BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Was the palace right to bar Nick Griffin?

13:24 UK time, Thursday, 22 July 2010

BNP leader Nick Griffin has been denied entry to a garden party at Buckingham Palace. Should he have been allowed in?

Buckingham Palace say this is "due to the fact he has overtly used his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media" which in turn increases the security threat and potential discomfort to other guests.

The palace statement said: "The decision to deny entry is not intended to show any disrespect to the democratic process by which the invitation was issued. However, we would apply the same rules to anyone who tried to blatantly politicise their attendance in this way."

Mr Griffin's personal invitation to the garden party on Thursday was issued to him as an elected member of the European Parliament.

Did Nick Griffin blatantly politicise his attendance? Is the ban fair? Should he have been given a personal invitation?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 11

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    He should not have been invited in the first place.

  • Comment number 3.

    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!

  • Comment number 4.

    If he was using his invitation for inappropriate party political purposes, yes, the invitation should be withdrawn.

    If it's just because he offends the Establishment, then no.

  • Comment number 5.

    It would appear that the Queen has no respect for the close to one million voters who voted for the BNP. The Queen needs to sort herself out and get her act together, sack your advisors maam .

    The BNP put the indigenous British people first while Labour, Tories and Liberals seem happy to put British people last.

    The Labour Party is full of nasty extremists, who seem hell bent on destroying Britain and its people. Why is there no talk of banning the Labour extremists from the garden party.

  • Comment number 6.

    Given that the BBC 'story' says he simply asked his supporters what he should say to the queen (if they spoke), then it seems a bit harsh to descibe it as "overtly using his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media".

    If that's the limit of it, then I would suspect he just wasn't wanted, and that was the best excuse someone could find to uninvite him.

  • Comment number 7.

    As Hosts they have the right to refuse entry to anyone they wish. Just as i wouldnt like a BNP member at any of my parties.

  • Comment number 8.

    The aristocracy consorting with the Fascists....nothing new there then. Their existance, or at least their current position in our society, is as out-moded and undesirable as his.

  • Comment number 9.

    Nick Griffin is a freely-elected MEP, so this manufactured and contrived media fuss is laughable. Anyone who is against his appearance is a fascist.

  • Comment number 10.

    If the Palace is trying to operate consistently, then it should ban all politicians who by nature have to self publicise themselves to stay in power.

    No, he shouldn't have been banned, the more airtime secured any party we do not like because of their beliefs will simply give oxygen to their cause.

  • Comment number 11.

    I detest everything that Nick griffin and his party stand for. But if the royal family are starting to get fussy, they have a mound of unsightly behind them that would dwarf Everest, or did Prince Philip find Nick Griffins views too mundane?. Just look at the crooks, conmen, murders that have been invited to Buckingham Palace, even to a personal banquet. Let alone what the other parties have dragged in, along with knighthoods in many cases.

  • Comment number 12.

    What comes 'round, goes 'round.

  • Comment number 13.

    I am pleased that they banned this person. However, they should ban the royal family as well.

  • Comment number 14.

    Thats up to the Palace.

  • Comment number 15.

    Nick Griffin is an exceptionally divisive and unpleasant figure, and that's before we even get to discussing his extreme political views. It is quite right that his entry to Buckingham Palace be denied on the grounds that he has heavily politicised his impending visit, though I would expect the same actions be taken against anybody else who uses their invitation for political gain.

  • Comment number 16.

    I didn't think that he would ever get into the palace, and I think it's a real shame. I don't agree with his policies, but I do believe in democracy.He was entitled to his invitation as an elected MEP and this should be respected.

  • Comment number 17.

    Nick Griffin has as much right to be there as any other person who has been invited. He is an elected MEP. If the Palace don't want him there then why did they invite him??

  • Comment number 18.

    The BNP has only shown that exposing them is best done by allowing to be like "normal" parties. Removing him from the Queens Tea Party is just going to give him ammo, along with lines of "Look what the do to do me". It will never cross his mind he is simply a vile, vile man.

    Personally, if Nick started a scene and I was the queen, I'd slap the Sex Pistols on and start pogo'ing :)

  • Comment number 19.

    I was always told that the Royal Household (paid for by a democratic people) is not political. So why are they doing this? Ban one, then ban them all! This is a very dangerous path for the Royals to walk. Their neutrality will be questioned.

  • Comment number 20.

    as much as very few of us may agree with Mr Griffin's politics, to restrict his movements or his ability to offer them to people would result in us becoming the very thing we are trying to oppose.

    a situation where we stop someone doing something because of their Politics and Beliefs we will become the fascist system that we are trying to prevent happening.

    If you want to restrict Mr Griffins ability to get involved in UK policy making, do it where any decent democratic person should, in an Election!

  • Comment number 21.

    This is great. What a kick in the teeth for the "patriots" of the BNP. Even the Queen hates you!

  • Comment number 22.

    Yes I feel the palace was right to deny him entry on the basis that he very blatently used the invitation to gain publicity and political gain.

    Although him and his party are entirely odious to me I wouldn't have liked to see him banned on the basis of that. If it is the case that MEPs get invited then he had to be included. However when that invitation is used as a PR stunt then they have every right to remove the opportunity from him.

    I was honoured to be invited to a garden party earlier this year, in recognition of services to charity. The way Griffin tried to use his invite as some sort of victory for him and his views was disgusting and detracted from the wonderful experience and pride for the other guests which is what the party should be about.

    I hope that today's guests have as wonderful an experience as I had now that they won't be subject to the BNP circus that Griffin tried to turn the day into.

  • Comment number 23.

    Of course the ban is not fair. Any politican who goes will of course use it in some way, maybe not straight away but in the future.

    At the end of the day, Nick Griffin is a democratically elected MEP and however much people don't like it, he is an MEP.

    I am not advocating that I agree with him in any way shape or form but, were does the line fall between freedom of speech and not offending?

    I find many things people say as offensive and repugnant but, they are entitled to their view and I am mature enough to brush it aside and not let it affect me.

  • Comment number 24.

    Interesting we can discuss the subject of Griffin not going to the Palace, but we cannot discuss the issue of today's CPS verdict! Come on BBC, at this rate you will be loosing readers to the guardian!

  • Comment number 25.

    He was never going to get past the gates any way just a surely as the copper was never going to be charged with assaulting Tomlinson.

  • Comment number 26.

    He should have been allowed in. Can't the Palace manage just one difficult person?

  • Comment number 27.

    The Monarchy should be abolished if they are so petty as not to invite Nick Griffin as a matter of courtesy. It is the likes of him who will lay down their lives for their Monarch. Sadly, the Crown has lost touch with their loyal subjects, & should be given their marching orders! Charity begins at home!

  • Comment number 28.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 29.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 30.

    3. At 1:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:

    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Oh for crying out loud... yet another person who insists on commenting without actually reading the question!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I quote from the top of this HYS page.......

    "Buckingham Palace say this is "due to the fact he has overtly used his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media" which in turn increases the security threat and potential discomfort to other guests."

    So what part of this statement doesn't explain to you why he had his invitation revoked?

  • Comment number 31.

    As long as he is being treated the same as anybody else then as far as I'm concerned the right thing was done. If he was refused just for his political views then that is not acceptable. I'm a big supporter of the royal family and they don't need anymore bad publicity so I hope this doesn't back fire on them.

  • Comment number 32.

    Not that I wish to be seen to defend Nick Griffin, but Charles Windsor does much the same thing all the time.

  • Comment number 33.

    Nice to see some common sense from Her Majesty.

  • Comment number 34.

    Rufus McDufus wrote:

    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!

    ###

    It is all in the article. He wrote to all his members saying how he would be representing them and their hatred and their bigotry at the garden party. Okay, he didn't word it quite like that - but it does not take a genius to work it out.

  • Comment number 35.

    Absolutely right to ban him! Now he knows what discrimination feels like. He shouldn't dish out what he can't personally take.

  • Comment number 36.

    5. At 1:55pm on 22 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
    It would appear that the Queen has no respect for the close to one million voters who voted for the BNP. The Queen needs to sort herself out and get her act together, sack your advisors maam ....The Labour Party is full of nasty extremists, who seem hell bent on destroying Britain and its people. Why is there no talk of banning the Labour extremists from the garden party."


    If you read the story you would know that he wasn't banned for his or the BNP's views but for the shameless self promotion of himself on the back on his invite, using this non-party political event for his own political advancement. If someone from another political party had used it in the same way then presumably they would have been uninvited too. Plenty of MPs and MEPs will have been invited, he is the only one going on TV and releasing press statements to gloat about his invite.





    6. At 1:56pm on 22 Jul 2010, Khuli wrote:
    "Given that the BBC 'story' says he simply asked his supporters what he should say to the queen (if they spoke), then it seems a bit harsh to descibe it as "overtly using his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media". "

    He also appeared on breakfast TV today and held a press conference some weeks ago to 'flash' his invite.

  • Comment number 37.

    Barry Ferguson wrote:
    "Anyone who is against his appearance (Griffin) is a fascist".

    - Takes one to know one Barry! -

    In terms of Britishness - obviously there are many views as to a definition of what this is - Mine is anyone who contributes to our society. The BNP's happens to be racist - i.e. only white English people count! - something totally unBritish

  • Comment number 38.

    It depends on why he was banned.

    If he was truly using the invitation for his and his parties political gain then yes it is right.

    If it was because of the party's value, policies or beliefs then it is wrong.

    As the hastily put together reason seems to be that he did in fact use the invitation for political gain, I'd like to know more about just how this actually happened. What he actually did in other words.

    He and his party have every right to their beliefs and policies. Those who oppose them have no right to do so in any other form than not voting for them or presenting a factual reasoned counter argument (which shouldn't be hard in many cases).

  • Comment number 39.


    3. At 1:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:
    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!
    --------------------------

    It's because he's from such poor stock.

  • Comment number 40.

    Since I agree wholeheartedly with much, but not all, of what Nick Griffin stands for, I would willingly stand him a cream tea at my place. It might not be a Palace but it is a temple of free speech and political freedom. One lump or two Nick ?

  • Comment number 41.

    I donn't agree at all with BNP, but I have to say it is completely wrong to ban him from attending. He is an elected official and as such should be allowed to go. All that banning him does is send out the wrong message to his supporters.
    It should be remembered after all that the Garden parties are paid for out of General taxation via the civil list, and therefore a person who represents a million electors should go. I am sure that a lot of other people who are invited have a less legitimate reason to be invited.

  • Comment number 42.

    To ban him because he attempted to gain attention because of his invite is clearly nothing more than an excuse. The real reason is that the establishment does not want to be criticised for allowing him entry. I think that is a shame as in a democracy even those with whom you disagree should be entitled to be heard and clearly the political establishment in this country have no intention of letting that happen in the case of the BNP. Personally I think that someone has to stand up against uncontrolled immigration. We are one of the most overcrowded countries in the world and it needs to stop.

  • Comment number 43.

    I don't support either Nick Griffin or the BNP but I don't agree that he should be banned from the garden party. What bad form to invite a guest and turn them away when they turn up! There are plenty of other undesirables who have been allowed to hob nob with the ueen.

  • Comment number 44.

    I guess the palace has spoken for the other 59 million in the country.

  • Comment number 45.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 46.

    I'm not usually a great fan of the Queen, but I must say that this is absolutely the right decision.

    Don't let the BNP hide behind a mask of respectability.

  • Comment number 47.

    They should bar the lot of them. The garden party is just another “US & THEM” jolly.

    By the way does anyone know who pay’s for this annual p*** up of the good and great? surely it cant be the good old British taxpayer again can it.


  • Comment number 48.

    I agree with The Bloke -
    "If he was using his invitation for inappropriate party political purposes, yes, the invitation should be withdrawn.

    If it's just because he offends the Establishment, then no."

    But would the same rule had been inforced if it was a Conservative MEP??

    I am certainly not a BNP / Nick Griffin supporter - the complete and utter opposite (to be frank - I mildly hate them), but I do have to question if it is one rule for him , and another for everybody else. He was democratically elected after all.

  • Comment number 49.

    Of course, what a daft, inane question!

    He should not only be banned from Buck House but banned everywhere.

  • Comment number 50.

    I have a lot of sympathy for Nick Griffen, for the Queen and for anyone who might be attending who finds Nick Griffen objectionable.

    But, the simple truth is that if the BBC hadn't tried to sweep the issue of immigration under the carpet for the last decade and hadn't actively tried to promote immigration as "good" and anyone against immigration as a racist neo-Nazi, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Personally I'd have to know a lot more before I knew whether this is a cynical move by Nick Griffen or by the palace or both.

    ... But to be honest who cares who goes to these garden parties?

  • Comment number 51.

    # 5 grainsofsand

    A very good point. There are Labour MP's who down the years supported the IRA and their horrific murder campaign against innocent British citizens, yet I don't see them being banned when the Queen opens Parliament every year. The Establishment is obviously terrified of the growing support Nick Griffin has in the UK today. There is no other reason for this disgraceful and disrespectful snub to a democratically elected MEP.

  • Comment number 52.

    If we start to discriminate against certain parties just because their views are contraversial or even wrong then we become as bad as they are and are doing nothing more than burying democracy. Even Russia allows it's extremist parties the right to publicity and existance and the UK constantly bashes it for being undemocratic - how hypocritical.

  • Comment number 53.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 54.

    Whatever you think of the man & his party, if he is entitled to an invite then he should go.

    What is it with this country? If you don't like what he has to say, don't listen & don't vote for him.

    Seems to be it's the same kind of behaviour from those up on high that justifies them banning him in the first place. We can think for ourselves thanks.

    Or is this just another blatant way of censoring an opposition MP?

    Not very democratic, all around. Sad really.

  • Comment number 55.

    He was invited because he is legally elected. Either ban the political party because it is thought to be very bad or leave it alone and accept that as a legal party it has a right to be heard. I would ask the country to vote on whether the BNP should be made an illegal organisation or not and then act on the publics decision.

    I find it so hard to understand why people hate other people so much!! We may be different from each other in lots of physical and mental ways but we all compliment each other. We give diversity and interest to each other instead of all being the same. We have developed differently because of our environment and i like that. We may not find some people as attractive as others but then has that not always been the case!!??

    I just want to live my life and get on with people around me. I do not want to hurt or erradicate people just because they are different and i want people to treat me with the same respect.

  • Comment number 56.

    If Liz wants to invite Nick to her gaff for a cuppa PG and a cucumber sarnie, then it is her right to do so.

    All those who accuse him of political posturing are surely doing the same.

  • Comment number 57.

    Yes, but it's a bit risky for the royals to ban the british naz! party, most of the bnp's supporters are the sort of people to line up for parades and buy junk with the queen's picture on.

  • Comment number 58.

    Some people need to realise that it is not the Queen or the Royals who have instigated this ban or even invited him in the first place, but the Palace (those who tell the royals what to do).

    Whether you agree with Royalty or not, at least get your facts straight please, or are you of the David Cameron school of facts.

  • Comment number 59.


    30. At 2:16pm on 22 Jul 2010, mostly_harmless wrote:

    3. At 1:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, Rufus McDufus wrote:

    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Oh for crying out loud... yet another person who insists on commenting without actually reading the question!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I quote from the top of this HYS page.......

    "Buckingham Palace say this is "due to the fact he has overtly used his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media" which in turn increases the security threat and potential discomfort to other guests."

    So what part of this statement doesn't explain to you why he had his invitation revoked?


    I certainly did read it. Is this a good enough explanation to you? It isn't to me! Wouldn't you prefer to know the specific details or are you happy with this very vague statement? I haven't seen how Mr Griffin is using the media at all.

  • Comment number 60.

    I have never heard of any other invitee to the palace trying to use this fact to promote their own political ideas.

    It just seems Unbritish to me. A quiet acceptance would be far better than this vulgar waving of the invite at all and sundry.

    I sincerely hope tht if any other politician were to behave in this repulsive manner, he or she would also be uninvited.

  • Comment number 61.

    It is up to the palace who they let in or not. However it's a pretty lame excuse they've used, because there plenty of others who will use this event as a publicity stunt. I any any case this means more propaganda for the BNP so I'm sure Mr Griffin will be happy at that.

  • Comment number 62.

    I think palace should not have banned Nick Griffin after sending him invitation. I don't support BNP and nor the majority of UK, but this way BNP is getting more media coverage than they deserve. Every political leader tries to get some mileage out of anything they do and palace should have known this beforehand.

  • Comment number 63.

    What did Nick Griffin think he was doing appearing on a programme like GMTV with its vacuous presenters who are basically only capable of asking its audience " Who is the Queen of England" is it A. An octopus named Paul.B Katy Price. C. Elizabeth 2 Queen of England. " Send us your hard earned money at £1 a minuite to us!Actualy maybe it was the right programme for Nick Griffin to be on.

  • Comment number 64.

    As the leader of the British National Party that got more than a million votes, the 5th highest vote (more than the Scottish National Party and the Welsh Nationalist party combined) he should be allowed. I do not agree with his views but we are a democratic country. I understand that the Anti Fascist League and their extreme left 'rent a mob' would be there, so maybe that was the reason. This will only be a gain for the BNP in its working class heartlands vacated by its Labour traitors

  • Comment number 65.

    37. At 2:26pm on 22 Jul 2010, Lord Wot Wot wrote:
    //Barry Ferguson wrote:
    "Anyone who is against his appearance (Griffin) is a fascist".

    - Takes one to know one Barry! -

    In terms of Britishness - obviously there are many views as to a definition of what this is - Mine is anyone who contributes to our society. The BNP's happens to be racist - i.e. only white English people count! - something totally unBritish ///

    Well lets be clear in our definitions!

    You may define Griffin as a fascist and I do not disagree, however it is plainly obvious to all but the stupid, that all the Political Parties appear to be pursuing FASCISM!

    To be quite honest, I would prefer a version of Nationalist fascism as espoused by the BNP, than the corporate global internationalised fascism being adhered to with vigour by the LibLabCon Westminster private members club and their mates in the City! Mmmm

    Which fascist is your favourite?

  • Comment number 66.

    Of course, he should be allowed in and a poor excuse to ban him.

    The party has a lot of supporters and whatever you think about some of the policies, he has a mandate to attend.

    It the Media who interviewed him - what is meant to do - refuse?, while everyone else is allowed to talk about it. PC gone mad again.





  • Comment number 67.

    For the record: I am NOT a BNP supporter/voter/member

    The disunited kingdom is not a democracy.

    Where the members of a lawful political party are subject to violence, dismissal from employment, restrictions on free speach etc the conditions for an effective democracy are not met.

    I am saddened that the queen has allowed herself to be brought down to this level.

  • Comment number 68.

    The Palace were entirely correct to ban Mr Griffin today, and if any MP had used such an invite in such a manner then the Palace would have been entirely correct to ban them as well.

    Mr Griffin has shown enourmous disrespect to the Queen in his behaviour.

  • Comment number 69.

    I guess this is the Palaces way oh saying sorry for King Edward VIII.

  • Comment number 70.

    34. At 2:20pm on 22 Jul 2010, Hastings wrote:

    Rufus McDufus wrote:

    BBC - it'd help us decide whether the palace was right or not if you actually told us the reason why he was banned!

    ###

    It is all in the article. He wrote to all his members saying how he would be representing them and their hatred and their bigotry at the garden party. Okay, he didn't word it quite like that - but it does not take a genius to work it out.


    Is it a crime to represent his party members? I dislike Griffin intensely but I'm finding this witchhunt even more disturbing. I still fail to see how 'representing his party members' equates to using the media.
    Ah - now the full article is up (it wasn't when I wrote my first comment), I see he appeared on GMTV. However, I also fail to see why being invited onto a TV show to talk about his appearance is reason to ban him. Plenty of other people have been on TV talking about their invitations to Royal garden parties/gong ceremonies.

  • Comment number 71.

    Pretty despicable behaviour from the palace which wil ultimately backfire on them. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Grifins politics to simply ad hoc bar him from an event attended by all MEPs is a blow against democracy.
    I imagine that there are a number of MEPs with extreme views who will be attending- doubtless the Islamic ones will get in- wouldn't want to offend them now would we

  • Comment number 72.

    As I see it, it's quite simple. He broke the rules so he loses his invite. What's all the fuss about? If he had stuck by the rules he would still be welcome, it's his own fault as far as I am concerned.

  • Comment number 73.

    Of course the real reason he was banned was that Prince Phillip would have made him look like a loveable socialist!

  • Comment number 74.

    He will enjoy this publicity anyway. It seems the ban only serves to increase the inappropriate political PR he is gaining.

  • Comment number 75.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 76.

    Not nice to feel like you're being discriminated against is it Mr Griffin.

  • Comment number 77.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 78.

    He as been elected by the people and thays it. I personaly disagree with him but whats the point in having elections if were going to ride roughshod over them. Sorry but thats the way it has to be.

  • Comment number 79.

    "5. At 1:55pm on 22 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:

    It would appear that the Queen has no respect for the close to one million voters who voted for the BNP. The Queen needs to sort herself out and get her act together, sack your advisors maam ."
    Don't you just hate it when people discriminate against others because of their political views, im sure the BNP would never be caught discriminating against others...
    The phrase "You reap what you sow" comes to mind.

  • Comment number 80.

    Unless he did something to offend the host, no.

  • Comment number 81.

    Yes they should. And the brilliant thing is he caused this all by himself by bragging on the BNP website and by showing he has no decorum and no understanding of royal protocol by being willing to discuss his invitation on national television! Serves him right that they have seen fit to ban him. It just goes to show what a really silly person he is as I bet he will be blaming the media, the government, god, and anyone else he can think of. But actually it was all down to him.

  • Comment number 82.

    It doesn't matter, because Griffin is in a win-win situation while battling to hold on to the BNP leadership and desperately needing to prove himself all over again to the party. Either he gets barred from the garden party and can play the persecution card (yet again), or he gets in and gets his photo taken, smug grin and all, to then go on their next faintly ridiculous election leaflet.

  • Comment number 83.

    I understand that Nick Griffin is allergic to cucumber ~ the palace clearly didn't want a Little-Britain style vomiting episode in front of their other guests.

    Invite withdrawn.

  • Comment number 84.

    Nick Griffin's ban is a total disgrace. What political skullduggery has gone on behind the scenes to cuse this seemingly innocuous invitation to be withdrawn. Remember its wa only in 1968 when poor Enoch Powell was mad a pariah for predicting the future state of the UK... and how right he was.

  • Comment number 85.

    8. At 1:56pm on 22 Jul 2010, Bibi wrote:
    The aristocracy consorting with the Fascists....nothing new there then. Their existance, or at least their current position in our society, is as out-moded and undesirable as his.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I find your comments reprehensible and disgraceful.

    First and foremost, not everyone in this country is a rabid mouthed republican. I for one love the fact that we have a monarchy, which adds a depth, history and character to this country, something you will never get with some bland republic - you need only look at France for evidence of this.

    Whilst it’s the palace’s decision to refuse invitation and entry to whom they desire, I suspect there is more to it than this i.e. pressure from groups opposed to the BNP. Whilst no fan of the BNP, I am equally unimpressed and enamored of the left wing groups who oppose them, whom themselves often appear to be fascist in their tactics and beliefs in whom they feel we as a public have a right to support.

    “The aristocracy consorting with the Fascists....”

    I would appreciate it if you were to provide evidence and examples to back up this claim.

  • Comment number 86.

    Good!

  • Comment number 87.

    The grounds that the Palace rescinded his invitation on are sound. Griffin has tried to use this whole thing to give the false notion that he represents a significant party. He was elected as a protest MEP and barely a tenth of the "million he represents" actually voted for him. Look how poorly the BNP performed in the real general election if you want an accurate reflection of Griffin's insignificance on the big stage.

    Being invited to the Palace had nothing to do with the credibility of his evil cause, but he tried to use it as a massive propaganda coup and has rightly been denied a further tool for his own deluded self-aggrandisement.

  • Comment number 88.

    Nick Griffin is not by any means the first politician to be invited to the Queen's garden party.
    He IS the first politician to take part in TV and media interviews, boasting of his invitation and trying to put words in the Palace's mouth regarding the reason for that invitation. That is why he has been banned.

    Perhaps, if he is ever invited again, he will have learned to keep his mouth shut.

  • Comment number 89.

    Silly move.

    He's going to turn up at the gates, invite in hand, suited and booted, all in front of the TV cameras.

  • Comment number 90.

    There appear to be a few people who have missed a vital point: that is that the Queen must be seen to remain A-POLITICAL. Because Mr Griffin has insisted on declaring his invite to be some sort of acknowledgement for the BNP, Her Majesty's advisors will have had no choice at all but to ban Mr Griffin.

    His wife is still going, as well as one other BNP MEP, so this is clearly NOT about the BNP or making a different rule for the BNP but specifically about the behaviour of Mr Griffin.

  • Comment number 91.

    67. At 2:45pm on 22 Jul 2010, jon112uk wrote:

    For the record: I am NOT a BNP supporter/voter/member

    The disunited kingdom is not a democracy.

    Where the members of a lawful political party are subject to violence, dismissal from employment, restrictions on free speach etc the conditions for an effective democracy are not met.

    I am saddened that the queen has allowed herself to be brought down to this level.

    --------------------------------------------------

    As a liberal party supporter, although it pains me to say it, you do make a very valid point. If we start banning that which we don't agree with then where does that leave freedom of speech and democracy?

  • Comment number 92.

    As a leader of a Political Party, he should be allowed in. We live in a democracy afterall

  • Comment number 93.

    Anything that puts Nick Griffin's face in the spotlight and reminds us that he's still there, rather like an unpleasant smell reminding us of faulty sewage works, is probably a good thing, no?

  • Comment number 94.

    The whole party should be banned, the german's tried and failed to ban their version of the BNP, we should at least attempt the same... and to all those idiots that think it is undemocratic, it would be undemocratic not to ban them, since most of the population support this. People also only have freedom of speech as long as that freedom doesn't damage/hurt someone else, which the BNP does.

  • Comment number 95.

    No place for political correctness here! If the Monarchy cannot identify their true interests, including miniorities (ethnic included) who support them, then please go! Britain is more all-inclusive than what the present Monarch represents! I will not be sorry to see the back of them!

  • Comment number 96.

    I doubt the Queen herself had much to do with this decision. More likely her PR cronies.

  • Comment number 97.

    //18. At 2:08pm on 22 Jul 2010, Tombear wrote:
    The BNP has only shown that exposing them is best done by allowing to be like "normal" parties. Removing him from the Queens Tea Party is just going to give him ammo, along with lines of "Look what the do to do me". It will never cross his mind he is simply a vile, vile man.//

    There are plenty of politicians who are utterly vile, and the queen meets them, no questions asked.

    The reasoning behind mass immigration and multiculturalism is racist and snobbish, based on the idea that all foreigners work harder and have a culture which is superior to that of the natives. It is also based on the idea that there is no real native population, so everyone is as entitled to be here as the people who regard themselves as indigenous.

    Those views are vile. Imagine telling people in the Indian subcontinent, or Africa, that they 'needed' white English immigrants. That their cultures are so inferior that they could only be 'enriched' by ours. That we are able to do the jobs they're to lazy to do. That their ethnic identities don't really exist anyway, so they're no more entitled to their countries than we are.

    That would all be racist, snobby, and vile, no doubt. And it's what the supporters of mass immigration and multiculturalism tell us every day. Yet those people are getting knighthoods and positions of power and prestige.

  • Comment number 98.

    28. At 2:14pm on 22 Jul 2010, Kevin Orr wrote:
    Nick Griffin is a reprehensible racist toad but I would defend his right to spout vile nonsense, just as I would defend the right of people who have blogged here to do likewise.
    Also I would abolish the UNELECTED head of state here and dismantle the entire royalty rubbish.
    Time to move out of the middle ages and elect a president
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yes! Because nothing says "Come visit England" quite like the banality of a republic right?

  • Comment number 99.

    Wasn't it the media and other political groups that made a song and dance about his invitation in the first place?. If they had not made such a big deal about it we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  • Comment number 100.

    "Every one knows What The B.N.P. stands for, britain for the british only right or wrong,??? many voted yes !!! The Queen, banned him ?is the Queen against Britishness. I dont understand this one. Unless its about the Common wealth friends She dont wish to offend.

 

Page 1 of 11

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.