Thread: So how did Nick Griffin's television appearance go?

I feel like I've actually 'come through' something after watching that bit of heavy television. But I wouldn't have missed it, though I'm a bit disappointed.

Because of his hair-raising past and a lot of the things he has said in that past, Nick Griffin was ripe for a tough old ride. But I do think the hostility from panel and audience was so heavy that the chance was lost to really go into the arguments and gain some insights. The panel were chosen specifically to be irritated by Nick Griffin it seems, and I think that missed many oppertunities for frank discourse on the usual buffet of issues. It was Griffin vs the rest and I doubt anything they could have said to one another in the circus in there would have had any persuasive value in any context.

Nick Griffin was and is on the extreme of British politics. Though for all the accusations of dodging questions, deflecting arguments and saying silly things, he's not all that different from other QT-invited politicians on those terms. He even made some valid points and was applauded, though that was stilted. He should have been allowed to say a lot more so we could all see the true Griffin of today without everyone else telling us what he is.

Nick Griffin was treated differently. There's an argument to say he deserved it but I also don't recall the likes of Galloway on the extreme factional Left being the target of so much concentrated vitriol. He even has his own radio talk show without any squeak of Establishment complaint whatever. Yet Galloway crawls into bed with Islamacist 'Nazis' and has a rabid communist past. I'm not so sure that singling out the BNP for special hatred will besmirch as much as planned their reputation as maligned victims of the System.

I don't think the BNP's electoral chances have been either helped or hindered tonight. Far from being the intellectual back-and-forth which would either make or break him on mainstream telly, Nick Griffin was held up as the usual aunt sally figure for the baying audience to throw tomatoes at. Nick Griffin acquitted himself as reasonably well as a condemned man could do; though that would have made it easier for him because he didn't have to think, just deflect as many furious broadsides as possible. Nothing new was revealed, just the same old favourite quotes which Nick Griffin rebutted and I doubt people will really remember this or come away thinking they've experienced some new revelation. Everybody will still think the same of Nick Griffin whether for or against.

In short, I think it was too polarised to be revelatory or insightful, something which was apparently implied during the run-up. But at least when all's said and done, the BNP make politics lively again and make complacent politicians somewhat jittery, something I like to see!

What I meant by my 'chosen to be irritated by Nick Griffin' remark was that it seems that the parties chose their panellist for the friction value rather than a better ability to probe and expose. That's what it was always going to try to be, as the majority of questions about the BNP or Griffin proves.

Heat rather than light was generated, with the thugs outside playing their part. I remember reading something in the Guardian about how the chance was lost to have people best able to intellectually undermine Nick Griffin.

I would have liked to see Nick Griffin set a lot more things out in his own words without the people there being so hostile. I can understand perfectly why they were, and the BBC probably couldn't have let anything else, but had the atmosphere been more restrained we could have learned far more of Griffin, both good (if any) and bad. With that and a good prober, I think he would have been a bit more candid.

I have watched Question Time before, though not for years. I do think things like that are a circus (or at least the entertainment that they are) because I don't think anything that's said in there has any bearing on government policy when the politicians go back to their ministries the next day.

I'm not necessarily blaming anyone, only the other politicians who cut off access to certain areas of debate in life and so give the likes of the BNP the chance to nab the turf. Instead lots more people say 'Oh well, BNP or nothing to make my voice heard'.



Another view of mine: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...post1058322881 (BBC will bear 'moral responsibility' if attacks follow show)

(I didn't think views of yeaterday's show would be on a previous thread as it seemed logical a new one would be set up.)

Can anybody here define who is actually English?

According to the BNP indegnious Britains are Brits who have ancestry stretching back in the British Isles for more than 17,000 years. So i for one can gaurentee you that a good 70% of the British population are therefore "ethnic minorities", and there probably isnt a single English folk on this forum....im from immigrant stock, my grandmother and grandfather are Cypriot Turks and even then, in the 50's my grandad served in the British police force on the island. But i consider myself a Briton nonetheless. I believe i am no less english than any "English" folk on this forum. I have also always considered myself Southern European white regardless of the confusions Turks can cause regarding skin colour, but anyway above all i dont believe there is a skin colour criteria to be a Briton. My opinion on Islam is pretty uncertain, however.

This is how I see it: It appears that the BNP honours the racial criteria in its constitution more in the breech than in the observance. Looks as if it's in sufficient 'legalese' to stand up in court, but in reality if you look and seem English (or related European kindred stock!) enough then you're a shoe-in.

Bonnie Greer claims that all humans originated from Africa, but even if so the races have still diverged and developed their own traits. The BNP have picked up on race and culture and tried to define it as much as possible. They think they're protecting it by making their party as racially exclusive as possible, though Lawrence Rustem is an example how how the rules aren't quite adhered to in white supremacist terms.
_____________________________________

I've made a discovery. Thanks to the mad-dog temperament of the Question Time audience and panellists, Nick Griffin can now say this to his fans:

Throughout today a flood of public sympathy has been deluging our telephone and email systems. The BBC, Lib-Lab-Con and the media have truly turned the BNP into the obvious opposition to the political elite. The media have slammed the BNP in recent times for pretending to be the victims of political and media bias - thanks to the huge own goal of a stage-managed Question Time ambush they have, without a shadow of doubt, turned the BNP into the victims of British politics and the only party that is not afraid to say what everyone actually thinks.

I watched the Question time with Nick G. of BNP/NF

what is it with his left eye? it seemed to slide down his face as the programme went on! Is it just a "lazy" eye or some kind of dead nerves? Or maybe some kind of psychological condition brought on by stress ?!?!?!!?