I don't know whether they are guilty or not, but this line of questioning by the defence barrister seems interesting:
Today the father told Liverpool Crown Court that he joined the BNP shortly after his teenage daughter, now 19, was abused.
The girl claims she was raped by various members of the group.
Simon Nichol, defending a 59-year-old who cannot be identified, asked the man about his daughter’s general behaviour in August 2008 and if it bothered him that she was mixing with Asian men.Why is it relevant? A few months ago footage of self-professed "anti racists" viciously assaulting a middle aged woman made the round- with a worrying number of people dismissing or even condoning the crime because the victim was a member of the EDL.
Are we getting to the point where members of "far right" groups are unpersons who have less protection under the law?
For what it's worth the father's assessment of the BNP seems about right to me:
He said that in his time at the BNP he met 'three types of people'.
'People like myself, who were not racist and were worried about immigration, worried about jobs, housing and the banking system in this country.'
He said there was a second set of people who he said were 'questionable people'.
'And I met some downright nauseous people who have nothing to do with my views on society as a whole and I consequently left the BNP.'