• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BBC will bear 'moral responsibility' if attacks follow show

BBC's announcement is just good marketing, IMO. They're creating controversy before the program even airs so that people will debate about it and then watch it. Looks like it's working. I personally don't care either way.

I would rather watch a program and decide for myself how controversial it is, instead of being biased beforehand. It's kind of like when news programs say, "What you are about to watch may be disturbing," then you watch it and it's not disturbing whatsoever.
 
Nick has started to moderate his tone a bit to garner some more support because he knows he will never make it big with the BNP if they dont tone down the racist ideologies and aim there politics more at the average British person, and make the BNP be percieved as more of a "British persons party" which cares about the British folk and worker. If they ever take power, of course, then they will begin to show the full force of their colours....this crap about Nick saying he "isnt" a Nazi is a ploy to try and proove his "innocence" or he is actually telling the truth because as a matter of fact he is more of a white supremacist. Who knows? Either way, he is not to be trusted.

But what i dont get is why there is even a question mark over the fact he is (or at the very least was) a white supremicist. I would have thought his presence at kkk rallies would have given that one away. Hence the importance of putting his denial of this under scruitiny.
 
BBC's announcement is just good marketing, IMO. They're creating controversy before the program even airs so that people will debate about it and then watch it. Looks like it's working. I personally don't care either way.

I would rather watch a program and decide for myself how controversial it is, instead of being biased beforehand. It's kind of like when news programs say, "What you are about to watch may be disturbing," then you watch it and it's not disturbing whatsoever.

Well I guess some of us are a bit biased about white supremacist, holocaust denying nazi's! ;)

You are right though about the good marketing. Apparently everyone was listening to it while driving their taxis and everywhere.I even got a preview on news 24!
 
Well, I guess the whole thing was a complete waste of time, eh? If this Times article is correct, the "victim status" of the BNP was only reinforced and a big opportunity for dialogue was wasted with the usual cries of "Nazi, racist, BAD Nick Griffin, BAD!".

Once again, playing right into their fascist hands. :doh

Critics attack BBC for making Griffin 'a victim' on Question Time - Times Online

The main complaint from viewers appeared to be that the programme had become exactly what its host, David Dimbleby, said that he wanted to avoid: the Nick Griffin show.

Of the five questions put to the panel, four related directly to the BNP. The fifth was about a controversial Daily Mail column on the death of the Boyzone singer Stephen Gately - which Mr Griffin used to describe gays as "creepy".

The BNP spokesman John Walker said this morning that the BNP's critics would be “smug” about Mr Griffin’s performance last night, but said the Question Time format had been altered especially to target him.

He said: “This wasn’t really Question Time, was it? They changed the whole format of the programme into a complete, 100-per cent attack on Nick.”

He said it was “unbelievable” that issues which could have been discussed were not, including the postal strike, Tony Blair’s mooted appointment as president of the European Union and the deaths of British troops in Afghanistan.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Walker went on: “Anyone who was opposed to the BNP would probably feel very smug and pleased with themselves this morning.

“But I don’t think it makes much different to the people in white working class areas that have been betrayed by the mainstream politicians. If anything, a lot of their concerns were confirmed last night about the mainstream.”
 
Well I guess some of us are a bit biased about white supremacist, holocaust denying nazi's! ;)

You are right though about the good marketing. Apparently everyone was listening to it while driving their taxis and everywhere.I even got a preview on news 24!

3 times the normal audience numbers apparently :shock: :

TV ratings ? 22 October: BNP leader's Question Time appearance draws almost 8m viewers | Media | guardian.co.uk

The British National party leader Nick Griffin's controversial appearance on Question Time last night brought almost 8 million viewers to the show – nearly three times its normal audience.

Question Time, filmed late yesterday amid chaotic scenes outside BBC Television Centre after anti-fascist demonstrators broke through a police cordon and briefly gained entry to the building, was watched by 7.9 million viewers – half the total TV audience when the show was aired over an hour from 10.35pm.

The week's news agenda has been dominated by Griffin's appearance on the show and will be seen by the BBC as vindication of its controversial decision to invite the BNP leader to appear.

However, critics of the decision will use the viewing figures to back their argument that the BBC is just chasing ratings.
 
I think that Question Time was indeed altered to be more able to accommodate attacks on Nick Griffin. Instead of some calm and calculated probing and candidness from all members of the panel on today's issues, we just got the usual old quotes and lines of attack the BNP are used to.

I think Nick Griffin should have explained his position of his past holocaust denial. It would have cleared the air but he didn't even tell us which European law forbids him to speak. He knows his law, he's supposedly on firm ground even to keep silent, but he still dodged. He does need to tell us lots more about himself if he wants to be trusted and let the quiet viewer judge.

As it was, he was going to get the oppribrium no matter what he said, so he just kept things to himself. Things are never going to be aired with so much tension in the studios.
 
I think that Question Time was indeed altered to be more able to accommodate attacks on Nick Griffin. Instead of some calm and calculated probing and candidness from all members of the panel on today's issues, we just got the usual old quotes and lines of attack the BNP are used to.

I think Nick Griffin should have explained his position of his past holocaust denial. It would have cleared the air but he didn't even tell us which European law forbids him to speak. He knows his law, he's supposedly on firm ground even to keep silent, but he still dodged. He does need to tell us lots more about himself if he wants to be trusted and let the quiet viewer judge.

As it was, he was going to get the oppribrium no matter what he said, so he just kept things to himself. Things are never going to be aired with so much tension in the studios.

Dimbleby:

And what about the holocaust denial

Griffin:

Well I dont have a *conviction* for holocaust denial

BEST, ANSWER, EVER
 
Nick Griffin may be a sh&tebag, but I defend his right to express his views as much as any other person. Heck we should have even included some raging Islamists on the panel as well!

Point is, Nick Griffin's views can be debated and defeated. The use of censorship, bans or political blacklists are blunt instruments that once used, can easily be applied against all kinds of political movements.

Do you really want to give the government that kind of power?
 
Well I dont have a *conviction* for holocaust denial

and neither does Livingstone.

Of course, that sure doesn't prevent Ken from courting Holocaust deniers, now, does it?
 
Well, I guess the whole thing was a complete waste of time, eh? If this Times article is correct, the "victim status" of the BNP was only reinforced and a big opportunity for dialogue was wasted with the usual cries of "Nazi, racist, BAD Nick Griffin, BAD!".

Once again, playing right into their fascist hands. :doh

Critics attack BBC for making Griffin 'a victim' on Question Time - Times Online

It didn't quite go like that Arcana. This I think is taken from 'This Week' which was on after Question Time. Diane Abbott did not believe he should have been allowed on really for the same reason of legitimacy. She said maybe on some program like Hardtalk but she believed getting on Question Time was a sign that people had been accepted into Mainstay Politics, so she didn't think he should have been on. The only thing which pleased her was that he did not come over well. Portillo then pointed out that the BNP supporters and possibly some others would say he had had to hard a time and it wasn't fair and she agreed that that was probably how it would be used. They will play the victim role. The article is a bit misleading suggesting she came out with this because she was just agreeing sadly that that was probably how it would be used as there was no other way they could get anything positive out of his appearance apart from playing the 'victim' card.


You know I think she was probably right and that is why it went the way it did. He has not been accepted as a mainstay politician and so did not get the usual respect. The audience and other panel members were attempting there less effective 'hardtalk'.
 
Not to mention, one of his employers -- Iranian press T.V.

That would be George Galloway. I,ld expect we,re in agreement on him

Heres the program if anyone missed it

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY"]YouTube - BNP Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time Part 1[/ame]
 
Last edited:
It didn't quite go like that Arcana. This I think is taken from 'This Week' which was on after Question Time. Diane Abbott did not believe he should have been allowed on really for the same reason of legitimacy. She said maybe on some program like Hardtalk but she believed getting on Question Time was a sign that people had been accepted into Mainstay Politics, so she didn't think he should have been on. The only thing which pleased her was that he did not come over well. Portillo then pointed out that the BNP supporters and possibly some others would say he had had to hard a time and it wasn't fair and she agreed that that was probably how it would be used. They will play the victim role. The article is a bit misleading suggesting she came out with this because she was just agreeing sadly that that was probably how it would be used as there was no other way they could get anything positive out of his appearance apart from playing the 'victim' card.


You know I think she was probably right and that is why it went the way it did. He has not been accepted as a mainstay politician and so did not get the usual respect. The audience and other panel members were attempting there less effective 'hardtalk'.

Accepting him as a mainstay politician does not necessarily mean that he must get respect. Far from it. The more frequent his appearances on national TV, the more this "mystique" that surrounds him will fade and the less relevant he will become. Giving him the chance to make an even bigger fool of himself and his party on a regular basis can only be a benefit.

Aside from that, dismissing the very real concerns of his supporters, who are not necessarily as extreme in their views as he is, is not a healthy thing for the country. By demonizing him, you demonize them. You take away their right to express their dissatisfaction. These people should be given a chance to be heard because not ALL of their points are invalid. Shoving a growing number of people under the political rug will only end in disaster.
 
I think that Question Time was indeed altered to be more able to accommodate attacks on Nick Griffin. Instead of some calm and calculated probing and candidness from all members of the panel on today's issues, we just got the usual old quotes and lines of attack the BNP are used to.

I think Nick Griffin should have explained his position of his past holocaust denial. It would have cleared the air but he didn't even tell us which European law forbids him to speak. He knows his law, he's supposedly on firm ground even to keep silent, but he still dodged. He does need to tell us lots more about himself if he wants to be trusted and let the quiet viewer judge.

As it was, he was going to get the oppribrium no matter what he said, so he just kept things to himself. Things are never going to be aired with so much tension in the studios.

Well, he IS a very polarizing person. It was to be expected that he would get some heated reactions from everyone there. If he was given the chance to appear on programs such as this one more often, the antagonism would eventually be reduced dramatically and real debate would finally take place. A debate that he would no doubt lose in the end. These sort of extremists never do well under intense scrutiny.
 
He makes for cracking telly, it has to be said!

Here's the BBC news aired just before the show, which I only caught because I was testing my video capture equipment at the time:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDGeNY-cmkU&feature=channel"]YouTube - Nick Griffin on Question Time and the Television Centre rioting[/ame]


October 22's news report of BNP leader Nick Griffin's controversial appearance on Question Time.

The day's ugly violence at the BBC is also featured.




And here he is on ITN:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HMCpI8nFUs&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - BNP leader Nick Griffin blasts BBC over Question Time[/ame]



Feel that news!
 
Last edited:
Accepting him as a mainstay politician does not necessarily mean that he must get respect. Far from it. The more frequent his appearances on national TV, the more this "mystique" that surrounds him will fade and the less relevant he will become. Giving him the chance to make an even bigger fool of himself and his party on a regular basis can only be a benefit.

You missed the point. We have never been ruled by fascist Nazis in this country but we have seen what they get up to when they do rule. My guess is that this country would go to civil war rather than allow that to happen.

Hence if you have a person who is on record again and again espousing these views it is only to be expected that the first time he appears on a program he is going to be thoroughly questioned on them.

This he was and he made a complete fool of himself. He could not answer what he thought of the holocaust for fear it would lead to a jail sentence in Europe, he believes we have an indigenous population going back 17,000 years when there was an ice age in operation and at one time he let slip 'if there were any Muslims here', though he wasn't brought up on that for some reason.


Even most of the contributors to Stormfron admit he put in a terrible performance.

Now concerning mainstream British politics - this party is currently operating outside the law by not allowing people of all races to join, so to imagine it somehow is mainstream is ridiculous.

People have been comparing him to Le Pen who apparently was made by a similar appearance but have said the difference was Griffin had no charisma and no ability to answer questions.

He was like a child caught with the stolen candy in his hands. He mumbled.... I do not know why I said that.... I cannot say why I thought that and gave a sheepish sly smile.

Question Tine was not an appropriate program for his first appearance if you want things to go the way you say.

Hard talk would have been the appropriate format. Dianne Abbot was right. No emotion - just straight direct questions.

Aside from that, dismissing the very real concerns of his supporters, who are not necessarily as extreme in their views as he is, is not a healthy thing for the country. By demonizing him, you demonize them. You take away their right to express their dissatisfaction. These people should be given a chance to be heard because not ALL of their points are invalid. Shoving a growing number of people under the political rug will only end in disaster.

I have very little feeling for his supporters myself. You however are dismissing the vast majority of the people of this country's right to express their feelings.

Question Time was a poor choice. People have their right to express their feelings on Question Time. This they did. For a neutral, unemotional grilling to let his supporters and everyone else get a possible insight if anyone really does not know, Hard talk should have been the choice.

The victim card is all people have. That card is being played simply in response to the genuine feelings and questions of the ordinary people of the United Kingdom.

The only issue which he addresses which there clearly is strong feeling about is immigration and I have to imagine all political parties will be working hell on leather to sort that out. It isn't one which bothers me so I will wait to see, but it certainly will not involve deporting current citizens.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point. We have never been ruled by fascist Nazis in this country but we have seen what they get up to when they do rule. My guess is that this country would go to civil war rather than allow that to happen.

Hence if you have a person who is on record again and again espousing these views it is only to be expected that the first time he appears on a program he is going to be thoroughly questioned on them.

This he was and he made a complete fool of himself. He could not answer what he thought of the holocaust for fear it would lead to a jail sentence in Europe, he believes we have an indigenous population going back 17,000 years when there was an ice age in operation and at one time he let slip 'if there were any Muslims here', though he wasn't brought up on that for some reason.


Even most of the contributors to Stormfron admit he put in a terrible performance.

Now concerning mainstream British politics - this party is currently operating outside the law by not allowing people of all races to join, so to imagine it somehow is mainstream is ridiculous.

People have been comparing him to Le Pen who apparently was made by a similar appearance but have said the difference was Griffin had no charisma and no ability to answer questions.

He was like a child caught with the stolen candy in his hands. He mumbled.... I do not know why I said that.... I cannot say why I thought that and gave a sheepish sly smile.

Question Tine was not an appropriate program for his first appearance if you want things to go the way you say.

Hard talk would have been the appropriate format. Dianne Abbot was right. No emotion - just straight direct questions.

No, I didn't miss the point. You've never been ruled by fascist Nazis and you never will. That doesn't change the fact that, mainstream or not, the BNP's number of supporters is rising and, if you're not careful, what happened in France, Austria and Switzerland will happen to you. These guys WILL worm their way into government positions and into relevancy. Not that they ever accomplish much of anything once they do get themselves into a position of power, but that's besides the point. If you think you can ignore their momentum and, by simply pretending they don't matter all that much and that their supporters are all kookoo, that they will go away quietly, you're fooling yourself. I have seen these guys receive enough support in other countries, regardless of how much they were ostracized by their political opponents and by the local and international press.

Just don't make the same mistake of underestimating them is all I'm saying.



I have very little feeling for his supporters myself. You however are dismissing the vast majority of the people of this country's right to express their feelings.

I did no such thing and I resent your implication that I would ever dismiss anyone's freedom of speech. They have every right to express whatever feelings and opinions they see fit. If they could refrain from injuring any more policemen while they do so in the future, that would be even better.

All I've been doing from post 1 in this thread is speak out in favor of the freedom of speech of EVERYONE. I've been trying to explain that ignoring the concerns of a significant minority of people is a huge mistake that has had consequences in at least 3 other European countries.

You go right ahead and pretend they don't matter. I've seen it happen and if you think this won't happen to you, you're being recklessly foolish. The signs are there. I've seen them in my own country and I now see them in yours. The BNP is not going away. It'll only get stronger as long as people like you refuse to acknowledge the unrest in a certain portion of your population. The fact that you have no sympathy for them is irrelevant. It shouldn't prevent you from seeing the writing on the wall.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.


Question Time was a poor choice. People have their right to express their feelings on Question Time. This they did. For a neutral, unemotional grilling to let his supporters and everyone else get a possible insight if anyone really does not know, Hard talk should have been the choice.

The victim card is all people have. That card is being played simply in response to the genuine feelings and questions of the ordinary people of the United Kingdom.

The only issue which he addresses which there clearly is strong feeling about is immigration and I have to imagine all political parties will be working hell on leather to sort that out. It isn't one which bothers me so I will wait to see, but it certainly will not involve deporting current citizens.

Well, then I certainly hope he will have a chance to appear on Hard Talk too.
 
No, I didn't miss the point. You've never been ruled by fascist Nazis and you never will.

That you do not know. I remember hearing someone say on our history channel that in ww2 when one European country was invaded by Germany, they weren't worried because they had experienced the German's as being very civilised in WW1

That doesn't change the fact that, mainstream or not, the BNP's number of supporters is rising and, if you're not careful, what happened in France, Austria and Switzerland will happen to you. These guys WILL worm their way into government positions and into relevancy. Not that they ever accomplish much of anything once they do get themselves into a position of power, but that's besides the point. If you think you can ignore their momentum and, by simply pretending they don't matter all that much and that their supporters are all kookoo, that they will go away quietly, you're fooling yourself. I have seen these guys receive enough support in other countries, regardless of how much they were ostracized by their political opponents and by the local and international press.

Just don't make the same mistake of underestimating them is all I'm saying.

Believe me, I do not underestimate them. I simply said Question Time was not the correct format to question him in a direct unemotional way. Hardtalk would have achieved that.



I did no such thing and I resent your implication that I would ever dismiss anyone's freedom of speech. They have every right to express whatever feelings and opinions they see fit. If they could refrain from injuring any more policemen while they do so in the future, that would be even better.

I was talking about the audience of Question Time. If you are believing Question Time should have taken place and now complaining about how it went you are indeed suggesting ordinary UK citizens should not have the right to express their thoughts and feelings. Now you are just flaming.

All I've been doing from post 1 in this thread is speak out in favor of the freedom of speech of EVERYONE. I've been trying to explain that ignoring the concerns of a significant minority of people is a huge mistake that has had consequences in at least 3 other European countries.

But this is exactly what has been happening. The BNP got their place on the panel and their chance to put their voice across. The protesters got their chance to protest and the audience and panel got their chance to speak. You simply are suggesting people should have been speaking or saying something different or indeed not having the right to protest. In the situation we had everyone had their right to express their view. Hence your complaint can only be that you believe some people should not have had their right of free speech.

You go right ahead and pretend they don't matter. I've seen it happen and if you think this won't happen to you, you're being recklessly foolish. The signs are there. I've seen them in my own country and I now see them in yours. The BNP is not going away. It'll only get stronger as long as people like you refuse to acknowledge the unrest in a certain portion of your population. The fact that you have no sympathy for them is irrelevant. It shouldn't prevent you from seeing the writing on the wall.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.


Pathetic. You will never find one post I have ever made anywhere which says the BNP should not be taken seriously. You are simply flaming again.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point. We have never been ruled by fascist Nazis in this country but we have seen what they get up to when they do rule. My guess is that this country would go to civil war rather than allow that to happen.

You already have leaders who hobnob with the direct philosophical descendants of the Nazis in the form of modern Islamists, and who work to prevent the exercize of free speech.

Suppression of free speech is one of the most salient aspects of fascism, so it looks like you are already there.
 
That you do not know. I remember hearing someone say on our history channel that in ww2 when one European country was invaded by Germany, they weren't worried because they had experienced the German's as being very civilised in WW1

The difference now is that we have the lesson of history. We know what fascism and extreme nationalism can do. Sure they can establish themselves a nice little comfortable nook in British politics like Le Pen has done in France, or the late Joerg Haider in Austria, or our own UDC/SVP party here in Switzerland, but they won't be able to take over completely. The world is watching. The rest of the country is watching.

Believe me, I do not underestimate them. I simply said Question Time was not the correct format to question him in a direct unemotional way. Hardtalk would have achieved that.

Then why is it called Question Time? It should be called Flame Time. ;)


I was talking about the audience of Question Time. If you are believing Question Time should have taken place and now complaining about how it went you are indeed suggesting ordinary UK citizens should not have the right to express their thoughts and feelings. Now you are just flaming.

I'm not the one who's flaming. They did. They flamed him and made it impossible for an actual discussion to take place. I'm not complaining so much as seeing an opportunity gone to waste. And I still believe him being there was the right decision from the BBC.

But this is exactly what has been happening. The BNP got their place on the panel and their chance to put their voice across. The protesters got their chance to protest and the audience and panel got their chance to speak. You simply are suggesting people should have been speaking or saying something different or indeed not having the right to protest. In the situation we had everyone had their right to express their view. Hence your complaint can only be that you believe some people should not have had their right of free speech.

Your conclusion is deeply flawed. I never said they shouldn't have expressed themselves. I never said they shouldn't protest. I'm just saying the way it was done played right into the BNP's hands and it will strengthen the resolve of their supporters. I'm just a neutral observer here. Far be it from me to take away anyone's right to exercise their freedom of speech as they see fit. I will, however, comment when I believe they're going about it the wrong way.


Pathetic. You will never find one post I have ever made anywhere which says the BNP should not be taken seriously. You are simply flaming again.

I wasn't talking about the BNP per se in that paragraph, I was talking about their supporters. You said you didn't care about their feelings. I think that's a mistake. Without their followers the BNP is nothing. Forget about the BNP and their rather bland leader and focus on the grievances of their followers. Address their concerns and make them feel like they're being heard and most importantly that something is being done about the issues that matter to them. Do that and the BNP will die a natural death.
 
The difference now is that we have the lesson of history. We know what fascism and extreme nationalism can do. Sure they can establish themselves a nice little comfortable nook in British politics like Le Pen has done in France, or the late Joerg Haider in Austria, or our own UDC/SVP party here in Switzerland, but they won't be able to take over completely. The world is watching. The rest of the country is watching.

I repeat, you cannot know. Are you suggesting that if the British people were 'bleep' enough to let the BNP get into a position of power the rest of the world would attack us?

And as regards knowledge, it should be remembered that countries did have a great deal of knowledge about the way Jews were being treated which is why many of us allowed some Jewish refugees to enter our countries. We did not know about the extermination camps as they had not started before the war, but we did know something was very wrong.

Then why is it called Question Time? It should be called Flame Time. ;)

Did you actually watch the program? Question time is a program which allows members of the Public to ask questions of a panel. Members of the public just like members of the panel have feelings. They have not been outlawed in this country. Your problem seems to be that you do not like members of the public asserting their right to free speech during question time.

One minute you are angry that people are protesting about Griffin speaking claiming this itself is against free speech, the next you are complaining about members of the panel not being robots.

I have already said that if you wished a completely unemotional interview then something like hard talk or indeed straight talk would have been the better option.

You logic is so flawed. You complain about people protesting as you believe that is against free speech and then you complain about what people say as you believe that is against free speech. :shock:


I'm not the one who's flaming. They did. They flamed him and made it impossible for an actual discussion to take place. I'm not complaining so much as seeing an opportunity gone to waste. And I still believe him being there was the right decision from the BBC.

Well you cannot have it every way. Nick Griffin will do well with you playing the victim card for him being a disgrace and incapable of intelligently dealing with Question Time.

Your conclusion is deeply flawed. I never said they shouldn't have expressed themselves. I never said they shouldn't protest. I'm just saying the way it was done played right into the BNP's hands and it will strengthen the resolve of their supporters. I'm just a neutral observer here. Far be it from me to take away anyone's right to exercise their freedom of speech as they see fit. I will, however, comment when I believe they're going about it the wrong way.

The way it was done was the way things are done in our democracy. If/when the BNP get into power we will all be acting more in the manner you believe we should. For the time being we need to follow how things go with people having their democratic rights.


I wasn't talking about the BNP per se in that paragraph, I was talking about their supporters. You said you didn't care about their feelings. I think that's a mistake. Without their followers the BNP is nothing. Forget about the BNP and their rather bland leader and focus on the grievances of their followers. Address their concerns and make them feel like they're being heard and most importantly that something is being done about the issues that matter to them. Do that and the BNP will die a natural death.

I have no posuitive feelings for BNP supporters and that is something I can do nothing about.

Regarding issues which might get ignorant 'innocent' people involved in them - well out of 4 people who were being followed for their reactions to the program, the one BNP supporter refused to talk after wards and said she had changed her mind and would not be voting for them - though a poll claims that 23% of the British Public claim to be BNP supporters which is surely deeply concerning given that the rest of the British Public is so fed up with Politicians that many of them may well stay home at the next election - which is the very reason Griffin got his seat on proportional representation - just made it.

I made clear that the main issue on which the BNP attracts interest is immigration and that my belief was that all parties will be working hell to leather to sort that out. I guess another issue may be the EU. So, rather than bothering with people who I would never wish to meet on a dark night, I think we would be better dealing constructively with issues which may get people voting for them.

You know the main reason people believe the BNP is gaining power is because the working class has lost the support it used to get from Labour and Unions and that has left a dangerous vacuum.
 
Last edited:
I repeat, you cannot know. Are you suggesting that if the British people were 'bleep' enough to let the BNP get into a position of power the rest of the world would attack us?

Attack you? Nah. The only ones who could are the US and they're broke. :lol: I'm just saying the world is watching. If thinks get really bad, you might find yourselves ostracized from global politics, diplomatic ties will be cut and economic sanctions will probably be imposed at some point, but other than that not much else. Although, that alone will most likely ensure the rapid demise of the BNP.

One minute you are angry that people are protesting about Griffin speaking claiming this itself is against free speech, the next you are complaining about members of the panel not being robots.

You logic is so flawed. You complain about people protesting as you believe that is against free speech and then you complain about what people say as you believe that is against free speech. :shock:

You keep misunderstanding my position. I'll try again:

I have no problem whatsoever with people protesting or expressing their opinion. They can do that all day long for all I care as long as they allow the other side the exact same privileges they enjoy.

My issue is not with what they're doing, but HOW they're doing it. In my opinion the way they're going about fighting the BNP is not effective, will not succeed and will most certainly blow up in their faces.

But, hey, they can keep right on doing it. *shrugs*
 
Attack you? Nah. The only ones who could are the US and they're broke. :lol: I'm just saying the world is watching. If thinks get really bad, you might find yourselves ostracized from global politics, diplomatic ties will be cut and economic sanctions will probably be imposed at some point, but other than that not much else. Although, that alone will most likely ensure the rapid demise of the BNP.





You keep misunderstanding my position. I'll try again:

I have no problem whatsoever with people protesting or expressing their opinion. They can do that all day long for all I care as long as they allow the other side the exact same privileges they enjoy.

My issue is not with what they're doing, but HOW they're doing it. In my opinion the way they're going about fighting the BNP is not effective, will not succeed and will most certainly blow up in their faces.

But, hey, they can keep right on doing it. *shrugs*

No, I did understand later that you were trying to make some kind of intellectual analysis. ;) Problem is people will go as people go and in this country we have possibly a stronger repugnance to these sort of people than in some other places.

It is a bit difficult to imagine that Nick Griffin and his louts could ever really get themselves in a position of power but you never know. It surprises me that they have managed to be as effective as they have been so far.

My hope is that it will rather move us in a more intelligent direction. We have had about three decades where people really have had little or no interest in politics - where they have felt impotent about anything political. Lets hope that people get interested again, get educated a bit better about political things and that Politicians realise they need to stop their spin.
 
Back
Top Bottom