Talk:Nick Griffin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sexuality

Some stuff on the Martin Webster thing should probably be put in somewhere.79.78.107.92 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What "stuff", and what "thing"? As far as we're concerned, Griffin is married with children, and we don't "out" people without very good reason. I suggest you provide impeccable sources, or drop it. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Its already in. Parrot of Doom 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just search "Nick Griffin is gay Martin Webster" pretty much anywhere and you'l see what I mean, and as for the reason, I think it's a darkly amusing contrast to his current stance on sexuality.79.72.224.161 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But Griffin has denied Webster's claims. So how is this amusing? Parrot of Doom 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Webster claimed it; Griffin has denied it With such competing claims, we would err on the side of caution and omit it unless and until Griffin makes an admission and is reliably reported. We do not evaluate a collection of sources to reach a conclusion here; whatever our personal feelings about Griffin, he can, and might, sue. And, as pointed out above, this is already reported, with appropriate importance. Rodhullandemu 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, where is it reported, and secondly, I'm not suggesting stating it as fact, I am just proposing a mention of the allegations.79.72.224.161 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in TimesOnline, and as already pointed out, this is already reported, with appropriate importance. This is, to my minds, a dead duck. Rodhullandemu 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think people should know about it, if there were rumours like this about Hitler they certainly wouldn't be ignored on his page.79.72.224.161 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Its already in the article. If you want people to know more about it, write a blog or something. Nobody is ignoring anything, but from now on I'll certainly be ignoring you. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is it in the article?79.78.116.80 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Look in the early life section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

'Nick Griffin exposè'.

David Duke

Nick Griffin was at a Texan meeting with the ex-KKK boss David Duke ! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate leadership

He nearly cracked up on the BBC's Question Time show in 2009 ! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Well, Nick, I couldn't have put it better my self! So, he's a avid Holocaust denier now! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

--86.29.131.193 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

--86.29.141.43 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this is fascinating but is it anything other than a childish rant from an IP editor unable to edit the article? Parrot of Doom 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it very much.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tab

"In 2009, readers of the university student newspaper, The Tab, voted Griffin "the worst person ever to attend the university"[11] with 44% of the vote.[12]"

How is this relevant to Nick Griffin? Has he had dealings with this newspaper? It might be relevant to The Tab, but I don't believe that its at all relevant here. Parrot of Doom 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What? "How is this relevant to Nick Griffin?" Students at his old university, the place where he was educated, where he received a degree, where he won boxing honours, voted Nick Griffin the worst person ever to have been there. Not Fred Bloggs. Nick Griffin. The same Nick griffin. And, ignoring the second place student official, he received more than every other alumnus combined. Emeraude (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For a public figure, the Tab's view is notable --Snowded ^TALK 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All you've done there is state what The Tab did. You haven't explained its relevance. Just because Griffin was the winner of this poll doesn't make it relevant to this article, does it? In the wider context of the circles that Griffin mixes in, how is a university newspaper, produced by students and not professional journalists, relevant? Parrot of Doom 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, look at how the poll question was framed. Its about as worthy as used toilet roll. Parrot of Doom 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The description of Nick Griffin was actually quite repulsive, and it seems very clear that the whole "poll" was more of a prank or joke than anything remotely serious. -TheG (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it a clear prank to you? Are you a student at Cambridge? Did you vote? And even if it is a "prank", are you contesting the result? How Griffin is described, repulsive or not, is not relevant. What is relevant is that Griffin is graduate of Cambridge University and present-day students there voted him the worst person ever to have been there, overwhelmingly. See the connection? The professionalism of the paper's staff is totally irrelevant, unless you are suggesting they lied. Are you? How they choose to write the report may be in good taste or in bad taste, but the fact of Griffin toppping the poll is the point, and even if this is the worst piece of reporting ever - Griffin topped the poll. Even he admits that!Emeraude (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your angry and confronting tone does not help you to make your point. -TheG (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not angry. Nor confronting. Your apparent high regard of Griffin is much more of a hindrance. Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, perhaps you should read the poll question: "Any suggestions that this is anything more than a crude rip-off of Varsity's Best Cantab are wide of the mark – we even copied their format." - not a great start. It continues:

Pros: Good to have on side in brawling situations, his remarkable ability to make the disgusting seem palatable to large numbers of people could come in handy when trying to organise orgies at the old people's home; wears nice ties. Cons: Funny eye, lives in Wales, probably has semen breath. Glass-eyed weirdo Nick Griffin did us all proud by beating Oxford in Varsity Boxing for two out of his three years at Cambridge. On the flip side, he's also a convicted racist, but Obama took cocaine and that never stopped him becoming president, the big silly lefty. His appearance on Question Time this year prompted crowds of adoring fans to surround Television Centre and his practical, no-nonsense approach to the complex issue of multiculturalism — "drop them out of a plane somewhere over Africa, I don't care" — has led to him being elected as one of Britain's Members of the European Parliament. If you're a fucking idiot and live in Yorkshire you probably agree with the start of this paragraph but luckily otherwise you probably already know why he's a tool and don't need it explained here.

This isn't a serious piece of journalism from an established reliable source; its a junk poll from an amateur student publication which has little or no relevance in the real world. To include it in this article is to accord The Tab a status which it doesn't deserve.

As it seems clear to me that most here would prefer The Tab not to be included, I have removed it. Parrot of Doom 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also he was not at the university when this pool was conducted. So it can only represetn the views of students who did not know him, so cannot help in our undersdtanding of the man.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's total nonsense. Are you suggesting that if the poll was conducted by Mori and published in The Times it would be invalid because none of those polled personally knew him? Come to that, none of the students polled actually knew Oliver Cromwell!! Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly no consensus has been reached for its inclusion, and untill it is is should be removed. Secondly its in the section on his education, he was not being educated at the university at the time so cannot reflect his standing there at the time of his education, so if it does have place in the article it should not be here. Next If a time poll is conducted it will refelct public opinions of him, this just represents what a few modern students think of him (there is also the issue that a times poll will have some liklyhood of respectability, is there any evidance that the Tab has a reputation for fact checking?). As to Oliver, I doubt they do, but what is your point? The issue is does this poll reflect anything about Mr Griffin, not Oliver, the answer is that around 500 Oxford students do not like him. I would argue that is Undue in the exteram.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say, much as I mostly agree with their description of Griffin, I don't think we can reasonably suggest an online poll with nine options proves much. Bear in mind that the people on it are described - in the editorial voice - as "pudgy-faced twat", "a tool", "fucked-up nutter", "vampire", and that two of them are the current head of the student union and someone who - hilariously - used to appear on television whilst commiting the cardinal sin of being a bit plump. Oh, those wacky students, eh?
• Bottom line: Griffin is no doubt unpopular, and no doubt many Cambridge students do have strong opinions about him, but to suggest this poll can be read meaningfully is a joke which brings the serious criticisms quoted in the rest of the article into doubt. Shimgray | talk | 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

i deleted this & my edit was reverted

"on 9 March 2003 he appeared to accept ethnic minorities who were legally already living in the country, but his 2006 court appearances centred around his comment that Islam was a "wicked and vicious faith".

these 2 sentences don't really seem to have anything to do with each other. someone else on wiki can decide thoughNo autoaim (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, its synthesis and needs looking at. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the latter part of the sentence. Thanks for highlighting this problem. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there, but the quotation probably should go earlier in the article, and the telegraph article challenging his sincerity should stay in the section but with better words. Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit by Parrot of Doom

Parrot of Doom reverted my change of "Griffin's image as a Cambridge-educated family man was in contrast to the extreme impression created by Tyndall" to "Griffin as leader presented as a Cambridge-educated family man."

I believe that the text I added reflects the source used (an article from The Independent that can be foundhere) properly, while the version Parrot of Doom reverted back to does not.

The relevant part of The Independent article reads:

"The trial only increased his stature within the fascist Right, and months later he ousted John Tyndall – an old-style jackboots-and-armband neo-Nazi – as leader of the BNP. In 1999, Griffin began the long process of making the party electable in emulation of the successes of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and Jörg Haider in Austria.

Out went the skinhead leathers and in came the jackets and ties. Out went the street protests and in came electoral campaigning. Out went the outright white supremacist racism and in came the dog-whistle semiotics designed to win the votes of whites disillusioned with Labour and Tories. Policies were "moderated", so that compulsory repatriation of ethnic minorities was replaced by the idea of bribing them with six-figure sums to leave the country. Hate was replaced by fear as the engine of the movement. The palette of prejudice was widened to include bringing back the birch for juvenile delinquents and hanging for paedophiles, rapists, drug dealers and the worst murderers. As leader, Griffin presented as a smartly dressed, Cambridge-educated family man."

Note that it while it certainly suggests that Tyndall was an extremist, it says nothing about the impression he created. His impression concerns what other people thought of him, but the article doesn't discuss that. UserVOBO (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because originally the sentence said "image" not "impression". I'm somewhat confused as to how the leader of a political party cannot be held responsible for either the image it projects, or the impression it leaves. By the way the change you made made no grammatical sense. Parrot of Doom 11:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it says image or impression doesn't make any difference. You can only form a judgment about someone's image or impression, in the sense we're discussing here, if you know how other people reacted to him. The source does not discuss that. The leaders of political parties being responsible for the images they project is simply a vague generality that has nothing to do with anything. I could just as well reply that people who reacted to Tyndall are responsible for their impression of him, inasmuch as it existed only in their heads. You simply cannot say that someone created an "extreme impression" unless there's a source actually stating that. UserVOBO (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, so you're saying that "skinhead leathers", "old-style jackboots-and-armband neo-Nazi" - you're suggesting that these are not elements of extremism, and used to promote an image? Because in my view, that's nonsense. Griffin styles himself in a suit and tie because it presents a toned-down image compared to Tyndall.

I'd be happier if you stopped reverting the article until this discussion was complete, please. Parrot of Doom 07:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that the article doesn't say that people saw Tyndall as extreme. Sorry, but it just doesn't. WP:NOR is clear that we need to stick to what sources actually say. I have no objection to you adding content saying that Tyndall was seen as extreme - by all means, do that. However, you really need to find a source that actually says that, otherwise you're clearly violating a basic policy. UserVOBO (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the source quite clearly says that Tyndall was an extremist, and the article reflects that. Just because the exact same wording isn't used doesn't make this OR. Parrot of Doom 07:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about whether Tyndall was extreme, or whether the source says he was extreme. It's about whether he had an extreme image or created an extreme impression, which is a separate question. The Independent source quite simply does not say that Tyndall had an extreme image or created an extreme impression, and it quite definitely is original research to use it that way. UserVOBO (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. The source(s) used very clearly state that he was an extremist, and considering he created the party he was undoubtedly responsible for that image. You only have to read the several obituaries on the man to understand this. By the way, continually reverting an article while a discussion regarding those reverts is still underway is bad form. I've asked you once to stop doing it, I ask you again - wait until a consensus has been achieved before you engage in an edit war. Parrot of Doom 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about whether Tyndall was an extremist. The passage under dispute does not use the word "extremist" either in your preferred version or mine. Your most recent edit summary ("Tyndall was clearly an extremist, the sources used reflect that") is confused and beside the point, since the edit that you reverted did not alter the article to say that he wasn't an extremist. In future, please try to use accurate edit summaries that give third parties a proper idea of what the dispute actually is.

The actual issue is whether Tyndall had an extreme image. That's an entirely different question from whether Tyndall was an extremist, since it is, obviously, possible to be an extremist without being perceived as one. The Independent source does not say that Tyndall was seen as extreme, had an extreme image, or created an extreme impression, and it certainly is original research to use it to prove any of those things.

The Telegraph source that I added, and which you removed without explanation, was intended to resolve the dispute, as it makes it totally obvious that Tyndall had an extreme image. It's not only not appropriate to say that Tyndall had an extreme image if sources don't actually use words to that effect, it's not necessary either, since anyone can see from the fact that Tyndall's admiration for Hitler and the Nazis prevented his cause from gaining any respectability that he must have done. Why are you so determined to have the article say that Tyndall had an extreme image when it clearly isn't even necessary to say that? UserVOBO (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I'd ask Parrot of Doom to at least use accurate edit summaries. An edit summary like "Tyndall was clearly an extremist, every source used says this, and as leader of his party he was undoubtedly responsible" implies that somehow I'm trying to make the article say that Tyndall wasn't an extremist. I'm not doing any such thing, and it's not helpful to imply that I am. UserVOBO (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason Griffin as BNP leader performed so well relative to Tyndall is because he toned down the image the party had, of "jackboots, leathers, skinheads, and white supremacy". This was an image created by Tyndall, nobody else, and its important to clarify to readers exactly how Griffin came to enjoy the degree of success he has had. I don't think its at all contentious to state that Tyndall was responsible for the early image of the BNP—its made quite clear in several sources which discuss the subject, some used in this article, many others which are not. Parrot of Doom 08:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to "clarify to readers" things that they can, very easily, work out for themselves. You seem to be taking the position that if we don't say in so many words that Tyndall had an extreme image, people won't be able to work out that someone who openly admired Hitler and the Nazis had an extreme image. Am I missing something here? Your position doesn't seem reasonable at all. UserVOBO (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you and I will have to disagree, won't we? Parrot of Doom 09:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude and behavior here are unfortunate. Declaring over and again that you are right is not a helpful way to deal with disagreements, and nor is refusing to explain how the text you want to include could be considered either necessary or not in violation of the no original research policy. UserVOBO (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Woah, hang on. I don't want to fall out with an obviously enthusiastic editor over something that's really relatively minor. I guess the basis of my point is twofold: that under Tyndall's leadership the BNP was an extremist party (it could be argued that it still is), and that this isn't something that's necessarily contentious. The second part of my position is that I prefer articles to be written clearly and concisely, but to aid the reader's understanding by using good, even high-quality (although I've neglected this article) prose.

If you really feel that the BNP had an extremist image caused by Tyndall is contentious enough to warrant a specific citation then I'm sure one can be found. I'm away for a few days so I'll be unable to do it until next week. Parrot of Doom 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think that directly contrasting Tyndall and Griffin's images ("Griffin's image as a Cambridge-educated family man was in contrast to the extreme image presented by the BNP under Tyndall's leadership") is either necessary, or a useful way of aiding "the reader's understanding." If we say that Tyndall's image was one thing and Griffin's image was something else, I think we can be confident that readers can add 2 and 2 together and see that there was a contrast between their images. The suggestion to escalate things to ANI is silly; I won't be doing any such thing. UserVOBO (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RS say that the image projected by Nick Griffin differd from that of Mr Tyndal. They also say that change of imagwe resulted in better performance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Parrot of Doom is persistently adding text that is neither necessary nor properly sourced, and refusing to explain why; it's most unfortunate and regrettable behavior. UserVOBO (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point being that if RS say something we can include it, if they don't then we can't.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The RS being used here doesn't say what Parrot of Doom says it does. It says that Tyndall said and did various things; it's true that most people would see those things as extreme and Tyndall thus would have had an extreme image, but the source doesn't actually say so directly. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you don't use sources to support statements that they don't directly support. UserVOBO (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Eye injury

Of the sources cited on the eye injury:

The Scotsman says "a shotgun cartridge exploded in his face 20 years ago in France in unexplained circumstances". The Guardian says "Griffin had a serious accident, which led to his eye being surgically removed". The Times (emphasis mine): "By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later." It then points out that the accident happened at a time when he was associated with a man wanted for a major bombing, and dwells on that association for some time before returning to the consequences of the accident. It's pretty clear that the Times is not presenting Griffin's account as fact, only as his version of events, and it should only be cited as such. --GenericBob (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Read this and this Parrot of Doom 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading those, I see quite a few people making similar arguments to mine. In the end, the only source we've got that offers much explanation about the source of the injury is the Times article, and that offers two conflicting theories; it seems rather odd to be citing it as a source for a version of events that, quite clearly, it doesn't endorse. I'll bounce this to the RS noticeboard and see if others have thoughts on the matter. --GenericBob (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am concearned that we would include an anonymous accusation in a BLP (and we could straight away add the Who? tag to this line of text). I agree that it would be better to aknowledge that therem are differing versions, but we need to know who made the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, an anonymous source that is reported by a major newspaper is in a different category from the case where a Wikipedia editor just adds unsourced claims. A lot of WP:RS boils down to the fact that we don't trust the ability of WP editors to assess whether a source is trustworthy. But we do trust certain types of secondary source to make that judgement about their own sources; if we didn't, Wikipedia would be almost empty. Journalists and their editors are expected to have good judgement in knowing how far to trust an anonymous source; they're certainly fallible, but a good sight better than WP editors. As an extreme example, Deep Throat was an anonymous source, but even before he was identified it was quite appropriate to include his allegations in Wikipedia; Woodward and Bernstein made sure they had good reason to believe what he was telling them.

I'm not wild about using anonymous sources, even when they have been checked out by the Times. But when one moderately-reputable paper casts aspersions on Griffin's version of events, and another hints that there might be something fishy there ("in unexplained circumstances"), I'm even less comfortable about representing that version as confirmed fact.

I suggested a compromise over on the RS noticeboard - what if we simply change the relevant section to "Griffin lost his eye in an accident", linking to the sources available, without making any further comment in the article about how that accident may have happened? That would be perfectly acceptable to me; I don't feel the alternate explanation needs to be in the article, just as long as we're not asserting the truth of Griffin's version. --GenericBob (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The "moderately reputable" newspaper also claimed that Griffin's dogs were named Anne and Frank, and that Roberto Fiore was implicated in a bombing. I'm no fan of Griffin but I don't see why we should report on anything but the facts, and the facts are that no publication has been able to prove that Griffin's version of events is anything but the truth. Vague insinuations of "others have speculated" are worthless, which is why the author used the word "speculation" and not "claimed". Speculation in this instance is the practise of engaging in conjectural thought, ie: without evidence or proof. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be reported as as "report" but not as fact looking at it. --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Times seems unwilling to say its true, indead they go out of thier way to avoid making it a libalous accusation. Whoever made this accusation has not come forward. There has been no criminal inversitgation into what would be (even in France) a criminal act. Now we can (as far as I can see) say that

"NicK Grffin lost his left eye when (according to his account) a discarded shotgun cartridge exploded in a pile of burning wood"

As this reflects the only attributable (and even vaugley compleate) version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody can prove Griffin's account is false" is not adequate citation. WP:V is explicit on this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". We can find a RS that endorses Griffin's version of events, or we can remove the challenged material while leaving the uncontested bits (my suggestion above), or we can report it in a way that makes it clear that we are not endorsing it as confirmed fact (as per Slatersteven's suggestion). I'm fine with any of those. --GenericBob (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it took me about 2 minutes to find another citation which confirms Griffin's account, so you need worry not. Parrot of Doom 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Independent is certainly capable of good journalism, but this new cite [6] is simply a walk-about interview piece. From context it's clear that she's simply retelling the story she just heard from Griffin, and the article's tone indicates that she's not aiming to be 100% factual, so this doesn't get us any further along. --GenericBob (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Although, this source might be better. Would other editors be willing to accept that as a RS? --GenericBob (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is (or at least was) allready used as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it on this particular section. Now it's been added there, I'm happy :-) --GenericBob (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Grauniad claim

Under the headline 'Policies and views', the entry says: "Griffin describes himself as a "moderniser", and "new nationalist", and upon his election as leader of the BNP spoke of his contempt for its traditional supporters.[95]" The footnote refers to a Guardian article which says Griffin "is as contemptuous of his party's traditional supporters - the skinheads, the football hooligans - as Blairites are of old Labour".

That seems to be the view of the Guardian writer, not of Nick Griffin. Perhaps Wikipedia should make that clear!194.106.155.218 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A good point, I've changed the text accordingly. Thanks for spotting this. Parrot of Doom 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture

In the infobox (upper right hand corner of the page) is a picture captioned "Griffin addressing a BNP press conference in Manchester in June 2009". However, in the picture Griffin is standing in front of a sign which says "VE Day." How do we know this picture is from June and not (as might be expected) May? --Anschelsc (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because, and also because the image's source said the same thing. Parrot of Doom 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral history of Nick Griffin

I found this article in the unpatrolled backlog. It should be added and linked from the main article, but I don't know exactly where to add it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother. The key information (and links to substantive articles) is already included in the Elections contested section here. The article you have found is simply a cut-and-paste of sections form other articles that looks like it was abandoned at birth. I can't see any reason for it to exist. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Or just be bold and propose for deletion. It's not like any informatin is going to be lost from anywhere, so I don't really see a problem. Emeraude (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglican?

I remember Mr. Griffin saying (I believe it was on Question Time) that he "was brought up Anglican but disagrees greatly with that church, especially on the issue of Sharia." I don't think it accurate to list him as 'Anglican' in the side infobar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.87.136 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If he calls himself an Anglican then that's what we call him. Parrot of Doom 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Does he call himself Anglican? Where's the evidence of that? I was brought up as all sorts of things, which I now reject, and would object most strongly if described as them; and you would be wrong to describe me thus too. Emeraude (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Griffin has long espoused the Anglican church. He regularly talks about good ole "English Christian values". this seems to support that suggestion although its source is offline. Parrot of Doom 15:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11599?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"If he calls himself an Anglican then that's what we call him." He doesn't call himself a fascist, but that's what we call him.109.152.10.52 (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

point taken unknown i.p address, but It's one thing to say you ARE something, but another to say You aren't another thing. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Except in this article, we don't call him a fascist. In fact, we don't really call him anything. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the BNP page. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual relationship

In a four-page leaflet written in 1999, Webster claimed to have had a homosexual relationship with Griffin, then the BNP's publicity director. Griffin has denied any such relationship.

I happen to be a member of the homosexual faith and I'm not a great fan of this being in the article. It doesn't seem to further the article in anyway, and It seems to me that it's more or less just slander since there is no evidence of this at all, and it was just a past member claiming something to bring him into disrepute. I'm not to keen on my sexuality being used as an insult especially on this particular individual. Also, the link to me doesn't work. It seems to be broken, if this text must remain, then can we get a new link please.

Please see this "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page." Alexandre8 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted to draw attention. People tend not to bother looking at the talk page unless a change has been made. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable way to draw attention to a proposed discussion topic. Some might construe it as deliberate vandalism. Emeraude (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was a faith, but never mind. I don't see how your (or anyone's) sexuality is being used here as an insult. However odious/saintly Griffin may be, he is not more or less odious/saintly by being gay (or not). He though, would disagree, since he has made a point throughout his political career of being opposed to homosexualitty, as have the parties he has been in (and this was a problem for Webster in the NF in the 70s!). The key point here is that the accusation was made by Webster (and others, as it happens) for his own political reasons and this accusation was picked up and referenced in The Times and other papers, as well as on somewhat less reliable sources like blogs (in a general sense; on this issue they were quoting either Webster or The Times). The first reference is still valid: it's to the article in The Times and just because News International has now placed its web content behind a pay wall it is no less valid that it was a year ago. (Besides, you can go to a library and look at the hard copy.) The second reference - an article in The Observer from 1 September 2002 is still a good link. The issue of the Webster/Griffin relationship has been discussed in the talk page previously at some length and it was concluded that there was no BLP issue since, as I recall, the article does not say "Griffin had a homosexual relationship with Webster" - go back through the archives for details. Emeraude (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a faith, I'm just not a 100% serious kind of gay, oops guy. I see no benefit in being too serious about such matters :). Anyway, I understand that it was referenced, but it comes across as the opposite of constructive (I've forgotten the word forgive me), because Griffin has never been proved to be a homosexual, and therefore his stance on homosexuals can't be seen as hypocritical, UNLESS you believe what mr webster said, which is being presented as libel. And under the living persons act, I feel it just shouldn't be there. Having said this, I'm happy to accept whatever conclusion the forum makes. I've expressed my case and will not defend it to the death. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Please discuss. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever his sexuality, a prominent member of the public claimed that he had a homosexual relationship with Griffin and given the latter's rather outspoken views on the subject I see no reason why that claim, and Griffin's subsequent denial, shouldn't be mentioned? It isn't intended to offend anyone, but it was given a fair amount of coverage at the time and hence should be mentioned here. By the way the link requires a registration, you can access it at most libraries in the UK. Parrot of Doom 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest what was the verdict? Did the press manage to find anything conclusive on his claims? I guess not or else it would have been more widely covered. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One bloke says something, another says it isn't true. Unless someone has a picture of them shagging, I think we should accept Griffin's word on the matter. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lmao, thanks for making my evening just that little bit more entertaining!:P !It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

wrong address catagory

barnet isnt in hertfordshire but london, ie- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Barnet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in 1959 it wasn't. Read the first sentence under "Early life and education". Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

2010 corruption allegations?

The lead of the Richard Barnbrook article claims that Barnbrook "resigned the BNP whip in August 2010, following corruption allegations against party leader Nick Griffin."

Given Barnbrook's prominence within the party, I am surprised not to find a paragraph devoted to the allegations and the fallout in this article. What gives? Skomorokh 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, given the nature of the BNP, its members, its history of splits accompanied with accusations and counter-accusations, that it is practically impossible to tell who is telling the truth (if anyone). In addition, there is an ongong and related issue of the BNP allegedly providing false financial reports to the electoral authorities. It is likely to be some time before the waters are unmuddied on any of this. Emeraude (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal British Legion

Theres a clean up of the BNP page going on here,User:Red Deathy/Sand3. This section is sepecifically about griffin and the rest is just woffle. If anyone is interested heres it is: (many appologies if this material is already covered in this article)

Veterans and Second World War

In June 2009, the Royal British Legion wrote to Griffin privately to ask him to stop wearing their poppy symbol. After he refused and wore the badge at campaign events and on the party's televised election broadcast, The Legion said in an open letter: "True valour deserves respect regardless of a person's ethnic origin, and everyone who serves or has served their country deserves nothing less ... [our national chairman] appealed to your sense of honour. But you have responded by continuing to wear the poppy. So now we're no longer asking you privately. Stop it, Mr Griffin. Just stop it."Taylor, Matthew. "Royal British Legion tell Nick Griffin to stop wearing poppy badge", 13 June 2009, Retrieved on 13 July 2009 In September 2009, the Legion accepted a donation which it had initially rejected from BNP member Rachel Firth. Firth had spent 24 hours raising the money, half of which was given to the Legion and the other half to the BNP. The Legion said that Firth had assured them that the donation would not be exploited politically although the story was later "splashed across" the BNP's website. BNP spokesman Simon Darby denied that the party exploited the story.Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8250086.stm%7Ctitle=British Legion accepts BNP gift|last=Furlong|first=Ray|date=11 September 2009|publisher=BBC News|accessdate=6 October 2009 U6j65 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

Hi there. This matter I feel could be resolved very easily if people would just stick to the rules. It's unsourced. N.G was aquitted of hate speech here. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6137722.stm". Is there any evidence to support him being a firm holocaust denier. I haven't seen any yet. There are varies people who report he called it the "holohoax" however. Anyway, wiki rules require me to remove these tags until its sourced. Thank you for your understanding. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence in the UK, but Griffin certainly has denied the extent of the holocaust, as you would have found out if you'd read the article, or conducted the most basic search for information. As things stand the article most certainly does include citations to support his views on this matter, and I will therefore revert your edits, which are incorrect and badly-phrased. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Extent. Big difference from flat out denial. If you're going to be cold with me, expect the same back. There is no direct source in the article linking him to holocaust denial. Add one now please. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Says he is here and here and that was just a quick check, you can add them as sources if you wish. Mo ainm~Talk 22:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, there are plenty of sources in the article which mention his views on the holocaust, and there are doubtless many more to be found elsewhere. Maybe next you'll want a citation which demonstrates that the sky is blue and water is wet. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's silly to be so anal like that parrot. It doesn't help anyone. All I was asking for was a quote, as by wikipedia standards. If you'll look at the list of U.S presidents, you'll find everyone of them is quoted four times, just as evidence as his position as the 9th, 12th, 21st president. I would have thought that was pretty set in stone too. Anyway, holocaust denial is a totally different thing. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one being anal or silly, I leave that to others. I don't recall you asking for a quote and I'm not aware of a "standard" that demands one. His denial of the holocaust is well documented and cited in the article, further citations are not necessary. Parrot of Doom 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Griffin is also reported as rebutting "so called" claims that he has denounced the holocaust. It should be noted that some historians have stated the most of what is claimed is pure fiction. Remember, for many centuries it was claimed (and believed) that the world was flat Vtr1781249 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever believed the world was flat - ever. That said, how on earth would Griffin ever refute the words from his own mouth? Or is that video some Hollywood CGI masterpiece? Parrot of Doom 20:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Age when joining the National Front

Griffin is first stated to have joined the National Front at the age of fifteen, then later in the early life section stated to have been fourteen. Someone with an account should probably fix that. --212.238.145.89 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting that error. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Geographical error

"and moved to Southwold in Suffolk aged eight.[3][4] There he was educated at Woodbridge School"

Woodbridge school is not in Southwold, but in fact in Woodbridge, almost an hour away by car. 201.214.28.91 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Enlarge infobox image

As the infobox image should be a good headshot/upper portion of a person, I propose increasing the size to 250px. This isn't a huge increase, but it will make Griffin more visible in the image. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick Griffin tweets address of gay couple and makes threats

I'd keep an eye on this one as it's spreading fast, attracting widespread media coverage, and is across most news sources and papers already. The police are involved too already.

• Gay couple refused hotel room by christian.
• Gay couple sue and win.
• Nick Griffin tweets their personal address and makes threat to have a "justice team" visit them and give "a bit of drama".

Additional sources: BBCupdateGayStarNewsupdateThe GuardianHunts PostThe Sun Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink News update - Nick griffin and the BNP could face sanctions from European parliament after a complaint by Labour MEPs. Nick Griffin's address has also been released on Facebook and shared 10,000 times. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

He's digging a bigger hole for himself...Gay star newsPink News ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Yeah, we know. So can we not add that address and the fact that it was shared 10,000 times on Facebook to the article? It is clearly "public domain" by now... :) (By the way, it was a B&B room, not a hotel room...) --feline1 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC).

Go ahead, add it if you like. I'm doing other things and waiting for it to fully develop before i was planning to do it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully the article is semi-protected so we'll at least be able to see if this story develops while not having to worry about half a million "edits" on this subject. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't in a rush to add anything. Looks like this will dwarf any bad publicity he has received in the last few years though. Thanks Parrot ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Off topic discussion (WP:FORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Out of interest, what would happen if I edited the Nick Griffen article to add the exact postal address of his home in Welshpool?--feline1 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Why would you want to, do we list any other politicians home address?Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Because it would be an hilarious and highly valid piece of satire. And hopefully some guys with bricks and baseball bats might go round there and, you know, really explain things to him [7]--feline1 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Sounds more like you want to wage a hate campaign against the man than edit productively here Feline1. I'd strike those last two comments unless that is your objective - in which case you won't last long here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I've somehow lasted since about 2004 already. Perhaps due to my wonderful sense of humour. Be seeing you... oh and have a read of WP:FAITH while you're at it :)--feline1 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I'm well aware of WP:AGF, are you aware of Wikipedia:Attack page, neutrality and BLP policy? ツ Jenova20 (email) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Are you aware of what satire, jokes and a rhetorical question are?--feline1 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah...i didn't find that too funny on this topic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC) You object to using humour to tackle serious political issues? Seems like you definitely do need to read the satire article then. Keep your pecker up! :) --feline1 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC) I don't object (don't twist my words), i just didn't find it funny. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

link edit

the correct URL for his MEP profile is http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96751/NICK_GRIFFIN.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.57.122 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the link. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of date

Needs to contain information regarding 2010-13. --Simone 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, off you go then. What do you plan to add? Parrot of Doom 22:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Something could be added about his campaign against that gay couple who stayed in a hotel. That generated significant worldwide coverage. I believe the European Commission even fined him for it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be information about his committee memberships in the European parliament, and his activity within them, any speeches in the European parliament which garnered significant media attention and his role in the internal politics of the BNP since the 2010 election. --Simone 20:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So get writing then. Parrot of Doom 22:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You admit these are issues, so the tag stays on the page. Simone 10:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article should be either improved, or - if not - tagged. It currently contains no information on him later than 2010. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree too ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

then add s something! You made one suggestion go for it. Otherwise he has faded into the background as has his party to there may simply be nothing significant to report. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The point of tagging is to encourage editors, plural, to add reliably sourced and relevant material. There may be many reasons why the editor who identifies a problem cannot devote time and resources to improving the article immediately - but other editors often can. In this case, a tag seems to be justified because nothing is said about Griffin's activities since 2010. If there are no reliable sources reporting on Griffin since then, that's fine, but it should be reported and discussed here so that the tag can be removed after due consideration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Possibly, but there are far too many drive by taggers. Either way lets see if someone comes up with anything. Its an area I monitor (take searchlight etc and read) and I haven't seen much in the last year or so that is noteworthy, all low level internal party bikering. Anyone else got anything? ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the BNP had a leadership election in 2011, which isn't even mentioned here. And it's ridiculous that there's no information about the activities of Griffin as a parliamentarian. Don't remove the tag unless you sort out the problems with the article. Simone 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For an editor whose has only just been readmitted to the community after extensive sock puppetering you are being remarkably assertive. For a start he is not a UK parliamentarian and I haven't seen any impact at an EU level - have you? If you can't find something then its far from ridiculous ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on, it doesn't even give info about his committee membership - this has all been covered in the press. Simone 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Although personally I think the tag is justified, I've warned Claritas / Simone for edit-warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And bickering aside, i'll sort out the details of the B&B couple Nick campaigned against later today. That was certainly notable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What's all this about "Nick"'s campaign against a gay couple? Shooting your mouth off is hardly a campaign, and in any case it was Griffin as BNP leader, not Griffin as an individual. What's it worth - one sentence at most and then it risks being more appropriate for Wikinews! Griffin's activities in the European Parliament and its committees are not covered in the press (but, there again, neither are those of most other MEPs). I can only recall the suggested scandal of funds intended to cover his European Parliament work being used for BNP purposes. Emeraude (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've checked and I can't see anything notable in recent times, in fact there is very little material. Claritas/Simone has contributed nothing despite a claim that its all been covered in the press. If no one comes up with anything I will remove the tag later today ----Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realise those two are the same person right? The incident attracted widespread coverage. It reached every major newspaper in the UK and was criticised by some MEPs. Please read WP:Notable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Storm in a tea cup if you ask me. Griffin is (probably always was) a buffon. But if you think its useful put something in and we can look at it. One minor incident does not justify the tag and the arrogance of Simone or his/her instructing other editors to make changes but doing nothing.----Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just as I expected - someone identifies a "problem", tags the article and runs away, expecting other people to do the work for them. Griffin hasn't really been in the news since his QT appearance. The incident with the gay couple was just a tweet, it may warrant mention here but I suspect that if that incident has it's own article, it would be more relevant there. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(I forget the unindent symbol) This tag does not belong at all, lacking content on more recent stuff and 'compromised due to out of date information' are NOT the same thing, the tag is intended for articles which have become inaccurate due to changes....eg, if the'd lost his position as head of BNP, or been elected an MP....or died, or something....92.15.74.200 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally added about the gay couple. It gave me something to work from as i was struggling to find the time to do it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom's copyedit...

Removed mention of the actual controversy (what Nick actually did). Not only dod i fail to see how this is a copyvio since every source in the article and talk page here say it, but also that i see it personally as an instance of censorship in this instance since it is easily verifiable. I would like to change the original removed section to "Griffin appeared to reveal their address and encourage protests and violence" but Parrot on his talk page does not support this. I don't want to take this to ANI, but i haven't ruled it out, which is why i'm expanding this discussion first. Opinions? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to re-word it as it did indeed imply Griffin revealed the gay couples address (he did not).Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing censorship with editorial prudence. You can either have a sour word salad of an article which contains everything Griffin ever did and ever will do, or you can have something which gives the reader a good idea of who the man is. Take it to ANI if you want a bit of drama, it'll be funny. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources Steven. All of them state that they contained the couple's address, as does the BBC say the same, aswell as the tweets themselves. Besides, it's already in the article now so problem solved. Parrot, there's a big difference between saying there was a controversy and saying what it was. That's the difference between us being an encyclopedia and a rhumour-mill. Anyway, consider this matter closed ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual" or "same-sex"?

An editor replaced the term "homosexual" with "same-sex", claiming that the two terms are not synonyms and that the latter is more appropriate for describing Webster's alleged relationship with Nick Griffin. I'm sorry, but I think this is complete nonsense. There can't possibly be any legitimate reasons for preferring "same-sex" to "homosexual" here. "Same-sex" looks like a euphemism, a way of avoiding the term "homosexual", maybe because somebody finds it embarrassing, or whatever. 203.118.187.137 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides anything else, I think "same-sex" is an insult to the intelligence of readers of this article. Obviously Griffin is a man. Obviously Webster is a man. Therefore, if Webster's allegation were true and they actually did have a relationship (something I have no opinion about), the relationship would obviously by definition be "same-sex." The term "same-sex" doesn't really mean anything here, or tell anyone anything they couldn't have figured out without it. 203.118.187.137 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, "homosexual" doesn't tell anyone anything that wasn't already obvious from the article, since Griffin and Webster are obviously both men. Why not just say, "Webster claimed to have had a sexual relationship with Griffin"? - htonl (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you say simply that they had a "sexual relationship", that leaves the issue of the nature and motivation of the relationship obscure. Maybe Griffin had such a relationship simply because he was immature and someone manipulated him into it? Adding "homosexual" makes it reasonably clear that it was an expression of sexual feelings on both sides, which (apparently) is what Webster is alleging. So it does make a difference. 203.118.187.210 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IF they had a relationship at all, then it would be gay/homosexual. No ifs, no buts. And without concrete proof that Nick had gay sex or a gay relationship this is irrelevent anyway. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Parrot of Doom 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In theory, at least, I also agree; this would seem to me that such content should be removed from the article. Changing one word to another because it's "more politically correct" is simply horrid. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove what content? Parrot of Doom 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake; I should have read more carefully. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

He is now bankrupt.

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/uk_bnp_leader_nick_griffin_declared_bankrupt_1_3174211 86.149.135.134 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Something on the BBC, he claims he can keep his MEP seat and stand again. AlbertAndTheLion (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about MEP, a bankrupt cannot stand as a UK MP. 86.149.135.134 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. The Enterprise Act 2002 amended the law, and only persons against whom a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order - usually only issued by a court where the insolvency was caused by malfeasance or dishonesty on the part of the bankrupt - has been made are disqualified from standing for election to the House of Commons. An ordinary Bankruptcy Order is no longer a disqualification. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, though it's likely that there will now be investigations to establish whether or not there has been any dishonesty. As for this article, shouldn't it say why he was bankrupted, i.e. he failed to pay his lawyers for the work they did in connection with his legal cases concerning the BNP's constitution, etc.? This is not just about his personal life. Emeraude (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BBC Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25590155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.116.247 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)