Question Time was good...........

[lyonhibs]

........... better than I was expecting. Here was the culmination of Nick Griffin's week in the sun - massive TV audience, and a golden opportunity to convince floating voters.

In my opinion, he failed so spectacularly, I could hardly believe my own eyes. He hadn't done his research, his version of the anthropological history of the human race is so warped it hardly merits a mention, he was a snivelling, backed into a corner, wretched little toad tonight.

I was expecting something racist and bigotted, and we got that, but I thought he might have managed to be lucid and barnstorming at the same time.

That man couldn't lead a squadron of ducks across a stream based on tonights performance. He was hardly faced with a glittering illuminati of 21st century politics, but even they had him tripping over his tongue - what was he on about radio intercepts convincing him to change his mind about the Holocaust :confused:

Bizarre, terrible and wonderfully compulsive viewing all at the same time.

[Ed De Gramo]

........... better than I was expecting. Here was the culmination of Nick Griffin's week in the sun - massive TV audience, and a golden opportunity to convince floating voters.

In my opinion, he failed so spectacularly, I could hardly believe my own eyes. He hadn't done his research, his version of the anthropological history of the human race is so warped it hardly merits a mention, he was a snivelling, backed into a corner, wretched little toad tonight.

I was expecting something racist and bigotted, and we got that, but I thought he might have managed to be lucid and barnstorming at the same time.

That man couldn't lead a squadron of ducks across a stream based on tonights performance. He was hardly faced with a glittering illuminati of 21st century politics, but even they had him tripping over his tongue - what was he on about radio intercepts convincing him to change his mind about the Holocaust :confused:

Bizarre, terrible and wonderfully compulsive viewing all at the same time.

Compulsive viewing and it was good to see 'Dick Griffin' squirm.

His arrogance and laughing through serious questions was cringeworthy

[the_ginger_hibee]

........... better than I was expecting. Here was the culmination of Nick Griffin's week in the sun - massive TV audience, and a golden opportunity to convince floating voters.

In my opinion, he failed so spectacularly, I could hardly believe my own eyes. He hadn't done his research, his version of the anthropological history of the human race is so warped it hardly merits a mention, he was a snivelling, backed into a corner, wretched little toad tonight.

I was expecting something racist and bigotted, and we got that, but I thought he might have managed to be lucid and barnstorming at the same time.

That man couldn't lead a squadron of ducks across a stream based on tonights performance. He was hardly faced with a glittering illuminati of 21st century politics, but even they had him tripping over his tongue - what was he on about radio intercepts convincing him to change his mind about the Holocaust :confused:

Bizarre, terrible and wonderfully compulsive viewing all at the same time.

Quite...

He 'lost' tonight. The furore surrounding this will be the only saving grace for his party, because his performance tonight wasn't up to much.

[lucky]

It shows that the BNP must be debated with and exposed for the **** they are. NG failed miserably tonight and hopefully the near 1 million people who voted for his party will have a greater understanding of their vile policies.

[GhostofBolivar]

Bonnie Greer was brilliant. The way she squashed him over his selective view of history was fantastic.


When Rome left those people were left behind. What happened to them? Do you think they hooked up with your indigenous ice-age Britons, Nick?

:top marks

[CRAZYHIBBY]

i actually agreed with some of his points regarding Immigration, im not for hounding people out because of their race but i do believe there should be a serious reduction on the numbers coming here, as was said last night this country is suffering from mass unemployment yet they continue to let more people in who in turn rake in hundreds if not thousands in benefits,

[Beefster]

I'm not convinced that, to the people who would ever consider voting for the BNP, it went as badly as we are all saying. There was no real debate on BNP policies other than to keep raising racist/Islamophobic/etc things that Griffin has said.

[GlesgaeHibby]

i actually agreed with some of his points regarding Immigration, im not for hounding people out because of their race but i do believe there should be a serious reduction on the numbers coming here, as was said last night this country is suffering from mass unemployment yet they continue to let more people in who in turn rake in hundreds if not thousands in benefits,

That is exactly why the BNP had so much success in June. The general voting public are fed up with this Labour Governments track record on immigration.

Just this week they have lost 40,000 immigrants in the system.

As good as it was to see Nick Griffin being exposed and trod on last night, it was painfully annoying that Jack Straw still cannot grasp the fact that apathy towards the BNP has in part, stemmed from his governments weak and hopeless immigration policy.

None of us are against immigration (I would hope) BUT we have to restrict numbers, have a points based system like other countries adopt, because at the moment we are a soft target and we are being exploited.

We must be one of the only countries in the world where you can immigrate into with nothing to offer, and be able to jump right onto our benefits system.

[Betty Boop]

That is exactly why the BNP had so much success in June. The general voting public are fed up with this Labour Governments track record on immigration.

Just this week they have lost 40,000 immigrants in the system.

As good as it was to see Nick Griffin being exposed and trod on last night, it was painfully annoying that Jack Straw still cannot grasp the fact that apathy towards the BNP has in part, stemmed from his governments weak and hopeless immigration policy.

None of us are against immigration (I would hope) BUT we have to restrict numbers, have a points based system like other countries adopt, because at the moment we are a soft target and we are being exploited.

We must be one of the only countries in the world where you can immigrate into with nothing to offer, and be able to jump right onto our benefits system.

We already have a points based system, which is being phased in over two years, it started in 2008. :agree:

http://www.ukimmigration.com/five-tier-points-based-system-overview.htm

[lyonhibs]

That is exactly why the BNP had so much success in June. The general voting public are fed up with this Labour Governments track record on immigration.

Just this week they have lost 40,000 immigrants in the system.

As good as it was to see Nick Griffin being exposed and trod on last night, it was painfully annoying that Jack Straw still cannot grasp the fact that apathy towards the BNP has in part, stemmed from his governments weak and hopeless immigration policy.

None of us are against immigration (I would hope) BUT we have to restrict numbers, have a points based system like other countries adopt, because at the moment we are a soft target and we are being exploited.

We must be one of the only countries in the world where you can immigrate into with nothing to offer, and be able to jump right onto our benefits system.


If you mean restricting numbers through a "quota" system - a la Tories - then that is a fundementally flawed procedure, as it's all so arbitrary. What number do you set as the maximum, and how would they arrive at this number??

What "categories" of immigrants would fall into what quota?? Would it be done on nationality, or age, or gender, or previous qualifications?? (and I'd love to see how qualifications from far-flung countries could either be verified or converted into a UK equivalent)

This is before getting into the comically astronomical policing costs of such a system - with so many legal entry points into the UK, airports, ferry ports, the Channel Tunnel, combined with any given UK Governments' inability - seemingly - to run an integrated and water-tight records system, it would be near on impossible for these quotas to be adhered to.

To give a stylised example, if Government X set a limit of 100,000 immigrants (like I say, I don't know how they would arrive at that figure, and who would be valid for inclusion in that figure, but lets leave aside those wee niggles) and number 100,000 arrives on a flight into Heathrow. Then, 10 minutes later, another flight from somewhere else arrives into Glasgow, carrying immigrants who are applicable - with the paperwork etc - for inclusion in the quota.

Does anyone REALLY think the system in place would be joined-up enough for customs at Glasgow to be able to look at the quota, realise that is has been filled, and go "no, sorry pal, number 100,000 just got off the 9.50 from New Delhi down in London. You'll have to go back to your country of origin".

Not in a million years, and - who knows - the quota could have been exceeded by 10-20% (again, purely speculating here) before the Government went "woah, that quotas full, only let in people that are eligible for Quota type B". That makes a mockery of the whole point of setting up concrete quotas in the first place.

An Australian style points system is a better idea in theory, but comes up against the persisting problem of how to ratify and quantify degrees/qualifications from all over the world and convert them into a points system that is fair to all applicants??

I assume the applicants would have to "get" their points before attempting to enter the country. Would this be done online?? A lot of people wishing to emigrate to the UK can't just tap into their broadband Wi-fi! Would it be done via interview at the countries UK Consulate?? What if that UK consulate is hundreds, or thousands, of miles from a prospective applicants home, and that applicant's financial situation, or the countries public transport system, mean that he/she has no feasible way of getting to the UK Consulate??

It's a god-awful minefield, is immigration, but I entirely agree that this awarding of short-term visas whose owners cannot be traced when the visa runs out is a massive hole in the system.

[(((Fergus)))]

I thought he was just shouted down whenever he was making a point that may or may not have been valid. The trouble with the BNP is that they have identified and are addressing a problem that is very real to a large part of the population - many of whom do not let on publicly due to the taboo. The BNP may not be addressing this problem in the correct way but at least they are not in denial about it.

As for Griffin's point about the indigenous British people, which many in the audience laughed at: is his position any different from that of Tibetan nationalists who wish to preserve their culture from the influx of Han Chinese? Or Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans? I suppose those people have our sympathy because they were subjugated by force (often by us, hence a guilty conscience) whereas the dilution in Britain is happening through legislation. Is there any difference in the result though?

[Woody1985]

We already have a points based system, which is being phased in over two years, it started in 2008. :agree:

http://www.ukimmigration.com/five-tier-points-based-system-overview.htm

This is for non-eu citizens though. The vast majority of immigration is made up of EU members. I'm correct in saying that the points system does not relate to EU members.

[Green Mikey]

I thought he was just shouted down whenever he was making a point that may or may not have been valid. The trouble with the BNP is that they have identified and are addressing a problem that is very real to a large part of the population - many of whom do not let on publicly due to the taboo. The BNP may not be addressing this problem in the correct way but at least they are not in denial about it.

As for Griffin's point about the indigenous British people, which many in the audience laughed at: is his position any different from that of Tibetan nationalists who wish to preserve their culture from the influx of Han Chinese? Or Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans? I suppose those people have our sympathy because they were subjugated by force (often by us, hence a guilty conscience) whereas the dilution in Britain is happening through legislation. Is there any difference in the result though?

The BNP are not addressing any issues. They are using the current government's poor track record on immigration to furthert agenda of a whiteonly society. In no way does stopping all immigration, sending immigrants home and denying the holocaust address any issues currently facing the UK.

Britain has not been invaded, occupied or oppressed in any way. Tibetans, Aborgines and Native American had their land taken from them and have been treated as an underclass by foreign oppressors for centuries. In no way are these comparable to modern Britain. Your grasp of history seems to be a strong as Nick Griffin's.

[lyonhibs]

This is for non-eu citizens though. The vast majority of immigration is made up of EU members. I'm correct in saying that the points system does not relate to EU members.

I'm sure I read something about it applying to the newest EU countries - i.e. Romania and Bulgaria, and that it would apply to future EU countries.

This - as far as I can see - directly contravenes one of the main tenets of the EU Founding charter which is that labour should be allowed to move freely across EU borders.

Am I missing something here?? We cannot - as much as the Daily Mail et al would like us to - "shut up shop"/"slam the door shut" etc etc to EU immigrants because - errrr - they are from the EU.

Is the above statement right or am I talking baws??

[Woody1985]

I'm sure I read something about it applying to the newest EU countries - i.e. Romania and Bulgaria, and that it would apply to future EU countries.

This - as far as I can see - directly contravenes one of the main tenets of the EU Founding charter which is that labour should be allowed to move freely across EU borders.

Am I missing something here?? We cannot - as much as the Daily Mail et al would like us to - "shut up shop"/"slam the door shut" etc etc to EU immigrants because - errrr - they are from the EU.

Is the above statement right or am I talking baws??

I was under the impression that it can only apply to non-EU members and that you're correct in saying that it cannot apply to EU members. Therefore, we may not have the option to restrict immigration.

TBH I think there is a certain selfishness by British people. The British people have worked hard to build (what was previously) a rich nation that provided excellent public services to everyone here. It now has the feeling that those from poorer countries are just going to flock here and take advantage of the work of generations of Brits (white or not I might add).

Public services etc are at breaking point (not due to immigration but no doubt has played some part) and people are fearing for theirs and their families futures. We're already seeing divisions in communities where you have immigrants setting up in certain areas. If immigrants are coming here we need to make sure they are integrating with existing society but it would appear that is becoming difficult due to the rate it is happening.

It would be interesting to see some information on the economic benefit low skilled workers bring to a nation during a recession. Are local people more likely to do previously undesireable jobs than they wouldn't have done before now that they are out of work? Does anyone know where you can get this type of information?

I believe the government provided information to the effect that immigration in this country recently has seen no fiscal benefit i.e immigrants use less than or = to the amount of resources they put in.

[Beefster]

This is for non-eu citizens though. The vast majority of immigration is made up of EU members. I'm correct in saying that the points system does not relate to EU members.

It doesn't and, AFAIK, it cannot, based on the current European law.

[IWasThere2016]

I'm not convinced that, to the people who would ever consider voting for the BNP, it went as badly as we are all saying. There was no real debate on BNP policies other than to keep raising racist/Islamophobic/etc things that Griffin has said.

:agree: As much as Griffin is a baffoon there was too little emphasis on his party's 'policies' - that would have really exposed him and the BNP.

It was strangely compelling viewing though ..

[(((Fergus)))]

The BNP are not addressing any issues. They are using the current government's poor track record on immigration to furthert agenda of a whiteonly society. In no way does stopping all immigration, sending immigrants home and denying the holocaust address any issues currently facing the UK.

As I said, they may not be addressing it in the correct way. They are however addressing this problem while other parties say there is no problem.


Britain has not been invaded, occupied or oppressed in any way. Tibetans, Aborgines and Native American had their land taken from them and have been treated as an underclass by foreign oppressors for centuries. In no way are these comparable to modern Britain.

As I said, those cultures were diluted by military force rather than legal force (which is underwritten by military power, so essentially it's the same), my question is: is the resulting dilution of national identity not the same? Tibetan nationalists aren't fighting to bring back the dead or to punish their oppressors, they are fighting to regain control of their homeland.

[Beefster]

:agree: As much as Griffin is a baffoon there was too little emphasis on his party's 'policies' - that would have really exposed him and the BNP.

It was strangely compelling viewing though ..

I notice that Griffin is skillfully playing the victim today too. In a sense he's right though, the format was changed for his appearance and there was little to no discussion on the 'issues of the day'.

He's still a racist, homophobic, deluded bawsack though.

[Hainan Hibs]

I would've thought Nick Griffin would've prepared as much as he could for this, but he looked nervous, constantly wriggling about not having a clue what to do, even having an embarassing clap along when Greer ripped him apart.

However, the pitchfork pantomime attack on him wasn't very good either, maybe Straw and co could've had a constructive attack on Griffin and the BNP instead of trying to look "cool" because they look at videos on youtube.

Griffin didn't come across well, but the other's on the show didn't exactly set the heather on fire, especially when Straw squirmed about when asked about Immigration.

[Killiehibbie]

I notice that Griffin is skillfully playing the victim today too. In a sense he's right though, the format was changed for his appearance and there was little to no discussion on the 'issues of the day'.

He's still a racist, homophobic, deluded bawsack though.

That was my impression as well. Why did they not have a discussion and just let him open his big fat gob in the way he did when asked about homosexuality? I'm sure we would've heard more if he'd been in general conversation mode.

[(((Fergus)))]

Public services etc are at breaking point (not due to immigration but no doubt has played some part) and people are fearing for theirs and their families futures. We're already seeing divisions in communities where you have immigrants setting up in certain areas. If immigrants are coming here we need to make sure they are integrating with existing society but it would appear that is becoming difficult due to the rate it is happening.


Do you mean assimilation? If so, it takes centuries to do that. Even the Irish and Italians aren't fully assimilated after 100-150 years and the class divide can in part be traced back to the Normans (at least). Many immigrant groups such as the jews and the muslims are (rightly IMO) very wary of assimilation.

Are there any other forms of "integration" other than the ghetto/Chinatown?

[(((Fergus)))]

I would've thought Nick Griffin would've prepared as much as he could for this, but he looked nervous, constantly wriggling about not having a clue what to do, even having an embarassing clap along when Greer ripped him apart.

However, the pitchfork pantomime attack on him wasn't very good either, maybe Straw and co could've had a constructive attack on Griffin and the BNP instead of trying to look "cool" because they look at videos on youtube.

Griffin didn't come across well, but the other's on the show didn't exactly set the heather on fire, especially when Straw squirmed about when asked about Immigration.

Good assessment. The other panelists didn't address, in a rational manner, the issues that make people vote for the BNP. It was basically just "burn the witch"from start to finish.

[Green Mikey]

As I said, they may not be addressing it in the correct way. They are however addressing this problem while other parties say there is no problem.



As I said, those cultures were diluted by military force rather than legal force (which is underwritten by military power, so essentially it's the same), my question is: is the resulting dilution of national identity not the same? Tibetan nationalists aren't fighting to bring back the dead or to punish their oppressors, they are fighting to regain control of their homeland.

The BNP are a party founded on racist principles therefore they will always be concerned with immigration. However, I don't understand how they are an addressing immigration issues through racist, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-semitic policies. What do you believe they are doing to to address this problem? IMO they are using current immigration issues and anti-government sentiment as a means to extend their degenerate ideals on to a greater platform and thus encourage prevoiusly unreachable degenerates to vote for them.

In what way do you believe that our national identity has been diluted? Do you agree with inter-race marriage?

'Fighting to regain control of their homeland'....do you believe that we have to fight to regain control of our homeland? If so by what means and who are we to fight?

[(((Fergus)))]

The BNP are a party founded on racist principles therefore they will always be concerned with immigration. However, I don't understand how they are an addressing immigration issues through racist, xenophobic, homophobic and anti-semitic policies. What do you believe they are doing to to address this problem? IMO they are using current immigration issues and anti-government sentiment as a means to extend their degenerate ideals on to a greater platform and thus encourage prevoiusly unreachable degenerates to vote for them.

In what way do you believe that our national identity has been diluted? Do you agree with inter-race marriage?

'Fighting to regain control of their homeland'....do you believe that we have to fight to regain control of our homeland? If so by what means and who are we to fight?

I couldn't give a ****** if Britain was black, white, green or orange. I am merely trying to understand the people who vote BNP rather than just dismissing them.

[lyonhibs]

To be honest, whilst folk are criticising the other parties for not pressing the issue on health, education etc etc, such questions directed to Nick Griffin about the BNP's policies in these directions would merely have been directed - in his own twisted way - onto his supposed "strong point" (and by that I mean the topic on which he has the most - in his mind anyway - structured views and policies) which is Immigration.

I can just picture it:

"So Nick, what would your party do with regards to Primary School class sizes"

"Well David, our 1st step to cutting class sizes would be to shut the wide open door that is our currently genecidal immigration policy, so that all those foreigners that are causing our population to swell incontrolably would stop warping the birth rate beyond what our little island can support and therefore class sizes would fall because there would be no more immigrant kids from those randy, promiscous immigrants"

etc etc.

In a way, as its panned out, the panel - inadvertently - made Nick Griffin look EVEN more of a one-dimensional, racist prick than he actually is.

They kept the debate on the one topic that is supposed to be his party's strong point, and he appeared clueless, spineless and evasive even on that topic.

In short, he ballsed up that primetime TV appearance more than I think many of us could possibly have hoped for.

[hibsbollah]

In short, he ballsed up that primetime TV appearance more than I think many of us could possibly have hoped for.

Absolutely.:top marks

[Brizo]

Do you mean assimilation? If so, it takes centuries to do that. Even the Irish and Italians aren't fully assimilated after 100-150 years and the class divide can in part be traced back to the Normans (at least). Many immigrant groups such as the jews and the muslims are (rightly IMO) very wary of assimilation.

Are there any other forms of "integration" other than the ghetto/Chinatown?

Dont quite understand what you mean by that :confused: In what ways do you think they are not fully assimilated ?

[(((Fergus)))]

They kept the debate on the one topic that is supposed to be his party's strong point, and he appeared clueless, spineless and evasive even on that topic.


He did seem extremely nervous, especially his laughter when slated by other panelists. On the other hand, I don't think he was given the space to really express his views on most of the issues discussed. He was mostly just shouted down.

[Sylar]

It was bear-bating at it's best to be honest. Griffin squirmed and wriggled as the anticipated questions were asked, but everytime he tried to formulate an answer (be it BS or otherwise), he was muted out by hecklers or other panel members who simply weren't interested.

I'm aware that may make me sound like a BNP sympathiser, but I was just disappointed that instead of any rationally developed debate, they merely squabbled, and when Griffin said something nobody liked, he was shouted down. Granted, he deserves the scrutiny he is under, and some of the questions last night were ones which many of the "British" public have been wanting answered for a while, but what is the point in asking these questions if you will only accept one answer, regardless?

I'm not a fan of Griffin's personal vendetta's, nor do I agree with a lot of the BNP manifesto, but they do address some issues which the rest of the UK politicians are too scared to pussy-footer around, incase they cause upset.

Still, regardless to how it was conducted, Griffin didn't exactly cover himself in any form of glory with some of the more contentious answers - the commentary about intercepted German radio transmissions was utterly cringeworthy. One thing which crossed my mind, in consideration to the whole "ratings" issue though - I've watched it (Question Time) a few times, and I don't think I've ever noticed so many "minorities" (in the loosest sense of the word) in the audience. Last night, there were 2 on the panel, as well as quite a large portion of the audience - was this intentionally laying a fuelled foundation for the show, or is it merely the chance demographics of those lucky enough to have been present in the audience?

[libernian]

thought some of his answers were ok and some not so good, notice people never gave hinm a clap when he said something which was half decent - totally biased witch hunt, there wasnt even any point bringing him on the show as folk werent gonna listen anyway. think theres more fascists than griffin, everyones entitled to their opinion in a proper manner - not like that!

that american bird was bollocks too, what a bore-off!

---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------


It was bear-bating at it's best to be honest. Griffin squirmed and wriggled as the anticipated questions were asked, but everytime he tried to formulate an answer (be it BS or otherwise), he was muted out by hecklers or other panel members who simply weren't interested.

I'm aware that may make me sound like a BNP sympathiser, but I was just disappointed that instead of any rationally developed debate, they merely squabbled, and when Griffin said something nobody liked, he was shouted down. Granted, he deserves the scrutiny he is under, and some of the questions last night were ones which many of the "British" public have been wanting answered for a while, but what is the point in asking these questions if you will only accept one answer, regardless?

I'm not a fan of Griffin's personal vendetta's, nor do I agree with a lot of the BNP manifesto, but they do address some issues which the rest of the UK politicians are too scared to pussy-footer around, incase they cause upset.

Still, regardless to how it was conducted, Griffin didn't exactly cover himself in any form of glory with some of the more contentious answers - the commentary about intercepted German radio transmissions was utterly cringeworthy. One thing which crossed my mind, in consideration to the whole "ratings" issue though - I've watched it (Question Time) a few times, and I don't think I've ever noticed so many "minorities" (in the loosest sense of the word) in the audience. Last night, there were 2 on the panel, as well as quite a large portion of the audience - was this intentionally laying a fuelled foundation for the show, or is it merely the chance demographics of those lucky enough to have been present in the audience?

:top marks

[PaulSmith]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm

After watching it last night it reminded me of the episode of Question Time where the American Ambassador for London was roundly set upon by a similar audience in London.

[(((Fergus)))]

Dont quite understand what you mean by that :confused: In what ways do you think they are not fully assimilated ?

There's still anti-Irish prejudice in the UK and not just in Govan. Equally, there are plenty of Irish-descended Scots who are antagonistic towards Britain. Many of them post on this forum. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think Griffin will be quite pleased with last nights outing.

Last night the penny dropped for me as to why the BNP's popularity has risen. Namely that they are targeting a section of society that has been ignored by the other parties (yes, no **** sherlock). Anyway, it seems to me that these people feel themselves victimised and spoken down to by the people who run the country - and they might well identify with the way things went on Question Time.

For a start, the audience, panel and Dimbleby missed a fantastic opportunity to show this guy up for what he really is. All they did by ganging up on him was to give him less time to talk about his policies. He was rather inept and would surely have put his foot in it.

The average BNP voter sitting in Burnley or wherever will have seen "one of their own" being rounded on by all the people they hold in contempt. Southerners, intellectuals, asians, blacks and socialists. They are hardly likely to be less facourable to Nick now.

On the other hand, the likes of Straw even left me feeling a bit angry, as he seems to be well out of touch with the issues. His inability to address the concerns of the white working class showed a man who has no idea who he represents or who put him there. (Except of course he does, because it is the votes of middle England his party is really chasing).

I feel it was a game that could have gone either way. Neither side was able to convert the chances that came their way, and I would class it an exciting 0-0 draw. The bottom line is Griffin lives to fight another day, and that in itself should be regarded as a victory for the non-thinking in our nation.

These people are not the type to analyse or look for difficult answers. They have a weight of expectation, based on what they see as a birthright. If people are that lazy, or arrogant or downright thick, then they will accept any explanation for their prerdicament - other than accepting repsonsibility.

It's just a pity we couldn't have apartheid, and confine these dregs to their state bought housing and give them first grab at any handouts that are on the go. Because, make no mistake, they've nothing against state assistance, just that they think they should be first in the queue.

[Brizo]

[QUOTE=Fergus;2214847][B]There's still anti-Irish prejudice in the UK and not just in Govan. Equally, there are plenty of Irish-descended Scots who are antagonistic towards Britain. Many of them post on this forum.:wink:[/QUOTE

Tbh if they dont attend fitba matches in Scotland or visit Scottish fitba tinternet sites I dont think UK joe public will come across much if any of the anti Irish prejudice or anti British prejudice you mention above. Unless theyre unfortunate enough to live in some of central Scotland and the west of Scotlands most backward and deprived areas. Which tbh makes it a very localised issue. Its very disingenuous to take that very localised mindset and paint that as a UK wide scenario. A huge generalisation imo :wink: Id suggest that in the vast majority of the mainland UK the Irish descended are fully assimilated and have been for a great many decades.

Care now to explain how the Italians havent assimilated :confused:.

[Betty Boop]

This is for non-eu citizens though. The vast majority of immigration is made up of EU members. I'm correct in saying that the points system does not relate to EU members.

Non EU-citizens

If you are not an EEA citizen, you will need a work permit to be able to work in the UK, unless you have an EEA partner.

The Home Office has announced changes to tier 1 of the points based system for immigration. Tier 1 applicants will now need to hold a Masters degree and earn at least £20 000.
Those affected will still be able to work in the UK under tier 2; requirements under this tier include the job being advertised in the UK first and their employer being registered with the Home Office as a sponsor. As tier 1 applicants do not need a sponsoring company this change could affect members who supply tier 1 workers on a temporary basis. It is not possible to sponsor migrants for temporary jobs. The change is due to take effect on 1st April 2009.



Partnership agreement:

Your partner must be living and working in the UK and be willing to sponsor you. That essentially means that they agree to be financially responsible for you while you are looking for a job or if you happen to lose one. The two of you must prove that you are in a relationship and that you live together. If the relationship should end or one of you should move out, the permit will no longer be valid.


Work permit:

Work permits are issued for a specific individual to work in a specific job. The UK Border Agency only issues work permits for certain types of work and normally only when the employer has been unable to recruit a suitable employee from within the EEA.

There are six kinds of UK work permit arrangements. In addition, there is a Highly Skilled Migrant Program.

Business and Commercial arrangements allow employers in this country to recruit people from outside the EEA to fill a vacancy that may otherwise be filled by a "resident worker."

Training and Work Experience Scheme arrangements enable people from outside the EEA to undertake work-based training for a professional or specialist qualification, or a period of work experience.

Sports and Entertainments arrangements allow employers in this country to employ established sportspeople, entertainers, cultural artists, and some technical or support people from outside the EEA.

Internship arrangements allow students from outside the EEA enrolled in first or higher degree courses overseas to undertake an internship with an employer in this country.

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) arrangements allow employees of companies based outside the European Union to work in the UK on a service contract awarded to their employer by a UK-based organization. This is a special arrangement within the normal work permit rules made under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Sectors Based Scheme (SBS) allows employers in this country to recruit people from outside the EEA to fill vacancies that they are unable to fill with "resident workers." SBS is sector based and currently operates in the hospitality and food manufacturing sectors. SBS only covers those posts within a given sector that are recognized as hard to fill by work permits, and are specified in the "Sectors Based Scheme Guidance Notes." The posts specified in the guidance notes are at a level that would not meet the skills criteria of the Business and Commercial arrangements, but which have been identified as hard to fill within the UK SBS is quota based.

The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) has been replaced by Tier 1 (General), a sub-category of the first tier in the UK's new five-tier points based system. If you are highly skilled and would like to live and work in the UK or you are looking to extend your leave to remain with your current HSMP visa, you will be required to qualify under the new Tier 1 (General) rules.

The Home Office has announced changes to tier 1 of the points based system for immigration. Tier 1 applicants will now need to hold a Masters degree and earn at least £20 000.
Those affected will still be able to work in the UK under tier 2; requirements under this tier include the job being advertised in the UK. As tier 1 applicants do not need a sponsoring company this change could affect members who supply tier 1 workers on a temporary basis. It is not possible to sponsor migrants for temporary jobs. The change is due to take effect on 1st April 2009.



Self-employed general practitioners qualified to practice in the UK may also apply under the Highly Skilled Migrant Program.

You are given permission to stay in the UK for a year to seek work or self-employment opportunities. After a year you can apply to stay for longer but you must be economically active.


For more information on working in the UK please visit http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/

[GhostofBolivar]

As for Griffin's point about the indigenous British people, which many in the audience laughed at: is his position any different from that of Tibetan nationalists who wish to preserve their culture from the influx of Han Chinese? Or Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans? I suppose those people have our sympathy because they were subjugated by force (often by us, hence a guilty conscience) whereas the dilution in Britain is happening through legislation. Is there any difference in the result though?

:blah::blah::blah:

What indigenous people?

The Scots? As a people, they came from Ireland. then you've got Viking settlers in the far north, Anglo-Saxons in Lothian and the Borders and other assorted influences - there have always been legends that Spanish sailors shipwrecked after the Armada settled in Harris, for example.

The English? Came from Germany and Denmark. They too have Norse influences. Not only from Viking settlement, but Norman French - who were themselves originally Vikings. The Romans have a better claim to being indigenous since they were here before the English. But they came from... uh... Rome? Not to mention the Celtic influences around Cornwall and the south-west.

The Welsh? Celts with a heavy Roman influence. So they originated in mainland Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Who's indigenous and who isn't? When does an immigrant stop being an immigrant and become indigenous? If these people are indigenous, what's to stop millions of Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders returning since they share the same genetic stock? Or did they stop being indigenous when their ancestors left?

The history of this country and it's people is one of mass population movement. People come, people go. Look at the place names. Edinburgh is an Anglo-Saxon name, Dunbarton is Gaelic, Sutherland is Norse. Beuly is French.

To talk about an indigenous population when these islands have always been filled by people who pray to different gods and speak different languages is gross idiocy.

[hibsdaft]

The average BNP voter sitting in Burnley or wherever will have seen "one of their own" being rounded on by all the people they hold in contempt. Southerners, intellectuals, asians, blacks and socialists. They are hardly likely to be less facourable to Nick now.

on the other hand, Nick Griffin is anything but "one of their own" - he's an Oxford graduate toff from the south. if he was on there last night with the aim of representing the average BNP voter from Burnley he failed miserably with his weird mix of trying but failing desperately to crawl up the panels arse and sitting like a pent-up neurotic weirdo with nervous twitches and generally disturbing body language.

if i was your average BNP voter from Burnley i'd of been ****ing embarrassed. so what if he was given a tough time if he was proud of his values he would not have pussied it like he did.

and lets be honest he was given three mealy-mouthed liberals (not to mention some real soft numpties in the audience) who didn't have a clue about political realities (only Warsi seemed to) and still came over like a feeble wee arse. not to mention getting drawn into all that inane theoretical debate which nobody who he is presumably meant to be representing gives a ***** about.

by the way despite the overall tone of the above i generally agree with where you're coming from with your post.

[(((Fergus)))]

:blah::blah::blah:

What indigenous people?

The Scots? As a people, they came from Ireland. then you've got Viking settlers in the far north, Anglo-Saxons in Lothian and the Borders and other assorted influences - there have always been legends that Spanish sailors shipwrecked after the Armada settled in Harris, for example.

The English? Came from Germany and Denmark. They too have Norse influences. Not only from Viking settlement, but Norman French - who were themselves originally Vikings. The Romans have a better claim to being indigenous since they were here before the English. But they came from... uh... Rome? Not to mention the Celtic influences around Cornwall and the south-west.

The Welsh? Celts with a heavy Roman influence. So they originated in mainland Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Who's indigenous and who isn't? When does an immigrant stop being an immigrant and become indigenous? If these people are indigenous, what's to stop millions of Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders returning since they share the same genetic stock? Or did they stop being indigenous when their ancestors left?

The history of this country and it's people is one of mass population movement. People come, people go. Look at the place names. Edinburgh is an Anglo-Saxon name, Dunbarton is Gaelic, Sutherland is Norse. Beuly is French.

To talk about an indigenous population when these islands have always been filled by people who pray to different gods and speak different languages is gross idiocy.

The "indigenous" British are, as you say, the product of many different waves of immigration - Romans, Scots, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, etc. - all of whom, incidentally, were involved in violent confrontation with the previous indigenous population. Even the jews who came peacefully were massacred and expelled. (Perhaps violence is an unavoidable phase in the process of assimilation?)

Over time these groups merged (Jews generally excepted and class war/reformation aside) into a largely consistent British culture based on Christianity and the English language (with all due respect to Gaelic and Welsh) from the Middle Ages until post-World War II. It is this "Britishness" that - for better or worse - is being diluted through (perceived) large-scale immigration and the over-accommodation of immigrant cultures. Some may think that this Britishness does not exist, however there are obviously many that do - hence the BNP.

[Steve-O]

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think Griffin will be quite pleased with last nights outing.

Last night the penny dropped for me as to why the BNP's popularity has risen. Namely that they are targeting a section of society that has been ignored by the other parties (yes, no **** sherlock). Anyway, it seems to me that these people feel themselves victimised and spoken down to by the people who run the country - and they might well identify with the way things went on Question Time.

For a start, the audience, panel and Dimbleby missed a fantastic opportunity to show this guy up for what he really is. All they did by ganging up on him was to give him less time to talk about his policies. He was rather inept and would surely have put his foot in it.

The average BNP voter sitting in Burnley or wherever will have seen "one of their own" being rounded on by all the people they hold in contempt. Southerners, intellectuals, asians, blacks and socialists. They are hardly likely to be less facourable to Nick now.

On the other hand, the likes of Straw even left me feeling a bit angry, as he seems to be well out of touch with the issues. His inability to address the concerns of the white working class showed a man who has no idea who he represents or who put him there. (Except of course he does, because it is the votes of middle England his party is really chasing).

I feel it was a game that could have gone either way. Neither side was able to convert the chances that came their way, and I would class it an exciting 0-0 draw. The bottom line is Griffin lives to fight another day, and that in itself should be regarded as a victory for the non-thinking in our nation.

These people are not the type to analyse or look for difficult answers. They have a weight of expectation, based on what they see as a birthright. If people are that lazy, or arrogant or downright thick, then they will accept any explanation for their prerdicament - other than accepting repsonsibility.

It's just a pity we couldn't have apartheid, and confine these dregs to their state bought housing and give them first grab at any handouts that are on the go. Because, make no mistake, they've nothing against state assistance, just that they think they should be first in the queue.

I need to stop agreeing with you, but again, I do :greengrin

I watched it, and right from the start we had the rest of the panel effectively looking down their noses at Griffin and doing their best to get a big clap from the audience by trying to be as anti-racist as they possibly could be.

I honestly don't think Griffin came out of the show looking very bad at all and as you say, particularly not in the eyes of the type of people who would vote BNP.

In truth, I thought it was pretty crap after all the hype and there was little opportunity given to Griffin to actually say anything of note and possibly put his foot in it.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
:greengrin

[Steve-O]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
:greengrin

:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
:greengrin

:tsk tsk: Media manipulation of the most abhorrent kind. Deliberately editing and cutting to make a participant seem coherent, when the reality was so different.

[Betty Boop]

:tsk tsk: Media manipulation of the most abhorrent kind. Deliberately editing and cutting to make a participant seem coherent, when the reality was so different.

:greengrin

[Expecting Rain]

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think Griffin will be quite pleased with last nights outing.

Last night the penny dropped for me as to why the BNP's popularity has risen. Namely that they are targeting a section of society that has been ignored by the other parties (yes, no **** sherlock). Anyway, it seems to me that these people feel themselves victimised and spoken down to by the people who run the country - and they might well identify with the way things went on Question Time.

For a start, the audience, panel and Dimbleby missed a fantastic opportunity to show this guy up for what he really is. All they did by ganging up on him was to give him less time to talk about his policies. He was rather inept and would surely have put his foot in it.

The average BNP voter sitting in Burnley or wherever will have seen "one of their own" being rounded on by all the people they hold in contempt. Southerners, intellectuals, asians, blacks and socialists. They are hardly likely to be less facourable to Nick now.

On the other hand, the likes of Straw even left me feeling a bit angry, as he seems to be well out of touch with the issues. His inability to address the concerns of the white working class showed a man who has no idea who he represents or who put him there. (Except of course he does, because it is the votes of middle England his party is really chasing).

I feel it was a game that could have gone either way. Neither side was able to convert the chances that came their way, and I would class it an exciting 0-0 draw. The bottom line is Griffin lives to fight another day, and that in itself should be regarded as a victory for the non-thinking in our nation.

These people are not the type to analyse or look for difficult answers. They have a weight of expectation, based on what they see as a birthright. If people are that lazy, or arrogant or downright thick, then they will accept any explanation for their prerdicament - other than accepting repsonsibility.

It's just a pity we couldn't have apartheid, and confine these dregs to their state bought housing and give them first grab at any handouts that are on the go. Because, make no mistake, they've nothing against state assistance, just that they think they should be first in the queue.

I agree FR, Griffin is a cretin but somehow he mananged probably unintentionally to appear as the victim, the programme consisted of lots of ridicule and very little discussion about policies, in fact when the mainstreamers were asked an awkward question they deflected attention back onto Griffin, a great opportunity was missed here to bury the BNP once and for all. :top marks

[Woody1985]

Funny video. :greengrin

Here's what he's saying post QT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322468.stm

Also, Sky News has said an opinion poll from the telegraph (?) says 22% of those in the poll would consider voting for them.

[Betty Boop]

David Dimbleby will miss tonight's show for the first time in fifteen years, he has apparently been injured in an accident. John Humphreys is in the chair tonight.

[GlesgaeHibby]

David Dimbleby will miss tonight's show for the first time in fifteen years, he has apparently been injured in an accident. John Humphreys is in the chair tonight.

That was perhaps the worst episode of question time I have ever seen.

John Humphrey's seemed to want to turn the show into a debate between himself and Shaun Woodward.

The Tory on the panel was such an unbelievable pain in the arse, had to turn off about half an hour in as it was pathetic.

[Marabou Stork]

John Humphrys is an insufferable little man.

He's the worst thing about the Today Programme by miles.

[Marabou Stork]

I love Will Self.

[Betty Boop]

I love Will Self.

Last night's saving grace. :agree: Pauline Neville-Jones, dinnae get me started! :bitchy: