Nick Griffin under investigation by police - but back on Twitter

BNP leader's account reactivated after he was suspended for posting the address of B&B case gay couple online.

With the BNP beset by splits and financial problems, Nick Griffin's decision to publish the address of a gay couple who won a court case against a Christian B&B owner (before encouraging his supporters to demonstrate outside their home) was a transparent attempt to distract from his party's woes. He tweeted:

A British Justice team will come up to [their Huntington address] & give you [the couple, Michael Black and John Morgan] a … bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!

An earlier message read:

If anyone can give us address of the 2 bullying 'gay' activists who've won case v Christian B&B owners, we'll hold demo … for rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish

Unsurprisingly, Griffin is now under investigation by Cambridgeshire police, who said they were "looking into" the complaints they had received. A spokeswoman added that "officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."

Griffin's Twitter account was suspended after he posted the couple's address but was reactivated this morning, albeit without the offending tweet.

Incidentally, one wonders if we will hear from our new Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, who has previously defended the right of B&B owners to turn away gay couples. In April 2010, he was revealed to have told a Centre For Policy Studies meeting:

I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

In response to yesterday's ruling, Michael Black and John Morgan said:

We're doing this to try and make sure that all B&B owners realise what the law is and think twice before discriminating against gay people, black people, Christians, Muslims, Irish, any other group.

Hear, hear.

British National Party leader Nick Griffin was briefly suspended from Twitter after posting the address of a gay couple who won a court case against a Christian bed and breakfast owner. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.