You’re calling Griffin leftwing, you cunning so ‘n so.

@3 Presumably the attention is paid because he happens to be the leader of a well known political party.

@4 even.

Chaise @1

I think your first instinct was the correct one.

Have thought about this carefully and, on balance, I think we have to defend Griffin’s right to free speech and the right of others to protest if they wish. Of course they have no right to protest violently or to compromise the use of Black and Morgan’s property.

Whether the language used in the tweet amounts to incitement would be a matter to be decided in a court but, again on balance, I think it could only be legitimately prosecuted if it could be shown that violence had resulted as a consequence.

@8 pagar

Ok. What’s your address then?

10. Man on Clapham Omnibus

I’m an interested as to what Law(among the Millions available) the plod will get him on?
Also on what grounds Twitter have suspended his account?
Personally I love this Guy (pun intended). He’s just the kinda person that gives a nazi a bad name. May he long be allowed to speel his vituperative nonsense.

Even though I think protesting outside people’s houses is wrong, it’s what was done outside Nick Clegg’s house, but those protesters called it a street party.
So mayby that’s what the BNP should call their’s.

I just saw the front page of the Metro newspaper and it’s the headline story for some reason. Strange.

12. James from Durham

When I saw the Metro headline, “Griffin Gay Storm”, I thought the story was merely going to be a salacious intrusion into Old Nick’s private life.

@ Pager – I’m going to publish the address of everyone on the witness protection scheme and suggest that those who dislike ‘grasses’ should pay them a visit.

Am I just expressing free speech?

14. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@13

I think you’ll find those addresses wont be available to you.

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 8 pagar

“I think your first instinct was the correct one.

Have thought about this carefully and, on balance, I think we have to defend Griffin’s right to free speech and the right of others to protest if they wish. Of course they have no right to protest violently or to compromise the use of Black and Morgan’s property.”

I feel it’s borderline. He hasn’t overtly called for violence. However, he must know he’s potentially facilitating it by bitching them out on the internet, publishing their address, and telling people to go give them drama.

There was a case a while back in which two neighbours were having a dispute, so neighbour A published neighbour B’s address on the internet and falsely claimed he was a paedophile. Obviously that’s libel, but in publishing the address it seems pretty clear that she wanted to incite violence or at least harassment against him. Should people be able to get away with this sort of thing because they haven’t directly asked people to break the law? It’s a tricky one.

In both cases, it’s the publication of personal details that’s the issue (plus libel in the latter).

Well then Pagar you are utterly devoid of all common sense.

If you can’t identify someone tweeting his tens of thousands of followers the physical address of someone to whom he is openly hostile, and telling them to go there and cause some “drama” – if you are so blind as to be unable to identify that as a crystal clear case of harassment… well, then you really are beyond all hope.

I mean, *even for a libertarian* – that is ideological obstinacy beyond measure.

Larry:

>”If you can’t identify someone tweeting his tens of thousands of followers…”

>
I doubt he’s got that many. Someone must know.
I’d bet it’s only in the dozens of regular followers who support the BNP.

18. Chaise Guevara

@ 17 damon

“I doubt he’s got that many. Someone must know.
I’d bet it’s only in the dozens of regular followers who support the BNP.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of his followers are people who dislike him and are hoping he’ll say something stupid and compromising (and, if so, their hopes have been realised!).

Should people be able to get away with this sort of thing because they haven’t directly asked people to break the law? It’s a tricky one.

I think the law has to allow for prosecution in situations like this (and I don’t think solely excluding the address would have been enough, because there’d still be encouragement to find it and go there) – and juries to acquit if the CPS misuses it. Otherwise …

Members of the jury, when my client, Don Mobster, told his employee that the deceased should sleep with the fishes, this was a reference to the installation of an aquarium in the deceased’s bedroom, as part of my client’s property renovations business, and was completely unconnected to the deceased’s death three hours later. This being the only flimsy evidence that the police have to connect my client to this alleged murder, you must acquit.

20. Chaise Guevara

@ 19 cim

“I think the law has to allow for prosecution in situations like this (and I don’t think solely excluding the address would have been enough, because there’d still be encouragement to find it and go there) – and juries to acquit if the CPS misuses it. Otherwise …”

Absolutely. Although I think for me the line was crossed with the provision of the address. Otherwise it’s not different for organizing any kind of protest (because there’s always a risk that some of the people who turn up will get violent).

“Members of the jury, when my client, Don Mobster, told his employee that the deceased should sleep with the fishes…”

Oh, yeah, euphemism is no excuse. Thing is that it’s honestly not clear whether Griffin was euphemisin’. Whereas providing the address is something he definitely did and definitely shouldn’t, so to speak.

@13. Planeshift: “@ Pager – I’m going to publish the address of everyone on the witness protection scheme and suggest that those who dislike ‘grasses’ should pay them a visit.

Am I just expressing free speech?”

I have worked with loads of people handling volume data about citizens. I have worked with a few people who worked with Home Office data associated with a potential prosecution. I have spent loads of my time explaining that they do not treat data (aka citizens) with respect.

They do not known what they are doing.

As Andrew Brons walks out, the BNP is now going the way of the NF before it and of the BUF before that.

They, too, made a lot of noise, but nothing much more than that, for a few years, and then went away.

It will be 30 or 40 years before the same thing happens again.

@15. Chaise Guevara: “I feel it’s borderline. He hasn’t overtly called for violence. However, he must know he’s potentially facilitating it by bitching them out on the internet, publishing their address, and telling people to go give them drama.”

I think that you introduced the concept of violence too early in that argument.

The laws that Griffin potentially has broken address offensiveness and personal fear. The Tweet refers to a home address and could be interpreted as inciting a demonstration outside that property. A silent demo might be enough to make people afraid; it is a legitimate form of protest against organisations, but when used against individuals it is intimidation.

You do all know that Griffin didn’t actually tweet anyone’s actual home address?

So there has been no offence here at all: Either legal, moral or in Twittersphere.

Just saying.

25. Chaise Guevara

@ Ravi

Article says: “Mr Griffin published Michael Black and John Morgan’s address, advocating a demo outside of their home after it was announced that the court had ruled in their favour, referring to them as “bullying ‘gay’ activists”.”

What’s your basis for claiming otherwise?

26. Chaise Guevara

@ Charlieman

I’m kind of bodging “personal fear” and “threat of violence” into one: in this context, they seem close enough to the same thing.

Surely the crux of the matter is intent. Paul Chambers’ threat to blow up Robin Hood airport was obviously a joke. Azar Ahmad’s rant was an expression of disgust and anger at civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Other prominent cases have just been idiots with personality issues. What was Griffin’s intention?

I’ll answer my own question. He leads a fascist party that has no qualms about violent rhetoric and has members who are known violent offenders. His party hates, among others, homosexuals. He published the address of two gay men who have been prominent in the media. He suggested a visit from a sort of specialist team of BNP activists to cause some “drama”. No reasonable person should doubt that the intention was to incite violent intimidation.

I have no problem with free speech. Let a so called libertarian use the word “nigger” which seems to be what they want. If they get an equally robust response then that is only to be expected. In this case there’s more, incitement to violent intimidation, and that is why Griffin should be investigated and held to account.

@ 25 — Chaise Guevara

Because I know what he Tweeted and what their actual address is. Quite simple really: I don’t blindly accept what others tell me is the truth to be the actual truth.

And so now, as a result of discovering this truth, maybe it will make sense to you that not only has Griffin’s Twitter account been reactivated but he has not even been arrested, let alone charged. Nor will he be.

Oh and also, did you know that the 2 men involved have said they do not want to pursue it too?

29. Shatterface

Because I know what he Tweeted and what their actual address is. Quite simple really: I don’t blindly accept what others tell me is the truth to be the actual truth.

How do you know their address?

30. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 Ravi

“Because I know what he Tweeted and what their actual address is.”

How?

“Quite simple really: I don’t blindly accept what others tell me is the truth to be the actual truth.

“And so now, as a result of discovering this truth…”

Ten points for being needlessly insulting; as we all know, that’s just GREAT when you want a sensible conversation. And I love how you get all sanctimonious about people “blindly accepting” other people’s words, then expect me to, um, blindly accept your words.

“Oh and also, did you know that the 2 men involved have said they do not want to pursue it too?”

Again, do you have a source?

@ Shatterface

What a silly question really.

OK, lets answer it anyway: Because I have an internet connection, because I followed the story and because I checked the veracity of the media version.

Oh, and it was easy to do that as one of the men involved actually advertises his own home address online via his business website.

Does that help?

@ Chaise Guevara

How quaint that you feel insulted by having the bleeding obvious pointed out to you.

That is made all the funnier by then asking once more to be led by the nose, rather then you actually making any effort whatsoever to find out the truth of an issue you feel compelled to repeatedly comment on.

In fact you are so remarkably ill-informed and lazy that it would be impossible to have a sensible conversation with you, I strongly suspect.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Gay-couple-wont-make-complaint-19102012.htm

They won’t press charges, mainly because they can’t press charges.

Otherwise I think there is little doubt that Griffin would have gone the way of the B&B owners.

@30

“Oh and also, did you know that the 2 men involved have said they do not want to pursue it too?”

Again, do you have a source?

I’ve found one for that claim
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Gay-couple-wont-make-complaint-19102012.htm

34. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 Ravi

“How quaint that you feel insulted by having the bleeding obvious pointed out to you.”

No, the insult was in your implication that I didn’t know the bleeding obvious already. Do keep up.

Are newspapers 100% trustworthy? Of course not. Are they more trustworthy than some anonymous person making unsourced claims on the internet? Probably, yeah.

“That is made all the funnier by then asking once more to be led by the nose, rather then you actually making any effort whatsoever to find out the truth of an issue you feel compelled to repeatedly comment on.”

I asked you for a source. Sources are important: you see, it doesn’t do for one to blindly believe what one is told.

As you apparently KNOW that he didn’t tweet their address, you must have evidence of that fact, yes? So asking you would be the best way to find out. What if I find a source, which turns out to be unreliable, but you in fact got your information from a much better source? What if the whole thing is bullshit – do I keep searching forever for a source that doesn’t exist?

It’s not my fault that you’re too lazy to do your own homework – or more likely, given that you STILL can’t source the above claim, that you’re making it up entirely.

“In fact you are so remarkably ill-informed and lazy that it would be impossible to have a sensible conversation with you, I strongly suspect.”

Listen to the fool’s reproach! it is a kingly title!

I don’t think it’s remarkable that I’m “ill-informed” about what goes on inside your head.

“http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Gay-couple-wont-make-complaint-19102012.htm”

So you DO know what a source is! Well done. Have you been able to find one for your original claim yet? Or do you think you can let insults stand in for honest debate?

@34 er technically that was me, not Ravi that provided that source. I was intrigued so started looking, I did find a business website belonging to a John Morgan, but I couldn’t tell you if it is the John Morgan in question or someone else with the same name. I had no luck with Michael Black.

@ Chaise Guevara

I didn’t bother reading past the second paragraph.

That (and what has already passed) was all I needed to tell me you are a waste of bandwidth.

You accept that the media is inaccurate, and presumably also biased on a outlet to outlet basis, dependant upon owner.

And yet you comment on the basis of their ‘information’ anyway, but cannot be bothered to take a few moments of time to check the veracity of their story.

@ Cylux

I had to hand-fed Chaise Guevara with that information too, as the poor lamb is unable to find such things themselves. Bless.

Actually it is Michael Black that I saw was posting his own home address via his business site: Michael Black, Executive English.

@ Cylux

I had to hand-fed Chaise Guevara with that information too, as the poor lamb is unable to find such things themselves. Bless.

Actually it is Michael Black that I saw was posting his own home address via his business site: Michael Black, Executive English.

39. Chaise Guevara

@ 38 Ravi

“Actually it is Michael Black that I saw was posting his own home address via his business site: Michael Black, Executive English.”

That site does indeed provide an address. According to the BNP itself, it’s the same one that Griffin posted on Twitter: see the news section of its website for 17/10.

So you’ve finally managed to provide a source (or at least vaguely allude to one), and it appears to prove you wrong.

Amusing.

As for your previous post: if you hadn’t chickened out after the second paragraph of my last comment, you’d see that I’ve in fact already addressed the point you’re making.

Although I love the irony of you accusing me of not bothering to check my facts, then in the very same post replying to something you admit to not reading.

This is some form of elaborate parody, right?

@ Chaise Guevara

You really are a joke and as a result, again, I couldn’t get past your second paragraph.

OK, I live at 34 London Road.

Now given the same level of detail as Griffin gave in his Tweet, tell me precisely where it is I live …

41. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 Ravi

Ah: secretly, what you meant all along is that he tweeted an incomplete address!

Ha ha. Keep on proudly declaring that you refuse to read what people say before replying, by the way: along with your general inability to say what you mean, source what you say, or use arguments instead of clumsy insults, I’m sure you’ll win lots of respect!

[I’d add something here, but at more than two paragraphs it would be beyond your ken.]

@ Chaise Guevara

Right. Now explain how an address can actually be an address if it is incomplete?

I must admit that I am using the common sense presumption that the raison d’être for an address is to pinpoint someone’s precise location.

Given that there are dozens, probably hundreds of London Roads in the UK, and I would wager a guess that a similar amount exist for the detail Griffin gave, how could one call that an address at all?

Like I said, no offence here, nothing to see.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 42 Ravi

Well, I know of no definite way to find out, but Google Maps returns a grand total of seven roads, including the address in question. I wouldn’t exactly feel safe and secure in those circumstances.

Incidentally, if what you were saying all along was that he only provided an incomplete address, why did you waste everyone’s time by not just saying so? And how is the guy’s website relevant? Did you not realise that a house number and road name wasn’t a full address before that? :)

@ Chaise Guevara

Really? Because a quick search on Streetmap reveals over 2 dozen, just for a start?

But as for ‘safe and secure’: The simple fact is that one of the men continues to publish his (and the other chaps) own full home address online, under his real name, so clearly they have no real concerns about that all.

Now, explain how an address can actually be an address if it is incomplete?

As I said, I must admit that I am using the common sense presumption that the raison d’être for an address is to pinpoint someone’s precise location …

Forgive me for doing a quote from this Brendan O’Neill article, but it’s SO on-topic.

Compare and contrast these two statements:

“Dear police, please throw the book at Nick Griffin for tweeting the home address of a gay couple and inviting a mob to go round. Despicable.”

“It would be difficult for people to gather as we live in a small village and there’s nowhere to park.”

The first is from one of the tens of thousands of tweeters who spent the whole of last night in paroxysms of fury after the BNP leader tweeted the home address of that gay couple who sued a B&B for refusing to let them stay. And the second is from one half of that gay couple, Michael Black, who this morning described Mr Griffin’s tweets as a “damp squib” and said the whole thing would eventually “fizzle out”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100185700/nick-griffin-twitter/
There were three threads on this subject on Liberal Conspiracy, so he must be talking about some people here. Ask yourself – are YOU one of the people he’s talking about?

Might I butt in here and mention that Mr Griffin said “A British Justice team will come up to Huntingdon”, which combined with the incomplete address might well narrow things down a bit.

Although if we’re assuming the BNP are all a bunch of cretins who couldn’t find their own arse with both hands in their back pockets, then I suppose it still wouldn’t be enough info to pinpoint the correct street. Especially given the street apparently shares the same name.

Also, UP to Huntingdon? The soft southern ponce!

@ Cylux

There was no need to narrow it down as one of men involved is still publishing his own full address (and the other chaps) under his real name, online.

Anyone who ever wanted to know the actual address need only look at what is already placed voluntarily online.

@47. Ravi: There was no need to narrow it down as one of men involved is still publishing his own full address (and the other chaps) under his real name, online.”

You are in a horrible place, Ravi. You are defending the stalking of UK citizens.

Oaf Griffin was alleged to identify the home of two men (possibly vaguely) and alleged to encourage a bit of drama.

All that you have contributed in this thread is to point out that two gay men can be identified, which serves no purpose unless it is for a homophobic beating.

Griffin is vile; Ravi, are you stupid or complicit?

49. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 Ravi

“Really? Because a quick search on Streetmap reveals over 2 dozen, just for a start?”

Try it yourself. Google Maps returns seven.

“But as for ‘safe and secure’: The simple fact is that one of the men continues to publish his (and the other chaps) own full home address online, under his real name, so clearly they have no real concerns about that all.”

There’s a difference between publishing your own address for business purposes – with no reason to imagine it would be used for other reasons – and finding that someone else has published it alongside a call to arms against a windmill threat, naming you as the enemy. In terms of traceability, I wouldn’t want to see that next to my photo, let alone a one-in-seven (or even one-in-twenty) stab at my home address.

“Now, explain how an address can actually be an address if it is incomplete?”

We have the opportunity here to waste a lot of time in an irrelevant row over the precise definition of “address”. Shall we skip it?

Publishing someone’s full address is worse than publishing half their address. Publishing half their address is worse than not publishing their address.

I’m still at a loss to work out why you didn’t just say from the start that you meant that it wasn’t a full address – and more than that, throw up a red herring by implying that the address published by Griffin was different to the one on the guy’s site (as opposed to an incomplete version of the same address). Seriously, what was that meant to achieve? I’d call it trolling, only you don’t seem especially trollish.

50. Chaise Guevara

@ 46 Cylux

“Although if we’re assuming the BNP are all a bunch of cretins who couldn’t find their own arse with both hands in their back pockets, then I suppose it still wouldn’t be enough info to pinpoint the correct street.”

It hasn’t come to pass, but if I was one the guys in question, I might worry about local louts all assuming that their local house X on street Y was the one in question and undertaking some “drama” there.

Not to mention if I was one of the 6+ people who live in a house that coincidentally has the same number and street name.

@ Charlieman

You are in a horrible place: You cannot separate partisan hysteria from reality and you also appear to be an enthusiastic participant into the PC informer state this has country has now become.

Look up what actually constitutes stalking and then understand when someone publishes their own name and address online, and also takes out legal action that is highly like to attract widespread attention, that there is a fair chance that it just may be looked up.

They identified themselves and their own address (or at least one of those chaps did for both of them) there for the whole world to see, and that is the simple truth.

But I do note your attempt at menace and intimidation, implying that my common sense opinion is somehow evil and probably illegal: “All that you have contributed in this thread … serves no purpose unless it is for a homophobic beating.”

So what was your point about intimidation again?

I think you are vile, stupid and complicit.

@ Chaise Guevara

Try it yourself: Streetmap returns over 2 dozen.

Again, I couldn’t get past your second paragraph.

You are another one who has little to no grasp on reality:

No address was published by Griffin as an address is used for exact location, and that requires precision.

No threat was made either. The use of ‘drama’ was supposed to be a clever reference to their love of amateur drama.

There has been arrest because no offence has been committed.

The two men involved do not want to pursue it and have clearly indicated that they do not feel at risk.

So what is your problem, exactly?

53. Chaise Guevara

@ 52 Ravi

Okay, that’s like the third time you’ve replied to me while declaring that you didn’t bother to read what I said. So why should I extend that courtesy to you? It appears I was wrong: you ARE a troll.

If you want (or indeed are capable of) a grown-up conversation, go back and reply to my entire post. If you’re gonna keep trolling I won’t waste any more of my time with you.

@ Chaise Guevara

Given all the facts above, it should be a very simple question to answer, really:

What is your problem, exactly?

55. Chaise Guevara

@ 52 Ravi

My problem with the tweet? I’ve explained that already, at post 49. See, if you refuse to read what you reply to, you miss stuff.

In short, publishing half of the address makes it much easier to find them, and combined with the call for a mob to go around, it amounts to a arguable threat (implied rather than overt, but it’s sending a clear message to his fans to go cause trouble). Hence my position: that I’m not sure whether this should amount to being illegal, but as it’s borderline it was appropriate for the police to investigate.

Given that the victims have said they don’t want it to go any further, I don’t think it would be appropriate to pursue the case. But it was appropriate for the cops to investigate to begin with, and perhaps they should take this opportunity to seek clarification on whether this sort of thing constitutes a threat or call to violence, legally speaking.

Legal stuff aside, I think that it was an irresponsible, spiteful, and basically shitty thing to do.

What’s your basis for saying it was supposed to be a clever reference to their interests? Given that it’s a bit of a weird tangent, and that Griffin isn’t exactly the smartest tool in the box, it seems considerably less likely than him meaning “We’ll come round and hassle you”.

56. Robin Levett

@Ravi #44:

Really? Because a quick search on Streetmap reveals over 2 dozen, just for a start?

A search on Streetmap using the information in Griffin’s tweet provides 6 possible answers. Using Google Maps produces 2.

But as for ‘safe and secure’: The simple fact is that one of the men continues to publish his (and the other chaps) own full home address online, under his real name, so clearly they have no real concerns about that all.

I’m puzzled. I’ve looked at the website, in particular the “Contact us” page, and I just can’t find Michael Black’s “home address” on it anywhere. Can you tell me where you saw it?

57. Robin Levett

@Ravi:

I’ve just seen where you went gone wrong so as to get dozens of responses in Streetmap. From your #40:

OK, I live at 34 London Road.

Now given the same level of detail as Griffin gave in his Tweet, tell me precisely where it is I live …

You forgot that in Griffin’s tweet he provides a town (keep reading the tweet beyond the eighth word). You don’t. Add a town to your part-address above and I’d have a better chance of finding you from that address; even better if you’d chosen a town of comparable size as the example in your made-up road name.

@51. Ravi: “But I do note your attempt at menace and intimidation, implying that my common sense opinion is somehow evil and probably illegal: “All that you have contributed in this thread … serves no purpose unless it is for a homophobic beating.””

You, Ravi, deliberately inserted an elision so that my words might be misinterpreted. You have defined yourself as a King Canute.

59. Chaise Guevara

@ 58 Charlieman

“You, Ravi, deliberately inserted an elision so that my words might be misinterpreted. You have defined yourself as a King Canute.”

As an observer of your conversation with Ravi, I am incapable of checking back up the thread to see what has been so artfully disguised by that ellipsis, and am therefore completely taken in by his claim that you are implying he is breaking the law by voicing an opinion. Ravi has won the internets! Although we should have seen it coming: his opinion is “common sense”, and who can argue with that?

(I love how people always think that their point of view is normal, up to and including sticking up for Nick Griffin.)

@ Robin Levett .

“I’m puzzled. I’ve looked at the website, in particular the “Contact us” page, and I just can’t find Michael Black’s “home address” on it anywhere.”

Then do yourself a favour Robin: Keep it to yourself what a hopeless fool you are.

Even that clown Chaise Guevara managed to find it.

Well, I can see the snippy little Jack Russell’s are of the usual sad, internet comment board type.

Chaise Guevara & Charlieman: A quick look at the comment feed and other threads show that you practically live on this website, commenting incessantly and inanely on everything and anything.

I guess its one way to spend your life. But not a very good one.

No one really gives a toss about what you have to say and you have no effect in the world with it.

You are both clearly of the prejudiced sort too – you base ideas on partisanship, not reality.

Griffin is vile, or his opinions? What did he actually do here that broke the law?

And I’ll wager a bet that the two of you found the BNP membership leak hilarious.

But anyway, all it comes down to is this:

No address was published by Griffin as an address is used for location, and location requires precision.

No threat was made either. The use of ‘drama’ was supposed to be a clever reference to their love of amateur drama.

There has been arrest because no offence has been committed.

The two men involved do not want to pursue it and have clearly indicated that they do not feel at risk.

So what is your problem, exactly?

I suspect it is that you are lonely and need to spend your time on sites like this.

Adiós losers.

62. Chaise Guevara

@ 61

It’s funny to watch you throw your toys out of your pram when you’ve lost the argument. Cheerio!

63. Robin Levett

@Ravi #60:

Then do yourself a favour Robin: Keep it to yourself what a hopeless fool you are.

Even that clown Chaise Guevara managed to find it.

I doubt it; he, like I, found a meatspace address on the site that the normal human being would take as a business address (since it’s an address given for business contacts). There is certainly not an address labelled “Home Address”. It took some thuggish pillock deciding to publicise an almost complete version of that address as being the site-owner’s home address to make the presence of the address on the site a problem.

Oh, and from one hopeless fool to another; have you read the whole of Griffin’s tweet yet? Once you have, you’ll see how to cut down the 2 dozen hits on Streetmap to the 2 you get on Google Maps.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. robwinder

    RT @libcon: Police Investigating Griffin Tweets http://t.co/4gDg2HjR

  2. @franziska_g

    Good. Arrest the fucker. RT @libcon: Police Investigating Griffin Tweets http://t.co/B55VTWZt

  3. Jason Brickley

    Police Investigating Griffin Tweets http://t.co/yAUmQR1E

  4. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Police Investigating Griffin Tweets http://t.co/I3UUQkBS

  5. niriop

    A vicious turd of a cur of a moron: Police Investigating Griffin Tweets | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Hty1iGOZ via @libcon

  6. TristanPriceWilliams

    http://t.co/EayclJ1Z

  7. Little Julie

    Police Investigating Griffin Tweets | Liberal Conspiracy. Same old homophobia. http://t.co/PwfHjp7j via @libcon

  8. Natacha Kennedy

    Bullying Nazi @Nickgriffinmep shows that the BNP is no friend of LGBT ppl http://t.co/x3ewv88n

  9. Kirsten Bayes

    Bullying Nazi @Nickgriffinmep shows that the BNP is no friend of LGBT ppl http://t.co/x3ewv88n

  10. richyrich

    Bullying Nazi @Nickgriffinmep shows that the BNP is no friend of LGBT ppl http://t.co/x3ewv88n

  11. AdrianWindisch

    Bullying Nazi @Nickgriffinmep shows that the BNP is no friend of LGBT ppl http://t.co/x3ewv88n





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.