91Èȱ¬

We didn't get much coverage of this story up to now on 91Èȱ¬ World Service because 91Èȱ¬ doesn't spend much time on events occurring domestically in Britain being far too preoccupied trying to find fault by pouring over domestic events in America. I think whether one finds Nick Griffin's and Mark Collett's comments detestable, regrettable, or agrees with them is besides the point. It is 91Èȱ¬'s self appointed role as the guardian protector of all truth and what is permissible to say which is at issue. 91Èȱ¬ really needs to take a hard look at itself being it is the only organization which has the power to reign in its near monopoly on television and radio broadcasting in Britain. It seems beyond all outside control. Are all those who see the 91Èȱ¬ as biased wrong? It needs to keep in mind that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has near absolute uncheckable power. Can it effectively police itself? Not likely. It hasn't demonstrated so in a very long time. Now it is infringing on the right of freedom of speech for anyone who disagrees with it. That's not my opinion but the opinion of a British jury. And they were unanimous in that.

'Acceptable' in today's Britain ? Acceptable to whom exactly. Language is important and use of lazy words like 'acceptable' and 'appropriate' should not be in your vocabulary given your job.

The 91Èȱ¬ treads a very fine line, between reporting what it thinks the people need to know, and inciting riots.
Do NOT pretend to understand our diverse society-no one does. So be very careful how you report on very emotionally charged events. Imagine if you had done a similar report with secret film, from inside say a Mosque, where genuinely concerned individuals where voicing their distrust, showing their anger against another section of our society. Do you really think it helps?
Or does it just polarise the people, make them more likely to veer towards opposite factions?
The result- you've lit the blue touch paper, do you know how to put it out?

Please...a little humility here.
The 91Èȱ¬ hasn't exactly covered itself with glory here.
You've used our licence fees to give the BNP a level of publicity it would have had to bankrupt itself to achieve.
Had your crew not filmed the original speech, it wouldn't have rated a column inch in the local freesheet.
Now, Griffin is all over the national news and will be for days.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

To be honest I can think of no greater honour than being called a cockroach by the BNP.

It's an insult to pots who make dodgy statements about kettles.

Of course the BNP, reprehensible as it is, has a right to be heard. We are supposed to live in a free society.

91Èȱ¬ and impartiality in the same sentence?? Surely an oxy-moron if ever I saw one.

Well done 91Èȱ¬ for wasting tax payers money on something your legal-team could have told you wouldn't holdup in court. Also, well done for wasting license fee's on a programm, when this money could have been spent on more usefull programs on sheeding light on OAP/Child abuse for example. We are all fully aware there isn't a political movement without corruption problems. Also, well done for raising the profile of a right-wing party that needed a bit of good publicity.

When are were going to get an undercover expose of the left wing extremist, antiwar protesters, anti capalist protesters?

You just reported with regard to this story on the 10 o'clock news that new laws on incting Religious Hatred came into force earlier this week.

I think, having checked a legal database and the recently published legislation that this isn't correct. The legislation is still awaiting its commencement order (effectively a five minute job) about 6 months after it got Royal Assent.

Whether you were spun a line I don't know.....

I like most English people value the right to free speech. At this poignant time of year so many people are remembered for dying whilst trying to preserve it. Like most other people I know I resent being gagged by legislation, whether it be the race relations act or disability discrimination act, it makes no difference. Incitement to racial hatred or incitement to religious hatred is the same, it legitimises and empowers minority groups with minority views to gag the majority on the pretext of being offended. I have no affinity to Mr Griffin or his cronies they are just another form of minority extremism. However he does have a point. If certain persons or segments of society object so strongly to free speech, they should try living in a country without it and see what reaction they receive to their protests. As per usual, any sentence can be read and re-read interpreted and re-interpreted to basically say whatever you wish, whether that be out of context or not. As for a high court judge redefining and re-interpreting what is construed as free speech, that is laughable. It is not for individuals to judge what is morally acceptable, it is for society as a whole. This is surely another backwards step by a politically correct and out of touch minority trying to impose their will on the masses.

It is sad that language regarded as outrageously racist today will become the norm if a minority, who do not accept democratic ways, express themselves with mass murder.
The worst scenario is a clash of aggressive and inflexible religions. The minority will inevitably lose, possibly over many years, but that will not deter their uncontrolled extremists and those they mislead.

The BNP leaders have been acquitted and now government, quite hypocritically, want to change the law. Surely the wake-up call was the radical ethnic minority bombing London. That showed the policies pursued by that kindergarten in Westminster wasn't working and worse, those same policies are aiding the rise of the BNP. This is a white, Christian country; the white majority is being marginalised in their own country and stamping on the BNP is no solution to problems that previous bad race legislation has produced. Interestingly, surely the antics of Amin et al have shown that racism is pandemic?

Being called cockroaches by the likes of the BNP must be a slightly surreal experience: I suspect the Beeb will get over it. And we'll see how long Griffin & Co can go on drawing sympathetic juries when their real views slip out.

What do you expect when the 91Èȱ¬ is the reason why this comedy of errors was ever instigated? lt's done nothing but promote the BNP as the champions of free speech!

l also note that 'Have your say' does not cover this story. Too close to home perhaps?

No surprise to see that Gordon Brown now wants to change the law, despite the unanimous Not Guilty verdict. The trial struck me as a waste of time, since if you were to ask every non-Muslim in the UK whether they thought that Islam:
a) condoned violence against non-believers
b) saw women as second-class citizens
c) was inherently homophobic
you'd get a large number of Yes answers, especially in our inner cities.
But so what? If you asked every Muslim whether they thought that Christianity had been the justification for some pretty wicked and violent behaviour in the past, you'd get a similar answer.
The difference being that was then, this is now.

I begin to wonder who is running this country: Nick Griffiths is tried for incitement to religious hatred when he was addressing a private meeting - surrutitiously recorded by the 91Èȱ¬ - therefore not heard by the general public, and the politicians are baying to get the law changed so that they can jail him to protect Muslims. Six months ago Muslims carried placards through the streets of London and outside the Danish Embassy calling for the death by beheading of non-islamic believers and glorifying the 7/7 bombers - many masked to avoid recognition. The police protected them and eventually only one of them was tried and sentenced. What happened to the rest of the placards bearers? Why didn't G.Brown et al come out in force calling for a change in the law to protect us - the native population from them?

Not aonly is it all too one sided; it stinks. Griffith attracts Labour voters and Labour want to keep the Muslims on side.

Sheila Jon
11/11/06

The Jury, having listened to all the evidence found them "Not Guilty". This demonstration of the views, and standards of ordinary people, with no alternative motives, must take precedence over those views expressed by persons influenced by political or racist motives, however well meaning and pure of thought they claim to be.

Steve: 'I also note that 'Have your say' does not cover this story. Too close to home perhaps?'

I suspect it's more because the BNP have a habit of organising their membership to spam on these debates to give the impression that their views are widely held.

In the late fifties there was many people objecting to the then minor influx of West indians into the UK. At that time, I observed that there were two regions in the world where there existed substantial racial problems. One being the USA and the other South Africa. Accepting as I did the old English perception of the British Empire I have no racial predudice. I thought though at the time , that when there were such glaring examples of the apparent inability of large numbers of human beings of different races and credes to live together in harmony, then it would not be intelligent to replicate these conditions in the UK. We know that when we mix glyserol to nitric and sulphuric acid we get nitroglyserin and this goes bang in a big way! Therefore if we don't want a Bang!, we don't mix them. Well, the same principle goes for people! Later on, Mr Enoch Powell commented on the influx in much the same way, pointing out the probable outcome based on observable experience. His views were derided at the time but whereas previously there were no racial problems, now there are. We also had no laws to prevent the indigenous population from expessing their views on the subject. Now we do. Think now also of the Balkans, of Sri Lanka, of Ruanda Burundi, of the Lebanon. Think also of Iraq where only their perception of the Muslim faith is different! I could go on endlessly! Do these examples go completely unnoticed by our politicians? Are they so completely thick that they will always continue to try and make the water that is mankind run uphill?

The B.B.C. owe the British National Party an apology perhaps a 30 minutes interviews on T.V.

so Nick Griffin can give the British people an account of the persecution of a meddling parliament that we have in Westminster when opposing free speech

Hello Kevin,

The first thing i wonder is would you have censored Nick Griffin had you not carried his comments live. I find it a worry that you would.

As for freedom of speech, we do have it in this country s long as you dont say the wrong things and dont go asking questions.

Brian Laws tried to exercise his right, and that right was soon changed.

the 91Èȱ¬ should be our protector of freedom of speech, instead it seems to turn a very deaf ear to certain attempts to get a message out.

911 being a primary example

We have thge freedom to speak our individual opinions on it, but the bbc, even as a public service broadcaster, seems very unwilling to give a platform for alternative theory.

Our speech is free as long as you agree with it, it seems.

Do you think we will forget this shameful perriod in our national history

Just a thought. One thing is missing from all this and that is the reaction from the resident religious teddy chuckers. These people lost the plot over cartoons, and yet, considering the subject matter of the trial and the result, we have heard not a single peep. Why?

Credit where credits due, the BNP have temporarily saved our freedom of speech and I stress temporarily. I do not hold with some of their views and to be perfectly honest, at the moment I side with no one politically. But, who the hell can we vote for in the next election? Considering the current crop of apprentice retards and potential dictators we have to choose from? Its almost come down to "Vote for your own hell!" because none of them are going to be any good for this country.

P.S. Before you go ranting about the BNP go and find out about them first. The people you are referring to half the time when you use words like racist, nazi, extremist are Stormfront and Combat18.

"Of course it's always a risk carrying these live events"

I'm sorry, are you implying that you would censor such events if they happened to promote ideals you didn't like?

The BNP is bad enough, but censorship can be worse. Do try to tread the fine line between good taste and self-censorship carefully.

Firstly in response to the comment made by Graham in post 21, Graham makes the ridiculous suggestiont hat the only reson that the 91Èȱ¬ have not put a HYS debate about this ruling is that the BNP would have all their supporters spamming it, I'm sorry Graham perhaps you forget all the Islamic, Greens and others who spam any debate if it disagrees with their point of view.
I have no love of the BNP as I have no love of Islamic terrorists, however, this is a Democracy and the BNP have as much right to say what they think as do the Islamic fanatics who think it is okay to scream death to all non-muslims outside St Pauls, I do not remember any Muslim clerics standing up and saying they disagreed with this rehtoric, and even more to the point where was the 91Èȱ¬ and Police to ensure that this disgusting behaviour was filmed and used any possible trial ( as has happend to the BNP).
So sorry Graham you are the one in the minority, perhaps you should just stick with the Guardian website if you want to hear fantasy comments which fit your surreal understanding of the world at large.

The 91Èȱ¬ is not a democratic medium.
The hasty reporting on the Russian former intellegince officer who is alledged to have been poisoned by Putsin plus secretely filming N.Griffiths in order to get him in the dock has misfired. Blair & Brown want to change the law so that juries nolonger count. Do we live in a democracy ????????
Th Executive of the 91Èȱ¬ should be members of the public who are on the statutory minimum wage.
How about that to scare the hell out of you who work for the 91Èȱ¬/ITV/Press ??????

We deserve the BNP,
while we are not prepared to address cultural values brought to this country which allow with impunity gender violent practices to continue.

There are here in this so called modern liberal democracy, human rights abuses against the child, e.g.female genital mutilation(FGM),this is the most abominable, violent abuse and there has not one prosecution in a country which outlaws smacking! Unbelievable.

There are allowed to continue human rights abuses carried out against young women, "honour" killings, and forced marriages.

There are human rights abuses against women with the continuation of polygamy.

What we have here is what I call cul-de-sac racism. It's ok to be racist as long as it's only against females. If they are little black girls or young Asian girls don't defend their human rights.

It is carried out as an appeasement to the ethnic male who is so distraught about the demise of his gender based power here in the West.

While we continue to appease gender fascism we are inevitably going to have other extremes of right wing fascism raising its ugly head. What makes it so easy to accept one form and not the other?

I'll answer that for you, Misogyny, which is endemic in all cultures.

The BNP will dissolve into insignificance as soon as we stop appeasing cultural gender abuse and own the courage to claim back our modern liberal democracy.