BNP attacks fellow 'Question Time' panellists

[The Green Goblin]

In advance of the upcoming Question Time with Nick Griffin, see this article.

I`m posting this for two reasons -

1) The article content
2) The high number of disturbing comments underneath the article.

I know the Question Time thing (should the BNP be allowed on QT?) has been discussed on here before. I was wondering what peoples` thoughts on this particular article were.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-attacks-fellow-question-time-panellists-1804757.html


GG

[LiverpoolHibs]

In advance of the upcoming Question Time with Nick Griffin, see this article.

I`m posting this for two reasons -

1) The article content
2) The high number of disturbing comments underneath the article.

I know the Question Time thing (should the BNP be allowed on QT?) has been discussed on here before. I was wondering what peoples` thoughts on this particular article were.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-attacks-fellow-question-time-panellists-1804757.html


GG

Might just be me, but I can't see any comments.

I'm slightly baffled that the B.N.P. leadership are have now taken to accusing people of ethnocentrism. If I didn't know better I'd suggest Darby was a sardonic genius.

[Betty Boop]

"If you want to play with the big boys sometimes you are going to get hurt" :jamboak:

Looking forward to this!

[hibsbollah]

The content of the BNPs complaint is pretty hilarious. They seem to be complaining because there are two black panelists invited along with Griffin (Bonnie Greer and Baroness Warsi, who ive seen on QT before talking about a wide range of issues, so it can be hardly an attempt to 'stir up trouble'). But the BNP also claim to be a non-racist party, in which case, they should welcome the opportunity to prove it by not being so concerned about the race of their fellow panelists surely:confused::greengrin

If the BNP had any political nous about them they could be using the current economic and political crises in Britain to gain significant support. Fortunately, they seem to be digging their own grave and seem to be run by very stupid people, which is good news for the rest of us.

As to the second point, the comments left on the Independent on Sunday page are very similar to those left on blogs and reports on the GuardianUnlimited site. It seems to be the 'done thing' for the far right at the moment; find a newspaper with a left wing or liberal agenda, get a few of your like minded friends and deluge the comments pages with personal abuse at the correspondent and extreme right wing views. I used to enjoy having political debates on the guardianunlimited site, now its just unreadable. I don't know if left wing users do the same thing with rightwing websites, but the standard of online debate is pretty rubbish these days.

I certainly dont think the comments underneath that article represent public opinion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why have they dropped in that bit about BECTU and not elaborated on it? What does it mean, it's not going to be filmed?

[hibsbollah]

Why have they dropped in that bit about BECTU and not elaborated on it? What does it mean, it's not going to be filmed?

They're talking about filming it at another location...

[The Green Goblin]

I don`t think the comments represent public opinion either, however what bothered me was the content of them - irrational prejudice dressed up as quasi-reasonable arguments.

By that, I mean that it`s not just those with extreme views who are posting and believing this stuff, it`s John/Jane Punter of 57 Normal street; wife and 2 kids, pillar of the local community, churchgoer, football coach, doctor, bus driver, publican etc. etc.

That`s what I find unsettling - that such prejudicial views are becoming the unquestioned norm for so many people, that they don`t see anything wrong with it.

GG

[hibsbollah]

I don`t think the comments represent public opinion either, however what bothered me was the content of them - irrational prejudice dressed up as quasi-reasonable arguments.

By that, I mean that it`s not just those with extreme views who are posting and believing this stuff, it`s John/Jane Punter of 57 Normal street; wife and 2 kids, pillar of the local community, churchgoer, football coach, doctor, bus driver, publican etc. etc.

That`s what I find unsettling - that such prejudicial views are becoming the unquestioned norm for so many people, that they don`t see anything wrong with it.GG

Maybe i'm just complacent, but I dont think that it represents many people at all. Get a few reactionary mates together to invade any messageboard and it can quickly look like up is down and down is up. 'John/Jane Punter' as you put it, is just as likely to be Norman Nazi No-Mates of 88 Combat 18 Lane. Sleep easy. Theres more of us than there are of them :-)

[LancsHibs]

Interesting that this debate is on a forum for readers of the Independent and the BNP appear to invoke support & sympathies from within its readership, its not consigned to the Sun/Mirror
I will be watching QT with interest

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don`t think the comments represent public opinion either, however what bothered me was the content of them - irrational prejudice dressed up as quasi-reasonable arguments.

By that, I mean that it`s not just those with extreme views who are posting and believing this stuff, it`s John/Jane Punter of 57 Normal street; wife and 2 kids, pillar of the local community, churchgoer, football coach, doctor, bus driver, publican etc. etc.

That`s what I find unsettling - that such prejudicial views are becoming the unquestioned norm for so many people, that they don`t see anything wrong with it.

GG

I sometimes get the feeling that there are a lot more people sympathetic to the BNPs views than will actually admit it. I'm sure we've all had the coffee break conversation about Poles taking everybody's jobs. I certainly have and it didn't make much difference when I pointed out that the place I was working didn't have one Polish staff member.

You just need to read the stuff the likes of Carol Malone writes in the NOTW to realise that the BNP are kicking at an open door. If the ordinary Joe found her stuff that offensive then they wouldn't be buying the paper. She always dresses it up as down home common sense, but in fact it is nothing more than ill founded scaremongering.

[lyonhibs]

When is this potentially heated episode of Question Time going to be broadcast?

[Gerard]

I believe that all political parties have a right to be heard providing they do so in a legal way. The BNP have had 2 members elected to the Euro Parliament and because of this have seen their status changed to a party with representation in a major parliament.

As a Conservative who is fed up with all the major parties I will probably spoil my ballot paper come the next General election.

The greed of all the parties in claiming expenses was the straw that broke the camel's back for me

I am also angry that we will probably not be given a chance to have a vote of the Lisbon treaty, particuarly when other European countries have had the chance to vote on it.


There are many people who will be in the same situation that I am in and we will probably not vote or spoil our ballot papers:grr:
Gerard

[Future17]

When is this potentially heated episode of Question Time going to be broadcast?

Thursday night.

[steakbake]

The comments under the article aren't very surprising. Have a look at the BBC "have your say" comments on any particular day - especially the recommended comments - and they are normally full of bleak little Englanders bemoaning the end of their culture (as they see it).

The villains of the piece are invariably: Brussels, immigration/immigrants, loony lefties and my own personal favourite cliche, 'political correctness gone mad'. Sometimes it is a combination of all of them but all are responsible for the downfall of Great Britain.

If it hadn't become so hackneyed and cliched, it would still be funny.

I'll be interested to see Nick Griffin on Question Time on Thursday.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I believe that all political parties have a right to be heard providing they do so in a legal way. The BNP have had 2 members elected to the Euro Parliament and because of this have seen their status changed to a party with representation in a major parliament.

As a Conservative who is fed up with all the major parties I will probably spoil my ballot paper come the next General election.

The greed of all the parties in claiming expenses was the straw that broke the camel's back for me

I am also angry that we will probably not be given a chance to have a vote of the Lisbon treaty, particuarly when other European countries have had the chance to vote on it.


There are many people who will be in the same situation that I am in and we will probably not vote or spoil our ballot papers:grr:
Gerard

:agree: I have absolutely no idea which way I am going to vote at the next general election.

Labour- No chance. Brown hasn't got a clue. His reckless spending as chancellor helped get us in this mess, and he is so sneaky when it comes to announcing policies (ie 500 more troops to Afghanistan sounds good on the surface but it has 3 caveats that are unlikely to be met attached to it)

Lib Dems- Have some nice ideas (such as no tax until earning over £10k) but tend to have no real concrete policies. They tend to float between different ideas. Never going to win an election.

Tories- No matter how they dress themselves up, they are still Tories, and will of course start introducing measures to help the wealthiest rather than those that need help most.

SNP- A pretty much pointless vote at Westminster elections. Education record in particular, is turning into a complete shambles.


I just hope all the anger at the mainstream parties doesn't translate into the BNP winning a seat or two.

[ancient hibee]

The comments under the article aren't very surprising. Have a look at the BBC "have your say" comments on any particular day - especially the recommended comments - and they are normally full of bleak little Englanders bemoaning the end of their culture (as they see it).

The villains of the piece are invariably: Brussels, immigration/immigrants, loony lefties and my own personal favourite cliche, 'political correctness gone mad'. Sometimes it is a combination of all of them but all are responsible for the downfall of Great Britain.

If it hadn't become so hackneyed and cliched, it would still be funny.

I'll be interested to see Nick Griffin on Question Time on Thursday.
You would probably feel the same if you lived for example in Boston,Lincs.and seen your population increase by 25% mostly due to immgration with a consequent demand on public services and without a corresponding increase in resources.

[hibsbollah]

20 questions for Nick Griffin...(from Sunny Hundal in the guardian today)

1. Which parts of Hitler's book Mein Kampf does Nick Griffin agree with, considering that he is on record as stating that he has "learned a lot" from it ?


2. Specifically which policies and ideology of the historical German Nazi party does the BNP as a whole renounce or support, considering the confirmed admiration for Hitler and his organisation among several senior members of the BNP?


3. What is the BNP's official position on the Holocaust, given Griffin's claim that "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades." Does he not believe the 6 million figure?


4. Griffin has been pictured with and rubbed shoulders several times with high-ranking members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Does he agree with their vision of Aryan supremacy? Would he renounce their policies and ideology?


5. Would Griffin, Andrew Brons and all other members of the BNP be willing to submit to multiple independent DNA tests to confirm that none of them have any non-European ancestry?


6. How will a BNP government ensure the safety of Britain's female population, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470426-women-more-troubled-by-bag-theft-than-rape-bnp-candidate-claims.do) (Nick Eriksen) has been on record as stating that he believes "rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal."


7. Does Griffin agree with the senior member of the BNP who is on record as stating that he supports forced euthanasia of people with disabilities and others deemed to be "a waste of time, money and resources", including the very old and (especially) newborn babies?


8. Griffin said previously that he believed white and black people could not live together. Is he still against mixed-race relationships? How will he stop people from having them?


9. What would be the status of British citizens (both minors and legal adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent?


10. The BNP's constitution says that it wishes to restore "the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". Does that still remain his aim?


11. Does he still believe in voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities in the UK? What if they don't want to move to another country?


12. Should ethnic minority Britons have any lesser rights or legal status than white Britons? Given the choice between a white Briton and a non-white Briton for a job – would you choose the white Briton because of their race?


13. Non-white Britons represent Britain internationally in sporting events and academia and in other fields all the time. Yet you say these people are not "British" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-ashley-cole-comment-row). Would you deny them the chance to represent the UK?


14. Would you be OK with a mixed-race or non-white Briton being prime minister of Britain?


15. Do you think white people are genetically more intelligent than black people?


16. During an interview in May 2009, Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Is that still the case?


17. Does he have any problems with Christians converting to any other religion?


18. Will the BNP's proposed policies in relation to non-white British citizens also be applicable to Jewish British citizens? If the answer is "Yes", then all further queries in relation to non-white British citizens should be interpreted to also include Jewish British citizens.


19. During its various references to Britain's historical participation in the first and second world wars, why does the BNP never mention the fact that millions of non-white soldiers from the former British Empire fought alongside white/Caucasian soldiers on the side of the Allied powers in both world wars, including 2.5 million volunteer soldiers from the Indian subcontinent during the second world war?


20. How will a BNP government ensure the safety and welfare of Britain's disabled, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose) (Jeffrey Marshall) has been on record as stating that "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it", in response to the death of David Cameron's baby in spring 2009?

[BravestHibs]

20 questions for Nick Griffin...(from Sunny Hundal in the guardian today)

1. Which parts of Hitler's book Mein Kampf does Nick Griffin agree with, considering that he is on record as stating that he has "learned a lot" from it ?


2. Specifically which policies and ideology of the historical German Nazi party does the BNP as a whole renounce or support, considering the confirmed admiration for Hitler and his organisation among several senior members of the BNP?


3. What is the BNP's official position on the Holocaust, given Griffin's claim that "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades." Does he not believe the 6 million figure?


4. Griffin has been pictured with and rubbed shoulders several times with high-ranking members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Does he agree with their vision of Aryan supremacy? Would he renounce their policies and ideology?


5. Would Griffin, Andrew Brons and all other members of the BNP be willing to submit to multiple independent DNA tests to confirm that none of them have any non-European ancestry?


6. How will a BNP government ensure the safety of Britain's female population, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470426-women-more-troubled-by-bag-theft-than-rape-bnp-candidate-claims.do) (Nick Eriksen) has been on record as stating that he believes "rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal."


7. Does Griffin agree with the senior member of the BNP who is on record as stating that he supports forced euthanasia of people with disabilities and others deemed to be "a waste of time, money and resources", including the very old and (especially) newborn babies?


8. Griffin said previously that he believed white and black people could not live together. Is he still against mixed-race relationships? How will he stop people from having them?


9. What would be the status of British citizens (both minors and legal adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent?


10. The BNP's constitution says that it wishes to restore "the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". Does that still remain his aim?


11. Does he still believe in voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities in the UK? What if they don't want to move to another country?


12. Should ethnic minority Britons have any lesser rights or legal status than white Britons? Given the choice between a white Briton and a non-white Briton for a job – would you choose the white Briton because of their race?


13. Non-white Britons represent Britain internationally in sporting events and academia and in other fields all the time. Yet you say these people are not "British" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-ashley-cole-comment-row). Would you deny them the chance to represent the UK?


14. Would you be OK with a mixed-race or non-white Briton being prime minister of Britain?


15. Do you think white people are genetically more intelligent than black people?


16. During an interview in May 2009, Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Is that still the case?


17. Does he have any problems with Christians converting to any other religion?


18. Will the BNP's proposed policies in relation to non-white British citizens also be applicable to Jewish British citizens? If the answer is "Yes", then all further queries in relation to non-white British citizens should be interpreted to also include Jewish British citizens.


19. During its various references to Britain's historical participation in the first and second world wars, why does the BNP never mention the fact that millions of non-white soldiers from the former British Empire fought alongside white/Caucasian soldiers on the side of the Allied powers in both world wars, including 2.5 million volunteer soldiers from the Indian subcontinent during the second world war?


20. How will a BNP government ensure the safety and welfare of Britain's disabled, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose) (Jeffrey Marshall) has been on record as stating that "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it", in response to the death of David Cameron's baby in spring 2009?

Jesus.

These ****ing rats represent 1 million people in the UK.

How can anyone think they are acceptable without being so lacking in intellect as to be 'weak and unproductive'. It boggles my high functioning brain.

[lapsedhibee]

20. How will a BNP government ensure the safety and welfare of Britain's disabled, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose) (Jeffrey Marshall) has been on record as stating that "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it", in response to the death of David Cameron's baby in spring 2009?

First 19 make the BNP seem like not very nice people at all, but there's something wrong with this question. David Cameron's son Ivan was 6 when he died, not a baby at all. The questioner's description of a severely disabled 6-year old as a baby probably undermines the intention of his question. In other words, the questioner himself may have unconsciously viewed the individual concerned as weak and unproductive (like wot babies are).

[Tinyclothes]

Jesus.

These ****ing rats represent 1 million people in the UK.

How can anyone think they are acceptable without being so lacking in intellect as to be 'weak and unproductive'. It boggles my high functioning brain.

sympathiser

[Phil D. Rolls]

sympathiser

What?

[degenerated]

20 questions for Nick Griffin...(from Sunny Hundal in the guardian today)

1. Which parts of Hitler's book Mein Kampf does Nick Griffin agree with, considering that he is on record as stating that he has "learned a lot" from it ?


2. Specifically which policies and ideology of the historical German Nazi party does the BNP as a whole renounce or support, considering the confirmed admiration for Hitler and his organisation among several senior members of the BNP?


3. What is the BNP's official position on the Holocaust, given Griffin's claim that "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades." Does he not believe the 6 million figure?


4. Griffin has been pictured with and rubbed shoulders several times with high-ranking members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Does he agree with their vision of Aryan supremacy? Would he renounce their policies and ideology?


5. Would Griffin, Andrew Brons and all other members of the BNP be willing to submit to multiple independent DNA tests to confirm that none of them have any non-European ancestry?


6. How will a BNP government ensure the safety of Britain's female population, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470426-women-more-troubled-by-bag-theft-than-rape-bnp-candidate-claims.do) (Nick Eriksen) has been on record as stating that he believes "rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal."


7. Does Griffin agree with the senior member of the BNP who is on record as stating that he supports forced euthanasia of people with disabilities and others deemed to be "a waste of time, money and resources", including the very old and (especially) newborn babies?


8. Griffin said previously that he believed white and black people could not live together. Is he still against mixed-race relationships? How will he stop people from having them?


9. What would be the status of British citizens (both minors and legal adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent?


10. The BNP's constitution says that it wishes to restore "the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". Does that still remain his aim?


11. Does he still believe in voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities in the UK? What if they don't want to move to another country?


12. Should ethnic minority Britons have any lesser rights or legal status than white Britons? Given the choice between a white Briton and a non-white Briton for a job – would you choose the white Briton because of their race?


13. Non-white Britons represent Britain internationally in sporting events and academia and in other fields all the time. Yet you say these people are not "British" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-ashley-cole-comment-row). Would you deny them the chance to represent the UK?


14. Would you be OK with a mixed-race or non-white Briton being prime minister of Britain?


15. Do you think white people are genetically more intelligent than black people?


16. During an interview in May 2009, Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Is that still the case?


17. Does he have any problems with Christians converting to any other religion?


18. Will the BNP's proposed policies in relation to non-white British citizens also be applicable to Jewish British citizens? If the answer is "Yes", then all further queries in relation to non-white British citizens should be interpreted to also include Jewish British citizens.


19. During its various references to Britain's historical participation in the first and second world wars, why does the BNP never mention the fact that millions of non-white soldiers from the former British Empire fought alongside white/Caucasian soldiers on the side of the Allied powers in both world wars, including 2.5 million volunteer soldiers from the Indian subcontinent during the second world war?


20. How will a BNP government ensure the safety and welfare of Britain's disabled, considering that a senior member of the BNP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose) (Jeffrey Marshall) has been on record as stating that "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it", in response to the death of David Cameron's baby in spring 2009?

the latest leaked membership list for the bnp (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/British_National_Party_membership_list_and_other_i nformation%2C_15_Apr_2009) makes for interesting reading :wink: in fact you could probably jot those questions down and post them to nazi nick, if you so chose :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

sympathiser

:faf:

[Betty Boop]

Record viewing figures for Question Time tonight. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

The BNP are mad fascists - I saw an interview with a councillor in the Midlands last night, and he kept referring to the injustices done to "my people". Hardly surprising, but a lot of these guys do tend to have a bit of a god complex.

I have to say though, what also came out in the Newsnight piece that was broadcast last night is the failure of the mainstream parties to adress the percieved sense of injustice amongst the white working class.

It seems to me that until someone can categorically tell these people that their jobs have not been taken by migrant workers, that ethnic minorities do not have advantages in accessing social housing, and the rest of it - that the problem will grow and grow.

The BNP are able to take advantage of anecdotal evidence, with no evidence based counter argument from the mainstream parties.

[Beefster]

Here's quality quote from a BNP councillor explaining why he doesn't consider any non-white to be British, even if they were born and raised here:

"They can be civically British, with a passport, but they're not ethnically British. Let's face it, it's the look-test,"

Unfortunately, Nick Griffin is too clever to say anything like that on national TV.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Here's quality quote from a BNP councillor explaining why he doesn't consider any non-white to be British, even if they were born and raised here:

"They can be civically British, with a passport, but they're not ethnically British. Let's face it, it's the look-test,"

Unfortunately, Nick Griffin is too clever to say anything like that on national TV.

I've a feeling that tonight could go one way or another. Either Griffin comes out with the mad stuff that his party really espouses, or he deals with the questions and the rest of the panel well and wins more supporters.

The last thing anyone wants is him to be able to walk off looking like he is "the oridinary man, vicitimised by intellectuals who haven't done a day's real work in their lives etc".

[IWasThere2016]

No doubt this news will figure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm

I have to say another 10m+ people in the UK is totally unnecessary

[Phil D. Rolls]

No doubt this news will figure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm

I have to say another 10m+ people in the UK is totally unnecessary

Unless you have an interest in the property market. Then 10m people looking or somewhere to live is quite advantageous. There is an argument that the property boom was fuelled by Eastern Europeans.

One of the things I picked up on last night was that a lot of ex council housing has been bought by the "buy to letters", many immigrants have rented this accommodation, and it may have led to a perception that they were getting council houses.

Being a bit more pragmatic, the affects of bringing in people in such numbers is bound to cause problems while society adjusts. There has always been immigration, but the rate it has happened at recently has to be a factor in the xenophobia that appears to be prevalent these days.

[Flynn]

sympathiser

Shereen :agree: : My Leith rhyming slang.

[BravestHibs]

Funny, I was thinking more along the lines of Billy Hunt.

That's a bit rich is it not? Coming from you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's a bit strong is it no?

I don't think so. But I've deleted it anyway.

[Tinyclothes]

I don't think so.

Good comeback

[BravestHibs]

I don't think so. But I've deleted it anyway.

Deleted what from where?

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's a bit rich is it not? Coming from you.

Where do you think I first heard it?

[Tinyclothes]

Deleted what from where?

The amazing Billy Hunt line

[Phil D. Rolls]

Deleted what from where?

It from there.

[Tinyclothes]

It from there.

wow it gets better

[BravestHibs]

It from there.

No you didn't you made it smaller and reworded it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No you didn't you made it smaller and reworded it.

Well I can't do anything about it now.

[poolman]

I sometimes get the feeling that there are a lot more people sympathetic to the BNPs views than will actually admit it. I'm sure we've all had the coffee break conversation about Poles taking everybody's jobs. I certainly have and it didn't make much difference when I pointed out that the place I was working didn't have one Polish staff member.

You just need to read the stuff the likes of Carol Malone writes in the NOTW to realise that the BNP are kicking at an open door. If the ordinary Joe found her stuff that offensive then they wouldn't be buying the paper. She always dresses it up as down home common sense, but in fact it is nothing more than ill founded scaremongering.

I think thats true FR

I'm by no means a BNP sympathiser but I watched a programme last night on some cable channel about the UK Border Patrol and they arrested two Sudanese I think they were who had stolen two British persons ID and had been livinh in the Uk now for about seven years I think it was and in that time had claimed over £100,000 in benefits

To say I was ****in raging would be to put it mildly :fuming:

[Phil D. Rolls]

wow it gets better

:yawn:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think thats true FR

I'm by no means a BNP sympathiser but I watched a programme last night on some cable channel about the UK Border Patrol and they arrested two Sudanese I think they were who had stolen two British persons ID and had been livinh in the Uk now for about seven years I think it was and in that time had claimed over £100,000 in benefits

To say I was ****in raging would be to put it mildly :fuming:

The problem is we don't know how widespread this criminal activity actually is. One case like that one sticks in the mind, and before you know it every immigrant gets tarred with the same brush.

What I'd like to know is how they managed to get away with it. Is their a fear of being labelled racist amongst the likes of the DSS, and Council Housing departments?

One thing that really peed me off was the fact that Edinburgh Council seem to print leaflets in every concievable language, including Welsh. What are the chances of a Welsh speaker looking for a house in Edinburgh, and being unable to speak English?

[BravestHibs]

:yawn:

You truly are the bigger man.

[Tinyclothes]

One thing that really peed me off was the fact that Edinburgh Council seem to print leaflets in every concievable language, including Welsh. What are the chances of a Welsh speaker looking for a house in Edinburgh, and being unable to speak English?

You've really got to the crux of the problem there filled Rolls. Trying to be inclusive of all tongues that are trying to find somewhere to stay in Edinburgh can only be a bad thing. Even if the Welsh person can speak english I think it's a lovely idea to offer information in their native tongue. Maybe if we were more inclusive in other areas then tensions would be less and we can move forward as a society.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You've really got to the crux of the problem there filled Rolls. Trying to be inclusive of all tongues that are trying to find somewhere to stay in Edinburgh can only be a bad thing. Even if the Welsh person can speak english I think it's a lovely idea to offer information in their native tongue. Maybe if we were more inclusive in other areas then tensions would be less and we can move forward as a society.

I think we have to find a practical balance between helping people and doing everything for them. It just isn't possible to have a leaflet for every language in the world, and is maybe a waste of resources.

[Tinyclothes]

I think we have to find a practical balance between helping people and doing everything for them. It just isn't possible to have a leaflet for every language in the world, and is maybe a waste of resources.

I don't think helping people read information is going too far. Are you one of these people that goes on holiday and screams at the locals, presuming everyone knows how to speak English?

[Betty Boop]

I wonder if nasty Nick will admit he is selling his ideas, rather than selling out his ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfwdNAT8sWU&feature=related

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think helping people read information is going too far. Are you one of these people that goes on holiday and screams at the locals, presuming everyone knows how to speak English?

I wouldn't go abroad and expect to go to a government department and expect them to communicate with me in English. I always try to make a go of the local language wherever I am.

[Tinyclothes]

I wouldn't go abroad and expect to go to a government department and expect them to communicate with me in English. I always try to make a go of the local language wherever I am.

:yawn:

[Phil D. Rolls]

:yawn:

Why did you ask the question if you didn't want an answer. You crazy nihilist you? :faf:

You are BBMCFC and I claim my £10 voucher.

[Tinyclothes]

Why did you ask the question if you didn't want an answer. You crazy nihilist you? :faf:

You are BBMCFC and I claim my £10 voucher.

Your answer was pointless though. You said that you wouldn't expect to have everything in english when you go abroad but the original point was about people moving to this country and being helped to read important information.

On that note I've just done some simple research (which I presume you haven't) and discovered that 85% of Indians and 79% of Koreans that were sureveyed said that they felt 90% less likely to commit a crime after being presented with a leaflet in their own language.

You don't need to apologise.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Your answer was pointless though. You said that you wouldn't expect to have everything in english when you go abroad but the original point was about people moving to this country and being helped to read important information.

On that note I've just done some simple research (which I presume you haven't) and discovered that 85% of Indians and 79% of Koreans that were sureveyed said that they felt 90% less likely to commit a crime after being presented with a leaflet in their own language.

You don't need to apologise.

I answered the question you asked, not the original point. Either way, both things are compatible.

That is interesting research, could you point me to your source, I'd like to read more.

[Tinyclothes]

That is interesting research, could you point me to your source, I'd like to read more.

no

[Woody1985]

I think we have to find a practical balance between helping people and doing everything for them. It just isn't possible to have a leaflet for every language in the world, and is maybe a waste of resources.

Agree. We shouldn't be wasting resources printing stuff in most languages and suspect will save a lot in translation costs.


I don't think helping people read information is going too far. Are you one of these people that goes on holiday and screams at the locals, presuming everyone knows how to speak English?

The principle is all well and good but the time and resources are probably costing a lot for little benefit.

Not the same thing re going on holiday. Some people do expect that and a lot of countries are willing to do that as it tourism can be one of their main selling points.


I wouldn't go abroad and expect to go to a government department and expect them to communicate with me in English. I always try to make a go of the local language wherever I am.

Agree.


:yawn:

Fud.


Your answer was pointless though. You said that you wouldn't expect to have everything in english when you go abroad but the original point was about people moving to this country and being helped to read important information.

On that note I've just done some simple research (which I presume you haven't) and discovered that 85% of Indians and 79% of Koreans that were sureveyed said that they felt 90% less likely to commit a crime after being presented with a leaflet in their own language.

You don't need to apologise.

Why did you ask him about going on holiday then if the point is about moving?

Also, it makes more sense for tourists to have stuff translated because they will be there for a short period of time.

Someone moving to a country willingly should be making an effort to understand the native language and not expect everything translated for them cos they can't be arsed. It also makes integration easier.

Simple research sums it up really. 80-90% are more likely to be criminals when given a leaflet not in their language. :faf:


I answered the question you asked, not the original point. Either way, both things are compatible.

That is interesting research, could you point me to your source, I'd like to read more.

Where's the banging head against brickwall smiley.


no

What a prize fud.

[hibsbollah]

Your answer was pointless though. You said that you wouldn't expect to have everything in english when you go abroad but the original point was about people moving to this country and being helped to read important information.

On that note I've just done some simple research (which I presume you haven't) and discovered that 85% of Indians and 79% of Koreans that were sureveyed said that they felt 90% less likely to commit a crime after being presented with a leaflet in their own language.

You don't need to apologise.

Is that North or South Koreans?

[Woody1985]

Is that North or South Koreans?

It would seem like a waste of time trying to engage in any meaningful conversation with the WUM.

[Tinyclothes]

Is that North or South Koreans?

South, obviously.

[hibsbollah]

It would seem like a waste of time trying to engage in any meaningful conversation with the WUM.

I was hoping he'd stay:boo hoo:

HOORAY! Hes back

[Tinyclothes]

It would seem like a waste of time trying to engage in any meaningful conversation with the WUM.

It would seem that you have not tried to engage in any meaningful conversation with me so you have no right to call me a WUM. Is this what you do Woody is it? Just pump in halfway through a thread and type a completely aimless remark that's not going to help anybody?

[Woody1985]

It would seem that you have not tried to engage in any meaningful conversation with me so you have no right to call me a WUM. Is this what you do Woody is it? Just pump in halfway through a thread and type a completely aimless remark that's not going to help anybody?

Yes. :faf: Sorry, was just coming down to see what this level is like.

If you had made some decent points, didn't come across as completely obtuse or didn't contradict yourself in the space of 3 posts then it might be worthwhile.

For clarity re the contradiction so we don't need to cover it again. You don't think that it's okay for someone to go on holiday and expect translations, yet think it's okay to move countries and have them. :confused:

[BravestHibs]

It would seem that you have not tried to engage in any meaningful conversation with me so you have no right to call me a WUM. Is this what you do Woody is it? Just pump in halfway through a thread and type a completely aimless remark that's not going to help anybody?

It's true Woody you do bandy that term about like you're the Queen of Sheeba.

[Tinyclothes]

For clarity re the contradiction so we don't need to cover it again. You don't think that it's okay for someone to go on holiday and expect translations, yet think it's okay to move countries and have them. :confused:

Yes, that's exactly what I think. Oh, do you need some little pictures to make this easier for you to stomach? :dummytit:. There you go. Off to sleep.

[Woody1985]

It's true Woody you do bandy that term about like you're the Queen of Sheeba.

I think if you did a search on all my posts you'll find I've probably used it about 10-20 times. Stop being a WUM.:greengrin

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------


Yes, that's exactly what I think. Oh, do you need some little pictures to make this easier for you to stomach? :dummytit:. There you go. Off to sleep.

:drool: Away and get yer bib ya slaver.

[BravestHibs]

:drool: [/QUOTE]

Woody, are you coming onto Tinyclothes?

[Woody1985]

Woody, are you coming onto Tinyclothes?

It was meant to represent a slaver. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

:drool:

Woody, are you coming onto Tinyclothes?[/QUOTE]

He'll be rubbing his thighs next:paranoid:

[Chuckie]

On tonight at 10.35..

protests at the BBC..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321199.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321306.stm?ls

[Phil D. Rolls]

It would seem that you have not tried to engage in any meaningful conversation with me so you have no right to call me a WUM. Is this what you do Woody is it? Just pump in halfway through a thread and type a completely aimless remark that's not going to help anybody?

I like chocolate ice cream.

[steakbake]

Where is this all going?

[Chuckie]

Where is this all going?

Amarillo ?

[hibsbollah]

I like chocolate ice cream.

White is right. Vanilla every time.

[ArabHibee]

Chocolate ice cream doesn't even taste of chocolate. Neither does hot chocolate.

What's that all about? :confused:

[PaulSmith]

I'm just looking forward to the programme. In fact I cannot remember the lat time I was such looking forward to a TV programme!

Well done the BBC for having the courage to put them onto a platform that will either see them sink or swim.

[lapsedhibee]

Well done the BBC for having the courage to put them onto a platform that will either see them sink or swim.

Quite a good chance that Nick Griffin will swim. Firstly, he's a f*t ********* and would be almost impossible to sink. Secondly, the other politicos present will be at an all-time low in public estimation and may make the mistake of ganging up on Griffin and his BNP as an easy common target. If that happens, Griffin may be clever enough to make himself into a sympathetic figure.

[Betty Boop]

Quite a good chance that Nick Griffin will swim. Firstly, he's a f*t ********* and would be almost impossible to sink. Secondly, the other politicos present will be at an all-time low in public estimation and may make the mistake of ganging up on Griffin and his BNP as an easy common target. If that happens, Griffin may be clever enough to make himself into a sympathetic figure.

The panel will have him on toast! Can't wait! :greengrin

[the_ginger_hibee]

I'm just looking forward to the programme. In fact I cannot remember the lat time I was such looking forward to a TV programme!

Well done the BBC for having the courage to put them onto a platform that will either see them sink or swim.

Fully Agree. Landmark day so it is. As long as he is allowed to put his points across and it doesn't escalate into a massive shouting down I think we could have some great entertainment and debate.

Brains can trump idiocy any day of the week. No need for 1 against all tactics.

[Makaveli]

They should have invited Tony Benn to put him in his place.

Jack f....ing Straw :rolleyes:

[(((Fergus)))]

Fully Agree. Landmark day so it is. As long as he is allowed to put his points across and it doesn't escalate into a massive shouting down I think we could have some great entertainment and debate.

Brains can trump idiocy any day of the week. No need for 1 against all tactics.

The only problem is that idiots are allowed to vote. If there's enough of them, then idiots trump brains.

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------


They should have invited Tony Benn to put him in his place.

Jack f....ing Straw :rolleyes:

Bonnie Greer can be quite nippy

[lapsedhibee]

The only problem is that idiots are allowed to vote.
That problem'll disappear if Nick gets to be PM, though, won't it? :dunno:

[steakbake]

I'll be glued tonight.

One thing you can say about this whole situation is that it has got people talking about or taking an interest in politics who might not otherwise do so.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is getting seriously, seriously distasteful.

The amount of people (going by posts on here, people I’ve spoken to today and the media coverage) treating this as an episode of their favourite sit-com or a piece of pantomime theatre is worrying.

The BBC have acted absolutely disgracefully in inviting the toad on in the first place and have now spent an enormous amount of energy, time and resources on pushing it in order to increase viewing figures; all framed in the most disingenuous, duplicitous and mendacious language of ‘balance’ and impartiality. And everyone is lapping this up and look forward to being thoroughly titillated in front of their televisions at half ten.

If anyone’s read Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, they’ll recognise everything that he was talking about in his opening in events such as this:

“1. In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.

2. The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudo-world that can only be looked at. The specialisation of images of the world evolves into a world of automised images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the non-living.”

[hibsbollah]

This is getting seriously, seriously distasteful.

The amount of people (going by posts on here, people I’ve spoken to today and the media coverage) treating this as an episode of their favourite sit-com or a piece of pantomime theatre is worrying.

The BBC have acted absolutely disgracefully in inviting the toad on in the first place and have now spent an enormous amount of energy, time and resources on pushing it in order to increase viewing figures; all framed in the most disingenuous, duplicitous and mendacious language of ‘balance’ and impartiality. And everyone is lapping this up and look forward to being thoroughly titillated in front of their televisions at half ten.

If anyone’s read Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, they’ll recognise everything that he was talking about in his opening in events such as this:

“1. In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.

2. The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudo-world that can only be looked at. The specialisation of images of the world evolves into a world of automised images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the non-living.”

Banning the freedom of expression of fascists is counter-intuitive, LH. You just turn into what you despise. Debord accurately describes what modern politics has sunk to (as does Schumpeter, when he talks about it as a choice between branded products as an extension of the retail choice), but your quote doesnt in itself mean the BNP should be excluded from politcal debate, which I think you're supportive of.

[Beefster]

The BBC have acted absolutely disgracefully in inviting the toad on in the first place

Care to elaborate on why, in a democracy, an elected politician shouldn't be invited onto Question Time? You may find his beliefs distasteful but we're a democracy and the BNP is a legal political entity.

The 'head in the sand and hope they go away' strategy obviously hasn't worked considering that almost 1m people voted for them recently. Why not try debating with them and showing them up for what they are?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Banning the freedom of expression of fascists is counter-intuitive, LH. You just turn into what you despise. Debord accurately describes what modern politics has sunk to (as does Schumpeter, when he talks about it as a choice between branded products as an extension of the retail choice), but your quote doesnt in itself mean the BNP should be excluded from politcal debate, which I think you're supportive of.


Care to elaborate on why, in a democracy, an elected politician shouldn't be invited onto Question Time? You may find his beliefs distasteful but we're a democracy and the BNP is a legal political entity.

The 'head in the sand and hope they go away' strategy obviously hasn't worked considering that almost 1m people voted for them recently. Why not try debating with them and showing them up for what they are?

I've done this before so I'll copy and paste a previous post defending no-platform if people really want. I'm not going to type it all out again.

Edit: Oh and I wasn't using Debord in support of 'no-platform-ism' I was using him in terms of the media and societal reaction to the event.

[hibsbollah]

Edit: Oh and I wasn't using Debord in support of 'no-platform-ism' I was using him in terms of the media and societal reaction to the event.

...In which case its extremely accurate:agree:

[Makaveli]

Freedom of speech for a man who will use it to gain support for a party hell-bent on revoking the rights and freedoms of millions = self-defeating.

How did giving the French far-right mainstream exposure do again?

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is what I wrote in a previous thread.


Looks like I'll be the only one to oppose this and defend 'No Platform-ism'. Oh, and attempt to get the thread back on track after that strange interlude...

Much in the same way that New Labour took the blueprint of the Clinton Democrats and applied them over here, Griffin and the BNP have studied Le Pen and the Front National's shift into the French mainstream and are now attempting to do the same. Essentially, 'getting their feet under the table' and gaining representation and influence in State institutions. If this goes ahead (and it's not definite as I understand it) the BBC will be helping them in this goal - giving them a hand up. They've already given them far, far more coverage than they've deserved so the idea that it's necessary based on their performance in the European elections is more than slightly disingenuous.

I've also always been slightly bemused by the 'let them hoist themselves by their own petard'/'allow them to be embarassed by someone or embarass themselves' line. It never seems to actually happen, does it? And I think there are a few reasons for this. The main one is that fascism is inherently antipathetic to reason and logic - that's sort of the point, it's all about 'the will', emotion, power, a philosophy of victimhood and an important, imagined, antagonistic enemy. It's practically impossible to argue with them on their or your own terms - fascism completely insulates itself against reasoned or logical debate. To quote Griffin himself...

“The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist Party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.”

Griffin et. al. are not stupid (well, he is but not that stupid), they've learnt the lessons from their past very, very well. He will not let himself be exposed - so to speak - on a programme such as Question Time; it will be an invaluable chance for him to say whatever will further his and the B.N.P.'s cause and raise their profile even more. In fact, I'd say that the format of Question Time is pretty much the most perfect Griffin could imagine.

And to supplement it, an excellent article in today's Guardian which funnily enough elaborates on my point about the BNP learning lessons from the F.N.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/bnp-nick-griffin-le-pen

The B.B.C. has no public responsibilty to host, and indeed promote, a party that predicates itself upon discriminating against entire sections of society, whether elected or not. The pseudo-democratic argument is patently ludicrous. If, to use an incredibly extreme example, a party called the Paedophiles Alliance managed to gain some council seats and a handful of MEP's would the B.B.C. be rushing to host them on Question Time and would they be morally right in doing so?

[steakbake]

This is getting seriously, seriously distasteful.

The amount of people (going by posts on here, people I’ve spoken to today and the media coverage) treating this as an episode of their favourite sit-com or a piece of pantomime theatre is worrying.

The BBC have acted absolutely disgracefully in inviting the toad on in the first place and have now spent an enormous amount of energy, time and resources on pushing it in order to increase viewing figures; all framed in the most disingenuous, duplicitous and mendacious language of ‘balance’ and impartiality. And everyone is lapping this up and look forward to being thoroughly titillated in front of their televisions at half ten.

If anyone’s read Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, they’ll recognise everything that he was talking about in his opening in events such as this:

“1. In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.

2. The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudo-world that can only be looked at. The specialisation of images of the world evolves into a world of automised images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the non-living.”

I normally think your posts are more or less on the money and I take from that we share some common ground in our opinions but on this, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I would like to think that our national broadcaster might grow up a bit and perhaps start to offer a less sanitised view of the world instead of the one they offer which is all nicely pre-chewed and disected for our minds to digest.

Britain has to confront itself. Griffin's views are not just his own and not just those of the BNP. There are thousands if not millions of people in Britain who hold similar views to him. Pick up your average Daily Mail, Express or other right wing newspaper and you'll find views which are only a couple of shades lighter than his but certainly with the same intent. Read the readers'/viewers letters in newspapers or online, or listen to phone-ins or even read opinion polls which guage the political agendas of people in this country and you will realise that there are a very substantial number of people whose views are to blame the ills of our society on what they see as "mass" immigration (whatever that is), multiculturalism and the usual catch all, political correctness gone mad etc, etc.

To blank them out and not to fully engage and confound them in proper and reasonable debate in a public forum is the equivalent of shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly until they go away.

The only thing I regret is that Jack Straw, Baroness Warsi and Chris Huhne are to be the representatives of the liberal political consensus at this debate so we'll need to see how they do. I also doubt that Dimbleby will be able to keep the debate on track, especially if there are a crowd of BNP nutters in the studio. However, even that might serve a purpose.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------


Care to elaborate on why, in a democracy, an elected politician shouldn't be invited onto Question Time? You may find his beliefs distasteful but we're a democracy and the BNP is a legal political entity.

The 'head in the sand and hope they go away' strategy obviously hasn't worked considering that almost 1m people voted for them recently. Why not try debating with them and showing them up for what they are?

Actually, at they moment they're not, according to the High Court's recent judgement.

However, I don't think that diminishes the point.

[hibsbollah]

Freedom of speech for a man who will use it to gain support for a party hell-bent on revoking the rights and freedoms of millions = self-defeating.

How did giving the French far-right mainstream exposure do again?

The problem with your argument in bold is it could be used (and has been done, im sure) by, say, UKIP and the Tories to describe New Labour signing successive EU treaties.

Freedom of speech is universal or it isnt a freedom at all.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Griffin and the BNP have studied Le Pen and the Front National's shift into the French mainstream

I would be more worried by the progression of Gianfranco Fini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Fini) to the point where he is the most credible candidate for Italian Prime Minister.

[FranckSuzy]

I normally think your posts are more or less on the money and I take from that we share some common ground in our opinions but on this, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I would like to think that our national broadcaster might grow up a bit and perhaps start to offer a less sanitised view of the world instead of the one they offer which is all nicely pre-chewed and disected for our minds to digest.

Britain has to confront itself. Griffin's views are not just his own and not just those of the BNP. There are thousands if not millions of people in Britain who hold similar views to him. Pick up your average Daily Mail, Express or other right wing newspaper and you'll find views which are only a couple of shades lighter than his but certainly with the same intent. Read the readers'/viewers letters in newspapers or online, or listen to phone-ins or even read opinion polls which guage the political agendas of people in this country and you will realise that there are a very substantial number of people whose views are to blame the ills of our society on what they see as "mass" immigration (whatever that is), multiculturalism and the usual catch all, political correctness gone mad etc, etc.

To blank them out and not to fully engage and confound them in proper and reasonable debate in a public forum is the equivalent of shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly until they go away.

The only thing I regret is that Jack Straw, Baroness Warsi and Chris Huhne are to be the representatives of the liberal political consensus at this debate so we'll need to see how they do. I also doubt that Dimbleby will be able to keep the debate on track, especially if there are a crowd of BNP nutters in the studio. However, even that might serve a purpose.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

According to ITN news earlier, the Question Time audience is to be made up of applicants for tickets who applied before it was announced the BNP representative was appearing.

[steakbake]

According to ITN news earlier, the Question Time audience is to be made up of applicants for tickets who applied before it was announced the BNP representative was appearing.

Damn :wink: Put enough monkeys in one place and they will start to fling s**t at each other.

[Beefster]

Actually, at they moment they're not, according to the High Court's recent judgement.

However, I don't think that diminishes the point.

Yeah, I did know about that. There seems to be a bit of debate about whether the ruling makes them illegal until they sort out their criteria.

[hibsbollah]

The filming has finished, my source:wink: says Griffin was booed for saying Winston Churchill was also Islamophobic:faf: and "The Ku Klux Klan leader I stood on a platform with is a member of an ALMOST totally non-violent sect."

Violence expected as he leaves the building.

[steakbake]

Yeah, I did know about that. There seems to be a bit of debate about whether the ruling makes them illegal until they sort out their criteria.

Didn't they get 90 days or something to come up with a new constitution?

[Makaveli]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100014488/the-bnp-on-question-time-live-blog/

[FranckSuzy]

Damn :wink: Put enough monkeys in one place and they will start to fling s**t at each other.

:wink: Could have been a nice social experiment!

[LiverpoolHibs]

I normally think your posts are more or less on the money and I take from that we share some common ground in our opinions but on this, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I would like to think that our national broadcaster might grow up a bit and perhaps start to offer a less sanitised view of the world instead of the one they offer which is all nicely pre-chewed and disected for our minds to digest.

Britain has to confront itself. Griffin's views are not just his own and not just those of the BNP. There are thousands if not millions of people in Britain who hold similar views to him. Pick up your average Daily Mail, Express or other right wing newspaper and you'll find views which are only a couple of shades lighter than his but certainly with the same intent. Read the readers'/viewers letters in newspapers or online, or listen to phone-ins or even read opinion polls which guage the political agendas of people in this country and you will realise that there are a very substantial number of people whose views are to blame the ills of our society on what they see as "mass" immigration (whatever that is), multiculturalism and the usual catch all, political correctness gone mad etc, etc.

To blank them out and not to fully engage and confound them in proper and reasonable debate in a public forum is the equivalent of shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly until they go away.

The only thing I regret is that Jack Straw, Baroness Warsi and Chris Huhne are to be the representatives of the liberal political consensus at this debate so we'll need to see how they do. I also doubt that Dimbleby will be able to keep the debate on track, especially if there are a crowd of BNP nutters in the studio. However, even that might serve a purpose.

I entirely agree that 'Britain needs to confront itself'. However there are other ways of doing so than offering them the chance to exponentially increase their exposure and their 'mainstream-ness' - not least due to the way the B.B.C. have handled this after announcing they would appear. As I said in a different post on the other thread politics is not, and never should beconfined to Question Time, Newsnight, This Week et. al.

I'd hazard a guess that most of us contributing to this thread are white and from a Christian (ish) background. We are not likely to be the focus of the efforts of the B.N.P. and their supporters. Every seemingly small incident that shifts them into acceptability and the mainstream emboldens the people who believe in everything they spout (you only need to look at the recent activities of the E.D.L. to see the extent to which this is already happening), an appearance on Question Time is absolutely unheard of in terms of far-right political history. In the mid-seventies the National Front had a membership that far, far exceeded that which the B.N.P. have today and did better in elections. They were never given anything like the exposure that the B.N.P. are receiving at the moment. They were beaten largely due to 'no platformism' and grass-roots anti-fascist activity. Welcoming them into established debate does nothing but spur them on. The greater the extent to which you allow the propagation of racism and fascism in the mainstream the greater the chance that people who believe in it will decide to carry it through 'on the streets'.

It's a timorous bourgeois, liberal idea that all you need to do is argue with these people and they'll come to see how foolish they are. They won't.

So, inviting them onto programmes such as Question Time is neither anecessity in a 'democracy' nor is it a suitable method for confronting fascism.

[hibsdaft]

sounds like Griffin refers on QT to his KKK comrade who he appears with in this clip that i've posted before but is well worth viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw


I would be more worried by the progression of Gianfranco Fini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Fini) to the point where he is the most credible candidate for Italian Prime Minister.

indeed.

[Storar]

This is going to be so good:thumbsup:

[hibsdaft]

In the mid-seventies the National Front had a membership that far, far exceeded that which the B.N.P. have today and did better in elections.

not true this - NF had membership of 17K, BNP has 11-12K. NF's highest vote was never over 10% at Westminster elections (BNP have had well over that several times), not sure if they ever got any councilors anywhere, certainly not the 50 the BNP have anyway.


They were beaten largely due to 'no platformism' and grass-roots anti-fascist activity.

debatable.

either way the BNP have taken the mainstream electoral politics route (unlike the NF) and have had some success with this - challenging them in the street or copying old tactics of the past is pointless. more importantly its a waste of time that could be better spent constructing more viable electoral alternatives for people to consider.

i would describe myself as an anti-fascist but i think the people outside the BBC tonight look like idiots and are risk totally playing into his hands. pleading with the establishment to silence him - its frankly embarrassing tbh. that said there aren't actually that many of them there thankfully.

[Ed De Gramo]

I'll be tuning in tonight...

Tonight he's either gonna attract new followers (if his patter is spot on, it will happen :grr:) or he's gonna live up to his reputation as being a racist b*****d :agree:

QT will get MASSIVE viewing figures tonight :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

not true this - NF had membership of 17K, BNP has 11-12K. NF's highest vote was never over 10% at Westminster elections (BNP have had well over that several times), not sure if they ever got any councilors anywhere, certainly not the 50 the BNP have anyway.

I thought I'd read somewhere that the N.F. membership figures were well above that, I'll try and find out where.

They did achieve 10+% at Westminster and with numbers of votes exceeding the B.N.P. They did have council seats though, you're right, not at the level of the B.N.P.



debatable.

either way the BNP have taken the mainstream electoral politics route (unlike the NF) and have had some success with this - challenging them in the street or copying old tactics of the past is pointless. more importantly its a waste of time that could be better spent constructing more viable electoral alternatives for people to consider.

You may be happy to see them become normalised like the F.N., I'm glad to see that there is a sizeable number of people who are not.

And I fail to see how it's a 'waste of time that could be better spent'. That seems a really strange criticism.


i would describe myself as an anti-fascist but i think the people outside the BBC tonight look like idiots and are risk totally playing into his hands. pleading with the establishment to silence him - its frankly embarrassing tbh. that said there aren't actually that many of them there thankfully.

In what sense were they 'pleading with the establishment'? And why did they look like idiots?

[The Green Goblin]

I'll be tuning in tonight...

Tonight he's either gonna attract new followers (if his patter is spot on, it will happen :grr:) or he's gonna live up to his reputation as being a racist b*****d :agree:

QT will get MASSIVE viewing figures tonight :agree:


Perhaps this is what both the BBC and Griffin are both hoping for? Do we really believe that the BBC are acting out of entirely altruistic motives here? There is an element of `damned if they do and damned if they don`t` here, if you set aside any cynical suspicions. I for one am not convinced the other panelists are the right ones to effectively take Griffin on. I would like to have seen Tony Benn there. Jack Straw is awful.


GG

[Ed De Gramo]

Perhaps this is what both the BBC and Griffin are both hoping for? Do we really believe that the BBC are acting out of entirely altruistic motives here? There is an element of `damned if they do and damned if they don`t` here, if you set aside any cynical suspicions. I for one am not convinced the other panelists are the right ones to effectively take Griffin on. I would like to have seen Tony Benn there. Jack Straw is awful.


GG

Griffin will be delighted at the news but his gobby rants could backfire on him :agree:

[Hiber-nation]

Griffin will be delighted at the news but his gobby rants could backfire on him :agree:

Probably the mildest insult ever levelled at the odious ****bag.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Perhaps this is what both the BBC and Griffin are both hoping for? Do we really believe that the BBC are acting out of entirely altruistic motives here? There is an element of `damned if they do and damned if they don`t` here, if you set aside any cynical suspicions. I for one am not convinced the other panelists are the right ones to effectively take Griffin on. I would like to have seen Tony Benn there. Jack Straw is awful.


GG

Ah, Jack Straw who refused to speak to his female Muslim constituents unless they removed their veils yet finds it perfectly acceptable to share a platform with someone who actively seeks to ethnically cleanse British society.

Morally sound chap...

[Ed De Gramo]

Probably the mildest insult ever levelled at the odious ****bag.

Not sure how strong I can be in relation to THAT :grr:

[The Green Goblin]

As the BBC don`t allow overseas people to access their precious video broadcasts, I`d be grateful if anyone can give me a link later where I can see it. I`m sure it will appear on youtube, but if anyone can help out here, that would be great. Cheers.

GG

[greenlex]

As the BBC don`t allow overseas people to access their precious video broadcasts, I`d be grateful if anyone can give me a link later where I can see it. I`m sure it will appear on youtube, but if anyone can help out here, that would be great. Cheers.

GG
Apparently you can follow it on twitter. On now by the way.

[Ed De Gramo]

Is it just me or is Nick Griffin laying a few bricks in his seat...

Think he may regret going on QT :agree:

[Ed De Gramo]

:faf::faf::faf:

I shouldn't be laughing but Griffin is being made to look like a complete ersehole :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

As soon as anyone puts any awkward questions his way, he attempts to wriggle out of it by giving some pathetic response.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Ah, Jack Straw who refused to speak to his female Muslim constituents unless they removed their veils yet finds it perfectly acceptable to share a platform with someone who actively seeks to ethnically cleanse British society.

Morally sound chap...

And as Griffin pointed out - Straw's old man was in the jail for refusing to fight in WWII while Griffin's old man was in the RAF.

[heidtheba]

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone commented on this part of hibsbollah's early post;

"If the BNP had any political nous about them they could be using the current economic and political crises in Britain to gain significant support. Fortunately, they seem to be digging their own grave and seem to be run by very stupid people, which is good news for the rest of us."

Couldn't agree more - this is another thing that really surprises me about the anti-BNP approach. Don't moan at someone when they are being crap! Griffin is a muppet so surely the best approach would just be do nothing?

He's the BNP version of Ian Black/Nade etc - don't moan at him too much in case they replace him with someone better!

[bawheid]

And as Griffin pointed out - Straw's old man was in the jail for refusing to fight in WWII while Griffin's old man was in the RAF.

Without the audience or the viewing public knowing all the facts, I don't see what that had to do with it to be honest.

Griffin was just trying to get a shot in early, and it had nothing to do with the question set.

Thankfully, he's come across as a total cretin so far. Laughing at inappropriate moments, and failing to answer direct questions put to him.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Without the audience or the viewing public knowing all the facts, I don't see what that had to do with it to be honest.

Griffin was just trying to get a shot in early, and it had nothing to do with the question set.

Thankfully, he's come across as a total cretin so far. Laughing at inappropriate moments, and failing to answer direct questions put to him.

Nothing at all - I quite liked the way it clamped Straw though.

He's come across as a total Dick, sorry Nick :greengrin so far - as you say applauding the black pannelist when he's clearly in the wrong.

I do think the programme's been truned into a hammer the BNP show rather than a show on the issues of the day. Delighted he's been shown up as an utter cun1 - would've like it done in a better way though.

[blackpoolhibs]

I have to say griffin is getting off very lightly, they are hardly grilling him.:confused:

[Calvin]

I have to say griffin is getting off very lightly, they are hardly grilling him.:confused:

:agree:

Dimbleby is being too professional to really let it occur I think.

[matty_f]

Nothing at all - I quite liked the way it clamped Straw though.

He's come across as a total Dick, sorry Nick :greengrin so far - as you say applauding the black pannelist when he's clearly in the wrong.

I do think the programme's been truned into a hammer the BNP show rather than a show on the issues of the day. Delighted he's been shown up as an utter cun1 - would've like it done in a better way though.

They had the chance to absolutely nail the f..ker and didn't (IMHO) take it. It's lucky for the rest of us that Griffin does a fairly decent job of showing himself up as a bell-end.

[Woody1985]

As soon as anyone puts any awkward questions his way, he attempts to wriggle out of it by giving some pathetic response.

Presumably like Jack Straw. Of course the rise of the BNP is caused by the lax policies of Labour on immigration.

I thought that Sayeeda came across very well tonight (without having prior knowledge of who she is).

[Ed De Gramo]

Griffin's plan backfired....sure he'll get some deluded followers thinking he's the dogs b0llocks but he came across as total s**m :agree:

[the_ginger_hibee]

Presumably like Jack Straw. Of course the rise of the BNP is caused by the lax policies of Labour on immigration.

I thought that Sayeeda came across very well tonight (without having prior knowledge of who she is).

He was like a kid in a sweet shop at the start, getting digs in with the crowd, getting excitable, grinning away. Then someone mentioned the war, then immigration and Jacky boy wriggled away in his seat. Was great viewing.

[lapsedhibee]

Thankfully, he's come across as a total cretin so far. Laughing at inappropriate moments, and failing to answer direct questions put to him.
That's no different from politicos of all parties on that programme. Lucky Bonnie Greer was on the panel to provide a bit of broader perspective - the rest of them would have been quite happy to carry on with their usual petty squabbling for the entire duration.

[blackpoolhibs]

I think Griffin has come out of this a lot better than he should have, he even had the panel arguing with each other, and the woman who's name escapes me, saying to straw, we cant have this debate if you are in denial. Griffin must have been pissing his pants over this. Dimbleby wants sacked, he has let griffin off the hook tonight, it was a joke.

[Betty Boop]

Some quotes from Nasty Nick, "David Duke was a member of a non violent branch of the KKK" "I cannot say why I said those things"! :blah:

[Chuckie]

Bet he's a jambo that ****..

[Ed De Gramo]

Some quotes from Nasty Nick, "David Duke was a member of a non violent branch of the KKK" "I cannot say why I said those things"! :blah:

Dick wins the "Unbelievable quote of the year!" :agree:

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------


Bet he's a jambo that ****..

:faf::top marks

[The Green Goblin]

I managed to see the 6 minute pre-released clip just now.

The most telling comment for me was the whole "my father was in the RAF during the 2nd world war" argument.

Yes Nick, he was, fighting fascism and a party whose policies were based on racial judgement and discrimination, and doing it alongside Czech, Indian and Polish (amongst others) pilots, who, having escaped or travelled from their own countries, went out and laid down their lives so that you could come along and argue that Britain should be a `white` country once again.

Beyond contempt.

GG

The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October, 1940. These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovakians, 28 Belgians, 32 Australians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 7 American, 10 Irish, and one each from Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.

[HIBERNIALEITH]

I think we have to find a practical balance between helping people and doing everything for them. It just isn't possible to have a leaflet for every language in the world, and is maybe a waste of resources.

I haven't read all the posts on this. So please don't shoot me down. I moved over to Spain last year (yes I told all the relevant authorities therefore the child benefit was stopped etc etc). I came back in December, only to be told that it would 16 weeks to look into my paperwork! Oh and that was a minimum! Therefore I couldn't claim Income Support because I wasn't receiving Child Benefit (wrong!) and therefore couldn't claim Child Tax Credits because they all co-incide with each other!

By February, after nearly losing the will to live, luckily someone I know's friend's husband worked for the DWP and he phoned me to go and try again (after giving regulation details), I went, they still refused so I gave them this guys number and humbly processed my claim!

I have paid into this government since the age of 15 (only finished work May last year) so 23 years and treated like sh*t.

It was all finally resolved in April this year after 5 months of having NO money at all. The amount of people who said I should add "ski" to the end of my name and I'd get everything you would not believe but at the end of the day, unfortunately they are right!

Stick up for the government, whoever you want. It's just not right!

Side note, I asked the Job centre about helping become a Midwife - "No" was the answer, you would lose all your benefits coz your in full time college.

The country is screaming out for Midwives!

The Government would rather pay you benefits than help you financially to get a job!

Aye right!!!!

[GhostofBolivar]

I managed to see the 6 minute pre-released clip just now.

The most telling comment for me was the whole "my father was in the RAF during the 2nd world war" argument.

Yes Nick, he was, fighting fascism and a party whose policies were based on racial judgement and discrimination, and doing it alongside Czech, Indian and Polish (amongst others) pilots, who, having escaped or travelled from their own countries, went out and laid down their lives so that you could come along and argue that Britain should be a `white` country once again.

Beyond contempt.

GG

The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October, 1940. These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovakians, 28 Belgians, 32 Australians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 7 American, 10 Irish, and one each from Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.

If you look at the history of the Victoria Cross you find that it reflects a traditional multi-culturalism in the British armed forces. There are over 80 awards where the nationality of the recipient cannot be determined. There have been at least 27 awarded to Indians, a dozen to Ghurkas. In addition to many Canadians, Australians, Kiwis and South Africans, VCs have been awarded to people from Jamaica, Kenya, The Virgin Islands, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark. Five have been awarded to Americans. One to a Ukrainian. Two to Germans.

Where would we be without these people?

[FranckSuzy]

I haven't read all the posts on this. So please don't shoot me down. I moved over to Spain last year (yes I told all the relevant authorities therefore the child benefit was stopped etc etc). I came back in December, only to be told that it would 16 weeks to look into my paperwork! Oh and that was a minimum! Therefore I couldn't claim Income Support because I wasn't receiving Child Benefit (wrong!) and therefore couldn't claim Child Tax Credits because they all co-incide with each other!

By February, after nearly losing the will to live, luckily someone I know's friend's husband worked for the DWP and he phoned me to go and try again (after giving regulation details), I went, they still refused so I gave them this guys number and humbly processed my claim!

I have paid into this government since the age of 15 (only finished work May last year) so 23 years and treated like sh*t.

It was all finally resolved in April this year after 5 months of having NO money at all. The amount of people who said I should add "ski" to the end of my name and I'd get everything you would not believe but at the end of the day, unfortunately they are right!

Stick up for the government, whoever you want. It's just not right!

Side note, I asked the Job centre about helping become a Midwife - "No" was the answer, you would lose all your benefits coz your in full time college.

The country is screaming out for Midwives!

The Government would rather pay you benefits than help you financially to get a job!

Aye right!!!!

Sorry, I don't know your education history ie previous awards but you can usually get a bursary from SAAS to train as a midwife. I'm currently in receipt of one as I am training to be a nurse. Not sure if this is in the job centre's remit but you should contact uni's direct and they will provide all the info. Good luck!

[lyonhibs]

I haven't read all the posts on this. So please don't shoot me down. I moved over to Spain last year (yes I told all the relevant authorities therefore the child benefit was stopped etc etc). I came back in December, only to be told that it would 16 weeks to look into my paperwork! Oh and that was a minimum! Therefore I couldn't claim Income Support because I wasn't receiving Child Benefit (wrong!) and therefore couldn't claim Child Tax Credits because they all co-incide with each other!

By February, after nearly losing the will to live, luckily someone I know's friend's husband worked for the DWP and he phoned me to go and try again (after giving regulation details), I went, they still refused so I gave them this guys number and humbly processed my claim!

I have paid into this government since the age of 15 (only finished work May last year) so 23 years and treated like sh*t.

It was all finally resolved in April this year after 5 months of having NO money at all. The amount of people who said I should add "ski" to the end of my name and I'd get everything you would not believe but at the end of the day, unfortunately they are right!

Stick up for the government, whoever you want. It's just not right!

Side note, I asked the Job centre about helping become a Midwife - "No" was the answer, you would lose all your benefits coz your in full time college.

The country is screaming out for Midwives!

The Government would rather pay you benefits than help you financially to get a job!

Aye right!!!!

Apart from your own personal opinion and word of mouth gossip, can you actually prove that statement, that the DWP is actively biased against people from the UK, or are you just havering??

[Beefster]

Side note, I asked the Job centre about helping become a Midwife - "No" was the answer, you would lose all your benefits coz your in full time college.

You think we should be giving unemployment benefits to full-time students?

If you are genuinely interested, here you go. The Job Centre won't do it for you.

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/students

[DaveF]

Rather than watch it, I listened to the programme as it was broadcast on FiveLive at the same time as it was shown on BBC1.

Griffin sounded clearly nervous but didn't struggle too much apart from the, "er well I changed my mind because of some radio intercepts" when pressed about his views on the holocaust.

If they had actually got down to some serious discussion rather than spend ages on digging up quotes and blabbling on about Griffin's youtube appearances, then the programme might have been a bit more interesting.

Consequently, I found it all a little too predictable with pantomine crowd booing \ cheering and the highly laughable "answer the question" accusations at Griffin from panelists who do their best to ignore questions when fired at them.

[Green Mikey]

Apart from your own personal opinion and word of mouth gossip, can you actually prove that statement, that the DWP is actively biased against people from the UK, or are you just havering??

Havering is spot on.

Personal opinion and stupid uninformed comments are what the BNP feed off. Blaiming the inefficiency of a Government agency on immigrants is ridiculous, all Government agencies are inefficient regardless of immigration!

'if I changed me name to Mohamed I would get my benefits faster', 'If I was Polish I would get a council house', 'They are taking our jobs' these are the comments that can always be attributed to imbecilic BNP apologists.

[lyonhibs]

Havering is spot on.

Personal opinion and stupid uninformed comments are what the BNP feed off. Blaiming the inefficiency of a Government agency on immigrants is ridiculous, all Government agencies are inefficient regardless of immigration!

'if I changed me name to Mohamed I would get my benefits faster', 'If I was Polish I would get a council house', 'They are taking our jobs' these are the comments that can always be attributed to imbecilic BNP apologists.

:agree: I thought havering might be nearer the truth.

[Sir David Gray]

I was actually quite disappointed with the programme last night, I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax.

Griffin did not come across well at all, in fact I found him quite pathetic. How anyone can claim that there's any such thing as a "non-violent element of the Ku Klux Klan" defies belief. Also, whenever someone put an awkward question his way or accused him of saying something unsavoury in the past, his standard response was either to wriggle out of it by saying something completely irrelevant to the question (although that's not too dissimilar to politicians of other mainstream parties) or to say that the quotes attributed to him were "a massive, vicious lie".

I think him being the BNP's leader is going to be damaging to the party in the long run. I think that, with all that's happened in the country over the past year or so, such as the huge recession, massive levels of unemployment, MP's fiddling their expenses claims etc., the BNP have a fantastic opportunity to really capitalise on it all by making huge strides.

Although they managed to gain two seats at the European elections earlier this year for the first time ever, their share of the vote was only slightly increased from 2004 and I would also highly doubt that they'll get any seats at all at the General Election next year. I know that our voting system seriously hinders fringe parties such as the BNP but I would say that if they had someone in charge who was a bit more eloquent and charismatic, they may have a better chance of making some progress. As long as Nick Griffin is their leader, I don't see them having significant success at the major elections.

I am quite willing to admit that a couple of the points that Nick Griffin made last night were, in my opinion, quite valid and I don't have a problem with him raising them. However, I also believe that underneath it all, he is a horrible, deceptive man and also quite a dangerous man as well who, if elected as Prime Minister, would implement some seriously abhorrent policies - policies that neither he nor the BNP in general would freely publish on their website or in their campaigning material at election time. I believe that the people who run the BNP are extremely two-faced and that they have one face for the public and another entirely different face for when they are behind closed doors.

Despite what he wants people to believe, Nick Griffin would be no different to Adolf Hitler, if he was made British Prime Minister.

It is mainly for that reason alone that I would never vote for the BNP in a million years.

[Tinyclothes]

It will be interesting to see if his appearance will get any new voters for the BNP. As it sounds like most of us here hate the guy and the party that much, it's hard to see how he came accross to the losers that are wondering if BNP is the way to go.

[BravestHibs]

I was actually quite disappointed with the programme last night, I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax.

Griffin did not come across well at all, in fact I found him quite pathetic. How anyone can claim that there's any such thing as a "non-violent element of the Ku Klux Klan" defies belief. Also, whenever someone put an awkward question his way or accused him of saying something unsavoury in the past, his standard response was either to wriggle out of it by saying something completely irrelevant to the question (although that's not too dissimilar to politicians of other mainstream parties) or to say that the quotes attributed to him were "a massive, vicious lie".

I think him being the BNP's leader is going to be damaging to the party in the long run. I think that, with all that's happened in the country over the past year or so, such as the huge recession, massive levels of unemployment, MP's fiddling their expenses claims etc., the BNP have a fantastic opportunity to really capitalise on it all by making huge strides.

Although they managed to gain two seats at the European elections earlier this year for the first time ever, their share of the vote was only slightly increased from 2004 and I would also highly doubt that they'll get any seats at all at the General Election next year. I know that our voting system seriously hinders fringe parties such as the BNP but I would say that if they had someone in charge who was a bit more eloquent and charismatic, they may have a better chance of making some progress. As long as Nick Griffin is their leader, I don't see them having significant success at the major elections.

I am quite willing to admit that a couple of the points that Nick Griffin made last night were, in my opinion, quite valid and I don't have a problem with him raising them. However, I also believe that underneath it all, he is a horrible, deceptive man and also quite a dangerous man as well who, if elected as Prime Minister, would implement some seriously abhorrent policies - policies that neither he nor the BNP in general would freely publish on their website or in their campaigning material at election time. I believe that the people who run the BNP are extremely two-faced and that they have one face for the public and another entirely different face for when they are behind closed doors.

Despite what he wants people to believe, Nick Griffin would be no different to Adolf Hitler, if he was made British Prime Minister.

It is mainly for that reason alone that I would never vote for the BNP in a million years.

You seem to be distancing yourself from the BNP in quite a similar fasion to the way Griffin distanced himself from the KKK. By that I mean 'arguing against them'.

[SlickShoes]

Some quotes from Nasty Nick, "David Duke was a member of a non violent branch of the KKK" "I cannot say why I said those things"! :blah:

He actually said "a MOSTLY non violent branch" which is much worse, hes saying its OK because they only do a wee bit violence. No wonder everyone burst out laughing at that remark.

[Woody1985]

It will be interesting to see if his appearance will get any new voters for the BNP. As it sounds like most of us here hate the guy and the party that much, it's hard to see how he came accross to the losers that are wondering if BNP is the way to go.

I think it's unfair to call all supporters of the BNP losers.

As has already been mentioned on here and on QT last night, some areas/people are feeling backed into a corner and are turning to the BNP based purely on the inept immigration policies of previous and existing governments.

Sayeeda summed it up perfectly by saying that she doesn't think that all supporters of the BNP are racist and even attacked JS for not giving an open and honest answer when probed for an answer to the question 'Can the rise of the BNP be attibuted to government policy on immigration'.

Also, as FH says, they have a nice face on the front of things but no doubt have underlying issues. People will be taken in by that, as they will with all the other ***** that is spouted by the mainstream parties.

It's interesting to see how extreme left wing protestors act when faced with something they don't like. They want to have an open democracy but when it doesn't suit them they try to suppress it and turn to violence, including attacking police officers and raiding buildings. No doubt these people will be blasted in the same way racists and hooligans are at football i.e not real supporters etc etc.

[Dashing Bob S]

It merely confirmed how odious our politicians are.

The contemptible fascist Griffin, coming over like a sweating, nervous, slimy toad, should have had an obnoxiousness quota massively exceeding that of everyone else in the room.

In the end though, he just shaded the pond life title from the 'democrat' Straw, the man who wouldn't talk to Islamic women unless they removed their veils and who 'grassed up' his own son for smoking hashish and who has moral compass of a demented sewer rat.

[archiebald]

To be honest this was an early christmas present for the bnp.
sad to say he handled it pretty well.:grr:

[Woody1985]

It merely confirmed how odious our politicians are.

The contemptible fascist Griffin, coming over like a sweating, nervous, slimy toad, should have had an obnoxiousness quota massively exceeding that of everyone else in the room.

In the end though, he just shaded the pond life title from the 'democrat' Straw, the man who wouldn't talk to Islamic women unless they removed their veils and who 'grassed up' his own son for smoking hashish and who has moral compass of a demented sewer rat.

:top marks

[the_ginger_hibee]

I was actually quite disappointed with the programme last night, I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax.

Griffin did not come across well at all, in fact I found him quite pathetic. How anyone can claim that there's any such thing as a "non-violent element of the Ku Klux Klan" defies belief. Also, whenever someone put an awkward question his way or accused him of saying something unsavoury in the past, his standard response was either to wriggle out of it by saying something completely irrelevant to the question (although that's not too dissimilar to politicians of other mainstream parties) or to say that the quotes attributed to him were "a massive, vicious lie".

I think him being the BNP's leader is going to be damaging to the party in the long run. I think that, with all that's happened in the country over the past year or so, such as the huge recession, massive levels of unemployment, MP's fiddling their expenses claims etc., the BNP have a fantastic opportunity to really capitalise on it all by making huge strides.

Although they managed to gain two seats at the European elections earlier this year for the first time ever, their share of the vote was only slightly increased from 2004 and I would also highly doubt that they'll get any seats at all at the General Election next year. I know that our voting system seriously hinders fringe parties such as the BNP but I would say that if they had someone in charge who was a bit more eloquent and charismatic, they may have a better chance of making some progress. As long as Nick Griffin is their leader, I don't see them having significant success at the major elections.

I am quite willing to admit that a couple of the points that Nick Griffin made last night were, in my opinion, quite valid and I don't have a problem with him raising them. However, I also believe that underneath it all, he is a horrible, deceptive man and also quite a dangerous man as well who, if elected as Prime Minister, would implement some seriously abhorrent policies - policies that neither he nor the BNP in general would freely publish on their website or in their campaigning material at election time. I believe that the people who run the BNP are extremely two-faced and that they have one face for the public and another entirely different face for when they are behind closed doors.

Despite what he wants people to believe, Nick Griffin would be no different to Adolf Hitler, if he was made British Prime Minister.

It is mainly for that reason alone that I would never vote for the BNP in a million years.

So your saying if your still around in say 1,000,001 years you'd vote the BNP? You bloody facist :grr:

Nah its all very good points there, if I had a vested interest in the BNP, which I don't, funny enough, I'd be seeking the end of the Griffin Era. Fair enough he's got them pretty big attention recently, and he says he's ousted the 'Nazi' and Extreme Homophobic element from the party, which I doubt, but every time he's in any mainstream media the same things come up.

His Nazi comments, KKK afiliation etc. these will follow him around till the day he pops' it, rightly so. All anyone will focus on is comments he made years ago, that will never change.

He has too much baggage to be a successful leader of a 'mainstream' party, such is the baggage that comes with being in charge of the BNP obviously. My point is the extreme right wing of this country will thankfully lay dormant for some time to come (unless of course a new party emerge) as this lot headed by a nutjob unsucessfully trying to shed his old skin in favor of a more media friendly one, will do nothing. Even if their polices on immigration hold some weight, they are far too extreme, they cant even hide that 'extreme-ism' and their history is far too 'odious' to even allow them to be taken seriously.

He looks like a right c$$t aswell...

[archiebald]

Sorry not intrested in all the nazi stuff would not listen or read it !:blah:

[BravestHibs]

I think it's unfair to call all supporters of the BNP losers.

As has already been mentioned on here and on QT last night, some areas/people are feeling backed into a corner and are turning to the BNP based purely on the inept immigration policies of previous and existing governments.

Sayeeda summed it up perfectly by saying that she doesn't think that all supporters of the BNP are racist and even attacked JS for not giving an open and honest answer when probed for an answer to the question 'Can the rise of the BNP be attibuted to government policy on immigration'.

Also, as FH says, they have a nice face on the front of things but no doubt have underlying issues. People will be taken in by that, as they will with all the other ***** that is spouted by the mainstream parties.

It's interesting to see how extreme left wing protestors act when faced with something they don't like. They want to have an open democracy but when it doesn't suit them they try to suppress it and turn to violence, including attacking police officers and raiding buildings. No doubt these people will be blasted in the same way racists and hooligans are at football i.e not real supporters etc etc.

I don't. At best they could be called poor unfortunates with the IQ of a football. But at worst they could be called Neo-Nazis that are working towards a vision of arian superiority.

People trot out this 'I was backed into a corner because the mainstream parties don't want to tackle immigration head on' bollox, but what they actually mean is 'Yass! Finally a borderline respectable way of shipping out these browns'. Whether they admit it or not, if they vote for the BNP then they are a f***ing racist and that's that. You might as well walk down the street chanting p**i's out as far as I'm concerned.

That Sayeeda one wasn't much better to be honest. She is clearly a homophobe despite her being almost forced into admitting that actually, despite what she said in the past she's now in favour of civil partnerships when in actuality, her views don't differ on any great scale to those of mini-Adolf. Don't even get me started on Jack Straw. As DBS said the guy is a rat. And if I'm being honest, the only way you get to a position like Jack Straws is by being a snivelling rat and doing everything you need to no matter what that is. Even if it is calling the police on your own son FFS.

[Betty Boop]

It merely confirmed how odious our politicians are.

The contemptible fascist Griffin, coming over like a sweating, nervous, slimy toad, should have had an obnoxiousness quota massively exceeding that of everyone else in the room.

In the end though, he just shaded the pond life title from the 'democrat' Straw, the man who wouldn't talk to Islamic women unless they removed their veils and who 'grassed up' his own son for smoking hashish and who has moral compass of a demented sewer rat.

The sight of him giggling and clapping like a hysterical school boy every time Bonny Greer rebuked him, was particularly stomach churning, he went to pat her on the back and then promptly drew back his hand. Thank goodness he is the best the BNP have.

[archiebald]

Yes they are all rats-but like me you thought going by your comments they said this and that so it made nik look good and hung themselves out to dry !

[Green Mikey]

I think it's unfair to call all supporters of the BNP losers.

As has already been mentioned on here and on QT last night, some areas/people are feeling backed into a corner and are turning to the BNP based purely on the inept immigration policies of previous and existing governments.

Sayeeda summed it up perfectly by saying that she doesn't think that all supporters of the BNP are racist and even attacked JS for not giving an open and honest answer when probed for an answer to the question 'Can the rise of the BNP be attibuted to government policy on immigration'.

Also, as FH says, they have a nice face on the front of things but no doubt have underlying issues. People will be taken in by that, as they will with all the other ***** that is spouted by the mainstream parties.

It's interesting to see how extreme left wing protestors act when faced with something they don't like. They want to have an open democracy but when it doesn't suit them they try to suppress it and turn to violence, including attacking police officers and raiding buildings. No doubt these people will be blasted in the same way racists and hooligans are at football i.e not real supporters etc etc.

All BNP supporters are losers. There are two types:

People that follow the BNP because of the their racist agenda. Racists by definition are losers.

People that follow the BNP because of disillusionment with mainstrean politics are quite clearly of low intelligence. If someone has ever formed the idiotic assumption that the BNP are a party based on anything other than fascism then they are losers in my eyes.

[lapsedhibee]

But at worst they could be called Neo-Nazis that are working towards a vision of arian superiority.


I for one would have very few qualms about being governed by fanatical opera singers.

[Tinyclothes]

All BNP supporters are losers. There are two types:

People that follow the BNP because of the their racist agenda. Racists by definition are losers.

People that follow the BNP because of disillusionment with mainstrean politics are quite clearly of low intelligence. If someone has ever formed the idiotic assumption that the BNP are a party based on anything other than fascism then they are losers in my eyes.

Well said that man. People trying to justify why it might be ok to support the BNP in certain circumstancies - being backed into a corner, for example are, in a way worse then those that are just plain racist.

[BravestHibs]

I for one would have no qualms about being governed by fanatical opera singers.

Very good.

[Woody1985]

Okay, if all of the BNP supporters or potential supporters are so dumb then how could they possibly have hung themselves out to dry by appearing on TV?

Surely an existing BNP voter would be too stupid to take an in depth look at politics to understand the true extent of what the BNP stand for. I can't imagine that the stereotypical BNP voter watches QT either so wouldn't be swayed either way.

Based on the above, we can assume that they are not going to defect elsewhere.

You are then left with the floating voters that people seem to be worried about, presumably the floating voter is smart enough to make an informed decision, if they are smart enough to make an informed decision then surely they wouldn't have considered voting for them in the first place.

Sounds like there is nothing to really worry about based on the assumptions made towards the voters. Either that or people are underestimating the true extent of racism in Britain and just don't want to admit it or they don't want to admit or discuss the failings of large scale immigration year on year. The only way to drown them out is by more people turning out in the election to suppress their votes legitimately.

It was interesting that when the issue of immigration was raised on QT last night that the points system was being mentioned as a robust measure to stem immigration. However, I believe that the points system only relates to non-EU citizens and only represents a minor portion of the immigrants coming to the country. This is yet another example of slimy JS trying to pull the wool.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------


All BNP supporters are losers. There are two types:

People that follow the BNP because of the their racist agenda. Racists by definition are losers.

People that follow the BNP because of disillusionment with mainstrean politics are quite clearly of low intelligence. If someone has ever formed the idiotic assumption that the BNP are a party based on anything other than fascism then they are losers in my eyes.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't know any BNP voters but based on things said on QT last night it would seem that people with more knowledge on the voters than me don't think that's the case.

[Tinyclothes]

Okay, if all of the BNP supporters or potential supporters are so dumb then how could they possibly have hung themselves out to dry by appearing on TV?



Do you think that all people that appear on TV are clever? That nobody dumb puts themselves on the TV?

[BravestHibs]

Okay, if all of the BNP supporters or potential supporters are so dumb then how could they possibly have hung themselves out to dry by appearing on TV?

Surely an existing BNP voter would be too stupid to take an in depth look at politics to understand the true extent of what the BNP stand for. I can't imagine that the stereotypical BNP voter watches QT either so wouldn't be swayed either way.

Based on the above, we can assume that they are not going to defect elsewhere.

You are then left with the floating voters that people seem to be worried about, presumably the floating voter is smart enough to make an informed decision, if they are smart enough to make an informed decision then surely they wouldn't have considered voting for them in the first place.

Sounds like there is nothing to really worry about based on the assumptions made towards the voters. Either that or people are underestimating the true extent of racism in Britain and just don't want to admit it or they don't want to admit or discuss the failings of large scale immigration year on year. The only way to drown them out is by more people turning out in the election to suppress their votes legitimately.

It was interesting that when the issue of immigration was raised on QT last night that the points system was being mentioned as a robust measure to stem immigration. However, I believe that the points system only relates to non-EU citizens and only represents a minor portion of the immigrants coming to the country. This is yet another example of slimy JS trying to pull the wool.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------



Fair enough. Personally, I don't know any BNP voters but based on things said on QT last night it would seem that people with more knowledge on the voters than me don't think that's the case.

After having read the portion of your post in bold three times now, I'm still none the wiser as to what you're actually getting at? Let me see if I've got this right. BNP voters will vote BNP and non BNP voters won't. Is that right? That's an awful lot of words to make that point if I understand it correctly.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, that was utterly bizarre.

So they not only get an appearance on Question Time but a Question Time: B.N.P. Special? It was an absolute pantomime.

Re. F.H.’s comments. This is one of the arguments I find really, really strange. The idea that the only possible danger of the rise of the B.N.P. is that they gain significant representation at Westminster or Griffin becomes P.M. - and, by extension, as this is inconceivable there’s not really any need to worry - is complete rubbish. This line means that it can all be treated as a piece of theatre/entertainment from which we can all gain a vicarious thrill. The real danger is that they gain a foothold in society and become a rallying point for people with certain beliefs. The B.B.C. have given them a foot-up in their desire to do this and in doing so have increased, to whatever extent, the potential danger for the groups which the B.N.P. despise. They haven’t followed through on their guidelines, they’ve breached them in a sickening desire for publicity and ratings.

I think the whole thing has been a damning indictment of the post-modern, middle-class and neo-liberal idea that everyone’s beliefs and ideas needs to be regarded as equally important and valid no matter what it is. As ideology and ‘grand narratives’ have supposedly collapsed there’s nothing to inhibit every single person’s opinion being given equal value no matter how ****ing stupid, repugnant or incoherent it is; and everyone needs to be accorded the same level of respect. It’s found it’s ‘moral home’ in the B.B.C. ‘Oh we just must listen to these people if we want to be seen as a fair society’. Bollocks. The B.B.C. and the media as a whole have subscribed to this post-modern consensus that ‘balance’ is more important in political and societal issues than truth. Thus you have instances where they won’t screen the Gaza Appeal - as that wouldn’t be ‘balanced‘, oh no - but you can give Nick Griffin a platform in which to propagate his hateful, anti-social bile - as that is.

Denying certain people or groups a (extremely prominent) platform (made even more prominent by a sickening drive to increase ratings in the weeks and days running up to it) is **** all to do with a denial of free-speech.

[Green Mikey]

Okay, if all of the BNP supporters or potential supporters are so dumb then how could they possibly have hung themselves out to dry by appearing on TV?

Surely an existing BNP voter would be too stupid to take an in depth look at politics to understand the true extent of what the BNP stand for. I can't imagine that the stereotypical BNP voter watches QT either so wouldn't be swayed either way.

Based on the above, we can assume that they are not going to defect elsewhere.

You are then left with the floating voters that people seem to be worried about, presumably the floating voter is smart enough to make an informed decision, if they are smart enough to make an informed decision then surely they wouldn't have considered voting for them in the first place.

Sounds like there is nothing to really worry about based on the assumptions made towards the voters. Either that or people are underestimating the true extent of racism in Britain and just don't want to admit it or they don't want to admit or discuss the failings of large scale immigration year on year. The only way to drown them out is by more people turning out in the election to suppress their votes legitimately.

It was interesting that when the issue of immigration was raised on QT last night that the points system was being mentioned as a robust measure to stem immigration. However, I believe that the points system only relates to non-EU citizens and only represents a minor portion of the immigrants coming to the country. This is yet another example of slimy JS trying to pull the wool.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------



Fair enough. Personally, I don't know any BNP voters but based on things said on QT last night it would seem that people with more knowledge on the voters than me don't think that's the case.

I think that not attacking the whole BNP support was a political ploy by the panel members last night. If they had attacked anyone who has voted for the BNP the floating voters they may be lost to the BNP forever and others less easy to convert. Antagonisation is not how the Tories or Labour will win votes.

[BravestHibs]

Yes they are all rats-but like me you thought going by your comments they said this and that so it made nik look good and hung themselves out to dry !

Is that a reply to me?

I didn't say Griffin looked good. I merely said that they all looked bad. But just so there's no confusion the ones who aren't racist are slightly better.

[lapsedhibee]

As ideology and ‘grand narratives’ have supposedly collapsed there’s nothing to inhibit every single person’s opinion being given equal value no matter how ****ing stupid, repugnant or incoherent it is; and everyone needs to be accorded the same level of respect. It’s found it’s ‘moral home’ in the B.B.C.

If you've not noticed stupid etc clowns being given airtime before now, and imagine that this was only introduced by the BBC last night, you must not have a TV or you must wear some sort of funny goggles to see things.

Big Brother was first shown on UK TV in 2000.

[Woody1985]

After having read the portion of your post in bold three times now, I'm still none the wiser as to what you're actually getting at? Let me see if I've got this right. BNP voters will vote BNP and non BNP voters won't. Is that right? That's an awful lot of words to make that point if I understand it correctly.

Pretty much. Therefore, why the histeria surrounding them? If people are truly going to be taken in by them then surely it going to be extremely difficult to get them back to other parties.

All the other people who are not 'stupid/dumb' won't vote for them.

Unless people are really worried that there is a massive underground racist element in Britain then why the mass histeria surrounding them?

It is constantly being said that Britain will not fall for their PR and stance on issues, surely there is nothing to worry about if Britain is not really like that? Either that or you are worried that there are millions of racist/stupid/dumb people in Britain that will vote for them.

Based on the mass worry this is causing it would seem like it is thought that a lot of the electorate are either racist and/or stupid. I bet the mainstream parties wouldn't say no to racist or stupid peoples votes if they were coming their way.

[BravestHibs]

Well, that was utterly bizarre.

So they not only get an appearance on Question Time but a Question Time: B.N.P. Special? It was an absolute pantomime.

Re. F.H.’s comments. This is one of the arguments I find really, really strange. The idea that the only possible danger of the rise of the B.N.P. is that they gain significant representation at Westminster or Griffin becomes P.M. - and, by extension, as this is inconceivable there’s not really any need to worry - is complete rubbish. This line means that it can all be treated as a piece of theatre/entertainment from which we can all gain a vicarious thrill. The real danger is that they gain a foothold in society and become a rallying point for people with certain beliefs. The B.B.C. have given them a foot-up in their desire to do this and in doing so have increased, to whatever extent, the potential danger for the groups which the B.N.P. despise. They haven’t followed through on their guidelines, they’ve breached them in a sickening desire for publicity and ratings.

I think the whole thing has been a damning indictment of the post-modern, middle-class and neo-liberal idea that everyone’s beliefs and ideas needs to be regarded as equally important and valid no matter what it is. As ideology and ‘grand narratives’ have supposedly collapsed there’s nothing to inhibit every single person’s opinion being given equal value no matter how ****ing stupid, repugnant or incoherent it is; and everyone needs to be accorded the same level of respect. It’s found it’s ‘moral home’ in the B.B.C. ‘Oh we just must listen to these people if we want to be seen as a fair society’. Bollocks. The B.B.C. and the media as a whole have subscribed to this post-modern consensus that ‘balance’ is more important in political and societal issues than truth. Thus you have instances where they won’t screen the Gaza Appeal - as that wouldn’t be ‘balanced‘, oh no - but you can give Nick Griffin a platform in which to propagate his hateful, anti-social bile - as that is.

Denying certain people or groups a (extremely prominent) platform (made even more prominent by a sickening drive to increase ratings in the weeks and days running up to it) is **** all to do with a denial of free-speech.

The BBC have to remain neutral. I think it was the Lib Dem guy last night that said once someone gets to the stage that Nick Griffin is at in the political process he has as much right as any other elected MEP to put his views forward. What he's saying may make no sense to someone with half a brain and a primary school education but there are alot of people out there who are stupid. Just because they are stupid doesn't mean they don't deserve exactly the same rights as someone who isn't even if that right happens to be perpetuated by a strange type of oily lizard with a bizarre facial tic.

You ban a lawful party, for whatever reason, and you are at the precipice of the most slippery slope of them all.

[Woody1985]

I think that not attacking the whole BNP support was a political ploy by the panel members last night. If they had attacked anyone who has voted for the BNP the floating voters they may be lost to the BNP forever and others less easy to convert. Antagonisation is not how the Tories or Labour will win votes.

Good point re not attacking the voters.

I've touched on what you've said in my reply to BH above.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If you've not noticed stupid etc clowns being given airtime before now, and imagine that this was only introduced by the BBC last night, you must not have a TV or you must wear some sort of funny goggles to see things.

Big Brother was first shown on UK TV in 2000.

What an odd response...

What I said had nothing to do with 'giving airtime to idiots'. Neither did I say this was the first instance of what I was talking about.

[lapsedhibee]

What I said had nothing to do with 'giving airtime to idiots'.

In what sense then, other than giving Nick Griffin airtime, have the BBC, quote, "given [the BNP] a foot-up"? :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

The BBC have to remain neutral. I think it was the Lib Dem guy last night that said once someone gets to the stage that Nick Griffin is at in the political process he has as much right as any other elected MEP to put his views forward. What he's saying may make no sense to someone with half a brain and a primary school education but there are alot of people out there who are stupid. Just because they are stupid doesn't mean they don't deserve exactly the same rights as someone who isn't even if that right happens to be perpetuated by a strange type of oily lizard with a bizarre facial tic.

You ban a lawful party, for whatever reason, and you are at the precipice of the most slippery slope of them all.

I asked this question yesterday and no-one replied. If a party named the Paedophiles Alliance gained a similar level of support to the B.N.P. (or if you'd prefer the Bring Back Slavery Party, or the Execute All Jews Party) would the B.B.C. be bound morally to give them a platform on which to disseminate their views. Of course they wouldn't

Who suggested banning them? Is anyone else going to spectacularly misconstrue my post?

[lapsedhibee]

I asked this question yesterday and no-one replied. If a party named the Paedophiles Alliance gained a similar level of support to the B.N.P. (or if you'd prefer the Bring Back Slavery Party, or the Execute All Jews Party) would the B.B.C. be bound morally to give them a platform on which to disseminate their views.

Dunno who you were asking yesterday, but I'll answer.

People who are not comfortable with the idea of outrageously extreme political parties forming, putting themselves up for election, appearing on tellybox circuses like QT, etc, are not comfortable with the idea of democracy itself.

[BravestHibs]

I asked this question yesterday and no-one replied. If a party named the Paedophiles Alliance gained a similar level of support to the B.N.P. (or if you'd prefer the Bring Back Slavery Party, or the Execute All Jews Party) would the B.B.C. be bound morally to give them a platform on which to disseminate their views. Of course they wouldn't

Who suggested banning them? Is anyone else going to spectacularly misconstrue my post?

That's not a comparison. Paedophile Alliance. Execute all Jews. You're just being silly. For a start I couldn't see a paedophile alliance party gaining almost a million supporters and it would be an unlawful organisation so the comparison you are making is verging on the ridiculous.

No one suggested banning them, but you are suggesting not giving them the airtime that they are entitled to, regardless of how abhorrent their views are as long as they remain a lawful party who are you or anyone else for that matter, to tell them and their supporters that they can't be heard? Is there anything else that doesn't fit in with your view of the world you'd like to silence? Shall we make people worship in secret? Or keep children out of site untill fully mature so as to restrict the advent of a paedophiles alliance party? Pfffft.

Anyway, I'd much rather they were out in the open with their rampant xenophobia on show than pushed underground and left to fest*r like the KKK. Wouldn't you?

[Tinyclothes]

I bet if the paedo alliance had a very strict immigration stance then Woody would believe that a others might feel 'backed into a corner' and vote for them. They wouldn't be stupid though, not if they were on TV.

[Woody1985]

I bet if the paedo alliance had a very strict immigration stance then Woody and a few others might feel 'backed into a corner' and vote for them. They wouldn't be stupid though, not if they were on TV.

I don't feel backed into a corner at all as I've never voted and wouldn't vote for someone like the BNP. All I've said is what points have been put forward by people more informed than me.

P.S You better watch your ****ing mouth.

[Betty Boop]

I asked this question yesterday and no-one replied. If a party named the Paedophiles Alliance gained a similar level of support to the B.N.P. (or if you'd prefer the Bring Back Slavery Party, or the Execute All Jews Party) would the B.B.C. be bound morally to give them a platform on which to disseminate their views. Of course they wouldn't

Who suggested banning them? Is anyone else going to spectacularly misconstrue my post?

Did the BBC not ban Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness from broadcasting on the airwaves? IIRC they used actors reading transcripts of their words.

[Tinyclothes]

I don't feel backed into a corner at all as I've never voted and wouldn't vote for someone like the BNP. All I've said is what points have been put forward by people more informed than me.

P.S You better watch your ****ing mouth.

I typed that incorrectly, edited now.

P.S or?

[LiverpoolHibs]

In what sense then, other than giving Nick Griffin airtime, have the BBC, quote, "given [the BNP] a foot-up"? :confused:

It's about their ideas, explicitly, being given an equivalence that they should not be.


Dunno who you were asking yesterday, but I'll answer.

People who are not comfortable with the idea of outrageously extreme political parties forming, putting themselves up for election, appearing on tellybox circuses like QT, etc, are not comfortable with the idea of democracy itself.

Yet again, I've got no problem with them putting themselves up for elections.

I do have a problem with a public service broadcaster giving them a platform to disseminate their views (especially when, despite their lies, there is nothing that binds them to doing so). It is an entirely different issue


That's not a comparison. Paedophile Alliance. Execute all Jews. You're just being silly. For a start I couldn't see a paedophile alliance party gaining almost a million supporters and it would be an unlawful organisation so the comparison you are making is verging on the ridiculous.

It's a perfectly apt comparison and is neither silly nor ridiculous. The prospect of either hypothetical group gaining a million votes in reality is irrelevant as it's, err, a postulation.

It's a question of where it is necesarry to 'draw the line'.


No one suggested banning them, but you are suggesting not giving them the airtime that they are entitled to, regardless of how abhorrent their views are as long as they remain a lawful party who are you or anyone else for that matter, to tell them and their supporters that they can't be heard? Is there anything else that doesn't fit in with your view of the world you'd like to silence? Shall we make people worship in secret? Or keep children out of site untill fully mature so as to restrict the advent of a paedophiles alliance party? Pfffft.

If no-one suggested banning them why did you say, "You ban a lawful party..."?

As for the rest of this part - the bits of it that don't get puerile, who is telling them that they 'can't be heard'? And why are they 'entitled' to appear on Question Time? What statute or moral code 'entitles' them to that?


Anyway, I'd much rather they were out in the open with their rampant xenophobia on show than pushed underground and left to fest*r like the KKK. Wouldn't you?

Out in the open like the F.N., aye?

[lapsedhibee]

Did the BBC not ban Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness from broadcasting on the airwaves? IIRC they used actors reading transcripts of their words.

Yes they did, and it certainly put paid to their aspirations. Where are they now, one wonders? :dunno:

[Woody1985]

I bet if the paedo alliance had a very strict immigration stance then Woody would believe that a others might feel 'backed into a corner' and vote for them. They wouldn't be stupid though, not if they were on TV.

Maybe they would, as I said, it may be unfair to call all BNP supporters losers, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, who is far better positioned than you or me to comment doesn't think this is a case and works with communities on a daily basis.


I typed that incorrectly, edited now.
P.S or?

If you think it's acceptable to openly post on a website that I would support or support others to vote for a Paedo Alliance then you are badly mistaken pal. PM me your number.

Mods, apologies in advance but I'm not having that ****.

[BravestHibs]

It's about their ideas, explicitly, being given an equivalence that they should not be.



Yet again, I've got no problem with them putting themselves up for elections.

I do have a problem with a public service broadcaster giving them a platform to disseminate their views (especially when, despite their lies, there is nothing that binds them to doing so). It is an entirely different issue



It's a perfectly apt comparison and is neither silly nor ridiculous. The prospect of either hypothetical group gaining a million votes in reality is irrelevant as it's, err, a postulation.

Yes yes a free the paedos party isn't errr, ridiculous at all.

It's a question of where it is necesarry to 'draw the line'.




If no-one suggested banning them why did you say, "You ban a lawful party..."?

Banning them from appearing on QT is what you are advocating. I didn't mean banning them entirely.

As for the rest of this part - the bits of it that don't get puerile, who is telling them that they 'can't be heard'? And why are they 'entitled' to appear on Question Time? What statute or moral code 'entitles' them to that?

There is no statute as you and I both know, if you choose to be deliberately obtuse then I'm afraid we can't carry this conversation on any further. What I'm saying, as I'm pretty sure you fully understand is that if other lawful political parties have a platform in QT then it isn't you, the BBC or anyone else for that matter who has a right to deny them an equal platform from which to air their views.



Out in the open like the F.N., aye?

What do you mean F.N.?

.

[sleeping giant]

Sorry not intrested in all the nazi stuff would not listen or read it !:blah:

But you reply to a thread about it:confused:

[lapsedhibee]

It's about their ideas, explicitly, being given an equivalence that they should not be.

Indeed it is. Just as in a democratic election, all sorts of ****wits are given an equivalence (eg. same size lettering for all candidates on the ballot paper; one vote for every voter, no matter how stupid/racist/paedo/anti-semitic/whatever).

In a single word, democracy.

[steakbake]

Indeed it is. Just as in a democratic election, all sorts of ****wits are given an equivalence (eg. same size lettering for all candidates on the ballot paper; one vote for every voter, no matter how stupid/racist/paedo/anti-semitic/whatever).

In a single word, democracy.

It's not perfect, but it's the best system we've come up with to date!

[Tinyclothes]

.If you think it's acceptable to openly post on a website that I would support or support others to vote for a Paedo Alliance then you are badly mistaken pal. PM me your number.

Simmer down champ, i was only meaning that it doesn't seem to matter what the BNP stands for, people are going to vote for them because of their immigration policy. I merely meant to say that a paedo party with the same policy on immigration, therefore would get similar votes. The BNP is more than just 'the answer to immigration' just like this made up party 'The Paedophile alliance' would be.

You have my unreserved apology for making you so angry about it. Maybe this isn't the forum for you.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes yes a free the paedos party isn't errr, ridiculous at all.

It was the Paedophiles Alliance not the Free The Paedos Party - you've come over all Peep Show.

And no it isn't ridiculous as it's a hypothetical situation, I'm not sure you're getting that. What about my other example of a Bring Back Slavery Party? If they gained a substantial level of support within the British electorate would the B.B.C. be morally bound to offer them a platform?


Banning them from appearing on QT is what you are advocating. I didn't mean banning them entirely.

I think you did, but never mind. 'Banning' them is disingenuous. The B.B.C. should not have invited them and the other panellists should not have agreed to share a platform with them.


There is no statute as you and I both know, if you choose to be deliberately obtuse then I'm afraid we can't carry this conversation on any further. What I'm saying, as I'm pretty sure you fully understand is that if other lawful political parties have a platform in QT then it isn't you, the BBC or anyone else for that matter who has a right to deny them an equal platform from which to air their views.

How on earth am I being deliberately obtuse?!

You said they were entitled to appear. I'm questioning what it is that entitles them to do so. Being a 'lawful political party' doesn't cut it I'm afraid.


What do you mean F.N.?

Front National.

[BravestHibs]

It was the Paedophiles Alliance not the Free The Paedos Party - you've come over all Peep Show.

And no it isn't ridiculous as it's a hypothetical situation, I'm not sure you're getting that. What about my other example of a Bring Back Slavery Party? If they gained a substantial level of support within the British electorate would the B.B.C. be morally bound to offer them a platform?

If, hypothetically, they were lawful then yes.



I think you did, but never mind. 'Banning' them is disingenuous. The B.B.C. should not have invited them and the other panellists should not have agreed to share a platform with them.

I'm glad you know what's going on in my head, it was starting to get lonely up here.
But why shouldn't they invite them? Because you don't want them to?


How on earth am I being deliberately obtuse?!

This is how you're being deliberately obtuse: What statute or moral code 'entitles' them to that?


You said they were entitled to appear. I'm questioning what it is that entitles them to do so. Being a 'lawful political party' doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

The thing that entitles them to appear is the same thing that entitles representatives from the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems to appear. Call it whatever you want, Democracy was mentioned earlier. What you are advocating is the erosion of Democracy itself. How can you possibly justify that?



Front National.

If you are referring to the French far right organisation then I don't know enough about them to comment.

.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If, hypothetically, they were lawful then yes.

Crikey, that's quite a claim.


I'm glad you know what's going on in my head, it was starting to get lonely up here.
But why shouldn't they invite them? Because you don't want them to?

Nope, because they're abhorrent and dangerous and nothing should be done to help them and improve their lot in the political arena. Appearences such as last night lead to legitimacy and respectability, legitimacy and respectability lead to an improving of chances within political institutions and an emboldening of their supporters on the street. We're not learning from our history.

The B.B.C. have assisted in the B.N.P.'s battle to legitimise and 'mainstream' themselves. They are now complicit in B.N.P. strategy. Well done Mark Thompson!

He may have looked like a ****ing div last night but it's a victory for him and his party that his position and beliefs are now 'up for debate' in establishment circles.


This is how you're being deliberately obtuse: What statute or moral code 'entitles' them to that?

There's nothing obtuse, deliberately or otherwise, about that question. It's pertinent.


The thing that entitles them to appear is the same thing that entitles representatives from the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems to appear. Call it whatever you want, Democracy was mentioned earlier. What you are advocating is the erosion of Democracy itself. How can you possibly justify that?

It's not an erosion of democracy (besides, our 'democracy' is a consistent and systemic erosion of democratic principles and I don't see people getting particularly het-up about that).

The BBC is a publically owned institution and has no moral, social, legal or political duty to allow a party which actively seeks to ethnically cleanse society an opportunity to put across their views in the hope of attracting people to their cause.

This vague stuff about 'democracy' is an absolute nonsense.


If you are referring to the French far right organisation then I don't know enough about them to comment.

I am, yes.

[lapsedhibee]

This vague stuff about 'democracy' is an absolute nonsense.

Why not just come clean? You don't really believe in democracy, do you, as you fear that the majority of your fellows may not want the same things as you?

[Tinyclothes]

Why not just come clean? You don't really believe in democracy, do you, as you fear that the majority of your fellows may not want the same things as you?

It would definitely seem that way to me.

[hibsbollah]

I havent read through todays posts on the subject yet, so i dont know if i'm in the majority or not, but I thought the other panelists were excellent last night, particularly Baroness Warsi. Dimbleby managed to balance his clear desire to give Griffin a verbal kicking with the need to show him due respect and give him sufficient rope to hang himself. All in all, I thought it went swimmingly from an anti-BNP point of view; Griffin looked ridiculous and he had noone to blame for that but himself.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why not just come clean? You don't really believe in democracy, do you, as you fear that the majority of your fellows may not want the same things as you?

:agree: And it's this type of "democrat" that is most fearful of fascism because they recognise it all too well.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why not just come clean? You don't really believe in democracy, do you, as you fear that the majority of your fellows may not want the same things as you?

I'm a very strong believer in democracy. There is nothing anti-democratic in anything I have said. It's good that you challenged the points I raised, though.


:agree: And it's this type of "democrat" that is most fearful of fascism because they recognise it all too well.

Hmm, right. I can understand you not being particularly fearful of fascism, fearing (in its stead) as you do the 'dilution' of British society. Nice choice of words.

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm a very strong believer in democracy. There is nothing anti-democratic in anything I have said. It's good that you challenged the points I raised, though.



Hmm, right. I can understand you not being particularly fearful of fascism, fearing (in its stead) as you do the 'dilution' of British society. Nice choice of words.

No, you don't understand. I couldn't give a **** about the dilution of British society.

[BravestHibs]

Crikey, that's quite a claim.

Let's not forget that you made up these hypothetical parties. Including the paedophile alliance.

Nope, because they're abhorrent and dangerous and nothing should be done to help them and improve their lot in the political arena. Appearences such as last night lead to legitimacy and respectability, legitimacy and respectability lead to an improving of chances within political institutions and an emboldening of their supporters on the street. We're not learning from our history.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. They are abhorrent and dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that they represent close to a million people. All you would be doing by preventing them from having the same opportunity as every other party to air their views is lend credence to Griffins David Icke like ramblings about the country being run by a cultural elite. You would be legitamising his policies.

The B.B.C. have assisted in the B.N.P.'s battle to legitimise and 'mainstream' themselves. They are now complicit in B.N.P. strategy. Well done Mark Thompson!

He may have looked like a ****ing div last night but it's a victory for him and his party that his position and beliefs are now 'up for debate' in establishment circles.



There's nothing obtuse, deliberately or otherwise, about that question. It's pertinent.

No it isn't, it's rhetorical.


It's not an erosion of democracy (besides, our 'democracy' is a consistent and systemic erosion of democratic principles and I don't see people getting particularly het-up about that).

Well actually I'm not a huge fan of that either, but that's bordering on a civil liberties debate which is different to what we're talking about here.

The BBC is a publically owned institution and has no moral, social, legal or political duty to allow a party which actively seeks to ethnically cleanse society an opportunity to put across their views in the hope of attracting people to their cause.

This vague stuff about 'democracy' is an absolute nonsense.

I don't see what you're getting at here. You say there is no moral, legal or political obligation. Right OK. But just because they don't have an obligation isn't reason in itself not to let this xenophobe have his say. Are you trying to say that the BBC is somehow aligning itself with the BNP? Because if that's the case you Mr Griffin and Mr Icke should get together and have dinner because the conspiracies would be a flowin.

Just out of interest, what are your views on Democracy, you don't seem to be completely in favour from what I can gather. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am, yes.

P.S Here's an article which is pertinent, rather than rhetorical.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/nick-griffin-question-time-debate
.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No, you don't understand. I couldn't give a **** about the dilution of British society.

Right, apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.



Let's not forget that you made up these hypothetical parties. Including the paedophile alliance.

Indeed.


I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. They are abhorrent and dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that they represent close to a million people. All you would be doing by preventing them from having the same opportunity as every other party to air their views is lend credence to Griffins David Icke like ramblings about the country being run by a cultural elite. You would be legitamising his policies.

No you don't. You legitimise their views by having them discussed in the mainstream as if they are as valid as any other.


No it isn't, it's rhetorical.

No it isn't. This isn't really going anywhere...


Well actually I'm not a huge fan of that either, but that's bordering on a civil liberties debate which is different to what we're talking about here.

Well ok, I'm just questioning people's fury.


I don't see what you're getting at here. You say there is no moral, legal or political obligation. Right OK. But just because they don't have an obligation isn't reason in itself not to let this xenophobe have his say. Are you trying to say that the BBC is somehow aligning itself with the BNP? Because if that's the case you Mr Griffin and Mr Icke should get together and have dinner because the conspiracies would be a flowin.

Just out of interest, what are your views on Democracy, you don't seem to be completely in favour from what I can gather. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I said they are now complicit in their legitimisation, not that they are aligning themselves with them. Let's not get ridiculous.

And again, this is getting tiresome, nothing I have said is remotely anti-democratic. So yeah, you're wrong.

I am not trying to deny him his freedom of speech I am questioning at what point the right to freedom of speech became the right to proselytise on a public service broadcaster.


P.S Here's an article which is pertinent, rather than rhetorical.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on-time-debate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/22/nick-griffin-question-time-debate)

Ok, and you can read up on the trajectory of the F.N.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_National_%28France%29

[lapsedhibee]

I'm a very strong believer in democracy. There is nothing anti-democratic in anything I have said. It's good that you challenged the points I raised, though.

I didn't challenge the points you raised in reply to BravestHibs, as I believe he is doing that himself. Most of the points that I see you make in this thread are bare unsubstantiated statements, such as that this or that is "disgusting", this or that is "nonsense", or the BNP is "abhorrent and dangerous and nothing should be done to help them and improve their lot in the political arena". All this is just your opinion, so ingrained imo that you perhaps have forgotten that it may need to be re-examined and argued for.

Personally, I find shouting people down to be abhorrent and disgusting, and it's an unfortunate trademark of the left. The current trendy way to express the same anti-democratic urge is to 'deny people platforms'. Nick Griffin may be uniquely "dangerous" to people who are afraid that a majority of voters will turn out to be racist pinheads. To others he's a mildly amusing clown.

[hibsbollah]

Personally, I find shouting people down to be abhorrent and disgusting, and it's an unfortunate trademark of the left.

Unfair. 'Shouting down' is no more a trademark of the left than the right. Tony Benn is impeccably courteous and someone slightly to the right of Genghis Khan like David Starkey clearly isnt. It depends on the individual.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I havent read through todays posts on the subject yet, so i dont know if i'm in the majority or not, but I thought the other panelists were excellent last night, particularly Baroness Warsi. Dimbleby managed to balance his clear desire to give Griffin a verbal kicking with the need to show him due respect and give him sufficient rope to hang himself. All in all, I thought it went swimmingly from an anti-BNP point of view; Griffin looked ridiculous and he had noone to blame for that but himself.

But none of that really matters, does it? The viewing figures were apparently c. 8 million. If, and it's a big if, half a percent of those watching felt strongly enough (or sympathetic) about the experience in favour of Griffin, the B.N.P. have more than doubled their membership.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------


I didn't challenge the points you raised in reply to BravestHibs, as I believe he is doing that himself. Most of the points that I see you make in this thread are bare unsubstantiated statements, such as that this or that is "disgusting", this or that is "nonsense", or the BNP is "abhorrent and dangerous and nothing should be done to help them and improve their lot in the political arena". All this is just your opinion, so ingrained imo that you perhaps have forgotten that it may need to be re-examined and argued for.

Personally, I find shouting people down to be abhorrent and disgusting, and it's an unfortunate trademark of the left. The current trendy way to express the same anti-democratic urge is to 'deny people platforms'. Nick Griffin may be uniquely "dangerous" to people who are afraid that a majority of voters will turn out to be racist pinheads. To others he's a mildly amusing clown.

Ah, sorry. I was labouring under the misapprehension that the case against fascism was pretty water-tight.

[hibsbollah]

But none of that really matters, does it? The viewing figures were apparently c. 8 million. If, and it's a big if, half a percent of those watching felt strongly enough (or sympathetic) about the experience in favour of Griffin, the B.N.P. have more than doubled their membership.

I think its a lot more likely that they would have lost membership after last nights fiasco:faf: You worry too much mate:wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Unfair. 'Shouting down' is no more a trademark of the left than the right. Tony Benn is impeccably courteous and someone slightly to the right of Genghis Khan like David Starkey clearly isnt. It depends on the individual.

Wasn't thinking so much of individuals, but of groups. When I were a lad at college many Junes ago there would always be numbers of people anxious one way or another to stop right-wingers being heard. It was never, in my experience, the other way round. Not sure if that's changed over the years. But don't have the stats. Maybe genuine hard lefties are eliminated by the State/BBC before they ever get to the stage of being able to speak publicly.

[lapsedhibee]

Ah, sorry. I was labouring under the misapprehension that the case against fascism was pretty water-tight.

If all the things that you think are watertight were actually watertight, you wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing for them, would you? You could rest easy in the knowledge that a majority of voters would see things clearly enough to see off the likes of Nick Griffin and the BNP. They're either not as watertight as you think, or the majority of voters is not capable. Which is it? :dunno:

[(((Fergus)))]

Wasn't thinking so much of individuals, but of groups. When I were a lad at college many Junes ago there would always be numbers of people anxious one way or another to stop right-wingers being heard. It was never, in my experience, the other way round. Not sure if that's changed over the years. But don't have the stats. Maybe genuine hard lefties are eliminated by the State/BBC before they ever get to the stage of being able to speak publicly.

When I was a lad, it was the communists who were the worst - total control freaks. Then again, when my dad was a boy, it was the nazis.

Go far enough left and you come out on the far right.

[Woody1985]

When I was a lad, it was the communists who were the worst - total control freaks. Then again, when my dad was a boy, it was the nazis.

Go far enough left and you come out on the far right.

:top marks

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think its a lot more likely that they would have lost membership after last nights fiasco:faf: You worry too much mate:wink:

I wouldn't be so sure. Have a glance round at BBC Have Your Say and various newspaper comments sections - I think you'll be surprised.


If all the things that you think are watertight were actually watertight, you wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing for them, would you? You could rest easy in the knowledge that a majority of voters would see things clearly enough to see off the likes of Nick Griffin and the BNP. They're either not as watertight as you think, or the majority of voters is not capable. Which is it? :dunno:

But they're not the only options, are they - you've just decided they are.

The case against fascism is watertight (I'm sure you'll agree?) but that doesn't mean it won't rear it's head from time to time and it certainly doesn't mean that it shouldn't be challenged at any and every opportunity.

That entire post is replete with false logic.

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------


When I was a lad, it was the communists who were the worst - total control freaks. Then again, when my dad was a boy, it was the nazis.

Go far enough left and you come out on the far right.

Only if you've got a fairly limited grasp of political philosophy and reality.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think its a lot more likely that they would have lost membership after last nights fiasco:faf: You worry too much mate:wink:

1. The majority of their voters wouldn't have known it was on.
2. The majority of their voters wouldn't have been able to concentrate long enough to know what was going on.
3. Even if the most skilled orator in the world had told them different they would still believe Nick.
4. The mainstream parties did very little to convince them that they were on their side.
5. The audience was hardly full of people the BNP voter identifies with, all the saw was an "ordinary bloke, 'oo talks common sense being picked on".
6. Why did they not just sit back and let Griffin dig himself into the sh*te. He was there for the taking, but they were all too keen to show how much they condemn him. Played right into his hands IMO.

It seems to me that BNP voters are not the thinking section of the population. They are quite happy to react to hearsay, if they think it will maintain their place in the tribe.

[lapsedhibee]

The case against fascism is watertight (I'm sure you'll agree?) but that doesn't mean it won't rear it's head from time to time and it certainly doesn't mean that it shouldn't be challenged at any and every opportunity.
I personally wouldn't vote for a British Fascist Party unless it had some stonking good policies in a very large number of areas which are close to my head and heart. But your interest doesn't appear to have been to challenge fascism when it rears its head - your interest, on this thread at least, has been to argue that it shouldn't be allowed to rear its head (by appearing on the tellybox).

I am still slightly confused about why you think it is perfectly acceptable for the BNP to be a party and stand in elections, and be elected, yet not appear on circus tellybox. Or do you not really think it is acceptable for them to be a party/stand in elections/be elected? I may have missed an explanation earlier. :confused:

[ChooseLife]

The guy got picked on last night, Straw was creaming himself whenever the audience applauded one of his emotional old man speeches and even the host tried to jump down his throat anytime he got the chance.

I thought the "while your old man was in jail" was quite genius considering the abuse he gets for being a "nazi".

[Woody1985]

The guy got picked on last night, Straw was creaming himself whenever the audience applauded one of his emotional old man speeches and even the host tried to jump down his throat anytime he got the chance.

I thought the "while your old man was in jail" was quite genius considering the abuse he gets for being a "nazi".

I wonder what JS's mother thought of the fact that Straw senior wouldn't fight the Nazi's given that her mother/father would have been Jewish. I think he said that he's 3rd generation Jewish. She can't have thought much of him after that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The guy got picked on last night, Straw was creaming himself whenever the audience applauded one of his emotional old man speeches and even the host tried to jump down his throat anytime he got the chance.

I thought the "while your old man was in jail" was quite genius considering the abuse he gets for being a "nazi".


I wonder what JS's mother thought of the fact that Straw senior wouldn't fight the Nazi's given that her mother/father would have been Jewish. I think he said that he's 3rd generation Jewish. She can't have thought much of him after that.

I think it takes a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector, and I thought the days when we regarded them as cowards, or lacking in the "right stuff" were in the past.

[BroxburnHibee]

I wonder what JS's mother thought of the fact that Straw senior wouldn't fight the Nazi's given that her mother/father would have been Jewish. I think he said that he's 3rd generation Jewish. She can't have thought much of him after that.

I thought Straw was absolutely terrible last night - and the only people to come out of last nights show pleased were NG himself and the shows producer.

The whole thing was designed to try and discredit the BNP - IMO it didn't work - there was too much emotion rather than trying to pin him down with his own distasteful quotes.

He got what he wanted - Dimbleby and the rest let him off lightly.

Of course his complaints are designed to get him and his party as much exposure as possible - its worked.

[Woody1985]

I think it takes a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector, and I thought the days when we regarded them as cowards, or lacking in the "right stuff" were in the past.

I bet it took a lot more courage to go and fight a formiddable and ruthless enemy with a great chance that you might never see your family again.

[Woody1985]

I thought Straw was absolutely terrible last night - and the only people to come out of last nights show pleased were NG himself and the shows producer.

The whole thing was designed to try and discredit the BNP - IMO it didn't work - there was too much emotion rather than trying to pin him down with his own distasteful quotes.

He got what he wanted - Dimbleby and the rest let him off lightly.

Of course his complaints are designed to get him and his party as much exposure as possible - its worked.

Agree, they certainly missed a trick last night. I think Dimbleby had to try and remain impartial to an extent to keep the integrity of the show. Admittedly, I only watch it now and again and can't say for sure whether he remains impartial on other occassions but IIRC he has when I've watched it.

[Green Mikey]

I bet it took a lot more courage to go and fight a formiddable and ruthless enemy with a great chance that you might never see your family again.

I don't understand how you can begin to judge people's courage and convictions from behind a computer 70 years after an event occurred. Let the men who did go to war to judge the ones who didn't and vice-versa.

[Woody1985]

I don't understand how you can begin to judge people's courage and convictions from behind a computer 70 years after an event occurred. Let the men who did go to war to judge the ones who didn't and vice-versa.

Perhaps so but I still think it took more courage to go and fight a fascist regime. There's no doubting that it would have been an extremely difficult decision but the right one IMO would be to stand up for what you believe in.

[hibsbollah]

I don't understand how you can begin to judge people's courage and convictions from behind a computer 70 years after an event occurred. Let the men who did go to war to judge the ones who didn't and vice-versa.

:agree:Being a consciencious objector took astonishing courage, from being targetted for abuse (the white feather treatment) by your peers in the community to facing prison or worse.

From most accounts of soldiers ive heard and read, going off to war with a gang of your mates was the easy bit, there was little need for 'courage'. And when it comes to actually pulling a trigger and not going mad under an artillery bombardment, some soldiers just couldnt deal with it, no matter how 'brave' they seemed in training. Sometimes the ones who were the most scared beforehand were the ones who coped with war better.

wow thats a bit off topic.

[hibsdaft]

I thought the "while your old man was in jail" was quite genius considering the abuse he gets for being a "nazi".

playground *****, i couldn't believe he came out with that nonsense "my dads harder than yr dad". wtf.

pathetic.

[(((Fergus)))]

playground *****, i couldn't believe he came out with that nonsense "my dads harder than yr dad". wtf.

pathetic.

I'm sure it will resonate though. It feeds the notion that chickenhawks like Jack Straw send people like Nick Griffin's father to fight and die on their behalf.

[GhostofBolivar]

Did the BBC not ban Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness from broadcasting on the airwaves? IIRC they used actors reading transcripts of their words.

It wasn't the BBC's decision, it was governmental.

[hibsdaft]

Ok, and you can read up on the trajectory of the F.N.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_National_%28France%29

whats yr point here LH?

the FN success in the mid 80s came with support from the French equivalent of the Tories. their early successes in local government elections were shortly followed by success in the Euro Elections of 1984 and yes this followed them appearing on mainstream national TV shows.

but the BNP have already had that sort of level of success without this TV coverage - "no platform" has failed, give it up.

and they've done this while being totally isolated politically, without the centre-right support the NF had. with the NF the isolation came after their initial success when in the late 80's the centre right refused to associate with them any longer - and this didn't affect the NF either.

if you're hinting at the over-hyped success that got the NF into the Presidential Run-Off in 2002 (with just 16% of the vote) was little to do with increased support for them but more to do with the failure of the Socialist Party to hold their core vote together in the first round (which Jospin recognised by resigning).

the interesting comparison between the success of the BNP and the NF is that both have have had electoral success whilst the centre-left has been in power. in France the Communist Party (PCF) vote of the 70s was almost halved in the 80s after the PCF albeit briefly, joined the Socialists in government and many PCF voters turned to the NF. the same dynamic has occurred in the UK as disillusioned Labour voters have slowly turned away from a party too committed to meeting the demands of neo-liberalism (aka the global economy) than the demands of their voter base and either abstained or in some cases, turned to the BNP.

[Betty Boop]

It wasn't the BBC's decision, it was governmental.

Ah Maggie Thatcher.

[Ed De Gramo]

There's no defence for 'Dick' Griffin...

Apparently the BNP memberships have grown by 3000....so says comments on an Anti-BNP video on YouTube...:grr:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I personally wouldn't vote for a British Fascist Party unless it had some stonking good policies in a very large number of areas which are close to my head and heart. But your interest doesn't appear to have been to challenge fascism when it rears its head - your interest, on this thread at least, has been to argue that it shouldn't be allowed to rear its head (by appearing on the tellybox).

I'll just be repeating things I've said which you've evidently ignored, but ho-hum.

'Arguing' with - sharing a platform - them on mainstream (and indeed other political views) news programme is not the only way to challenge fascism. That subscribes to a singularly unpleasant idea that political discourse and action only takes place within a media setting. All that serves to do, again as I've said already, is ensure that their views become part of a mainstream discourse. Dangerous, no?


I am still slightly confused about why you think it is perfectly acceptable for the BNP to be a party and stand in elections, and be elected, yet not appear on circus tellybox. Or do you not really think it is acceptable for them to be a party/stand in elections/be elected? I may have missed an explanation earlier. :confused:

Ah, so despite me saying I think they should be able to stand at elections you've decided that I was just lying.

Refusing to allow them to stand at elections would be an inherently anti-democratic act. Shutting down their website or denying them the opportunity to produce newspapers/pamphlets would be an explicit denial of free speech.

People refusing to share a platform with them, a public service broadcaster (lest we forget) refusing to let them onto a programme when they are in no way obligated to have them is not a denial of any democratic principle nor an infringement of any right. To say otherwise is spurious.

Christ, even John Stuart Mill would be in agreement with me! The right to free speech (in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - which is all important here) is the right not to have the state interfere to gag you. It isn't a positive right where the state is honour bound to give you a certain level of exposure once you gain a certain level of popular support. You keep attempting to characterise me as a despot, though.

I've asked this already but it's basically the crux of the matter. At what point did the right to free speech become the right to proselytise on a public service broadcaster?


whats yr point here LH?

the FN success in the mid 80s came with support from the French equivalent of the Tories. their early successes in local government elections were shortly followed by success in the Euro Elections of 1984 and yes this followed them appearing on mainstream national TV shows.

Interesting post, btw hibsdaft.

My point is that (and I've said it before in this thread) the B.N.P. are attempting to follow the lead of the F.N. down to the minor details.

Dissimulation, respectability, media coverage and a mainstreaming of not just themselves but of their favoured discourse (if this wasn't plain to see in the Q.T. discussion of immigration I don't know what was).

Le Pen described his 1984 appearance on L'Heure de Verite (as you say after gaining a level of support analogous to that of the B.N.P. now) as, "the hour that changed everything." The B.B.C. have given Griffin the chance to do the same.


but the BNP have already had that sort of level of success without this TV coverage - "no platform" has failed, give it up.

In what sense has it failed. Because they've gained some level of representation (bearing in mind that their vote didn't actually increase at any substantial level)? I fail to see how that's evidence of the defeat of the 'no platform' policy.

I'd say this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html

..is a far greater indication of the failure of the 'platform policy' (I hesitate to even call it a policy rather than just a self-indulgent rush for ratings).


and they've done this while being totally isolated politically, without the centre-right support the NF had. with the NF the isolation came after their initial success when in the late 80's the centre right refused to associate with them any longer - and this didn't affect the NF either.

That's not true, their T.V. appearances came after their 1984 success.

The censorship in the '90s came after a number of years of substantial media exposure. They had their foothold - both as a party and in terms of ideological and it was a case of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.


if you're hinting at the over-hyped success that got the NF into the Presidential Run-Off in 2002 (with just 16% of the vote) was little to do with increased support for them but more to do with the failure of the Socialist Party to hold their core vote together in the first round (which Jospin recognised by resigning). the interesting comparison between the success of the BNP and the NF is that both have have had electoral success whilst the centre-left has been in power. in France the Communist Party (PCF) vote of the 70s was almost halved in the 80s after the PCF albeit briefly, joined the Socialists in government and many PCF voters turned to the NF. the same dynamic has occurred in the UK as disillusioned Labour voters have slowly turned away from a party too committed to meeting the demands of neo-liberalism (aka the global economy) than the demands of their voter base and either abstained or in some cases, turned to the BNP.

Agreed, but the myth of Labour voters turning to the B.N.P. is exactly that - a myth. The Labour vote dropped off, agreed, but didn't turn to the B.N.P. in any sort of substantial number. B.N.P. voters and supporters are largely disaffected Tories.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2172

[lapsedhibee]

'Arguing' with - sharing a platform - them on mainstream (and indeed other political views) news programme is not the only way to challenge fascism. That subscribes to a singularly unpleasant idea that political discourse and action only takes place within a media setting. All that serves to do, again as I've said already, is ensure that their views become part of a mainstream discourse. Dangerous, no?

Might be 'dangerous' to rational people if there were any coherent policies attached. As there ain't, it would only be dangerous if voters can't be trusted.


Ah, so despite me saying I think they should be able to stand at elections you've decided that I was just lying.
Not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to make coherent sense of your stance.



People refusing to share a platform with them, a public service broadcaster (lest we forget) refusing to let them onto a programme when they are in no way obligated to have them is not a denial of any democratic principle nor an infringement of any right. To say otherwise is spurious.

Don't think anyone here was arguing that the BBC had to have the BNP on - a lot of people arguing that there was no good reason to exclude them, and that there might be good reason to include them (the 'give em rope' argument).


Christ, even John Stuart Mill would be in agreement with me! The right to free speech (in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - which is all important here) is the right not to have the state interfere to gag you. It isn't a positive right where the state is honour bound to give you a certain level of exposure once you gain a certain level of popular support. You keep attempting to characterise me as a despot, though.
Quite agree that the BNP have no right to spout their ***** on national TV, and there is no obligation on the BBC or any other broadcaster to facilitate this. However, everyone else gets to spout their ***** on TV, nearly all channels - so to actively prevent the BNP doing the same, you would need a good argument against it. As you might say, the onus is on you.
Whether you keep a lot of buses on the premises is of no concern to me.


I've asked this already but it's basically the crux of the matter. At what point did the right to free speech become the right to proselytise on a public service broadcaster?
Agree with your distinction, but don't believe it makes your case watertight.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Might be 'dangerous' to rational people if there were any coherent policies attached. As there ain't, it would only be dangerous if voters can't be trusted.

Nope, and I'm going to be repeating myself again.

Re. F.H.’s comments. This is one of the arguments I find really, really strange. The idea that the only possible danger of the rise of the B.N.P. is that they gain significant representation at Westminster or Griffin becomes P.M. - and, by extension, as this is inconceivable there’s not really any need to worry - is complete rubbish. This line means that it can all be treated as a piece of theatre/entertainment from which we can all gain a vicarious thrill. The real danger is that they gain a foothold in society and become a rallying point for people with certain beliefs. The B.B.C. have given them a foot-up in their desire to do this and in doing so have increased, to whatever extent, the potential danger for the groups which the B.N.P. despise. They haven’t followed through on their guidelines, they’ve breached them in a sickening desire for publicity and ratings.

And this is a bizarre logic, one million people have already voted for them. It's not got anything to do with 'not trusting' people.


Not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to make coherent sense of your stance.

Which has already been explained....and ignored.


Don't think anyone here was arguing that the BBC had to have the BNP on - a lot of people arguing that there was no good reason to exclude them, and that there might be good reason to include them (the 'give em rope' argument). Quite agree that the BNP have no right to spout their ***** on national TV, and there is no obligation on the BBC or any other broadcaster to facilitate this. However, everyone else gets to spout their ***** on TV, nearly all channels - so to actively prevent the BNP doing the same, you would need a good argument against it. As you might say, the onus is on you.

Firstly, I've already argued why I think the 'give 'em enough rope' argument is flawed. And going by the yougov poll it seems I've been proved right in the short term, we'll have to wait and see what happens in the longer term.

As for the broader point. I'm glad we've finally got it nailed down that denying them access to Q.T. would not have been an anti-democratic move nor an infringement of their right to free speech. That's progress!

And I think there are a number of arguments for therefore, on that basis, excluding them - ie. legal rather than politico-tactical arguments. As I keep saying, the Beeb is a public server broadcaster and there is nothing in their constitution (despite their lies to the contrary) that means they have to host them - as we've established. However, they do have 'trust' and 'compliance' guidelines which means they have to avoid disseminating views which are intended to cause great harm to sections of society. The B.N.P. seek to ethnically cleanse British society; I fail to see how this isn't an infringement.


Whether you keep a lot of buses on the premises is of no concern to me.

Tee-hee.


Agree with your distinction, but don't believe it makes your case watertight.

Very few arguments are 100% water-tight. Indeed, it's said to be a very bad sign if arguments are insulated against counter-arguments. Karl Popper and falsifiability, innit...

It's fairly clear to see I'm not exactly in the majority here but I think my arguments have been reasonably cogent.

[lapsedhibee]

And this is a bizarre logic, one million people have already voted for them. It's not got anything to do with 'not trusting' people.

If one million people have already voted for them and let's say another million people vote for them as a result of the clown's presence on the tellybox, the result is that two million people vote for them, which you for your own reasons can't appear to stomach. It's got everything to do with not trusting people to get things right imo. And I'm not saying it's wrong to be fearful about the tastes of voters in a democracy, but that's what it is, at heart.

The real danger is that they gain a foothold in society and become a rallying point for people with certain beliefs.
Why is this a danger? If their beliefs are as wrong as you believe, they will be a rallying point only for other people of similar beliefs, which are also wrong, and the beliefs of the combined group will never be adopted by enough right-thinking people to, for example, make racism legal. Surely you agree that there will always be a majority of right-thinking people sufficient to snuff out this 'danger'?


As for the broader point. I'm glad we've finally got it nailed down that denying them access to Q.T. would not have been an anti-democratic move nor an infringement of their right to free speech. That's progress!
No, you think that picking and choosing who to allow on the tellybox is democratic. I only agreed that the BBC is not obliged to present the BNP on their flagship circus (or anywhere else). Not being obliged to provide access and denying access are different.


And I think there are a number of arguments for therefore, on that basis, excluding them - ie. legal rather than politico-tactical arguments. As I keep saying, the Beeb is a public server broadcaster and there is nothing in their constitution (despite their lies to the contrary) that means they have to host them - as we've established. However, they do have 'trust' and 'compliance' guidelines which means they have to avoid disseminating views which are intended to cause great harm to sections of society. The B.N.P. seek to ethnically cleanse British society; I fail to see how this isn't an infringement.
Sad state of affairs, then, that none of the mainstream politicos who you (presumably) were content for the BBC to present to the public the other night were able to make this clear, given such a golden opportunity. Perhaps we should be far more worried about the calibre of existing politicians than the decision by a TV station to up its ratings for a week.


It's fairly clear to see I'm not exactly in the majority here but I think my arguments have been reasonably cogent.
Not been following every last detail of BNPgate, but did see Griffin being interviewed the day after his appearance on QT. He was blethering a load of pish about being stitched up by the BBC because QT was held in London and London is not a British city (or Londoners are not English enough, or the Thames is not pure enough, bla bla bla). In that single short statement, which he appeared to believe, he condemned himself at least as much as (and I think far more than) anyone in QT managed (except perhaps the token non-politico).
If Nick Griffin is the best that the BNP have to offer up to the public, and I am able to verify this for myself every so often through the magic of the tellybox, I will sleep very very soundly.

[Beefster]

Agreed, but the myth of Labour voters turning to the B.N.P. is exactly that - a myth. The Labour vote dropped off, agreed, but didn't turn to the B.N.P. in any sort of substantial number. B.N.P. voters and supporters are largely disaffected Tories.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2172

The article says that the BNP are doing well in Labour strongholds where the Labour vote is falling. Must be disaffected Tories voting for them then!

Here's contradicting analysis from YouGov:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/who+voted+bnp+and+why/3200557

But perhaps the most startling finding came when we tested anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true. As many as 59 per cent of BNP voters think that Labour "used to care about the concerns of people like me but doesn’t nowadays".

[Phil D. Rolls]

I bet it took a lot more courage to go and fight a formiddable and ruthless enemy with a great chance that you might never see your family again.

I suppose it depends on whether following your own conscience, against what everyone else says you should do, is easier than just going away as a conscript and doing what you are told.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If one million people have already voted for them and let's say another million people vote for them as a result of the clown's presence on the tellybox, the result is that two million people vote for them, which you for your own reasons can't appear to stomach. It's got everything to do with not trusting people to get things right imo. And I'm not saying it's wrong to be fearful about the tastes of voters in a democracy, but that's what it is, at heart.

No, and that's an incredibly simplisitc view of the way politics and ideology works. Especially with regard to the B.N.P. due to their F.N.-learnt policy of dissimulation.

If it was to do with a lack of trust or a fear that people would 'get it wrong' I'd want the Tories 'banned' from appearing on Question Time! :wink:


Why is this a danger? If their beliefs are as wrong as you believe, they will be a rallying point only for other people of similar beliefs, which are also wrong, and the beliefs of the combined group will never be adopted by enough right-thinking people to, for example, make racism legal. Surely you agree that there will always be a majority of right-thinking people sufficient to snuff out this 'danger'?

You don't want to snuff it out, you want to create an atmosphere in which it will flourish.

You also keep cutting out large parts of my posts and taking sentences on their own terms rather than as a part of a coherent argument. There's not a lot of point continuing the debate if you're going to keep doing that.


No, you think that picking and choosing who to allow on the tellybox is democratic. I only agreed that the BBC is not obliged to present the BNP on their flagship circus (or anywhere else). Not being obliged to provide access and denying access are different.

I didn't say it was democratic, I said it wasn't anti-democratic and wasn't an infringement of any right to free speech. You had seemingly agreed with that in a previous post. Oh well...


Sad state of affairs, then, that none of the mainstream politicos who you (presumably) were content for the BBC to present to the public the other night were able to make this clear, given such a golden opportunity. Perhaps we should be far more worried about the calibre of existing politicians than the decision by a TV station to up its ratings for a week.

This was your response to the passage in which I suggested an argument as to why it was immoral and a possible breach of their own rules? Again, you haven't responded to that and have focussed on two words of the passage, with a fairly pointless commentary.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but you just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.


Not been following every last detail of BNPgate, but did see Griffin being interviewed the day after his appearance on QT. He was blethering a load of pish about being stitched up by the BBC because QT was held in London and London is not a British city (or Londoners are not English enough, or the Thames is not pure enough, bla bla bla). In that single short statement, which he appeared to believe, he condemned himself at least as much as (and I think far more than) anyone in QT managed (except perhaps the token non-politico).

Again, I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything I've said.


If Nick Griffin is the best that the BNP have to offer up to the public, and I am able to verify this for myself every so often through the magic of the tellybox, I will sleep very very soundly.

Ok.


The article says that the BNP are doing well in Labour strongholds where the Labour vote is falling. Must be disaffected Tories voting for them then!

Here's contradicting analysis from YouGov:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/who+voted+bnp+and+why/3200557

But perhaps the most startling finding came when we tested anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true. As many as 59 per cent of BNP voters think that Labour "used to care about the concerns of people like me but doesn’t nowadays".

Er, no, that's the same poll. The conclusions that, in the main, BNP voters are people who's parents and families voted Labour but who are themselves more inclined to the Conservatives.

If BNP supporters are traditional Labour, male working class voters therefore, the natural conclusion that it’s Labour they are taking support from. This falls down, however, on some other questions – asked if they’d rather have Cameron or Brown as PM, BNP voters opt for Cameron by 59% to 17%. Asked to place themselves on the political spectrum they put themselves right of centre, in roughly the same place as they do the Tories. 22% of them think the Tories care about people like themselves, only 6% say the same about Labour. In short, the people the BNP seem to appeal to are actually “working class Tories” – the sort of traditional working class voters who under other circumstances might shift over to the Conservatives.

[Beefster]

Er, no, that's the same poll. The conclusions that, in the main, BNP voters are people who's parents and families voted Labour but who are themselves more inclined to the Conservatives.

If BNP supporters are traditional Labour, male working class voters therefore, the natural conclusion that it’s Labour they are taking support from. This falls down, however, on some other questions – asked if they’d rather have Cameron or Brown as PM, BNP voters opt for Cameron by 59% to 17%. Asked to place themselves on the political spectrum they put themselves right of centre, in roughly the same place as they do the Tories. 22% of them think the Tories care about people like themselves, only 6% say the same about Labour. In short, the people the BNP seem to appeal to are actually “working class Tories” – the sort of traditional working class voters who under other circumstances might shift over to the Conservatives.

So you agree that they're, historically, Labour voters who, instead of moving to the Tories to signal their disillusionment, are moving to the BNP. A little bit different to the spin that they're actually Tories.

Glad we cleared that up.

[LiverpoolHibs]

So you agree that they're, historically, Labour voters who, instead of moving to the Tories to signal their disillusionment, are moving to the BNP. A little bit different to the spin that they're actually Tories.

Glad we cleared that up.

No, they are people who come from traditionally Labour supporting families yet are themselves more inclined to be supportive, and to vote for, the Conservative Party. I thought I'd just said that, how odd....

It's backed up by the pretty extensive report by the Democratic Audit.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/breaking-news/BNP-Full-Report.pdf

[greenlex]

No, they are people who come from traditionally Labour supporting families yet are themselves more inclined to be supportive, and to vote for, the Conservative Party. I thought I'd just said that, how odd....

It's backed up by the pretty extensive report by the Democratic Audit.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/breaking-news/BNP-Full-Report.pdf
This idea that families vote en mass for a particular political party makes me smile.

[Woody1985]

I suppose it depends on whether following your own conscience, against what everyone else says you should do, is easier than just going away as a conscript and doing what you are told.

Wouldn't it have been great if all of the soldiers took this stance. Ahh, **** it, can't be arsed/too scared to fight facism this week.

Now, before I come across (if I haven't already) too cold hearted, don't tell me that it takes more courage to stay here in a cell whilst millions of other men go and defend the country, many never to see their wives, children, families and friends ever again and die slow and painful deaths on battlefields in the middle of nowhere with not enough experience or resources to help each other. Never in a million years.

I've been watching some of that program (the name escapes me) on the channel Yesterday channel and it has first hand accounts from surviving soldiers who had to go through some terrible stuff and to say that it takes more courage to stay here in wrong IMO.

[lapsedhibee]

You also keep cutting out large parts of my posts and taking sentences on their own terms rather than as a part of a coherent argument. There's not a lot of point continuing the debate if you're going to keep doing that.
No intention to misrepresent/distort - probly just missing out the parts that I agreed with or are uncontroversial.


Apologies if I'm wrong, but you just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
O no am no! :grr:



Again, I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything I've said.
"Does everything have to be about you?" G. House :wink:

I don't necessarily apologise for picking away at bits of your argument. As on the frequent threads about racism on this board, where it's obvious that the word, though it's universally used pejoratively, means utterly different things to different people, fascism is an even more woolly concept. Before I cast my vote in the next election I would like to get a better understanding of exactly why people think the BNP are fascists. You seem to care about the subject and have views on these and related subjects. Nick Griffin doesn't seem to me be to be a Nazi, but an idiot. I agree there could be a danger to the traditional British way of life if the BNP are unfolding a cunning plan such as deliberately electing a halfwit as leader, getting him on national TV and thereby lulling the public into thinking they are all harmless clowns, while waiting in the wings is an intelligent ruthless dictator. Is that what they're doing?
:angeldevi

[Beefster]

No, they are people who come from traditionally Labour supporting families yet are themselves more inclined to be supportive, and to vote for, the Conservative Party. I thought I'd just said that, how odd....

It's backed up by the pretty extensive report by the Democratic Audit.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/breaking-news/BNP-Full-Report.pdf

"shift over to the Conservatives"

"anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true."

I'm still bemused how you can take it to mean that they are Tories. The first quote above - if the voters would normally shift over to the Tories, rather than the BNP, where are they coming from? Lib Dems? Greens? English Democrats? The second one - well, there's not much I can add to that one.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Betty Boop]

BNP Exposed The Secret Agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77p1ZCKT5KQ

[Phil D. Rolls]

Wouldn't it have been great if all of the soldiers took this stance. Ahh, **** it, can't be arsed/too scared to fight facism this week.

Now, before I come across (if I haven't already) too cold hearted, don't tell me that it takes more courage to stay here in a cell whilst millions of other men go and defend the country, many never to see their wives, children, families and friends ever again and die slow and painful deaths on battlefields in the middle of nowhere with not enough experience or resources to help each other. Never in a million years.

I've been watching some of that program (the name escapes me) on the channel Yesterday channel and it has first hand accounts from surviving soldiers who had to go through some terrible stuff and to say that it takes more courage to stay here in wrong IMO.

I think courage is a very personal thing, so what I consider brave someone else might not. My original point was that it was not cowardly for people to stand up for what they believed to be right, and it was not (IMO) brave for some people to accept conscription then spend the war avoiding action.

What is brave is to make a decision which might result in harm to you in the belief that it is the right course of action to take. Just as some people are brave enough to fight, some others are brave enough not to.

Neither can be right or wrong, what is wrong is to condemn someone for cowardice when a) it maybe took a lot of soul searching and inner conflict to make their decision, and b) when it was far from an easy option to endure prison, and the ongoing contempt of those around you - to the extent that 60 years later your son is still having to wear the "badge of shame".

Unfortunately life isn't as simple as the likes of the Victor and the Hornet had those of us above a certain age believe when we were growing up.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This idea that families vote en mass for a particular political party makes me smile.

Righty-o.


No intention to misrepresent/distort - probly just missing out the parts that I agreed with or are uncontroversial.

O no am no! :grr:

"Does everything have to be about you?" G. House :wink:

I don't necessarily apologise for picking away at bits of your argument. As on the frequent threads about racism on this board, where it's obvious that the word, though it's universally used pejoratively, means utterly different things to different people, fascism is an even more woolly concept. Before I cast my vote in the next election I would like to get a better understanding of exactly why people think the BNP are fascists. You seem to care about the subject and have views on these and related subjects. Nick Griffin doesn't seem to me be to be a Nazi, but an idiot. I agree there could be a danger to the traditional British way of life if the BNP are unfolding a cunning plan such as deliberately electing a halfwit as leader, getting him on national TV and thereby lulling the public into thinking they are all harmless clowns, while waiting in the wings is an intelligent ruthless dictator. Is that what they're doing?

I think he is a Nazi in the traditional sense, he is - explicitly - a believer in national socialism. On Question Time he did pretty well in dissasociating himself from national socialism and fascism, largely because everyone on the panel failed to force the point home - as they were always going to. All they suceeded in doing was illustrating certain inconsistencies by Griffin rather than anyone offering an explanantion and analysis of the way that fascism works.

And there's nothing wooly about the ideology of fascism, it's just that there are as many currents within it as there are within, say, liberal democracy.

Then you have to understand the policy of dissimulation, which has been my point in the comparisons with Le Pen and the F.N. Read some of his quotes prior to the adoption of dissimulation.


"shift over to the Conservatives"

"anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them. It turns out to be true."

I'm still bemused how you can take it to mean that they are Tories. The first quote above - if the voters would normally shift over to the Tories, rather than the BNP, where are they coming from? Lib Dems? Greens? English Democrats? The second one - well, there's not much I can add to that one.

Let's just agree to disagree.

They are Tories because they consistently identify themselves as such.

Furthermore, from the Democratic Audit...

Our analysis also suggests that the BNP gains its electoral support from all three of the largest parties, and not just Labour; and in fact that it gains most from the Conservatives and least from Labour. We investigated the relationship between support for the BNP and the change in support between 1999 and 2003 for the three largest parties, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour. First, we found that the BNP was more likely to have a presence in areas where one or more of all three larger parties did less well than in 1999. In wards where the BNP stood, we also found three negative correlations between its electoral support and that for the three parties, varying from –0.251 for the Conservatives to -0.117 for Labour. These figures suggest that the BNP appear to be gaining their support from all three parties, but most from Conservatives and least from Labour.

[Sir David Gray]

If BNP supporters are traditional Labour, male working class voters therefore, the natural conclusion that it’s Labour they are taking support from. This falls down, however, on some other questions – asked if they’d rather have Cameron or Brown as PM, BNP voters opt for Cameron by 59% to 17%. Asked to place themselves on the political spectrum they put themselves right of centre, in roughly the same place as they do the Tories. 22% of them think the Tories care about people like themselves, only 6% say the same about Labour. In short, the people the BNP seem to appeal to are actually “working class Tories” – the sort of traditional working class voters who under other circumstances might shift over to the Conservatives.

Surely if they're disaffected Labour voters, as I think a lot of BNP supporters are, then they may have a grudge against the Labour party since they think that Labour is traditionally "their" party but no longer speaks for them and has betrayed them and turned their back on them over the past few years. So in a straight choice between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, it's maybe no surprise that the majority chose Cameron to be PM. Since Brown must be one of the least popular PM's for quite some time, it really can't be difficult for the other person to come out on top of that poll, so I don't think you can read too much into that particular stat.

Labour are, traditionally, the main party for the working class. That may no longer be the case but that is their roots and in their origins. The Tories are the party of the middle/upper classes. The BNP claims to represent the "indigenous" white working class. Nick Griffin has even described himself as a "national socialist". If you take away the word "national", someone who is a socialist is generally either working class themselves or is someone who represents the working class.

I really can't see too many disaffected Conservative voters changing their allegiances over to the BNP. I would say that, if anything, they are more likely to go to UKIP instead.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Surely if they're disaffected Labour voters, as I think a lot of BNP supporters are, then they may have a grudge against the Labour party since they think that Labour is traditionally "their" party but no longer speaks for them and has betrayed them and turned their back on them over the past few years. So in a straight choice between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, it's maybe no surprise that the majority chose Cameron to be PM. Since Brown must be one of the least popular PM's for quite some time, it really can't be difficult for the other person to come out on top of that poll, so I don't think you can read too much into that particular stat.

Labour are, traditionally, the main party for the working class. That may no longer be the case but that is their roots and in their origins. The Tories are the party of the middle/upper classes. The BNP claims to represent the "indigenous" white working class. Nick Griffin has even described himself as a "national socialist". If you take away the word "national", someone who is a socialist is generally either working class themselves or is someone who represents the working class.

I really can't see too many disaffected Conservative voters changing their allegiances over to the BNP. I would say that, if anything, they are more likely to go to UKIP instead.

They felt let-down by Labour moving to the right and so move further to the right?

For the rest, see the post above.

[Beefster]

They felt let-down by Labour moving to the right and so move further to the right?

For the rest, see the post above.

Not everyone frames real life in right and left wing.

I'm sure that some folk think "Labour have had 12 years and immigration is out of control. I know, I'll support the BNP who have said that they'll stop it stone dead."

If they don't see the BNP as racist, do you think they care if they are extreme right-wing or not?