i dont agree with your comparison.... griffin has not preached 'kill people who dont agree with us' in the way abu hamza has...

 

You're wrong mate... Preaching hatred is preaching hatred, no matter if the "preacher" happens to be a "politician" or a mad mullah...... Griffin "preaches" hate, his words and actions have directly led to people being violently attacked.... I know at least two people who have been assaulted by BNP supporters.... Why the hell are you so keen to defend these scum Rob, do you actually believe they represent the working classes of this country.... Give me a break.... Griffin is a member of a middle-class political elite, educated in CAMBRIDGE....... :rolleyes:

 

IE, he's just some middle class c/unt playing at being working class, and he can fukk right off...... <_<

Oh please Danny, DO try to read between the lines..... :rolleyes: It's pretty bloody obvious to me that the words and deeds of Nick Griffin and his minions have been directly responsible for hate crimes, racist attacks and at least TWO acts of terrorism that took place in London during the 90s..... Sinn Fein didn't exactly go out and EXPLICITLY declare "Kill All the Brits" either, and they were effectively banned from the airwaves for years mate....

 

sinn fein were at WAR with the uk... doesnt that include killing people?

 

You're wrong mate... Preaching hatred is preaching hatred, no matter if the "preacher" happens to be a "politician" or a mad mullah...... Griffin "preaches" hate, his words and actions have directly led to people being violently attacked.... I know at least two people who have been assaulted by BNP supporters.... Why the hell are you so keen to defend these scum Rob, do you actually believe they represent the working classes of this country.... Give me a break.... Griffin is a member of a middle-class political elite, educated in CAMBRIDGE....... :rolleyes:

 

IE, he's just some middle class c/unt playing at being working class, and he can fukk right off...... <_<

 

preaching hatred ISNT exactly the same as preaching 'death to the enemy', 'kill all non believers' though is it! ..... but its close.

 

im not defending the bnp, im just trying not to over-react m8 ! :P the point is that atm they are a legitimate political party.... as i said earlier whether they should be or not is a different argument.

sinn fein were at WAR with the uk... doesnt that include killing people?

 

Answer the question.... Did Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness ever make a speech explicitly saying "Kill all the Brits"...? No, they didn't, and we seem to be saying that this is the standard by which a political entity should be censured. So,IMO, they should not have been banned because they didn't... Besides, the UK oppressed Irish Catholics for centuries, I would say Sinn Fein and IRA had a right to be pissed off, considerably so than a bunch of whingeing, layabout chav idiots in this country (which, let's face it, is what most of BNP's core support IS)....

 

And you confuse the IRA with Sinn Fein.... Sinn Fein existed LONG before the Provisional Irish Republican Army as a seperate political entity.... Sinn Fein was formed in 1905....

30 anti-fascist protesters have broken through a security cordon in place around BBC Television Centre in west London.

 

Over 100 people are protesting outside the corporation's television headquarters ahead of the arrival of British National Party leader Nick Griffin for his appearance on tonight's Question Time. Unite Against Fascism said that 16 coaches of people are expected to join the protest throughout the afternoon.

 

Shortly before 4:30pm, 30 people entered the BBC Television Centre grounds through a set of iron gates, and it is understood that a handful may have entered the reception area of the building. They have all been escorted from the premises.

 

Griffin's appearance tonight has been cleared by the BBC Trust on the basis that it should not interfere in a programme before transmission on the basis that it would "undermine the editorial independence" of the corporation. It has, however, attracted stinging criticism from anti-fascist groups and Cabinet minister Peter Hain, who described Griffin's planned appearance as "abhorrent".

 

Well tonight's the night... let's hope he's shown up for the racist twat he is.

this site is useful for tracing the origins of your surname

 

http://www.surnamedb.com

 

funny thing is, just look up 'griffin'.... hardly derived from a hard core anglo-saxon origin!

 

 

funny thing is, just look up 'griffin'.... hardly derived from a hard core anglo-saxon origin!

 

I believe that 'Griffin' is actually Irish/Celtic isn't it....?

 

I just checked mine out.....

 

This noble and distinguished Irish surname is an Anglicized form of the Old Gaelic "Mac Mathghamha", meaning "son of the Bear". Traditionally, Irish family names are taken from the heads of tribes, or from some illustrious warrior, and are usually pre-fixed by "O", grandson, male descendant of, or "Mac", denoting "son of". Two distinct septs of this name exist in Ireland. The first belong to County Clare, and are descended from Mahon, son of Murtagh Mor O'Brien, King of Ireland (deceased 1119). Their territory was Corcabaskin in West Clare where the name is still most numerous. The last inaugurated Chief of the Name fell at the Battle of Kinsale in 1602. The second great sept of M(a)cMahon became lords of Oriel in the 13th Century, Oriel being an ancient territory comprising Counties Armagh, Monaghan and parts of South Down, Louth and Fermanagh. Today, M(a)cMahon holds third place on the list of most popular County Monaghan surnames. Many namebearers, including Bernard MacMahon (1680 - 1747), were Archbishops of Armagh, having previously been bishops of their native Clogher. The most outstanding MacMahon was Edmond Patrice, Compte de MacMahon (1808 - 1893), Marshal of France, and President of the Third Republic for six years. The family Coat of Arms is a silver shield with three red lions passant reguardant in pale, armed and langued azure. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of MacMahon (the name adopted by Reginald FitzUrse when he fled to Ireland following the murder of Thomas a Beckett), which was dated 1170, in the "Early Medieval Records of Ireland", during the reign of Rory O'Connor, Last native High King of Ireland, 1166 - 1175. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.

 

"Noble and distinguised" eh....??? And, bugger me, my people are actually from County Clare originally..... Holy Sh!t, I'm descended from bloody ROYALTY according to this........ :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Bow down and worship me you buggers....... :P

I just checked mine out.....

 

This noble and distinguished Irish surname is an Anglicized form of the Old Gaelic "Mac Mathghamha", meaning "son of the Bear". Traditionally, Irish family names are taken from the heads of tribes, or from some illustrious warrior, and are usually pre-fixed by "O", grandson, male descendant of, or "Mac", denoting "son of". Two distinct septs of this name exist in Ireland. The first belong to County Clare, and are descended from Mahon, son of Murtagh Mor O'Brien, King of Ireland (deceased 1119). Their territory was Corcabaskin in West Clare where the name is still most numerous. The last inaugurated Chief of the Name fell at the Battle of Kinsale in 1602. The second great sept of M(a)cMahon became lords of Oriel in the 13th Century, Oriel being an ancient territory comprising Counties Armagh, Monaghan and parts of South Down, Louth and Fermanagh. Today, M(a)cMahon holds third place on the list of most popular County Monaghan surnames. Many namebearers, including Bernard MacMahon (1680 - 1747), were Archbishops of Armagh, having previously been bishops of their native Clogher. The most outstanding MacMahon was Edmond Patrice, Compte de MacMahon (1808 - 1893), Marshal of France, and President of the Third Republic for six years. The family Coat of Arms is a silver shield with three red lions passant reguardant in pale, armed and langued azure. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of MacMahon (the name adopted by Reginald FitzUrse when he fled to Ireland following the murder of Thomas a Beckett), which was dated 1170, in the "Early Medieval Records of Ireland", during the reign of Rory O'Connor, Last native High King of Ireland, 1166 - 1175. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.

 

"Noble and distinguised" eh....??? And, bugger me, my people are actually from County Clare originally..... Holy Sh!t, I'm descended from bloody ROYALTY according to this........ :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Bow down and worship me you buggers....... :P

 

...feck off you bog trotter! :lol:

I believe that 'Griffin' is actually Irish/Celtic isn't it....?

 

Surname: Griffin

 

 

 

Recorded as O' Griffin, McGriffin, McGriffen, McGraffin, Griffen, Griffin, and probably others, this is a surname of at least three distinct origins. Without a prefix it may be English, Irish or Welsh, and which in their earliest ancient origins, are almost certainly linked. With the prefix it is always either Irish or Scottish. Firstly the current spelling may derive from the Old Welsh personal name "Gruffydd", composed of the elements "griff" of uncertain etymology but belived to mean a dragon, and "udd", a chief or lord. Secondly, it may have been of Anglo-Saxon or Germanic origins, and used as a baptismal name for a child, one whose the parents hoped would grow up to be a fierce person! Here the derivation is from the pre 7th century Old High German "grifan", meaning to snatch, grasp, and used in a transferred form to mean a dragon, a mythical animal which was believed to seize passing people. Thirdly, it may be of Irish origin, from the Gaelic O'Griobhtha, the prefix O', denoting male descendant of, plus the personal name "Grioghtha", from "griobh", also meaning gryphon. Early examples of recordings taken from surviving rolls and charters of medieval times include such examples as Robert Griffin in the Pipe Rolls of the county of Warwickshire, in 1130, and John Grifen in the Chartulary of the Priory of St. Thomas, the Martyr, near Stafford in 1230.

 

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

 

so not the 'pure' anglo saxon he wants to be, though in fairness theres a possibility he might be of saxon decent.

mine

 

This interesting name is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and may be either a topographical or a locational surname. As a topographical name, ****** was used for someone who lived by a copse, wood, or thicket, derived from the Old English pre 7th Century

 

yay! im anglo saxon :lol: :) :)

clares is even more interesting....

 

of either anglo saxon or norse, 'valley of the (person who wore) a wolf helmet' , that conjurs up images of a noble saxon/viking warrior wearing a helmet with a styalised wolfs head on it... he settled (after battles) in a valley making a farmstead for him and his (extended) family. neighbourse simply knew them as 'the people of the wolf helmeted man ' (or simply 'wolf helmet', how iconic was that? ) who lived in a valley... their decendants are scattered over the north - west.

 

fascinating stuff, in theory if an archeological dig in (clares surname) occured they could in theory discover the saxon grave of this warrior complete possibly with the 'wolfs helmet'.. and therein her direct ancestor.

 

its facts like THIS that should give us a great sense of history, of why our island IS 'ours', and why we should be proud of what our ancestors did (right or wrong by todays standards) and not bo so quick to 'give it all away'. this understanding of OUR roots is what the bnp, clumsily, tap into and what thugs also use as an excuse for racism. (no, its NOT right)

Surname: Griffin

 

 

 

Recorded as O' Griffin, McGriffin, McGriffen, McGraffin, Griffen, Griffin, and probably others, this is a surname of at least three distinct origins. Without a prefix it may be English, Irish or Welsh, and which in their earliest ancient origins, are almost certainly linked. With the prefix it is always either Irish or Scottish. Firstly the current spelling may derive from the Old Welsh personal name "Gruffydd", composed of the elements "griff" of uncertain etymology but belived to mean a dragon, and "udd", a chief or lord. Secondly, it may have been of Anglo-Saxon or Germanic origins, and used as a baptismal name for a child, one whose the parents hoped would grow up to be a fierce person! Here the derivation is from the pre 7th century Old High German "grifan", meaning to snatch, grasp, and used in a transferred form to mean a dragon, a mythical animal which was believed to seize passing people. Thirdly, it may be of Irish origin, from the Gaelic O'Griobhtha, the prefix O', denoting male descendant of, plus the personal name "Grioghtha", from "griobh", also meaning gryphon. Early examples of recordings taken from surviving rolls and charters of medieval times include such examples as Robert Griffin in the Pipe Rolls of the county of Warwickshire, in 1130, and John Grifen in the Chartulary of the Priory of St. Thomas, the Martyr, near Stafford in 1230.

 

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

 

so not the 'pure' anglo saxon he wants to be, though in fairness theres a possibility he might be of saxon decent.

 

Who gives a sh!t, he's still GERMAN innit......? :lol: :lol:

clares is even more interesting....

 

of either anglo saxon or norse, 'valley of the (person who wore) a wolf helmet' , that conjurs up images of a noble saxon/viking warrior wearing a helmet with a styalised wolfs head on it... he settled (after battles) in a valley making a farmstead for him and his (extended) family. neighbourse simply knew them as 'the people of the wolf helmeted man ' (or simply 'wolf helmet', how iconic was that? ) who lived in a valley... their decendants are scattered over the north - west.

 

fascinating stuff, in theory if an archeological dig in (clares surname) occured they could in theory discover the saxon grave of this warrior complete possibly with the 'wolfs helmet'.. and therein her direct ancestor.

 

its facts like THIS that should give us a great sense of history, of why our island IS 'ours', and why we should be proud of what our ancestors did (right or wrong by todays standards) and not bo so quick to 'give it all away'. this understanding of OUR roots is what the bnp, clumsily, tap into and what thugs also use as an excuse for racism. (no, its NOT right)

 

TBH mate I think that's not really the case... What it says to me is that we pretty much all came from somewhere else originally, and this land is only "ours" by default.... We have "tenure", but it's not the same thing as "ownership".... The land should belong to all who choose to make a home here, not just the priveleged few who fence large bits of it off and whose ancestors basically stole it from the people...... This is why I have a particular hatred for "absentee landlords" and the "landed gentry"....

 

The BNP and their ilk will NEVER understand the history of the "British" as a people, because they are incapable of acknowledging their own heritage.... Which is what the Channel 4 documentary a few years ago exposed....

i dunno scott, the saxons 'invasion' wasnt that much of a conquest by force, the uk was pretty empty post roman times. surely there comes a point where the land is 'owned' by those who settle there and who work it. clearing woodland/scrub and draining it to create fields that can be farmed ... thats what the saxons did, besides taking over deserted roman estates. id suggest that the people who created the land as we know it, and maintained it, DO have legitimate claim to 'own' it.

i dunno scott, the saxons 'invasion' wasnt that much of a conquest by force, the uk was pretty empty post roman times. surely there comes a point where the land is 'owned' by those who settle there and who work it. clearing woodland/scrub and draining it to create fields that can be farmed ... thats what the saxons did, besides taking over deserted roman estates. id suggest that the people who created the land as we know it, and maintained it, DO have legitimate claim to 'own' it.

 

It's a more a general principle of mine that land should not be owned or fenced off, it should be there for all... I dont think that a rich person should really have the right to buy a property or a bit of land and then leave it totally empty or without a "tenant", this is just wasteful, and with housing shortages, it's rather amoral.. You'd be quite amazed by the amount of perfectly good properties that are out there in this country that are just rotting away, doing nothing because the owners cant be arsed to do anything with them....

 

And it still doesn't really alter that fact that all of us have origins that are outwith this island though mate... Regardless of length of tenure... I simply dont really buy this "ethnically British" stuff.. Our own DNA, and even the origins of many of our surnames just doesn't bear this out... I kind of thought Clare would have Nordic/Viking origins tbh....

...feck off you bog trotter! :lol:

 

That's SIR Bog Trotter to you..... :P

It's a more a general principle of mine that land should not be owned or fenced off, it should be there for all... I dont think that a rich person should really have the right to buy a property or a bit of land and then leave it totally empty or without a "tenant", this is just wasteful, and with housing shortages, it's rather amoral.. You'd be quite amazed by the amount of perfectly good properties that are out there in this country that are just rotting away, doing nothing because the owners cant be arsed to do anything with them....

 

And it still doesn't really alter that fact that all of us have origins that are outwith this island though mate... Regardless of length of tenure... I simply dont really buy this "ethnically British" stuff.. Our own DNA, and even the origins of many of our surnames just doesn't bear this out... I kind of thought Clare would have Nordic/Viking origins tbh....

 

you only apply the fencing off argument to the rich though.... what about the poor/ordinary?.. yes in these times i agree, but in the past people who cleared waste/free land?... surely its theirs which is what the anglo saxons did, thus creating the bones of what we call britain tday.

 

the ethnically british thing was dealt with pages ago...lol

 

yep i thought clare was more norse then saxon, whether or not that site is being alittle lazy and calling all post roman - pre conquest 'saxon' is open for debate. but it does appear to be a well resourced site.

you only apply the fencing off argument to the rich though.... what about the poor/ordinary?.. yes in these times i agree, but in the past people who cleared waste/free land?... surely its theirs which is what the anglo saxons did, thus creating the bones of what we call britain tday.

 

The Poor/Ordinary folks never claimed actual "ownership" as we understand it on the land, they just worked it, tended it, there were no "mortgages" mate :rolleyes: .... Just as the Native Americans, Aborigines didn't either....Which then made it easy for the rich Capitalists or "Nobles" to just come in and just take it and claim it as "theirs".... <_<

The Poor/Ordinary folks never claimed actual "ownership" as we understand it on the land, they just worked it, tended it, there were no "mortgages" mate :rolleyes: .... Just as the Native Americans, Aborigines didn't either....Which then made it easy for the rich Capitalists or "Nobles" to just come in and just take it and claim it as "theirs".... <_<

 

yes they did... as far back in history as we can go various tribes have fought for their tribal lands from the native american indians through to our saxon forfathers... heck even the celts long before them claimed ownership of their teritory.

 

the saxons who settled here post roman times obviously claimed ownership of the lands they farmed, thats why 95% of british village place names are of saxon/norse origin and the parish boundaries that still exist today are the very same ones that the saxons created c6th-9th centuaries.

 

it was the carving up of the lands into different ownerships post norman conquest that created the feudal system, so blame the french for that (and the class system).

it was the carving up of the lands into different ownerships post norman conquest that created the feudal system, so blame the french for that (and the class system).

 

Well, that was kind of what I was talking about..... Deeds, ownership, that kind of cr@p.... It wasn't anything like that sort of thing before... People just tended the land and worked it, there were no actual deeds of ownership or whatever... Land was used as a means to survive, plant crops, etc, none of this "Class System" based on land ownership bollocks.....