Nick Griffin suspended from Twitter

I saw the word "demo" in there yes, have you actually read the tweet?

I'm not sure what I think on this one. I feel that you can't really put someone in jail for threatening to protest. If a protest actually occurs and the couple get harassed then that's another story.

Also on the subject of the B&B case, while I think that kind of discrimination is disgusting, I don't think it's ok for the law to force owners to take in guests against their will.

You can charge someone for incitement to violence, which is plainly what Griffin was attempting.

Not really. How is it 'incentment'?

You can charge someone for incitement to violence, which is plainly what Griffin was attempting.

You could construe it as intimidation, but:

1) The couple involved weren't the least bit intimidated by Griffin's tweets, Michael Black said the demo would be difficult to organise because they "live in a small village and there's nowhere to park". Does this sound like a statement made by somebode scared out of their wits to you? As usual the PC/liberal-lefty/Twitterati crowd are revelling in feeling offended/imtimidated on somebody else's behalf, even when the person in question doesn't give a hoot.

2) What about hateful slogans such as "smash the BNP", should the peddlers of these messages be arrested for incitement to violence? somehow I suspect you find a way to justify your own hate

Are you in the BNP? Can you read? The BNP are rallying to this one. Will you be joining the violence?

This is what Griffin said.

"So Messrs Black & Morgan, at [their address]. A British Justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a..." then "...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle."

So, he said that a "British Justice team" (whatever that is exactly) will be visiting their address in Huntingdon to give them a.... (unspecified) - which is clearly and absolutely a threat of violence, as anyone in normal English would infer he meant "give them a kicking" or similar.

That's pretty good, I RT'ed that.

right, because that is totally what I said

if he wanted to encourage peaceful protest he could have done so without making what is clearly an open threat to the couple. and you cannot argue that it wasn't a threat, it is as subtle as "if I don't get my money me and the boys may pay you a little visit later". he may not be directly calling for violence, and he may not actually intend for people to start any violence, but he is clearly trying to make this couple feel unsafe in their own home, and you are defending him.

good, dickhead

Yes, I have. Maybe the sticking point is the word "peaceful", which you inserted?

1) just because they were not intimidated does not mean he was not trying to intimidate them.

2) it depends on the message and the context. "smash the BNP" is not necessarily violent since "smash" is often used to simply mean beat. other messages could be overtly or implicitly more violent, and should be treated as such.

lets turn this around and imagine if somebody, lets say, took a picture of Nick Griffin's house and posted it on the internet saying "nice house, it would be a shame if something happened to it". nothing overtly violent is being said, but it is quite clearly a threat and you would have to be a complete moron to deny it. in the same way telling somebody that people are coming round to show them a bit of drama is clearly intimidating

So he should get banged up for incitement to intimidation? I can't even get my head around that concept!

He didn't just "reveal their address" (although that's not exactly reasonable), he urged people to harass them and made coded suggestions they be attacked.

This one is bringing out the gay-haters on TSR - depressing that there are so many people around who feel this kind of behaviour is OK.

Were they just "offended"? Or were they trying to use a public service and had it barred from them because of their sexual orientation?