Nick Griffin on Question Time
The claims made against Question Time by various publications and commentators are clear: it was a "typical BBC conspiracy". The audience was clearly "rigged" to ensure a "lynch-mob mentality". The "usual Question Time format was changed" to focus entirely on the BNP and to "ignore general topics of the week". David Dimbleby pursued a "personal attack against Nick Griffin". And the "publicity-seeking" programme "did it all for the ratings".
So much for the charges. The reality is a bit more straightforward.
It was Question Time. With a lot more people watching than normal. And a lot more column inches written in advance about it than normal. And significantly more demonstrators outside the venue than normal. But otherwise, in all the core elements, it was Question Time as normal.
As in any Question Time week, members of the public guide producers on what's to be debated. The programme is driven by the questions submitted by the audience itself. And unsurprisingly, they chose to focus on topics that were in the news this week - immigration, Jan Moir's article on the death of Stephen Gately, the BNP's co-option of historical figures and, yes, Question Time itself.
What, no post strike? No Afghanistan? They were on the list of issues to be debated. But, from the weight of questions, other topics galvanised our audience more, and there simply wasn't time to get to them. This isn't a stopwatch tick-box format. A question might take ten minutes to debate. Or twenty. It is the audience and its members' engagement in an issue which leads the content of the debate. They demand their say and ensure that answers are properly scrutinised.
That means editorial fluidity and flexibility. As in Grimsby and Salisbury earlier this year, occasionally one topic dominates, because the public just doesn't want to move away from it. Back then - as you may have spotted - it was MPs' expenses. This week, it was the BNP and its beliefs and policies, albeit encompassing questions on race, Islam, homophobia, immigration and Churchill. So we didn't change the format. Questions, and debate, just are the format. And again it's the audience which guides it.
And so to the "rigged audience". The audience, as always, was made up of a broad cross-section of views and backgrounds reflective of the location. That would be the same whether we were in Liverpool, Llandudno or - as in this case - London. Every week, they're encouraged to participate and to ask probing questions to provoke debate. So: were BNP supporters invited and allowed in? Yes. In fact, they made more than one contribution to the discussion. Was that enough? Did they applaud sufficiently or counter the boos directed at their party leader? Hard to judge. But who needs to? That's the thing about people who come to see Question Time - they have minds of their own.
As does David Dimbleby. His job was not to "get" Nick Griffin, or to "expose" him as a racist and crush him in public. It was to chair a debate. Which he did, brilliantly. That meant giving not just the audience members their say, but panellists too. All of them. And probing panellists - all of them - on past policy, utterances and beliefs. So David did indeed forensically grill Mr Griffin on everything from the Ku Klux Klan to the Holocaust. And likewise Jack Straw was questioned over government immigration policy. Sayeeda Warsi on civil partnerships. Not ganging up against one member of the panel. Just robust questioning to achieve clarity. It's what the audience expects - every week.
Chasing ratings? Question Time has been going for 30 years and has very healthy viewing figures, rising to a recent record peak throughout the past series. The decision to invite Nick Griffin onto the programme had nothing to do with ratings. It had to do with our obligation to show due impartiality and the fact that only now has the BNP crossed a particular electoral threshold in securing European parliamentary seats. (See a previous post by my colleague Ric Bailey.)
But the key manner in which this was Question Time as normal is that it was unpredictable. Week in, week out, none of us involved in the programme has any idea how the audience will react, what will anger or amuse them, whether this or that panellist will shine or sink or even whether a cat called Tango will wander behind the set while we're on air (Google it. You'll get the drift).
But amid all the normal unpredictability, one question remains the same every week. Did it work? And, as is the answer to everything with Question Time, you decide.
Update 1515, 24 October: The document that appeared in both the Daily Mail and on its website today is not, contrary to the claim by the Daily Mail, the same document issued to members of the Question Time audience.
The version of the instructions printed in the Daily Mail has Nick Griffin's profile first - the version issued to the audience had Jack Straw's profile first.
There was only one instruction guide given to members of the audience and it is the same format as issued every week. The BBC instructions always begin with the panel member from the government - in this week's case Jack Straw.
On the version printed in the Mail, the Nick Griffin entry has been placed over that of Mr Straw.
As a result, Mr Griffin's entry appears twice in the version on the Mail's website and Mr Straw not at all.
Gavin Allen is executive editor, Question Time.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Seems to me that the BBC must have used the Lib Dem party membership list to select the audience - Yes, I'm afraid the bias was that obvious.
As for the 'rent-a-mob' outside the BBC, well how ironic that they were claiming to be pro-democracy but were trying to stop AN ELECTED MEP from stating his parties views on OUR PUBLIClY FUNDED PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTER paid for by everyone in the UK (but treated by the loathsome Peter Hain as his personal property). That is called facism when other governments do it - but not apparentely in PC UK.
Complain about this comment
I was disgusted with the BBC that was not a proper question time program that was a witch hunt I'm not a BMP member but a senior citizen who does agree with some of the BMP views.Last night most of the audience must have been hand picked just to have ago at Nick and I think he did very well and Jack Straw well what can I say nothing. The chairman of the panel I thought was to be impartial but he was as bad as the audience and should have not been on the show. I also think that most of the MPs think the very same but they don't have the guts to say what they really think. After last night I will vote for the BMP in future. So good luck Nick
Complain about this comment
dearsir/madam,freedom of speech is a two way thing,go to a bnp meeting and disagree with there veiws,you will find free speech will not be allowed that is why the bnp shoud not be seen as democratic,rember the nazis!this is how they started.
Complain about this comment
I made a positive decision not to watch this stupidly staged programme and I am amazed that an intelligent person like Dimbleby allowed himself to be involved ..the programme was always going to be a witchhunt that the BNP would use to their advantage so why give them credence.. from what I read today that is exactly what has happened ...until such time as the BBC get a grip and return to proper standards I will not be watching this programme again...it is now in the dregs dept
Complain about this comment
I felt embarrassed and ashamed at how Nick Griffin was treated on Question Time. I have never, and will never vote for the BNP however that doesn't mean I want a baying audience and panel to harass him to the point he was barely able to finish a sentence. Like it or not, his party has a following and we as members of a democracy have a duty to listen and debate constructively. Where was the debate? I am none the wiser what he thinks as he was never allowed to finish a point.
At home i felt embarrassed at how low a level the program had plumbed. David Dimbleby ducked the hard job of chairing the debate and just joined in with the crowd - he must take responsibility for allowing things to get out of control. The BBC were both courageous and wise to invite him on the programme - having done that they should have ensured he was treated with the basic courtesy that every panel member is entitled to. Will the BBC do the right thing and apologise for how he was allowed to be treated?
Complain about this comment
Its the same thing they done to Watchdog
Complain about this comment
#3. Exactly what are you trying to say. Publicity did not bring out the Nazi Party- a political vacuum cause by no Kaiser, an ecconomic vacuum caused by the depression were the two key things that allowed the Nazis into power.Hitler came to power democratically through PR transferrable vote which was sanctioned by the allies. We have in this country a moral decrepitude shown by all the establishment parties who have nothing new to offer and have dragged the parliamentary system through the mud, aided and abetted the banking crisis and have taken us into an illegal war and the electorate have had enough. You cannot blame the BNP for that no matter what you think of their politics. That kind of publicity won't do the BNP any harm but we're not going to go overboard. There are other parties too-UKIP English Nationalists and English democrats, Greens not to mention but a few. There are certain things that are going to resonate. BNP is not the only party talking about immigration- so too are the Tories because Labour has not told the truth. Unless we deal with these tensions and this nonsense of multiculturalism matters are only going to get worse.
Complain about this comment
Generally a very good programme, although I'm not sure I would agree with Kelvin Mackenzie that it was up there with 'Frost/Nixon'...
I am not going to fall into the trap of doing a 'player rater' for each of the participants. But I would make the following general comments.
The BBC Trust and Question Time producers were not right not to accede to requests to pull the programme or capitulate to the threat of legal action by Peter Hain. This would have been counter-productive in my view. We can close our eyes and ignore the fact that people have been voting for the BNP but it is not going to alter that reality. We have to decide what action we will take as a result and banning him from the QT programme is not going to help in understanding why people have voted BNP.
This is an important wake-up call, and as many of the guests pointed out last night, there are questions of whether the issues of concern to the voters have been listened to, and whether the politicians have responded adequately as a result.
I have some sympathy with Hain over the issue of 'legitimacy' but the idea that the BNP are not already communicating with many people via the internet, unfiltered and without balance and impartiality without their being challenged means that they do need to be engaged in a debate.
Many criticised the appearance on Question Time by saying 'He should be the subject of a hostile interview by the likes of Jeremy Paxman'. Well he has already. And Andrew Neil. They were tough interviews where he was subjected to a grilling. But once the people were voting BNP in numbers there was always going to come a time where he had to face an audience.
Balancing the danger of him being seen as just slightly further to the far-right / far-left of, say, UKIP or Respect, depending on one's view - or of it being an 'ambush' which would be used as a propaganda coup was never going to easy - and QT should be applauded for taking these risks.
My personal view is that this programme could have been extended 10-15 minutes to allow a 'warm-up' question on the Post Office to emphasise the 'normality' of a debate - but others will feel that this was not to acknowledge the distinct nature of the BNP.
I don't believe the audience was 'gerrymandered', but part of the problem here is that metropolitan audiences, by their nature younger and more affluent, may not fully comprehend the pressures being faced by the people who have been in the sights of the BNP's targeted campaigns. They may be too ready to assume that people voting for Griffin have delved into his past, rather than latching on to some headline policies.
Saying that, Baroness Warsi did do a very good job of putting across the dilemmas faced by people in her 'square mile' in the north of England and how the argument should be more about winning over the public than 'beating the BNP over the head'.
I was disappointed that Jack Straw maybe didn't concede that saying one thing and doing another over EU issues, or a situation of 'words and figures differ' on levels of european migration didn't help build trust in the Government and could lead to disaffection.
As for the question of 'ganging up' on Griffin. Well in a sense he has put himself outside the political mainstream, so he can hardly complain about being in a minority, but maybe some consideration should have been given to having other 'nationalist' parties like the SNP or Plaid Cymru represented to show that racism does not need to be a feature of looking after national interests.
I'm not David Dimbleby's biggest fan, and often find him a bit too smug and pompous, especially with the studio audience. But he did come into his own last night - this was the sort of strong character needed to deal with the large personalities. Griffin was held to account on key points such as his video with David Duke. But there was I think a bit of a danger of Griffin being 'painted into a corner' rather than asked to spend a bit of time explaining and justifying his positions.
But this is maybe to risk not seeing the wood for the trees. Such a QT was never going to perfect - but that is not a reason for not having taken the decision to go ahead with it, and taking the flak accordingly.
Many wish to resort to the law to silence and shut down Griffin. But my questions are these. If one didn't have access to the law, what would your responses to the BNP be then ? Shouldn't we be doing those things anyway ?
Also in any situation whether it be Northern Ireland in the past and the Middle East in the future, it is very tempting to think that if certain key personalities could be moved out of the way, things would improve. This is often not the case, as those people are figureheads representing large bodies of opinion which are not going to change overnight because one person retires or is replaced by a deputy.
And the various reasons people chose to vote for the BNP may not go away just by choosing not to put them on the platform of public scrutiny.
So we have to acknowledge our complacency and treat this programme, to coin a phrase, as a 'call to action' - and hope our politicians do the same.
And whilst there will much debate among historians about the various aspects of Winston Churchill's life and career, many will agree with his statement that 'jaw jaw is better than war war'. However difficult last night's debate may have been for some people, trying to suppress debate and free speech is not, in my view, the answer as it has too much of a risk of people resorting to weapons other than words..
Complain about this comment
I was particularly disgusted by Dimbleby rebuking Griffin for having a nervous grin.
It took me back to my school days. My teachers liked to use that trick. They knew perfectly well that the grin was stress, not amusement, but it was an opportunity for them to assert themselves and to crush their victim.
I despised my teachers as bullies.
Complain about this comment
Firstly I do not, nor will I ever vote BNP. However, the shameful debacle that I experienced last night left me squirming in embarassment. The obviously hand picked audience was a great deal more "ethnic" than on most programmes in the series, & the utter lack of authority shown by Dimbleby was abhorent.
The BBC seemed to be doing the right thing by inviting an elected mp onto a debate show, but then let the programme deteriorate into a mud slinging match where audience & panelists alike, were allowed to bully & interrupt someone who was trying to answer questions. I wonder if this was intended as a pacifier to the "facist" mob outside (what else can we call people who try to stifle the political views of others?).
You had a glorious opportunity to grill the BNP on the other issues of import but instead squandered the chance & made the BNP stronger, & more victim than aggressor.
Well done indeed!
Oh yes Gavin Allen, the explanation above is weak & unsubstanciated as anyone who watched the show can see.
Complain about this comment
i was embarrassed for nick griffin was treated on question time last night, it appeared to me to be a witch hunt which was pre-sorted for the questions to be asked, and not the normal type of topics usually debated on question time,most of the audience asking the questions in my opinion was no better than the man who they was calling racist, i feel it just showed that this country is bowin to pressure from other people and not listenin to the people of this DEMOCRATIC country, i think that bbc should listen to its licence fee payers not political parties to run itself
Complain about this comment
I need clarification, when a question was posed to Nick Griffin regarding his views on the Holocaust, he refused to answer in case he was prosecuted ( I believe it is a criminal offence to write or say the holocaust didn't take place) . However, Jack Straw said he could answer, as he was the Justice Minister he would give his guarantee Griffin wouldn't face any prosecution. If I heard correctly ,can Jack Straw do this, and if he can and if Griffin had given his beliefs, would this have set a precedent
Complain about this comment
Judging from Griffin's inept performance, nobody has anything to fear from him.
I must say he was allowed to get off lightly on 1 or 2 issues, where he should have been pressed for further explanation, and allowed to provide further explanation.
I was left wondering what his opinions were on those issues.
e.g. the matter of "indigenous British people."
who precisely does that include of the people who now reside in Britain, and does he believe in repatriation of some people, and precisely which groups of people ?
What if some of those groups of people do not have anywhere to repatriate' to ?
What if their one and only nationality is British ?
What if their spouses or families are indigenous ? Must they leave their families ?
He did sometimes make himself look foolish, and somewhat ignorant, on the matter, for example, of the Holocaust, although I have to say that the Holocaust is completely irrelevant to the issues facing us in the 21st century.
To ask someone if they believe the Holocaust happened is about as relevant as asking them if Vesuvius destroyed Pompei.
The programme failed to address most of the important issues it should have been addressing.
It was a programme almost entirely about Griffin and the BNP, and their attitudes to race, and to Islam, and to homosexual petting in public.
I am sure the three main Parties were delighted to be able to avoid discussing all the issues such as the economy,banks,poverty,unemployment, crime, health, education,wars, pensions.
The one and only question which was not about Griffin and the BNP was a question on some tabloid gossip about a pop singer and homosexual relationships.
It was all second rate stuff, not even up to the standards of Radio 2, Radio 5 Live,or even Radio 1, and all the panellists were pretty second-rate.
Complain about this comment
I'll keep this short. cheers bbc, you've just convinced me to vote BNP.
Complain about this comment
it seems the producers of question time set their own agenda with that one and have failed to remain neutral and have caused the bbc yet more harm.
sadly in trying to please every one they reduced the show to a witch hunt and viewers noticed, if the producers wanted to produce a soap like eastenders then they should do so but to ruin question time now that is a tragedy on an epic scale.
one can only hope that if the bnp are to return they be treated just as any other political party and quizzed on what they can do for the people of this country just as any and all parties.
Complain about this comment
I have spent a fair bit of time looking at various blogs and I have to say that there is an awful lot of support out there for not so much the BNP but their voicing of fears - or the actuality - that the immigration system is out of control. Couple this with dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties and the recession and I can see huge changes over the next 10 years. The political elite have only themselves to blame for their "I know best" attitudes.
Complain about this comment
It seems strange to me that the Government does not seem to understand that a lot of the UK population have had enough. They are being taxed to the hilt to bail out others who will not work, will not give anything to society but are willing to take everything. We live on a little Island which is literally rotting away as the infrastructure collapses. In the meantime we are throwing millions of pounds at people without getting anything in return. We then wonder why we are fast becoming a third rate country. It's not about race, it's about us having third class politicians who never deliver. It's about people coming to this country, getting benefits without first having paid anything in. It's about normal British people being fed up of seeing themselves and their families being ripped off. That's why the BNP has a rising membership and why all three main parties should be worried.
Complain about this comment
It was fair for QT to mainly concentrate on Griffin and his views; he wants platforms to put them forward and is also a controversial figure, so it is reasonable that people would want to, and should be allowed to, question him on his views.
Be honest, the BNP members in the audience would have wanted Griffin to have as much air time as possible to express his views about immigration, race, Islam and so on. That essentially is what he got.
Griffin’s claim that Winston Churchill [if alive today] would join the BNP is ludicrous; there was the equivalent of the BNP back in the 1930s - Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists; Churchill never expressed the slightest interest in them. (Apart from arresting their leaders and imprisoning them when war broke out.)
Churchill was not an instinctive racist, in India he fought along side brave Sikhs; he was also essentially an atheist; he was a great patriot, but then so was my father and so am I.
I am English and have no desire to live anywhere else, nor patience with those express a wish to destroy this country, I support the troops in Afghanistan; we are there for a good reason. (9/11.)
Griffin’s views on the Holocaust are naive and risible; my father did serve in the armed services (and saw much active service. e.g. D Day landings) during WWII; he also had friends that helped liberate the Belsen concentration camp. Trying to pretend that the Nazis never had a deliberate policy of exterminating Jews is simply fantasy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4445811.stm
Griffin has shared a platform with a leader of the Klu Klux Klan; not many people in Britain would choose to do that. Trying to state that he was trying to present a moderate position (Of what? White supremacy?) is risible.
The claims that the QT audience was somehow rigged against him are paper thin. Those used to political party meetings are used to audiences that by and large agree with the speakers. Debates with the public open the audience up to sceptical, the uncommitted and those that support other parties.
Given Griffin's [and BNP's] views it's unsurprising that he also raises hackles amongst those that are the 2nd or 3rd generation children of immigrants that moved to the UK decades ago; those that have friends, colleagues or partners that are from a different ethnic background or overseas country, those that enjoy a curry or Chinese meal and so on.
Immigration (and Nu Labour's record) is a subject of public concern and debate; but the BNP is not the only party that will be putting forward proposals for tighter controls at the next election. I fully expect a change of Govt. at the next election, so voters will have a range of policies to consider; the BNP by no means is the only game in town.
I understand the concerns of those in areas where jobs and industry have disappeared, where competition for council housing feels a lottery and feel ignored by the main political parties. Recession and unemployment makes some feel marginalised (others are instinctive tribalists and instinctively hostile to those that are different to them), but hatred and division are not the solution to this countries problems, nor are the feelings or reaction of the majority of the 'indigenous' population.
BTW. I used to live in London; I moved away simply because it was so expensive to live in and the quality of life is better in regional cities. I can now get out to the countryside in 15 minutes, not 3 hours. I now live in a low crime area with shops open till late, many restaurants and takeaways and so on. And yes, many people of different ethnic backgrounds live here too, and have done so for many decades.
Complain about this comment
Having watched the programme again, what concerned me most about it were the early signs of possible Altzheimers displayed by the Justice Secretary. He was clearly concerned about matters but was unable clearly to articulate his responses- in frustration resorting to a shout at one point, I noticed.
I cannot but agree that the programme was 'loaded'. Out of goodness knows how many people applied to go on the programme, somehow those with the oportunity to speak were mostly those opposing Mr Griffin. I can only assume that whoever 'vets' applicants and produces the final list of those to receive tickets and ask questions had the opportunty to produce a more balanced audience and list of questions.
Mr Dimbleby permitted scurrilous personal remarks to be directed at Mr Griffin by members of the panel, which I have never seen him permit before on any Question Time that I have watched.
Mr Griffin must really be encouraged to return soon so that we can hear his actual balanced comments on current afairs such as are customary of panellists on Question Time, instead of the somewhat boring outpouring of anti-BNP bile that occurred on this occasion.
Complain about this comment
If the main political Parties had not been so useless and destructive for so many years then there would not have been so many protest votes against them and in favour of the BNP in recent Elections.and then Griffin would not be appearing on Question Time.
The BNP would never have become a force in Britain.
The 2 Parties who have run the country, each in turn,have served us so badly and failed so badly for so long, that we all know that donkeys or monkeys or dogs or cats could not have done worse than them.
You only need look at what the Governments of other European nations have done for their citizens to appreciate what poor value for money our Governments have been.
You only have to consider our Governments'records on the following:--
1. the economy, raped by bankers who now know their thieving has the guarantee of future bailouts by the Government.
2. housing.
3. unemployment.
4. poverty.
5. lousy pensions.
6. the very existence of hospital waiting lists.( inexcusable ).
7. rampant crime.
8. appalling and expensive railways.
9. destructive, costly, and useless wars.
10.immoral fleecing of the public purse by M.P.'s.
Rotten Government and a lousy political establishment is what has let in the BNP.
regards
Col Howard Talbot
Complain about this comment
Learnerblogger wrote:
"dearsir/madam,freedom of speech is a two way thing,go to a bnp meeting and disagree with there veiws,you will find free speech will not be allowed that is why the bnp shoud not be seen as democratic,rember the nazis!this is how they started."
I cannot comment about the Nazis or a BNP meeting.
But I do remember a Labour meeting where a 70+ year old was thrown out of the conference hall for heckling. Physically thrown out by bouncers, people seem to have VERY short memories.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Mr Allen
QT is driven from the Chair, always has been always will be. Whoever is in that Chair, determines who is talking on the panel, who is allowed to interrupt, which audience members are asked and how long a question is allowed to be debated. Or, at least, that was the formula until 22/10/09.
On 22/10/09 the Chair not only determined that Mr Griffin should be spiked at will from anyone on the panel he even joined in. The tactic was to make Mr Griffin look small, not to allow him to tell his side of the story, not to allow us, the viewer, to form our own opinion.
So was the requirement within YOUR job, Mr Allen, to remain impartial, suspended for one hour? So was Mr Dimbleby's contract to remain impartial suspended for one hour? It was okay wasn't it, after all we should all hate the BNP, its leaders and what it stands for?
Was the audience a REAL selection of people, like me, born and bred in Hammersmith, or was it a selection of people who have moved into Hammersmith by moving out those who were indigenous to the area. How can the BBC EVER guarantee a representative audience? You cannot and you hide behind that in this blog.
You should resign Mr Allen because you failed to do YOUR job. I urge you to reflect on that and ensure it never happens again. Free speech demands that Nick Griffin is treated with respect and allowed to say what he wishes to say without being heckled by a bunch of five odious middle class wind bags.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry...it won't wash. Question Time was a debacle and the editors would be well advised to learn from it instead of patronising viewers because, as "simple folk", they misinterpreted what they saw and heard and are being mislead by the "non- BBC" media. The only person to emerge with any credibility is Bonnie Greer: her short and concise summary in today's Times is a beacon of common sense and logic. Saying more in a few paragraphs than all the BBC political presenting team combined. David Dimbleby, Paxo, Kirsty, Gavin and our esteemed bloggers could learn a lot from her.
Complain about this comment
Mr Allan - You said that David Dimbleby's role was to chair the debate, going on to say he did it brilliantly. Well I don’t know what program you watched but, as a family who always watch Question time, we collectively watched on Thursday night and were DISGUSTED by his performance. I accept it is your role to TRY and defend his performance, but be honest with yourself Mr Allan, be honest, there is no way he was impartial that night and I think you will find on the various web sites commenting on this program the vast majority of people will agree with this.
Complain about this comment
I felt that Nick Griffin was treated badly on question time and it was appauling the format was changed. While I would strongly disagree with much of his partys agenda I do feel that we need a louder voice regarding managing immigration and the rapidly rising level of population in this small island. The threat of this overloading our public services (NHS, Schools,policing)is very evident. If no party will adopt this as part of their agenda then we only have the option of the BNP to voice the publics strong feelings on this. I do also feel that I find it difficult to say I am English, when and how did this cultural change happen ?
Complain about this comment
Having read your excuses I'm afraid, as #25 said, it won't wash.
All that happened could/should have been foreseen.
Dimbleby was, I thought, particularly at fault.
Complain about this comment
I always imagined it was the job of a chairman in a discussion like question time to be impartial. David Dimblebeys dislike of Nick griffin was obvious to the point of bordering on naked agression.
Three questions were put to Mr Griffin one after the other by members of the audience and on each occasion as he tried to answer them Mr Dimblebey shouted Nick Griffin down. I had tuned in to hear what he had to say, instead I saw the chairman preventing him from answering.
Free speech, I dont think so ?.
Complain about this comment
I watched the show then read a selection of the next days broad sheets, i really resent how stupid the papers must think the people are, they have misquoted and blatantly lied to make Nick Griffin look worse than he already is. I started off wanting him to get grilled but by the end wanted to defend him on some of the points, he might be extreme and nasty but he answered his questions a lot straighter (when allowed) then jack straw (whose government is more than woefully inadequate and should be tried by the hague along with george bush for the lies and deaths in iraq). This article by gavin allen is utter biased rubbish and i cant actually believe that i now feel like voting BNP.
Complain about this comment
I just want to know if the BBC is only going to have Nick Griffin on to represent the BNP; it's not a one man band, it's a political party. Just imagine Labour only being represented by Gordon Brown on TV. I know that after this Griffin will be a gold mine for audience rating figures, but we have seen what sort of a program comes from just having an aunty Sally to throw things at.
Complain about this comment
could this be just the nail in the coffin of this once great program that will aid the bbc's killing off the program to save money.
Complain about this comment
The whole programme was an exercise in the bully boy tactics usually attributed to the fascists. As for the make up of the audience, if the percentages of population had been used then what appeared to be about sixty percent of the audience would not have been from the ethnic minorities. Dimbleby was more intent on portraying a fashionable pseudo Liberal image than even handedness , and the other guests were, to say the least pathetic. Straw and Hulme were out of their depth and full of platitudes that went out of fashion when the twin towers came down, Warsi showed her total lack of grasp of the problems inherent in Britain,bias towards Islam and blind adherence to the party line . The strange American lady was discourteous and wholly concerned with mistakenly showing how intellectual she thought she was compared with every body else.
Complain about this comment
well done the bbc for allowing nick griffin on question time.he did remarkably well considering the witchhunt that replaced the usual question time!they all spoke of democracy and freedom of speech being the cornerstone of our country then proceeded in not allowing nick to speak or answer a question.obviously this democracy does not extend to the bnp or its supporters.the bnp are gathering even more support as we speak.i would just like to point out that the people who are joining and will be voting for the bnp, are just normal everyday working class tax paying folk.who like plain talking and who are fed up feeling like a minority in their own neighbourhood.they are not rascist and i personally know some seihks and asians who have told me they will be voting for the bnp.when i asked why they said there families had worked hard in the last forty years building up businesses paying taxes,intergated well within the communities and loved being british.they said they did not want this to change.i for one agree with them.it has nothing to do with skin colour but everything to do with feeling proud of our being british.and none of us want to be the minority in our own country.listen up, or face the consequence in the next election.i predict the bnp will gain at least ten seats in parliament.in desperate times people do desperate times.the other parties have all contributed to the bnp`s rise...
Complain about this comment
Isn't it a bit ironic that the press are making such an issue about Nick Griffin getting free publicity on Question Time by splashing him all over the front pages?
Complain about this comment
Typical left wing BBC. The same format was follwed after the 9-11 catastrophe. Lord Reith will be turning in his grave. Un-biased public broadcasting;I think not.
The population wonder why anyone votes for the BNP.
This Programme format provides part of the answer. The BNP will get stronger unfortunately because NO one listens to the voters grievances. Having worked in run down areas and seen for myself what is happening with regard to immigration and the onslaught of Muslim religion nothing will change until a political party has the moral fibre to stand up and be honest, NOT politically correct and do what the majority of the population want;curb the immigration. Unfortunately as soon as the word immigration is mentioned one is automatically deemed a racist.This country does not have the resources to cope with an influx. We have enough to do to reduce the masses that are part of the client state.
I used to be a patriot, but more than ever over the last 12 years this country has been in free fall. Thank God I can escape; others cannot.
Complain about this comment
After much watching, then reading, then thinking I have reached the conclusion that the elephant is now out of the room and rampaging down our streets.
Imv, I believe we are going to find the can of worms, the nasties in the woodshed and all the other cliches of doom exposing our darker sides over the next few months culminating in an election result exposing us for what we are.
I blame Westminster, a cesspit of mediocrity without a leader amongst them. Imv, the BBC has merely exposed a side of our psyche which as a nation we have been afraid to face - least of all our useless MP's who's snouts have been buried in the trough.
Hold onto your seats.
Complain about this comment
Having been bullied into suppressing my free speech and being caused breakdowns through it, I could only feel sorry for Nick Griffin as he suffered the same kind of bullying. It is an old trick to distort what people are saying and never let them express things properly. That is the way for people to perceive them in a different light.
Straw showed the same self-righteousness as those who bullied, exploited and slandered me. He is also in charge of the laws that would have me arrested if I stuck up for myself. My minority group is genius. Let those without sin cast the first stones.
Complain about this comment
So, Nick Griffin has complained to the BBC about Question Time being biased. Is this fair? 1) Griffin appearing on Question Time was a lead article in the news so it was therefore current for questions to be raised on this (just as MPs were grilled during the expenses scandal); 2) Griffin is in a minority party and therefore had to expect that the rest of the panel and the majority of the audience would be in opposition - taking Griffin's own stance on minorities he should not have been listened to at all and sent back to where he came from (the National Front isn't it?); 3) The majority of politicians are able to spin questions to allow them to promote their own policies should they wish - as a party leader it's the least his voters could have hoped for - poor show; 4) Is Griffin complaining that David Dimbleby quoted him verbatim? Is it bias to attack someone with themselves instead of leaving more time to open it to the floor? Surely if Nick Griffin agreed with himself then it would be positive bias in his favour - is it Question Time's fault if he chooses to oppose himself in public?
Complain about this comment
There was also the question of homophobic comments and Nick Griffin saying that he is repulsed by two men kissing in the streets. He was scorned for that, but we all know about hypocrisy.
There is a plausibility gap between so-called enlightened thinking and common practice. I live in a world where people do not want their noses rubbed in other people's quirky lifestyles. I live in a world where people preach tolerance and understanding, but give me none. I live in a world where people lose their tempers because others express themselves and criticise those around them for no reason, while insisting their victims show forbearance.
So you reserve your right-on thinking for beating Mr. Griffin over the head.
Complain about this comment
I have attended many management courses during which my department's performance and my personal attributes/weaknesses were discussed by other participants. A rule for these feedback sessions was that the recipient accepted all comments without responding or defending themselves against any negative perceptions during the session and reflected on them later. Some comments were considered unfair or ill informed but most had some element that, if acted upon, enhanced group and individual effectiveness. The practice is widely practised in commerce and industry..I get the impression the Beeb editorial team would have some difficulty with it
Complain about this comment
So much for the charges. The reality is a bit more straightforward.
Bless.
Just watched the Newswatch mea gulp-ah dawn patrol post mortem. Interesting. 3 folk. A sulky bloke who doesn’t know much but knows what he doesn’t like. A young lady who was in the QT audience. And a BBC ‘I don’t think so/it was all fine’… for a change.
‘They have devoted the whole programme…’, a bit like the QT show itself, which was changed fundamentally to suit a warped notion of balance. They might as well have stuck him in stocks and had all present pelt him with eggs to really hand him a martyr’s tag.
The young lady – who was there – says ‘the people who were coming’ were there probably because they were anti-BNP. Mr. BBC leaps in and tries to ‘improve’ matters (not sure he did) by claiming audiences are ‘carefully selected’. Plus an interesting leap to ‘if the audience was not with him, they must have been against him’. I thought it was a cross-section, many of whom might not have been decided, or carrying burning torches.
‘Carefully selected’? Do what? By whom? On what criteria? Sounds like a uniquely funded licence to rig it any way an arrogant few can enhance the narrative any way they like. Should they wish.
And, just for fun, the young lady – who was present – tops it off by suggesting Mr. Dimbelby was a less than effective moderator. I believe she, a non-BNP supporter I’d say, reckoned he was not impartial and handed the BNP further bias ammo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/
Pull the other one, it has 'interpreting events' hanging off it.
Complain about this comment
The mistake made by the producers of QT, was in the choice of the other members on the panel. None of the politicians present could attack Mr Griffin on his main thesis, which is that the problems of deprivation in certain inner cities is due to immigration. Indeed the Tory and Lib Dem representatives implicitly endorsed this thesis by attacking the government's immigration policy.
They concentrated instead on Mr Griffin's murky past. I suspect that BNP voters already know all about this. Indeed even if they are not racists, it is part of the attraction of the BNP, because it reinforces the "kick up the backside" effect on the other parties.
It was a pity that no one pointed out that the problem of inner city deprivation is centuries old and is unlikely to be solved by anti-immigration policies, however firmly applied.
The Labour government should be ashamed that after 12 years in power the Tory "right to buy" legislation has not been repealed. It has taken the SNP government in Scotland only 2 years to decide to do so. This would have helped remove one of the grievances that the BNP has exploited, and is just one example of the apparent indifference of New Labour to the problems of the least fortunate in our society, while it panders to the better off.
Complain about this comment
What a shocking programme the other night. I have watched Q.T for years and enjoyed the content However I feel that it's integrity, and impartiality has deminished over the last six months or so. Dimbleby is increasingly contributing his own views and predudices, A definite NO NO. It is now time for a change of Chairman.
Complain about this comment
I'm pleased the programme took place: these issues do need to be raised. They exist, and no amount of PC legislation is going to make them go away, just prevent people discussing them. It's a bit like the Victorian's attitude to sex: they tried to hide and repress it, and it just kept creeping out again in ever nastier ways.
It was to be expected there would be a bit of a furore the first time these issues were debated in public: but hopefully, when the dust settles and everyone calms down, we can have a reasonable informed debate about issues of race, religions, immigration etc etc. At the moment, we're caught in a trap: we're not allowed to discuss these issues for fear of being labelled 'racist'. Even the BBC is to some extent caught in this dilemma: it cannot, for example, for reasons of the law, allow members of the public to debate these issues on their public forums, such as 'Have Your Say'. But the British public clearly DO want to talk about these very things, and the very organisation designed to give them a voice, and that they pay for, is not allowed to! No wonder they turn to people like Griffin.
It's clear a section of the population are concerned that this country is losing a way of life it once enjoyed. That view may be all a bit 1950's Enid Blyton for some, but for others it's a great loss. The blame is not necessarily to be laid at the door of immigrants, or homosexuals, or anyone, but whatever the causes, it's simply not fair to dismiss these views as old-fashioned and due to be swept away. How a person really feels about their country is hugely important, and if they feel their country has let them down, it's a loss for all of us.
So whatever the outcome, let's finally have the big debate everybody's been avoiding: it's going to be painful, and embarrassing, and some people are going say some horrible things that will upset other people, but we can't keep pretending that everything in the UK is just dandy, because it isn't.
And for the record, I'm not a BNP supporter. I come from the white British working class that they like to say they represent. I converted to Islam a few years ago and married a Pakistani.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your explanation. Maybe its the truth. But the point is nobody believes you.
Complain about this comment
Who is running the BBC? It has certainly lost its ability to promote free speech. Just try to get a comment relating to Islam on any of the HYS boards and you will be rejected. There are so many political no go areas, and this is supported by the political classes and the BBC editors and journalists. The BNP might not be nice people, but we know for certain that their opponents are very unsavoury. Yet the BNP are saying things that ordinary British people are prevented from speaking about. I say this to the BBC - and I say it in anger - you and your PC and oppressive multiculturalism, which culminated in the farcial Question Time programme, must be held responsible for the creation of long term civil unrest and hostility within this country. People are fed up with being told what to think, fed up with the selective range of opinion formers trotted out on your dreadfully boring news programmes. So go on, moderate this comment out of existence; it offends Big Brother.
Complain about this comment
Read all about it.
Whatever newspaper group you are represented by (except of course the BNP who are not represented) have a reason why the BBC got it completely wrong, from stirring up a purposefully selected anti-BNP audience, to a conspiracy between the BBC and UK Zionists. So the BBC, because of their bland sycophantic "middle class-ness" and spineless ability to do things properly, are responsible for, if some newspaper estimates are correct, the future election of Mr Griffin as our leader.
And that audience? Don't around 50% or more of us say we don't vote or we are undecided? And doesn't the support for the BNP supposedly come from this group? So where was that great BIG majority of the audience shouting down the mindless hecklers in the audience and on the platform sitting alongside Mr Griffin?
I really do NOT want a party like the BNP representing me in my constituency, but I DO want someone other than the mainstream parties or the Green's, UKIP or whoever else. We are those who are most seriously affected by the uncontrolled stream of immigrants to the UK, most upset by the bias demonstrated towards these people, most deprived by the pressure they place on our accommodation, our health, our education, and our jobs. The UK comprises of several small islands - it is not enough space for 65 million let alone a projected 75 to 80 million.
Who represents us? Now, BBC, do you get it?
Complain about this comment
When there's a debate on British political parties surely only British people should be asked to conribute to it.
The BBC were right to invite Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time but they could have presented a more convincing debate had they only invited audience members who had the right to vote.
Many contributions were made by people who appeared, from their still very prominent accents, to be new arrivals to our country.
I'm not talking about colour here. I'm not in any way racist and I believe that our country can be improved by allowing, indeed encouraging, talented people from other counties to settle here.
Jack Straw seems to think that our country should be used as a repository for idiots.
Sure as eggs are eggs, if I were to emigrate to any other country I would not be given the right to vote, draw benefits, live in a comfortable council house, or discuss the future of politics. - Especially if my concern was that the soft politicians currently running the place should continue...
For a Briton to emigrate to anywhere else proof of solvency has to be supplied, proof of good character and usually the offer of secure employment has also to be supplied.
The BNP might be over the top and yes they might be racist but people are going to vote for them and take the risk. Because the people who come here to take advantage of our soft society are themselves, on the whole, the most racist and selfish people I've ever met.
Nick Griffin's party will grow on the back of the Question Time debate. The British people are looking for someone who will at the very least recognise that their efforts, their taxes, their NI
contributions and their culture will be protected from the importation of the rest of the world's free-loaders. - And if that means, some of these selfish, racist people say that the British are racist. Then that's a risk most of us will take.
The BBC should be fighting on the side of the British people. Fair political debates are fine but lets have British people debating British politics. Leave the uninvited guests out of it.
Complain about this comment
The BBC 'blinked' on this issue. Having taken a wise, courageous, and correct decision to allow a democratically elected politician to take part in the programme, the BBC clearly went out of its way to ensure that nothing could emerge from it to the BNP's credit.
This well-scripted ambush of an elected politician has jarred on a viewing public which is clearly more intelligent than the BBC, or mainstream parties, give credit.
Complain about this comment
I am no supporter of the BNP, believe me. Behind the facade of (almost) respectability, lies a party full of hate. However, whether Peter Hain likes it or not, this is supposed to be a country of free speach and democracy, and it is wrong of him to castigate the BBC for allowing the BNP leader to take part in Question Time this week. Until the legitimate concerns of a considerable proportion of this country's population are addressed, or at least in part, the BNP will have an appeal.
However, I do have missgivings about how Question Time's format seemed to have been changed for this week, right from the start of the programme. It seems that that after inviting Nick Griffin to the panel management BBC management knew that this was going to be a political 'hot potato,' and to appease the like of Peter Hain, they were determined to make life difficult for the BNP party leader. This has definately backfired.
So, the BBC were surely right to allow Nick Griffin onto the programme but wrong to concentrate almost entirely (except for the last 2 mins) on bashing the BNP.
Many people are concerned about the loss of British culture which they see as not sitting side by side with cultures brought in by immigration but being consumed by them. Many are worried about housing while others are disappointed in the number of businesses either being destroyed or weakened by EU legislation (other EU members often seem to ignore the rules but we all have to conform, and there's an army of people here making sure that we all do)or unfair trade practises. Some, like me, see virtually all the country's old major brand names disappearing or being taken over by foreign interests, much as a great deal of the UK's infrastructure. If there were any British businesses left to perform takeovers abroad in certain areas, communications for instance,they wouldn't be able to but its open season here. Apart from our national football teams, there's little to be proud of in the UK, save for our freedom of speach, and that looks as if its being undermined. People with these concerns will be attracted to the likes of the BNP and the other mainstream parties are seemingly unwilling or unable to do anything to allay their concerns.
Complain about this comment
No wonder Griffin was shaking-you'd be shaking too in front of a rent-a- mob and a clearly biased panel. Dimbleby was terrible and was clearly itching to join in. Are the bbc and press so out of touch with the mood of the white majority?
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin got the best deal out of this. He didn't have to explain his unworkable policies, which would have been the deathy of his parties support, becacause everyone but Bonnie Greer decided to treat it as an opportunity to show their immaturity and shout like children.
Complain about this comment
reading and hearing Peter Hain comments it sounds as if the bnp leaders appearance on question time highlighted the issue,s that council tenants, and lower wage earner / middle class people feel strong about and our MPs such as Peter Hain cover up by the same excuses ,
we are tired of being called racist, or against europe as most of us are not, what we object too is people telling us what we see is incorrect ,
Complain about this comment
The fact that Griffin has one or two million supporters should have had no bearing upon whether or not he should have appeared on QT.
For all we know, there could be two million people who support paedophilia but should we allow someone who champions those views the right to seek further support on a respectable platform?
What was the purpose of allowing Griffin on to the panel? If it was to see his views challenged, does anyone think he would change those views one iota? If it was to 'out him' to the electorate and thereby reduce his support, it's probably safe to say that it has had the opposite effect.
Griffin's appearance on QT has, as predicted, only acted as a focus for all those 'non-racist' racists who were itching to imbue themselves with a modicum of respectability.
The point is that to give Griffin his 'democratic right' could only and has only assisted in the growth of the BNP, therefore are the BBC satisfied it was a price worth paying?
Another own goal for Mark Thompson, it really is about time he was replaced, he along with others at the BBC seem to have no idea of the consequences of their decisions.
Complain about this comment
As an addendum, have you noticed that most of the people expressing pro BNP sentiments here have less literacy skills than, say, an illegal immigrant who has been in the country for about a week. If you wish people to beleive in your sentiments, learn to express them in English first. It's a language you of all people should be proud of.
Complain about this comment
People who say 'less literary skills' rather than 'fewer, and who don't know the rule about 'i before e' should be careful. And I am not an addendum, as the construction of the sentence implies.
I didn't watch the programme, but I knew that it was bound to be divisive. It seems to me that we want things both ways - freedom of speech for us, but not for the people we disagree with
Could all those who think that true Brits are white through and through, please remember that we are a mongrel race? Even the Romans had African mercenaries
Complain about this comment
To the moderator; there is nothing in this post that contravenes the BBC guidelines so please do not sensor it as you have done with my post no.55.
The fact that Griffin has one or two million supporters should have had no bearing upon whether or not he should have appeared on QT.
For all we know, there could be two million people who support paedophilia but should we allow someone who champions those views the opportunity to seek further support on a respectable platform?
What was the purpose of allowing Griffin on to the panel? If it was to see his views challenged, does anyone think he would change those views one iota? If it was to 'out him' to the electorate and thereby reduce his support, it's probably safe to say that it has had the opposite effect.
Griffin's appearance on QT has, as predicted, only acted as a focus for all those 'non-racist' racists who were itching to imbue themselves with a modicum of respectability.
The point is that to give Griffin his 'democratic right' could only and has only assisted in the growth of the BNP, therefore are the BBC satisfied it was a price worth paying?
Another own goal for Mark Thompson, it really is about time he was replaced, he along with others at the BBC seem to have no idea of the consequences of their decisions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Griffin is a legend! he is only intrested in makin britain better and saying what other people are thinkin but too scared to say
Complain about this comment
Gavin Allen displays all the typical arrogance of the BBC. This week's Question Time was clearly an attempt to ensnare Nick Griffin with a rigged panel and audience and a disgracefully partisan chairman who abandoned any semblance of the impartiality with which he should have conducted the proceedings. The BNP addresses vital issues which are of great concern to much of Britain's population but which the main political parties ignore. The BBC were correct to invite Mr Griffin on to the programme, but wrong to alter the normal format and turn it into a BNP-bashing circus. Gavin Allen's "we know best" attitude is deplorable; the sooner the licence fee is abolished and the BBC comes into the real world, the better!
Complain about this comment
The freedom of speech and expression is infinitely more important than one twitchy man and his prejudices will ever be.
Kudos to the BBC for going ahead with the programme - the ganging up on Nick Griffin will have evoked some sympathy for him, but equally I think the exposure of some of his more extreme views to the nation will have done the opposite.
If nothing else, the good that has come out of all this is that the issues that have caused the rise in BNP support are at least now being debated openly in public forum and by the main political parties who up until now have been content to stick their heads in the sand and throw accusations of racism around to stifle such debate.
Complain about this comment
In the late 70's i was in the Anti-Nazi-League and involved in left wing politics. I put myself physicaly on the line to prevent what i saw was a racist and fascist party becoming too powerful. I now have children and i see them grow up in a country with no morals beyond 'im alright jack' which is becoming more and more of a meritocracy. Competition for limited resources is fierce and i find myself asking, why with 3 million unemployed and a crippled economy are we allowing ANY immigration at all? The IT department i work in has around a 20% non-british workforce including white australians, zimbabweans, indians and pakistanis. Are people born in this country just not good enough? Or is it the case that the political and economic elite do not care? I think the latter. I appalled myself by voting BNP in the European elections, so appalled that this is the only forum i could admit it on. I see this country going down the tubes and i see the white working class getting the blame. No change there then. What i want is to see a way out, but failure to discuss immigration, social cohesion and class without someone with an axe to grind playing the 'you are a racist' card is a road to nowhere. The fears of people in this country need addressing. Simply shouting someone down and providing no alternative is hopeless.
Complain about this comment
58 said- "The fact that Griffin has one or two million supporters should have had no bearing upon whether or not he should have appeared on QT.
For all we know, there could be two million people who support paedophilia but should we allow someone who champions those views the opportunity to seek further support on a respectable platform?"
If there were, then yes. Societies morals are chosed by the society, not just 'Outraged of Norwich'.
Complain about this comment
I though the government had banned hunting by a pack of rabid hounds and ripping apart a defenceless creature.
Complain about this comment
I COMPLAINED TO THE BBC ABOUT QUESTION TIME THIS IS A BAD RESPONSE
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Question Time' broadcast on 22 October.
As ever, this edition of 'Question Time' saw tough questioning from the studio audience and chairman David Dimbleby, putting all the panellists on the spot on a range of subjects.
As with every edition of 'Question Time', the audience themselves wrote the questions and therefore guided the topics chosen.
The audience was, as always, selected to reflect a variety of backgrounds and a broad range of views right across the political spectrum and included supporters of the BNP.
Clearly Mr Griffin himself and the British National Party were the subject of intense questioning, but all the panellists were given the opportunity to respond to the points raised and to have their voices heard thus allowing audiences to come to form their own views.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
BBC Complaints
I DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY MAIL IT IS MY CHOICE THE BBC ARE FUNDED BY TV LICENCES
____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Complain about this comment
Judging by the post match analysis, the BBC failed big time in not having a balanced audience. By attempting to destroy Griffin, they have only whipped up the natural British sympathy for the underdog.
Dimbleby was POOR - the mainstream parties should have been put under the same pressure to explain why they continue to ignore growing concerns within our society. By doing so they have allowed Griffin to gain considerable ground.
I am not racist, but like many REAL people, I want the influx stopped, unless we have genuine skill shortages. Equally, any immigrant who commits a serious crime should be deported, irrespective of human rights legislation.
Complain about this comment
I stayed up to watch QT in the hope that I could laugh at Mr Griffin, instead I was treated to some weird behaviour from Jack Straw and a BBC presenter who lost control of his programme.
As for the audience they were a disgrace, I have seen better behaved football fans baiting the referee.
The BBC as seems there want handled Mr Griffins appearance on QT very poorly, the show got so bad that I turned over to watch Newsnight to find out what was really happening in the UK (i.e Postal Strike and the awful economic figures), I imagine that along with Mr Hain I was not the only person who gave up on this specific episode of QT.
Complain about this comment
The public guide the producers on what is debated? That isn't what I saw!! Many questions were stopped part way through so the BBC could decide what thread was to be discussed!! The audience was clearly picked in an attempt to bully Griffin. Surely if Democracy was being portrayed then there would have been a BNP advocate?
Clearly what should have taken the whole debate was the fact that the reason the BNP got their 2 seats was due to the failure of the mainstream parties. BNP received no more votes than during the last election, they simply were up against poorer competition and why is that? Griffin doesn't care how the BNP is portrayed to the public, afterall how can a group of facists (facists using the great Winston Churchill on their website, the man whom led the world against facism and the tyranny of the Nazis - irony at its best!!) be portrayed well? But on the other hand the three main parties do care which means they are too scared to confront MAJOR issues that the British Public deeply care about and the major one being immigration. The country won't think you have racist policies just because you discuss it and put forward solid and practical remedies to the problems that YOU have bestowed upon us all!! If you want someone to blame for the rise of the BNP then look no further than Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems. You can't hide from immigration much longer because if you do, who knows how far Griffin can go? So stand up and make something happen. It's time someone put the Great back in to GREAT BRITAIN!!
Complain about this comment
We live in a democratic country where free speech is held in high regard, where people who are elected by their peers represent those people in parliament or in Brussels - so why is it that when Nick Griffin, a democratically elected member of the European Parliament wishes to speak on national tv, it causes so much debate? I do not agree with his views, but i will give him the courtesy of allowing him to speak without shouting him down because it is his right to speak.
The Question Time Programme on Thursday night was a farce. Nick Griffin was subjected to a total lack of respect from the other panelists, who were not interested in giving their parties views on the subjects debated, but just wanted to focus on race issues and call Mr Griffin a liar - which coming from a bunch of politicians is a joke. Nick Griffin should have been given the chance to put his views across in a civilised manner and if the public do not agree with them, them we will not vote for him and his party - I do not need Jack Straw and co to tell me who to vote for, I have my own mind and can decide for myself if someone is not telling me the truth.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
you're right when you say "Jack Straw was questioned over government immigration policy" - just a shame he didn't answer and wasn't pressed for an answer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Move on! There are more important things in life
And to worry about which person said what is not one on them
Complain about this comment
Reading through these comments, it is plain that there are many ignorant people out there who have never watched Question Time before or who have generally given little thought to social issues. The type of questioning Nick Griffin received is similar to what others have received when in the 'hot seat' and I think the moderator was absolutely correct in trying to get behind Griffin's moderate mask to find what the guy really thought.
As for people stating that they have decided to vote BNP on the basis of the show, I hope the reason is down to concerns with immigration and not some deep-seated racist view. The BNP is a racist party and should never be voted for as part of a 'protest' vote.
Complain about this comment
@perfectbluelauren
"Griffin is a legend! he is only intrested in makin britain better and saying what other people are thinkin but too scared to say"
Most likely too scared because the intellectual bankruptcy of their views will be shown up, as was Griffin's when he started on about what he deemed the indigenous population of Britain. And then the Holocaust. And the KKK...
To any reasonably intelligent and sane person, Griffin should be an embarrassment. He should have had you squirming in your seats.
That he has 'apparently' gained support from his appearance on QT is not a sign of his intellectual strength. It's a sign of the public's intellectual weakness. (Anyone offended by that statement should perhaps stick to their favourite maxim that political correctness should not trump honesty.)
You don't have to agree with the main parties' immigration policies to recognise Griffin's party for the sinister joke that it is. Oh sure, it's easy (and fashionable) to glibly dismiss Labour as "just the same, or worse" - but it's intellectually dishonest. Labour are an authoritarian, tired, mess of a party. But to downplay the huge moral difference between the main parties and the BNP is to delude yourself - and it's a mistake that may one day cost us all dearly.
As for this great myth that everyone's too scared to talk about immigration - what tired and tedious exaggeration this is. Sure, a few people might be too quick to shout racist, a few organisations might be too quick to moderate comments, but other than that, you'll find everywhere from the pubs to the press (including BBC platforms like HYS) are full of comments about immigration, and outrageous generalisations about Muslims.
The trouble with the silent majority is that, too often, they are neither.
Complain about this comment
I really don't understand people's reaction to this, we have no right to not allow Nick Griffin, an elected MEP to speak, as well as to take responsibility for what he says. However we also have to realise that most of the UK dislikes Nick Griffin. Is it really surprising that in a large audience we have people who are offended enough by him too speak up and ask difficult questions. Now is it really surprising that there were more than one? All ethnic groups feel threatened and offended by Nick Griffin, is it really surprising they had questions for Mr Griffin? Is it really surprising that when the BNP is getting so much attention that they get the audience focus?
Personally I may be wrong, but the only real difference between voting for UKIP and the BNP is that the BNP has always been racist in the past. It erks me that people vote for them over UKIP just because Mr Griffin dances in controversy.
It's a sad day for the impartiality of the BBC that national opinion is against them for putting a controversial figure in front of an audience of mixed opinion. They might not do the right thing again and let him appear due to the controversy made.
Complain about this comment
I was disgusted with Question Time... I have always believed it to be an unbiased programme. Whatever your feelings about Nick Griffin he was not given the chance to speak for himself.All we heard was "quotes" written by the media. David Dimbleby was a disgrace.. I was of the belief he was there in a non-judgemental position .. he shamed himself
Whether you believe in Nick Griffins views or not he was invited onto the programme and out of respect should have been allowed to shoot himself in his own foot !!! The "hand picked" audience only helped him to look like a victim. HOW STUPID YOU ARE BBC.
I had/have a certain sympathy with his views on immigration... but the sleeping giant has now been awakened and his extremist views will now rally a great deal of support .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'But amid all the normal unpredictability, one question remains the same every week. Did it work? And, as is the answer to everything with Question Time, you decide.'
Well, Gavin, reading the comments on your blog it's clear that we have decided, and we've decided that this was anything but a normal Question Time. No matter what lengths you might go to to deny it, this was an out-and-out attack on one member of the panel by the audience, the other panellists and even the chairman. As far as I'm aware that isn't normal for Question Time - or at least I hope it isn't. No, Gavin, you in your ivory BBC tower might think you're above reproach - we don't.
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin wasn't bullied, and Single(ish) topic programmes of Question Time are not paticularly rare, and as for the audience...there were at least a couple of cheers for Nick Griffin, so they weren't all NG haters. there is no reason - based on the previous 30 yrs of QT - to believe that the editors comment above is anything other than the truth.
The main problem was that Nick griffin who is usually very aggressive and a lot more articulate when being interviewed when surrounded by his own people, seemed to be overcome by nerves on the show. I have never seen a politician so obviously nervous and so incapable of expressing themselves properly. The questioning was perfectly normal...his responses were that of a scared bully hauled up in front of the headmaster to explain his actions. He duly crumbled.
I too felt sorry for Nick griffin, but only because he appeared to be such a sad and lonely character.
For those who think NG was bullied on the programme, watch next weeks programme and see how the audience, panelists and David dimbleby "attack" the government politician who will sit on the panel. The government representative will be relentlessly attacked and questioned...and many of the NG sympathisers here will be cheering and jeering, as they cheer and jeer every week. but when Nick Griffin is on....you start to cry...why...???
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
The real question is: will the public believe the editors' riposte?
And from one who watches Question time regularly, the simple
answer is 'no'.
Complain about this comment
Without sounding harsh, dont talk nonsense, the audience was clearly selected to include many people of ethnic minorites (as was the panel by the way, how obvious was that!?). I think I saw 2 or 3 BNP supporters in the audience, not exactly a 6% share now is it?
The one thing the BBc did right here was to allow Nick Griffin a place on the show. The correct neutral action.
Complain about this comment
I was hoping that, given enough rope, Mr Griffin would hang himself.
Unfortunately, while Mr Griffin did everything he could to do just that, time and again the rope was snatched away from him before he had the opportunity to use it. He was barely allowed to speak and every time he tried to make a point he was interrupted.
Question Time should reflect democracy by allowing all to freely speak. On this occasion it failed, and the result, however unintentional, is increased support for Mr Griffin in his role of "harried underdog".
FJ
Complain about this comment
David Dimbleby, in my view, did not chair the debate brilliantly. I think he forgets he is not a member of the panel and should not express any views.
Complain about this comment
The BBC yet again shoot themselves in the foot by treating the public as imbeciles.
Another protest vote for the BNP.
Complain about this comment
As I beleive it, the "Normal" format of Question Time is that someone in the audience asks a question and the panelists answer the point in turn, everyone is allowed to have their say and a debate is had. On Thursdays show, the audience asked a question and the panelists answered until Nick Griffin gave his views, then everyone forgot the question and called Nick Griffin a liar and brought up some alleged quote from 2002 and called him a racist.
That is not how the show runs week in week out.
Complain about this comment
Seemed like standard Question Time to me. If Nick Griffin was expecting to go on the show and talk about Postal Strikes, Afghanistan, and the Recession he has clearly never seen the show. David Dimbleby has never let guests get away with contradicting themselves to pander to the audience or the populist view and always has quotes to prove his point, this time was no different.
If he wanted to do an interview where he could avoid answering for him and his parties racist and homophobic views perhaps he should have arranged an interview with GMTV!
Complain about this comment
I don't see why the Beeb shouldn't have had Nick Griffin on Question Time. And if the audience was filled with people who disagree with him, that doesn't mean they were all liberals since Nick Griffin holds some fairly non-mainstream views after all. And if he claims to be a democratic politician he needs to get used to heckling without running to the Daily Mail to whine like a little baby.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the 'Have Your Say' blogs on the BNP a few common points occur.
Most people are frustrated by the Political Correctness we have in the UK but are unable to do anything about it. The mainstream parties avoid these issues. The BNP seem to at least address them, much to the bloggers' and voters' relief.
For example: Why don't we fly the Union Flag from schools, police stations and local government buildings (as the tricolor is flown in France)? This would obviate the need for the BNP to "steal" our national symbols.
Give us pride to be British. We speak English, don't translate NHS and other documents into other languages (even the Welsh are finding it too expensive to have their government documents in English and Welsh!).
Sorry Gavin Allen, but like the mainstream parties, in my humble opinion you appear to be out of touch with public feelings too.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
and to make matters worse, the BBC cant even be bothered to respond to the 100 or so complaints about the programme.
All it has done is put a small statement on the complaints website and then emailed it out to those who complained.
In my complaint I asked 2 specific questions neither of which was answered by the rather vapid piece I recieved.
The BBC should be ashamed of what happened on Thursday night. It was shown up for being the left wing mouthpiece it has become and not the impartial broadcaster I was once so proud to defend whilst a serving soldier.
Complain about this comment
It may not be the most politically correct or polite way to conduct a debate, but in this country political debate is most definitely adversarial, and while those in the EU parliament may be prepared to sit quietly and listen to the likes of Nick Griffin, thankfully the audience and panel on QT weren't.
Why should anyone expect otherwise? If Nick Griffin isn't upto a bit of heckling how would he ever hope to survive the House of Commons? He may be an intellectual giant amongst the kind of morons who are placated by his brand of bigoted drivel but thankfully he was found wanting against an average London audience.
As for the audience being unrepresentative? have any of these posters been to the city?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Let's be honest, those who say the BBC/Question Time has convinced them to vote BNP were probably always going to. Claiming that a TV programme has pushed them to it is ludicrous.
Griffin had every right to be on Question Time, but as the vast majority abhor him and his party, it was no surprise that the vast majority of the audience were against him.
It may well be true that the mainstream parties are not addressing people's concerns about immigration, but that should be an issue for another time (with a BNP member on the panel perhaps). This episode was about Griffin and his record.
Complain about this comment
Personally, despite the first post, I feel that Chris Huhes performed very well on QT, this despite the fact that I am a Tory by nature, and next year a voter.
I got what i wanted out of it - NG getting shown the door by both the panelists and the audience.
He should have come on QT and focusing on him was the right thing to do.
In a way I thank him because as the audience numbers show vast numbers of first time viewers watched the session.
This includes many of my friends who have never watched it before or even shown any attention to politics - even more interestingly there was a debate about it afterwards over FB. Hopefully this interest will remain.
Complain about this comment
The commentary of executive editor, Mr. Gavin, concerning the treatment of Mr. Nick Griffin on Question Time is dismissive and condescending. In America the corporate media deny third party candidates ANY platform with the twin parties of corporate capitalism so that every other political voice (right or left) is delegitimized. The BBC has performed the next worst thing. It has allowed a minority party spokesman (BNP) to appear on a nationally televised program but has done so in such a blatantly manipulated environment that the event was little more than an orchestrated assault on Mr. Griffin and the political positions of his party. The closest parallel in American TV to the BBC Nick Griffin appearance would be the Jerry Springer Show. Is the BBC genuinely asserting that it did not hand pick the audience in that crowd - all palpably hostile to Mr. Griffin's views? At one point a black person in the audience asserts that the "majority of people in this audience find your views disgusting," as if his views are mainstream. If so, why did the BNP receive 1 million votes. Quite obviously, there is an "audience" of Brits who believe that the BNP solidly represents their discontents and their aspirations. A majority of Americans find the Democrats and Republicans and a majority of Brits the same with Labor and Tories but there is no political voice for them and when the voice is permitted, corporate media like the BBC strangle it. Even the pre-program events outside the BBC studio looked like a "demonstration" staged in Hollywood. The police scuffling with demonstrators and yelling "Get back," as though they were playing patty cakes. That is definitely not how the police have behaved in any demonstration I have ever been to. Usually there are ambulances waiting to take away injured demonstrators. The BBC should admit its clear bias and manipulation of the Griffin appearance and allow him or another spokesman from the BNP along with other spokesmen from other political parties to have a genuine debate of the issues. Is the BBC that fearful of free speech?
Complain about this comment
I too complained about QT, however I specifically asked for no reply.
I hate the mealy mouthed PC drivel that is offered as a response.
Question Time was NOT the same as usual.
It was a rant against one man.
I understand the Sun newspaper has asked if any of the audience can be identified, exhorting people to phone in.
Would'nt it be funny if some of the audience turned out to be activists of one party or another ?
Or actors?
Or , heaven forfend !, BBBC employees?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yes QT was different from normal, but was it rigged? No! Anyone who thinks that it was a deliberate witch hunt against NG is clearly ignorant of the sheer scale and breadth of distaste for fascists that exists in the general population. I would have expected nothing less and would have been far more convinced of audience rigging had there been more BNP support in the audience, or if there had been less focus on the NG or the BNP in the questions. Once again, the media have created a fire storm, fuelled it, fanned it, and then complained when QT focused on said storm! Hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Am I a lone voice here?
I must pay tribute to the BBC for giving control of the programme's direction to the audience as Gavin Allen explains.
It can only be a good thing that the BBC does not choose the questions and presumably does not choose the running order. The running order is the critical thing, of course. With only a handful of questions amongst hundreds that are submitted, if the BBC had chosen the order in which they appearred any notion that the audience somehow controlled the direction of the programme would be a sham.
I have no idea how this selection could happen. How does the BBC achieve this without any interference from the BBC? How does the audience organize itself to decide these things?
I also fail to see what qualifies the BNP to appear on the show, having been an also-ran in an election for a foreign quango. Having passed my compliment above, I still feel that the BBC should not produce or air this show. It should certainly not be in the position of deciding which political parties are represented on television.
Complain about this comment
I can understand why you wrote what you wrote, Mr. Allen, but I'm guessing it's not an article you are going to look back with any pride. Were it not for the fact that you are excecutive editor of QT, I would be having grave doubts as to whether we both watched the same program.
Others have addresses the weakness of the panel (Jack Straw - utterly awful), the baying lynch-mob of the audience, and the bullying and rail-roading of one member of the panel. While all deplorable, there was nothing there I wasn't expecting to happen.
My biggest disappointment was in David Dimbleby. Mr. Allen, you see his performance as -
-'His job was not to "get" Nick Griffin, or to "expose" him as a racist and crush him in public. It was to chair a debate. Which he did, brilliantly... Not ganging up against one member of the panel.'-
You are right, his job is not to 'get' one member of the panel. What a shame to see him spend the entire hour doing exactly that, and when not forcing his own opinions into the deabate, letting panel and audience tear into one person unconstrained. And you believe that he chaired the debate 'brilliantly'.
I accept that you have to defend your own show, but there is being supportive and being delusional, and you are deluding yourself if you think Mr. Dimbley's performance was anything but extremely poor. He lacked impartiality, authority and fairness; in other words, everything one should look for in a political debate moderator.
Let me finish by saying that rather than write defensive articles worthy of Pravda, your time would be better spent on starting to find a replacement for the venerable Mr. Dimbleby. He has had an outstanding career but it is time for new blood.
BTW - the best moment of the whole evening was the discovery that Straw's old man was a concientious objector - the look on his face when this was revealed almost made up for having to sit through the next 50 mins of dross (almost, but not quite).
Complain about this comment
It was quite clear that Nick was often cut off before he could answer. He is, however, milking his chance for publicity for everything it's worth. He knew full well what was going to happen on the show, calling it "political bloodsport" before he went on. His official complaint is simply a way of keeping himself on the front pages and the name of his party on the lips of the people that read them. The amount of sympathy evident in these comments alone makes his appearance a success in the eyes of the BNP.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Wait a second... those who would choose to go to watch Question Time (this is a generalisation) wouldn't be BNP supporters. I think a crowd of anti-fascists is precisely what you'd see in the Question Time audience!
Complain about this comment
The Hoxton metrosexuals who run the BBC must now be soul-searching on how this kangaroo-court blew-up in their faces.
The BBC's institutional leftist bias, in thrall to Political Correctness and the diktats of Common Purpose, was utterly transparent as its trusties operated a star-chamber.
At last the loathed 'pale male' gets a voice, and how the hand-picked, ethnically dominated audience screeched and howled to silence him.
Complain about this comment
To Diogenes 1980: Mr Griffin was free to say his piece. Every time he tried, he shot himself in the foot with the shaking head and the "no that's a misquote" type apologias. Please don't treat us like idiots. It's really just too bad if a dreadful, hate filled, lying snake like this finds there's too much heat in the kitchen of public scrutiny. Bring him on every week as far as I'm concerned. The BNP has no policies apart from a blanket hatred of anything that doesn't look and sound like themselves. As for the claim that it's the people who have inhabited this island for 17000 years, who's current incarnation is the WASP - get off!!! What about the Celts and the Druids? It's all too too laughable and the more we have him on these sorts of shows the better. I exercise my right to say to hell with the BNP!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gavin
I suggest you read all these comments carefully, together with the first hundred or so on the current HYS on the same subject.
I wonder if that will make a dent in your glib, smug, we-know-best, taxpayer funded, BBC arrogance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
At #80 I commented that one the reasons increasing numbers of people (but not me) were voting BNP was because certain sections of the community now had so much power that they could stop free speech and people were getting frustrated at not even being able to discuss the issue.
My comment got censored.
I think that pretty much demonstrates what I was saying.
Well done once again BBC - for making the BNPs point far better than they could make it themselves.
Complain about this comment
Whether or not the BBC rigged the show to prevent the BNP having a platform does not matter (personally I believe the BBC did rig it). The show itself was allowed to degenerate into something quite unpleasant. The BNP needed a platform to show their true colours, to provide information to the people who were (or where not) misguided enough to vote for them. This attack on Nick Griffin will have increased his support, at the expense of the truth about the BNP.
I complained to the BBC about this and was presented with what can only be described as a stock holding answer. Of course I will follow this up right through to the board of trustees as the BBC has absolutely no right to interfere in politics.
Complain about this comment
I certainly agree that the major party representatives were trying to avoid being questioned about policy making by targeting BNP on this program. But there are a few things for those who claimed 'this is not what democracy should be like' or 'Nick deserves his chance to speak for his policy' and even foolishly 'will vote for BNP in the future', to notice:
1. If freedom of speech is so important and must be the principle of everything, then why people can't express their emotion, their anger?
2. Does a political party base their policy on racism really deserve a place in a democratic society?
3. Does a party led by a man who twists history, doesn't have the guts to admit his own quote, and cracks('according to a very recent opinion poll...', 'which poll?', 'honestly I can't remember...' ), worth voting for?
4. Does a party that has policy will put this country eventually against the rest of the world, worth voting for?
In my opinions, those who decide to support BNP after watching this program are taken over by naive sympathy.
I just hope the these british people, can think and act rationally.
Complain about this comment
Quote 'As in any Question Time week, members of the public guide producers on what's to be debated. The programme is driven by the questions submitted by the audience itself'.
Having attended a QT recording myself I know that 'Yes' the audience do submit the questions but I also know the producers 'Pick' the questions, so in reality that blows your statement to smithereens.
Like most people nowadays I don't trust the BBC one iota when it comes to anything to do with politics, it is too one sided, patronising, arrogant and out of touch with the vast majority of ordinary decent people, those who feel they have no control over the dominating elite be they in government, the media or industry.
I have no doubt in my mind that the UK is a country on a path to conflict and strife, betrayed and lied to by politicians, manipulated by the media and exploited by industry, more people each day, each month, each year becoming disillusioned with the greedy arrogant bunch in control. As Wolfie use to say 'Roll on the Revolution'.
Complain about this comment
I find Gavin Allen's defence of David Dimbleby a travesty of what I heard. There were the other panellists making their often pre-prepared statements about Nick Griffin's views or alleged views. Yet Nick Griffin was given an inadequate opportunity to explain himself. There was no call for the hostile moderation of the exchanges which David Dimbleby seemed to think was required. "Brilliant....flexible....not ganging up...." Nonsense. The BBC made the right decision to invite the BNP to participate, but made a poor job of it once it all began.
Complain about this comment
As the BBC packed the panel and the audience,and allowed Dimbleby to join in willy nilly instead of keeping control, why didn't they go the whole hog, turn the clock back two centuries, and hang Griffin from the rafters in front of his baying tormentors. This was not a debate, this was mob rule. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, but the jury has seen the evidence - the programme itself - and has read your "justification", and somehow I think I prefer to believe what I saw "live", to what your considered response (after the event) says went on.
I have never seen the chairman EVER push so hard to direct questioning in a particular direction, and the number of "Have You Say" comments that appeared (and even more indicative, the number that got discarded when the forum closed early) show that your platitudes in this article are simply platitudes from a "talk only" perspective.
It would have been illuminating to see just one speck of "well, yes, it did look contrived" - that would at least have looked convincing. Instead, the "talk only" perspective looks increasingly panic-driven and self-justifying. There is never a black and white summary of ANY situation, let alone this. To pretend that there is means that the only people fooled by the conjuring trick are actually the BBC management. The rest of us are looking on, saying "Can't you see????"
Complain about this comment
Gavin Allen can be as defensive as he is probably required to be but the programme was the worst kind of bullying. It was wholly undemocratic to create a panel, audience and chair person with the sole intention of attacking a duly elected politician - despite his stance he has the right (and a few votes) to say it.
This was a chance lost to show how shallow the BNP are and give the millions who (at least started to) watched it to hear what few policies this party has on health, education, law and order, afghanistan, the economy, to name just a few.
As a Nation we have a reputation for supporting the underdog and I regret that this BBC fiasco will have enhanced the BNP vote.
Complain about this comment
A couple of brief points.
First- Dimbleby was entirely himself; I'm afraid he has never been a truly impartial chair, and often can't resist asking his own questions or making follow-up points to panellists. That is not to say that his chairing was unsatisfactory. Part of the reason the show works so well is due to Dimbleby's charisma (although I do confess to be a little frustrated when the BBC defend his impartiality).
Second- it is absolutely right that the BBC invited Nick Griffin onto the show in the first place. Like it or not, his party has attracted a substantial minority of voters across the country. This does nothing other than bring into sharp focus the lamentable political (and, dare I say it) general ignorance that exists in the U.K.
Some of the comments on this board do nothing to assuage this concern- one apparent convert professes a new-found following for the 'BMP'; another says that s/he knows individuals of Indian/Sikh origin who intend to vote BNP. These comments highlight the key underlying problem: the BNP have not been sufficiently exposed; their 'policies' have not been effectively challenged; their hollow, new-found, quasi-respectable front has not been yet shown to be meaningless rhetoric that hides a racist agenda.
Unfortunately, the ideal solution, that of greater BNP exposure and electoral accountability, depends on one thing, as is rightly alluded to above by dotconnect: that the general public have the intelligence to see through the facade. Given the recent opinion polls, it seems that this is sadly lacking.
Complain about this comment
To those people who 'feel sorry' for Nick Griffin. This man has criminal convictions for stirring up racial hatred - that means grossly insulting ordinary, innocent people who are just going about their lives. Many BNP members have criminal convictions for racist violent attacks - that means beating-up ordinary, innocent people. Nick Griffin and the BNP hold perverse views and abominable policies based on irrational hate and lies about the past. On Question Time Nick Griffin was asked questions about issues he has chosen to raise and speak about many times before. Nobody racially abused him (though he has done this many times to others) and nobody hit him because of his colour. If you feel sorry for this man you have definitely lost your moral compass and sense of decency.
History has shown that groups with fascist inclinations like the BNP use the democratic process as a means to gain power and then they destroy democracy. Don't let your own democratic sense of fair play pave the way for the BNP to gain more support. The BNP are not like any other political party; for all their faults (and there are many) the other parties fundamentally agree with the democratic process, whereas the BNP do not - their membership rules are one example of this.
When it comes to the issue of immigration there are many factors at play, eg having enough current workers to support a growing number of pensioners, putting the resources and infrastructure in place to ensure legitimate new arrivals in this country move quickly into being an asset and not a drain. We've also got a growing world population - linked to issues of international development and there's likely to be more refugees because of climate change. As a nation we have played our part (though we're not solely responsible) in creating this situation due to our trade policies and pollution. Britain has been a mass exporter of migrants for hundreds of years. If we followed the logic of the BNP, that people should return to the countries of their 'racial' origin, Britain would be the recipient of all the Australians, New Zealanders, North Americans and South Africans whose ancestors migrated from Britain (and all those Brits currently living on the Costa del Sol) - that would end up being a hell of a lot more people than the current projections on immigration. The BNP are mad and dangerous. Their views on immigration are a form of xenophobia and do not relate to the real issues and needs of migration in the UK.
Nick Griffin and the BNP deserve the British people's contempt, they are out to ruin us, don't get hood winked into their lies and scare mongering.
Complain about this comment
I don't like the BNP, have never voted for them and couldn't imagine any situation when I would. However, I believe in democracy and fair debate. The other night was a fit up and a master class in how not to run a democratic debate. When the BBC decides to run a proper review of this event, they might like to consider the following; at the end of a debate the audience should be completely unaware of the opinion of the chairman. He's meant to be the referee, he's not meant to lead and rig the debate against one of its participants.
Complain about this comment
You have deservedly had this tirade coming your way for quite some time !
How dare you take ANY political stance, I don't pay you to do that.
Complain about this comment
Choosing my words carefully, I will say that I do not believe that your article represents the facts of the case. That audience was clearly and visibly not representative of the British public, and the panel and the audience alike were evidently deliberately chosen to discomfit Nick Griffin. As for David Dimbleby, I think the idea that he acted as an impartial chairman is risible. Moderate and fair-minded people have been outraged at the cynical media show-trial we witnessed. Though clearly not your intention, the result has been to win Nick Griffin and the BNP a huge wave of public sympathy. And I would add that Mr Griffin showed more courage than I've seen from any British politician in a long while by walking into that wolf's lair with his head held high and arguing his points under almost impossible conditions. Three cheers for him!
Complain about this comment
Mr Allen, to put it frankly, if you say that programme wasn't rigged, then I think you are being disingenuous.
Complain about this comment
You refer to the 'Instructions to the Audience' being the same as any other week.
Have you actually read this week's, which you include a link to in your blog?
Is it normal, every other week, that each panel member's profile includes references to the BNP, and to Muslims, minorities, asylum seekers, 'marginalised white communities', bigotry, and being a racist? And only those and similar references; there was no mention of any other topic!
And you didn't even realise that the audience thought they were expected to toe the line and ask BNP-related questions? Bizarre.
Complain about this comment
One of the results of having the two main political parties so close together on the right is that it gives the 'man in the street' very little choice when it comes to where he should place his vote and it's in this situation that parties like the BNP seize the opportunity to exploit it.
The only voice that can speak out for the population in general is one from the left, but as is happening now in the USA where unbelievably the multi-billion dollar insurance companies and their multi-million dollar earning bosses have persuaded a large section of the population that state funded health care is not good for them, we have the Murdock lead press here extolling the virtues of right wing policies.
The BBC has become complicit in this for fear of upsetting their paymasters. I have read on various blogs the BBC being described as 'leftist' or 'liberal' nothing could be further from the truth. This must delight them because to some extent it masks their right wing establishment bias as seen on QT and Any Questions week after week.
I challenge anyone, and this would make a good exercise for a neutral political study, to examine the panels on these shows for say the last five years, or at least since Mentorn took over the production, and not come to the conclusion that they are overloaded with right wing spokespeople.
Question Time is supposed to represent a cross section of British politics yet time after time there is no representation from the left. Someone in Mentorn, or whoever chooses the guests, is determined that the left hardly ever gets a voice. The panel will often consist of a Lib Dem, a Tory, a right wing businessman, a right wing journalist, a right wing author or historian and a right wing New Labour spokesperson who because they voted in favour of the attack on Iraq could in no way be considered to be on the left.
This weeks panel was no exception, we had Straw - right wing New Labour, Varsi - right wing Tory and Griffin extreme right wing BNP.
Is it any wonder there is so much frustration with politicians amongst the general population?
Complain about this comment
It was never going to be question time as usual after the initial invitation to the head of the BNP. It was a stunt and clearly the wrong forum for Griffin. However, anyone who feels sorry for him is either a racist or ill informed. The misery (real and relentless physical and verbal abuse - not the trivial and very minor discomfort he may have felt for a couple of hours) that him and his supporters have wrought on minorities really doesn't warrant the slightest shred of sympathy. Those that do sympathise with him are either ignorant of the impact of the BNP and his own criminal past or are uncaring of the plight of his and his parties' victims to the point of revealing themselves as racists.
Complain about this comment
Dear Gavin, I read your comments and I am pleased that you have taken time to read the comments viewers have posted and responded. However, given the publicity surrounding this episode, I do believe that this was not handled correctly and you have mis-understood why 8m people tuned in and you have missed the point! It is clear the audience was picked because of their liberal politics and was not representative of a cross section of the British population; this impacted the nature of questions asked. The fact that the BNP's founding’s are based on far- right ideology is known by the public, just as Labour’s socialist past is known. All political parties move their parameters over time. The questions focused on what the public already knew and most people tuned in as they believed questions would be asked on issues most pertinent at this moment in time; Europe, immigration, war etc. It appears at the moment; Mr Griffin is the only politician willing to talk openly on the sensitive issue of uncontrolled immigration. As you had a liberal audience the questions focused on nothing new and it looked like a bullying "Nick Bashing" in which the BBC appeared complicit. The reason you attracted a huge audience is because people believed that they may, at last, get the debate they wanted. People are disappointed with what looked like the same “tit for tat” politics we get in Prime Ministers Questions, deflection, banter, insults and no debate. I am asking you to repeat the exercise and ask Dimbleby to push all politicians on the issues that are at the forefront of British concerns. If you got a wider section of society, I think the debate would have been what the public want. As it was mainly a liberal audience, this affected the debate and question choice. Please get a wider section of society from all parts of the country and re-run the debate so all politicians answer the public’s questions. I think the BBC could have done much better; therefore I’m sorry I totally disagree with your analysis of the situation. Best Holly
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM – IN 1899!
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet
rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the
next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as
his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must
delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased
to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid
qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social
development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists
in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and
proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity
is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it
had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell
the civilization of ancient Rome.”
-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
Complain about this comment
It seems that BNP supporters have no idea how tough the grilling can be on QT or indeed any political programmes. Every little slip and inconsistency is brought to light and picked over whilst the unfortunate politico squirms embarrassingly.
Griffin heads a party that claims they will change the ethnic makeup of Britain by removing millions of our citizens. He can't explain how they'll get round the fact that these people are unwilling to leave their homes but insists that the process will be "voluntary".
Given how sinister, incoherent and foolish BNP policies are, Griffin got off lightly. Mainstream politicians have been given far worse maulings over far smaller things than advocating what amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Complain about this comment
Complete and utter Tosh.The BBC has been a lefty set-up for a number of years now and it champions the orthodox lefty liberal extremely wealthy(not quite got round to redistributing their wealth yet.Don't hold your breath)view point.Of course the BBC set Griffin up,you'd need to be totally vacant not to see that.There they were ,Dimbleby,Arch deacon of the trendy ox-bridge mafia who hoover up tax-payers money in their exhorbitant salaries and his bunch of hypocrites piously looking down their noses at the oik Griffin.These are the sort of people who between them have trashed a beautiful country;good grief the English are even denied there own claim to race-hood.I've never heard such dubious and ill informed "history" in my life.Bonny Greer needs to go back for a history refresher course.Baroness whats-her-name thinks that bogus assylum seekers don't exist,perleese give us a break.The whole thing was a disgrace.The truth is Griffin has uttered heresy against the sacred cows of the elite;off with his head!,tie him to the stake!.Every one has the right to think and say what they believe .It's called democracy.Actually most of us did like our country as it was.Before the "labour" party(there's a misnomer for you) deliberately set out to destroy it they could have at least asked;it's only polite.One does not need to be a fascist to see what's going on.the Lefty liberal eite are far more scary than Griffin,not least because they hold the reins of power.The BBC should be ashamed;they won't be though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC was right to put Griffin on air. It was also right to brief the Chair fully so he could challenge NG authoritatively about his past statements, and expose the feebleness of the latter's position.
I wish some lines of questioning had probed further though. For example, Griffin's discredited notions of race and indigenous identity were rightly shredded, but what if those were set aside for a moment and we imagine the BNP in power - what would happen then? Presumably they would have to issue identity cards to everyone in Britain, stating our 'racial' identity, just as they did in Rwanda to conduct the genocide. Otherwise how will they know whom to deport? Or make us wear coloured stars, in case they inadvertently had a relationship with someone 'impure'. Where on earth will they send 'non-indigenous' Britons who have lived here for the past ten or hundred or thousand years? Or do they intend to just kill us off?
You have to confront these bigots with the hateful logical extensions of their positions, and to do so in front of the biggest audience possible, as often as possible, or else too many basically decent British people will be suckered into voting for this shower, or stand silently by while it happens. Don't think it can't happen here.
Complain about this comment
"67. At 3:48pm on 24 Oct 2009, spinusthetruth wrote:
Judging by the post match analysis, the BBC failed big time in not having a balanced audience. By attempting to destroy Griffin, they have only whipped up the natural British sympathy for the underdog.
Dimbleby was POOR - the mainstream parties should have been put under the same pressure to explain why they continue to ignore growing concerns within our society. By doing so they have allowed Griffin to gain considerable ground."
While I agree with your last point, that was never going to happen given that Griffin was there. These concerns need to be addresses without the inevitable circus that would surround the appearance of Griffin. And you would certainly not want to give Griffin the chance to redeem his party on that line of questioning.
The truth is Griffin should never have been invited on QT - it was always going to be a farce that would give him the airtime most of us would rather he not have.
Personally though I thought the audience WAS pretty balanced for West London but expectations that he was going to be treated like a normal political guest and not going to be shouted down are pretty naive - given the impact of his party and their supporters on minorities it is very reasonable to expect them to be emotionally charged given the chance to address him face to face. I would in fact say this was the only positive aspect of the show. He NEEDS to be put in that situation. Bonnie Greer in particular handled him precisely how he needs to be handled.
But really should a party with exclusively white membership (or anyone who can trace their roots back 17,000 years in the British Isles apparently) be even allowed to stand? Its an absurd party with an absurd leader. All the concerns he has raised have been raised by UKIP without the BNP's overt racism (as someone else pointed out). I agree with neither but anyone who defends the BNP in any way whatsoever is either extremely misguided or a racist.
Votes for them is obviously a vote against the establishment sure but it is also a vote for brutality against minorities.
Complain about this comment
cyningas - you are aware that Nick Griffin is a Cambridge graduate aren't you?
Complain about this comment
"58. At 2:27pm on 24 Oct 2009, Jackturk wrote:
The fact that Griffin has one or two million supporters should have had no bearing upon whether or not he should have appeared on QT.
For all we know, there could be two million people who support paedophilia but should we allow someone who champions those views the opportunity to seek further support on a respectable platform?"
THAT really is clutching at straws.
How many people would need to vote for the BNP before their views are accepted as mainstream? There must be a point where the "group within society" as someone called them, grow to be the main political viewpoint, at which time they become "mainstream".
That is just a matter of figures (votes in this case).
If the tories don't get rid of Cameron, & Labour don't get rid of Brown then neither party has a chance in the next election. Likewise if immigration, healthcare & social housing issues are not addressed then the BNP will triumph in the next election. Sad but true.
The average working class person in Britain feels that the government are alienating the non-ethnic majority, by ignoring the issues mentioned above & by being terrified of upsetting minorities. They are so scared of being branded racist that they are becoming just that, racist against the very people who voted them into power.
A Britain in which the BNP is the prevalent party is a very scary thought but, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE THERE? Give us viable options please!
I'd just like to finish by telling you about Leeds city council who told me NOT to display a St Georges flag in my shop during the European football qualifiers.....apparently it would offend Muslim sensitivities because of the crusades.
Now do you understand why people vote for a party that, on the surface, seem to be proud to be British.
I personally will still not vote for the BNP but, nor will I vote for a main party either. Perhaps it's time for us to look at UKIP or the democrats.
Complain about this comment
Gavin:
Thanks for giving Mr. Nick Griffin a fair shake on Question Time and, my personal kudos to David Dimbleby for his fair and equal hand towards the guest....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Living as I do in France, I observe Britain from a more objective perspective than I might pehaps if I was still resident in Britain. Although I listen to the BBC (particularly Radio 3) and watch some BBC television when I can get my satellite dish correctly aligned, I did not watch the latest transmission of Question Time. Does that make me inelligible to comment...I hope not?
I would in no way endorse the views & politics of Nick Griffin & his party, if only because they are, apparently, so intolerant of the views of others. My concern is that this is becoming widespread & that whether in the guise of extremism or in the guise of politcal correctness, Britain is no longer a country of free speech. Free speech is neither encouraged or allowed in any form. We kid ouselves that our fathers fought the 2nd World War to secure free speech for all but there appears to me, from my perspective, a tendency to shout down anyone who tries to freely express their deeply-held views or that they themselves actually censor what they might be inclined to say for fear that they might upset others or fall foul of some law or other. Long live free speech! Even I haven't dared to enter into my opinions for fear of being moderated out....although I would in no way consider my views extreme.
At least Nick Griffin had the bottle to articulate views & opinions, from what I read, and I would hope to defend his right to do so even though I disagree with them. It is by healthy and honest debate that we move forward and reach a common concensus. Britain seems to find itself at the moment in a stranglehold of politcal correctness that it can't shake off but I fear that behind closed doors public opinion on all manner of issues is building up and will eventually find a voice.
Complain about this comment
Question time or match of the day? Because as far as own goals go that was the biggest yet from the bbc! Obvious bias and had set up written all over it from the word go. Over 1 million people have voted for the BNP the programme should be finding out why instead of engaging in a one man witch hunt.
An ashamed licience fee payer.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Gavin, to elaborate; people wanted to have questions asked such as; Why are children not allowed to call Christmas “Christmas” in mixed communities? ( Children have to call it “winter festival” but all celebrate Eid and call it Eid). Why are they trying to give sex education (same sex education as well) to primary school children? Why is British cultural identity being eroded in poor working class areas where mixed communities are and no British history is taught? Why is it acceptable for everyone to be known as indigenous apart from white British? (It is cultural annihilation in many areas and you are racist if you ask this) Nick had a point about with his Moiri comment! These are issues that need to be talked about openly, but people are accused of being racist by what seems like a liberal elite (and the BBC seemed part of this). People watched Question Time as they wanted answers to these questions. It may take a 3rd rate politician like Nick G to ask these questions as he is the only one brave enough to approach this. By covering these issues up we will end up with many closet BNP voters. A debate with him debating these sensitive questions to the mainstream would have been a worthy debate for the public. This is what people expected and didn’t get. People are concerned and it looked like the BBC was complicit in this liberal, PC conspiracy and shut the debate by focusing on the BNP’s far-right past (a fact that the public already know). Holly.
Complain about this comment
Until I took part in the Question Time I didn't think that highly of David Dimbleby however it is an impressive role to chair the discussion, take questions from the audience and keep track of time. Half the questions are given in on the night so no-one knows what's coming.
As for having Nick Griffin on the programme it seemed to be more a discussion about him and the programme than real questions. Whilst the majority will find him odious (and his attacks on various faiths were outrageous enough to have him banned from ever being on the show again) sadly this programme will have been a recruiting vehicle for the BNP.
Incidentally the document you attach on here can't possibly be the original one. It was created today and had been edited for 1 minute. Word gives a lot of information for free, as the government already knows with their "45 minutes" document.
Complain about this comment
Dispit what you think about Nick Griffin, can you for 1 minute imagine what would happen if the host asked other personal questions as he did with Nick. I thought the most telling part for the last Steven Gately question where Nicks previous comments were regurgitated.
As a politician Baroness Warsi answered the question perfectly, but as a Muslim why did David Dimbleby not read from the Quaran on the views of homosexuals? Despite what you think about him he answers as a person and not a politician - which will eventually be his downfall as unlike all the others he is not there for the money.
Given the revelations on the labour party illegally engineering mass immigration (a story that isnt on the News pages of the BBC) the ruling politicians will need to do a lot more to get people to ditch the BNP as there is not middle ground for people who are not racist, who are not homophobic but do not want the UK changing rapidly my uncontrolled mass 3rd world immigration.
Last note - not one comment from anyone at QT about the very fascist, anti fascist who violently protest against the BNP. To my knowledge the BNP have never even protested, let alone damaged property and attached police officers. These people who have never been elected (and have appeared on QT even though nobody ever voted for them) are funded by the top political parties including the ruling government, AND funded by people like the Muslim Council for Britain (who the tax payer gives 50k+ per year) are telling people who to vote for. Have they looked up Fascism in the dictionary recently?
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid Gavin Allen's explanations/excuses won't wash. He really must think that his viewers are stupid not to have seen a well-orchestrated public lynching being carried out. A lynching which has - of course - allowed Griffin to get away with maintaining his odious views whilst being able to don the 'victim of the establishment' cloak. Dimbleby allowed the whole event to get out of hand until it became a shambles. I'm not particularly interested in Griffin's views on ANYTHING - to be honest - but if you MUST have a guy like this on the programme at least be seen to be giving him a fair shake, if only to allow him the change to truly hang himself. You've played right into the hands of the BNP.
Complain about this comment
Did the people at the BBC who invited Nick Griffin onto Any Questions hear the descrition of the liberation of Belson as described on the BBCs own progamme with God on Our Side on Saturday Evening? We are told (by the BBC)that Nick Griffin has denied that this unspeakably horrifying event ever happened. All publicity is good publicity, so now the BNP policy will become normalised. Well done BBC for introducing facism into mainstream British politics it seems you are morally bankrupt and incapable of taking responsibility and hiding behind Freedom of Speech.
Complain about this comment
139. At 10:31pm on 24 Oct 2009, MiggyCraig wrote:
"How many people would need to vote for the BNP before their views are accepted as mainstream? There must be a point where the "group within society" as someone called them, grow to be the main political viewpoint, at which time they become "mainstream".
That is just a matter of figures (votes in this case)."
Rubbish. There's probably 2 million who take drugs. Is that a reason to make drugs legal? The Nazis in pre-war Germany had far more votes - should they have been allowed to exist. With their racist membership policy they should be outlawed in any case. How can you have a political party that excludes people because of their race. The situation is absurd.
Complain about this comment
144. At 10:51pm on 24 Oct 2009, hollyharman wrote:
"It may take a 3rd rate politician like Nick G to ask these questions as he is the only one brave enough to approach this. "
The likes of UKIP, the tories, countless newspapers have chipped away at all of the topics you mentioned. To claim he is brave in anyway is silly. His only claim to uniqueness is that he is the head of the only openly racist party. The membership policy alone proves this were proof ever required.
Complain about this comment
Yet another baseless smear from the Daily Mail made from the a position of impunity given the joke that is the PCC. Where will it end?
The only resignation that is due - many would say long overdue - is that of Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail and, incidentally, chair of the PCCs committee for code of practice.
Nick Griffin received a hard time on QT on account of his political views which any decent British citizen would recognize as precisely what our grandparents fought to repel during the war. What "won't wash" is the BNP yet again crying victim - pretty much all it has to say about anything. If Nick Griffin wishes to be treated like other politicians, he shall have to get used to the outrage his views will inevitably cause and he'll have to get used to answering direct questions.
I support the BBC wholeheartedly in this matter. They, after all, are subject to proper scrutiny and, where warranted investigation. Unlike the certain hysterical sections of the press.
Complain about this comment
Good explanation, thnak you. I had considered the invitation a BBC blunder but now I'm not so sure. If you've managed to upset both Griffiths AND the Daily Mail in a oner, I call that a result.
Complain about this comment
139. At 10:31pm on 24 Oct 2009, MiggyCraig wrote:
"How many people would need to vote for the BNP before their views are accepted as mainstream? There must be a point where the "group within society" as someone called them, grow to be the main political viewpoint, at which time they become "mainstream"."
You make a good point, but if like me, you think that the BNP's policies are so objectionable and harmful to society, surely it's better that they don't become 'mainstream' through ignorance.
I have no objection to Griffin and his followers being questioned in a public forum, my objection is that to anyone who does not know his background, and that seems to apply to many here, an appearance on QT was conferring upon him some sort of respectability.
Incidentally, I hope that you told Leeds City Council where to go and ignored their 'advice'. However, there are many stories about people being told not to do this or that for fear of offending muslims, often spread by the right-wing press, and when investigated they are found to be untrue.
Complain about this comment
To "Herr" Wilhelmfurtwangler: In order for their to be a legitimate platform for the free exchange of speech and ideas it cannot be a forum, such as Mr. Griffin's appearance on Question Time was, in which the speaker is continuously interrupted, vilified, heckled and subject to demagogic ad hominem attacks. That sort of crowd manipulation would throw even the most experienced public speaker off message and make them look and act vulnerable. Mr. Griffin was definitely NOT "free to say his piece" nor even a piece of the piece of his political position. His real message, on for example immigration, was never permitted to leave his mouth. This was not a political debate. It was a mugging. If you sincerely believe that Griffin should not be afforded a public platform because he is a "hate filled lying snake" then don't allow anyone to speak who is "officially disapproved" by Labor or the Tories. You will then have a country like the US where no political position which does not parrot the official Democrat/Republican corporate party line is ever allowed on mainstream media and political opposition of any kind is marginalized. A very large section of the American, English and European populations are deeply resentful of unchecked immigration and they are baffled by their various governments' dismissal of their complaints and concerns in which the white populations are essentially ignored as being backward, untrendy and even criminalized for expressing their outrage. Whatever your feelings about Nick Griffin - in this instance he was treated much like Dimitrov during the Reichstag fire trial.
Complain about this comment
"146. At 11:14pm on 24 Oct 2009, smilingfencesitter wrote:
As a politician Baroness Warsi answered the question perfectly, but as a Muslim why did David Dimbleby not read from the Quaran on the views of homosexuals? Despite what you think about him he answers as a person and not a politician - which will eventually be his downfall as unlike all the others he is not there for the money."
That's her religion not her party stance. Noone asked Nick about the tenets of his religion. That would have been inappropriate.
He clearly answers as a person who think we are idiots, as most of his stances are based on lies that even he cannot understand the reason he believes them. There is literally no reasonable defence of him or his party.
Complain about this comment
It's a British trait to stick up for the underdog and PanQuestion time served up an underdone dog on a plate.
This programe will increase the BNP vote - the aggression from the uadience should have been held in check. I have respect for the Baroness on the panel - and the dignified and quietly spoken Indian person in the audience, who actually wanted a debate.
Unfortunately the black people in the audience played into the hands of the BNP by making 'smart' remarks ( the North Pole clip) and gesticulating an an aggressive manner.
David Dimbleby should not have acted like a headmaster, whose class is rapidly going out of control, by telling Nick Griffin to stop smiling.
The programme has shown BBC prejudice laid bare.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick Griffin's appearance on question time wasn't good, but then this is a situation of a man being thrown in at the deep end. Griffin has no previous experience of this sort of debate. Jack Straw has and it showed. Whenever a question was put to him which didn't just warrant him calling Griffin a fascist, we had a long winded drawl that steered away from the question and back to attacking the BNP. In other words, he was too afraid of having people turn on him instead of Griffin. The only thing the other parties and the press can call the BNP is facist. It's easy. It's well practiced. Now let's have a go at calling the other politicians thieves, liars, con-men, bigots, weak and racist (against white). Was the programme biased? Oh yes.
Complain about this comment
All these P.C religionists need to admit that their own "liberal"/"respectable" conservative intelligentsia are the biggest racists going.
Two examples:
Susan Sontag(Writer/luvvie):
"Whites are the cancer of history"
Dr Noel Ignatiev(Harvard Professor):
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The resent anti minority/migrants venom vogue in the media, reads like scripts from a Nazi propaganda manual. Does anyone consider how white British are treated in other countries? How much of the British income, if BP is used as a sample, are made exclusively within the shores of UK. If British historic and current wealth or resources retained the colours of their ethno-geographical origin, British resources will definitely not be Anglo-Saxon majority. Let the be BNP and their backers demand for the repatriation of every wealth that is not exclusively Anglo-Saxon in origin and their multiplied economic impact back to their countries of origin, then their opinion will be seen as truly ethnocentric nationalism. This kind of politics only fans the amber of a monstrous crisis that will definitely bury this country.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
From what I could see Griffin is ineffective, intellectually lightweight and his arguments so fatally flawed that he could have been destroyed by a school debating team, never mind the normally politically engaged audience of Question Time. Quite clearly this man, who is unused to taking part in a real debate, preferring to address only like-minded individuals at closed meetings, was struggling way out of his depth, but, naive as he is, it was his choice to enter the fray and he failed miserably.
Complain about this comment
I think those who think Griffin was 'picked on' though some here will be BNP stooges taking a break from websites like 'Stormfront', should remind themselves of the quite mild treatment he got off Paxman, should refer to the more recent 'interview' with two BNP 'supporters' by Newsbeat, (in fact both were BNP staffers, including the vile Mark Collet who has been recorded voicing his approval of Hitler).
Anyway, if you have a leader of a party which did (before the law intervened), ban 'non white' members, has many of it's top activists and leadership with often serious criminal records, where there is a history of increased racial attacks when they are most active, expect a strong reaction.
Face it, he was exposed as a swivel eyed, paranoid racist.
Not that QT is an ideal forum to grill him, note how he tried to duck out of his (conviction) for Holocaust denial, blabbering on about how his mind was changed about killings by radio intercepts.
He knows full well that those were about the mobile death squads in Eastern Europe, not the actual death camps for which no radio intercept intelligence was ever picked up, hence he maintained, for his hard core support, his death camp denial stance, just.
And if you wonder why the host of QT snapped at Griffin's (nervous) grinning about this subject, remember Dimbleby's father broadcast the first shocking news of the real nature of the regime many in the BNP admire so, after the British Army liberated Belsen.
Not that I expect the average BNP voter to have a grasp of this, while most are not neo Nazis, most are ignorant or just below average intelligence.
(I note just how many BNP supporting messages on all the BBC forums often cannot spell the most basic words of the language of the country they claim to love).
It's worth noting that one Idi Amin did what Griffin wants to do, in 1971 he expelled all Asians from Uganda.
They were a legacy of the former British rule, Amin played racial politics and the resentment of their success.
He not only kicked them out, he stole all they owned, (and the Ugandan economy tanked), most arrived in the UK (which was partially culpable in Amin coming to power), with just the clothes on their backs.
Were they a burden? No, since of all the immigrant groups they have set up the most businesses in relation to their numbers, so provided the most jobs, the most wealth.
Starting in the hostile economic conditions of the 1970's, with all the very high inflation, trade union power, recessions, 3 day weeks, oil price shocks.
Not crying into their beer and blaming everyone else.
Now I accept that not all immigrant groups have been that successful, maybe having to start from literally nothing is a spur to success, the American experience has also shown this.
There is a country, not far from here, that has seen large scale immigration from one other nation in particular.
Including a large criminal element-who really started the whole thing.
But criminal or not, this group are notorious for not learning the language, not integrating, setting up their own enclaves, whole towns even, many are not fully legal paperwork wise, many have helped to set up a damaging property bubble, many do not work, are retired and thus an increased burden on the health system.
That country is Spain, those immigrants are British.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Complain about this comment
A very poor showing from the BBC & your attempts to dismiss the overt bias of QT are unconvincing to say the least.
You do your audience a disfavour & underestimate our ability to see a charade for what it is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#13 "the Holocaust is completely irrelevant to the issues facing us in the 21st century."
Wow. Time for bed.
Complain about this comment
165 SONICBOOMER, good post, I'm pleased I stayed up long enough to read it.
To the Moderator: Your moderation is becoming tiresome, I look forward to a convincing explanation as to why you are censoring my posts.
Complain about this comment
The fact that everyone is talking about Griffin's performance rather than the panel as a whole exemplifies how the majority of the public have been completely duped about the underlying purpose of this programme.
There never was any intention by the producers to discuss key issues of the day as per the normal format of the programme. If there was it would have exposed the BNP as just a ramshackle Mk 2 Tory capitalist party once the tags of curbing immigration, holocaust denials or bringing back the death penalty had been removed.
The whole purpose of this programme was to make the BNP appear the victims and humiliated in order to arouse public sympathy and steal votes from apathetic mainly once Labour voters who've felt particularly disenfranchised by New Labour's failed Tory policies. Judging by the latest opinion polls which you in the BBC News have ecstaticly broadcast all day where one in five voters might be prepared to vote BNP in response to the programme that tactic seems to have worked!
With the 'free market' economy steeped in recession and bailed out by billions, a postal strike, corruption rife in Parliament, body bags returning from Afghanistan etc left wing opinions should be in their ascendancy. The whole purpose of this programme was not to make the BNP appear the victims but to attack the left whose opinions were gaining momentum!
Complain about this comment
Any of the P.C religionists care to comment on my previous post #159?
Or will you just ignore it,like all the other inconvenient facts that make a mockery of your anti-White "humanitarianism"?
Complain about this comment
Well, Question time showed two things:
1. The BBC is chasing ratings rather than informative political discussion
2. Considering his vile opinions, and those of his million supporters (and the few creeping onto this forum too), I think Griffin got off lightly.
If my father and his generation who fought a war against Griffins sort of policies had been there, they would have grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and thrown him out of the studio.
When people support the BNP, the violate everything my father stood for.
Complain about this comment
165 SONICBOOMER, Thank you. Enlightening read.
I watched the last half an hour of QT - This is a first post for me, and it was the first time i've watched QT. From what I gathered, Nick Griffin was not being persecuted - It was more the fact that the british public had alot of questions to do with his views.
Personally, I think he is a joke, but hey - If people can't express themselves freely without persecution, then we are quite frankly, doomed.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is as arrogant as politicians - like them, you just don't get it and you will not accept criticism from the people who you are there to serve and who pay for your organisation to exist. This is why people accuse you of bias - you simply will not even consider that you might be in the wrong.
I challenge you - if this was a standard-issue Question Time as claimed, then why was an audience member who used his opportunity to ask a serious question to insult a panel member by calling him "Dick Griffin" instead of "Nick Griffin" allowed to continue on to ask his question after receiving his round of applause completely unchallenged by the moderator? Can you give an example of another time someone has done this and has not been asked to leave the studio, or at least had the microphone taken off them? Dimblebey would NEVER have allowed any other panel member to be insulted in this way, on any other edition of the show.
Secondly, when an audience member politely asked a question on immigration, another audience member shouted him down. Again, normally she would have been told to be quiet. This time, not only was she given a microphone and allowed to speak, she was actually allowed to answer the question of the audience member she'd rudely interrupted, and the panel to whom the question was addressed was not allowed to answer the question by Dimblebey! Again, can you cite any other example of when Dimblebey has allowed this?
I challenge you to publish this comment AND to answer both the points I raise above. I have been watching Question Time for years and this sort of behaviour has NEVER been tolerated on any other edition I have ever seen. Why was it this time, when both times the intended "victim" was Nick Griffin?
Complain about this comment
I think much of this ire on here about Nick Griffin's "bad treatment" is orchestrated by electronically-aware BNP members.
The simple truth is that he performed badly on the show because his ideas are ill-formed.
The only thing I found out of step with the 'usual' format of the show is that the other participants found it hard to contain their anger at this man's ultra right-wing and frankly repellent views. Well done to the programme team for showing a balanced approach and allowing the man enough rope to hang himself. The "I don't know what I believe...or why." lines alone should be sufficient to sink him and his vile party in the upcoming election.
Complain about this comment
12 Chads_comments
I need clarification, when a question was posed to Nick Griffin regarding his views on the Holocaust, he refused to answer in case he was prosecuted ( I believe it is a criminal offence to write or say the holocaust didn't take place) . However, Jack Straw said he could answer, as he was the Justice Minister he would give his guarantee Griffin wouldn't face any prosecution. If I heard correctly ,can Jack Straw do this, and if he can and if Griffin had given his beliefs, would this have set a precedent
----
I do not remember this version of events - Griffin said he was not a holocaust denier, and he 'proved' it by saying he had never been convicted for it
Of course, that would be impossible anyway as it is not a crime to deny the holocaust in the UK - in many EU countries it is, but not here - regarding your recollection then I would guess that is what Straw was referring to, as he knows the law and would be aware he could not be prosecuted
Complain about this comment
It was right to have Nick Griffin on. However, it seems that the BBC wanted to ensure that he was shown up for the odious man he is. I have some sympathy with this intention. However, in attempting to do this, a decision seems to have been made to ensure that all questions were related to the BNPs racist, anti-islam, and homophobic stance. This was such an obvious set up (the choice of questions) that accusations of a lynch-mob have some credibility. As such, the BNP has benefited because it can use the fact of the debate to bolster its claims of a biased BBC and a liberal political elite conspiracy. My views of the BNP have not changed - they are vile. This has all merely served to reinforce my view that the BBC, as an organisation, is seriously lacking in judgement.
Complain about this comment
PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU ARE A BNP SUPPORTER/APOLOGIST.
Essentially, Nick Griffin is complaining that he went on Question Time and was...asked questions.
Before he went on he said he was 'relishing' the prospect of a 'political bloodsport.' Afterwards, he complained. If he isn't cut out for the normal cut and thrust of politics,which is what the programme on Thursday night was, then he should leave the stage.
The BBC blog above answers all these complaints quite well. People calling this 'bullying' are a total disgrace. No one threw any punches (in the audience or on the panel!), no one threw any water, no one threatened Mr. Griffin and no one shouted personal abuse at him.The rest of the panel and the audience were calm and polite throughout, much more so than during some of the debates on QT about MPs expenses.
If you destroy the veneer of respectability of a character such as Griffin - through argument, through intelligent reasoning, and through questioning, (as I believe was the case on Thursday night) - that is NOT bullying, that is debate, that is politics. If you think that is bullying, I don't know what you would make of the way David Cameron destroys the Prime Minister on a weekly basis at Prime Minister's Questions!
I suppose when the young Jewish boy- who can't have been more than 15 years old- very calmly, very politely, and with great dignity, questioned the BNP leader about his view of the Holocaust, that was bullying, was it? Well, was it, BNP SUPPORTERS? I look forward to your replies. Does the fact that this question reduced the man to a gibbering wreck make it bullying? Is that not Griffin's problem, rather than the questioners?
And it was right, was it not, when Griffin refused to give a straight answer to this question, for Dimbleby to press him on it? Or do you people not give a stuff about the murder of six million Jews? Griffin's claim, that he 'wasn't allowed' to say why he had changed his opinion or, as he put it 'the extent to which I've changed my opinion', was pitiful. And it was a lie. There is no law in this country that bans Holocaust denial, which seemed to be what Griffin was implying. But if he wanted to say that he now believes the evidence about the Holocaust (which he seemed ALSO to be implying) then what possible law, real or imagined, could prevent him from saying that? Perhaps the clue lies in that word 'extent', from the above quotation, something I haven't seen anyone else pick up on. Griffin is having it about 3 ways by now, if not every which way but loose.
If you don't mind your leader being ambiguous about the Holocaust, I don't suppose links with the KKK matter either. But if Griffin wants to know about lynchings, he should ask his friends in the 'totally non-violent organization' (yet another extraordinary LIE- this man thinks his supporters are idiots). But I do want to know what you make of a man who warns about the 'violent and wicked' faith of Islam, but has proven links with the undeniably wicked likes of Louis Farrakhan, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Abu Hamza? Please answer that one, BNP SUPPORTERS.
You should really look up 'BNP leader Nick Griffin with KKK terrorist (BNP)' on YouTube, though, if only to see the contempt he holds for YOU, the people falling for his lies. He explains how he will change once he wins power and is able to 'control the British media.' You are happy to be sheep, are you?
I understand that several years ago Fascist leader Le Pen appeared on a similar programme in France. He gained support because it was believed to be an accomplished performance. I think it is only in modern day Britain that a Fascist leader could win support because he gave a pitiful performance, and people feel sympathy for him. The country that survived the Blitz now has citizens who can't survive a political debate, and it is a crying shame.
Perhaps Griffin should have been asked about the postal strike aswell, although I think that for any right-thinking person that has as much relevance as asking President Ahmadinejad (another Holocaust agnostic) for his opinion of the latest Pixar cartoon.
I don't think the BBC had any duty to put Griffin on this specific programme, as he has been interviewed on other programmes many times. It was perhaps the right decision though, as you need to have freedom of speech in the media. I doubt the Fascist sympathisers will be clamouring for a reappearance any time soon, given the woeful performance of their leader.
The support for the BNP on the internet is truly terrifying. On modified forums such as this it is merely nasty, disingenuous and whining. On unmodified places such as YouTube, it is openly anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic. BNP supporters call for the slaughter of innocent Muslims, and make videos praising Adolf Hitler.
My final question, for the non BNP, is what should be done with the apologists? I am not going to patronise them. Anyone who has time for the BNP is either stupid or racist, or both. But can you even argue with them?
Complain about this comment
179 - Oh you can debate with me anytime on policies and views, Im an educated profesional man. Like many who have moved over to the BNP. Given time we will make it to the finish line. Most parties have changed, it happens all the time, Tories moved to from centre right to centre as did Labour move from Far left to occupy Tony Blairs middle ground! Sinn Fien went through riots outside studios etc...
Yes the BNP are currently unfit to govern, yes we have our fair share of idiots but given time and change and support we can occupy the middle ground.
As for the BBC, the BNP knows what we will do with the BBC shut it down and cancel the TV licence....
Debate, bring it on...
Complain about this comment
180-Shame your leader can't cope with a debate though, isn't it?
I don't understand your argument, sorry. You want the BNP to move to the centre ground, where the three main parties already are??? So, er, why not save yourself the time and vote for one of them?
Complain about this comment
I believe that the BBC was correct to have Mr Griffin on the program. I have read the original post by the editor of the program above and can accept that it was a 'normal' QT.
I, perhaps obviously, do not support NG, and welcomed seeing him demonstrate what a complete and utter idiot he is.
First of all, the BBC is correct; they have a duty to include someone from all perspective of the political spectrum. It is not their duty to decide who has a right to speak, once they have been duly elected.
If the party is so terrible (They certainly seem to be very close to the limit I think and perhaps should be banned, but that would not dissipate the resentment/anger that the party captures) then it is up to our political system to ban them. This has not happened.
The only ban in force over the past few years has been the rule of the mob. I myself saw some skinheads dragged out of a pub and smashed on the head with a cosh wish a cheering crowd -yippee for the democratic process! Remember that the Nazis and communists ran running street battles in the Weimar republic. So the lesson is, that its ok to be a violent thug, but not a member of a party of violent thugs. Except the one with the cosh was the local leader of the ANL.
I remember a magazine that was happily accepted by all students at university - living Marxism - that declared that the Bosnian camps , reported in the independent at the time, was a lie. Not one student, who happily supported 'no platform' for racist parties, complained about the magazine, yet the magazine went out of business as a result of court action So much for the anti - racists on the left. I think they though it was ok as the victims were only European Muslims. Maybe the people that supported it now support the BNP, but it was the whole NUS conference, so perhaps not. The lesson learned is that its ok to deny murder on racial or religious grounds if you are a Marxist, or tend to support Marxist type thinking.
If we want to claim to be democratic, then we have to accept one of the main tenets: freedom of speech. Yes, I despise NG, however hilarious he may be, and the BNP, however foul they are, but I would rather see and hear, and know that others can see and hear how ridiculous they are, rather than know that they are walking from door to door, having quiet words with people unopposed. you can just imagine it, "we're not really like that. We only want to stand up for you're rights, but THEY wont let us talk about the truth...." blah blah blah.... drivel hate drivel.
We have had a mob based, undemocratic ban on the party in force for some time and now the result is - they got elected! Lets try democracy and let them demonstrate to all what idiots they are. Why should I be denied the chance to see Bonny Greer demonstrate what a fool NG is in her wonderful way? She performed the best by far. Jack Straw helped NG by being unable to address the issue of his government’s record. Why was he so nervous?
There are issues relating to immigration that are being brushed aside, or at least not being addressed properly and this failure of the 3 main parties is allowing room for discontent to grow.
It is a failure, or at least a demonstrable weakness of the current political setup, that has allowed the BNP to gain as much support as they are currently getting. NG did score some points, and this wasn’t good. He was shaking and nervous, but then again, the BNP that he leads hasn’t been able to have a public airing and perhaps he was surprised at such anger. Let them on to a platform that is shared by people that aren’t afraid to stand up for their beliefs and are supported by the majority of people. The BNP candidates will probably display what most people believe, when faced with such anger at all political forums: that they are small minded cowards with no coherent arguments to put forward.
Complain about this comment
:)
Well the QT debate was a BBC sham. Theres no denying that were a long way off centre ground politics, give us 10, 20 years. I would be happy with an increase in MEP, gain some MP seats and ofcourse MSP seats, just make progress and change.
Ive never voted Labour or Conservative, theyre policies never appealed. theyre soft on immigration. (Have you read the Tesco checkout girl story today - see sky news website) - While youre at it, check out the Gambia Visa requirements if you or I wanted to live in that country.
Complain about this comment
We all know that the three parties dont really occupy middle ground, its a facade, Im sure you know that. Labour pretend to be middle ground to get votes but underneath are soft left, Tories will always be middle right. As for BNP who knows what the future will hold, I just want represented in parliament in accordance with the laws of our land.
"Taken in the hours after the show, the YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph found 22% of voters would seriously consider voting BNP in a local, general or European election." SKY NEWS
Complain about this comment
Post 179 appears to be a long rant closing with a very insulting statement that ‘anyone who has time for the BNP is either stupid or racist’.
There are many errors and innuendoes in the post, but just taking one example, there is the classic error of ascribing something said by someone such as BNP supporters ‘calling for the slaughter of innocent Muslims’. Very easy to claim but is it official BNP policy? No!
In actual fact the BNP doesn’t call for the slaughter of anyone merely more stricter controls on immigration in that the two million plus who are here illegally and those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British should be deported (something the current government has said it will do but has totally failed to do)
Plus review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate, stop new immigration except for exceptional cases and reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.
Finally, they are going to offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently.
Not exactly slaughter is it? More like a policy that will attract a lot of disenchanted voters.
Complain about this comment
And what it they refuse these generous grants?
Today 'The Observer' reported Lee Barnes (BHP's Legal officer)used his personal website to suggest that "perhaps there needs to be a few 'white riots' around the country a la the Brixton riots of the 1980s before the idiot white liberal middle class and their ethnic middle-class fellow travellers wake up".
Does anyone still not understand what the BNP have in store for non indigeous people (indigenous people means people with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history: the BNP means by 'indigenous' means people of Anglo Saxon or Celtic descent.)
Which of the pro BNP commenters will join Mr Barnes in his suggested activities?
Complain about this comment
Dear Auntie,
You have shown your true colours on QT. You are basically a political wing of Nu-lab and will do their bidding. You tried to engineer the outcome with Griffin and the BNP which totally exposed your politically correct hang-ups, your suppression of free speech and your denial that anyone else’s view that does not conform to your values should be ridiculed. Who is actually the bigot?
Complain about this comment
BNP will loose my support if theres any suggestion of riots or violence.
Complain about this comment
Question Time did not meet my expectations. I for one was expecting a debate held by adults with relevance to the panel’s views on immigration and other issues that concern the UK.
The free for all attack against Mr Griffin and the BNP Party served no purpose what so ever, in fact I’ve seen children hold a better discussion, the whole scenario was a total farce.
QT would have been far more interesting if the audience had been made up of BNP members in total, it was not Mr Griffin who needed to answer the questions, it was members of the other parties who have let this Country get into the state it has.
The public want answers, answers on housing immigration the NHS and education, all we got was 40 minutes of bashing the BNP and Mr Griffin, this was not a debate therefore I would suggest the BBC look at holding this debate again in the very near future.
Complain about this comment
I also enjoyed Bonnie Greer's calm shredding of Griffin, when he tried to make out the KKK are now more enlightened because of him.
Greer, as an African American, was not going to take that nonsense.
(And what was Griffin doing fund raising abroad? Is that not illegal? Guess who else was in that audience of American racists. The guy who recently shot dead a security guard at a Holocaust museum.
Here we've had BNP members found with bomb making material and Nazi material - in one case 30,000 child porn images too. Nice.)
My better half is non white, (making me a 'race traitor' in the eyes of the BNP).
She was born here, of Indian parents, in the early 70's, she's been to India just twice, she dresses, speaks, acts British, she is patriotic, she's always worked.
And where I grew up, where In I live, that is the norm.
BNP types, all bitter, many failures in life, are not.
What has driven some it seems to vote BNP, is the negative effects of globalisation, coupled with a 'city first' economic policy of UK governments since 1979.
The first was inevitable, the second not, but it was the choice of the British people, presumably including many now BNP voters, over the past 7 general elections.
The forerunners of the BNP were chased out of East London by the Jewish community in 1936, more recent forebears were chased out of Southall in 1979 and 81.
Showing the essential cowardly nature of them.
Like I said, the BNP activists are essentially failures.
I would like to see Griffin given a spot on a programme like 'Hard Talk', see how Andrew Neil shreds him.
If anything, the nature of Question Time can be to Griffin's advantage, it's not a place, not meant to be, for in depth questions.
But he still flunked it.
Because he can only hold his own when preaching to the converted.
Some say London was not a good place for Griffin, what? Our capital city?
But it's also a 'world city', like New York, like Hong Kong, are BNP types saying NY is not American, HK not Chinese?
As Griffin seemed to say after QT?
Technology and failed states/conflicts in the 3rd world have been driving immigration, as well as a single market in Europe.
Everyone is affected.
See how the refugee/migrant crisis is so much worse in Greece, Italy, Malta, Spain.
But to do that, BNP supporters would have to look beyond their noses, a tough call for them?
Complain about this comment
Please spare us the tortured explanation. Whether by accident or by design, this was the most rabid, partial piece of political programming I have ever seen or heard in this country. You should do the programme again properly, and apologise.
Complain about this comment
@190
You will listen to your better half but not members of the BNP? What does that make you? Nobody has asked you to believe in them but if you want them to listen to you, don't you listen to them too?
The issues raised by the support for the BNP run far deeper than overt racism. They run from a large group of people who believe they have been marginalised and disenfranchised by politicians for over thirty years.
They have NOT been listened to for a very long time either.
Democracies cannot be formed by excluding people on whims.
Complain about this comment
No. 190 said ………but it was the choice of the British people, presumably including many now BNP voters, over the past 7 general elections.
WHAT CHOICE? Take off your rose coloured glasses for heavans sake, this is what it is all about!! The TOTAL and ABJECT FAILURE of all political parties (except the BNP) to address matters that really concerns the majority of the ‘indigenous’ population. The main one being UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION.
In fact it is revealed today by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party Downing Street advisor, the Labour Party actively encouraged uncontrolled immigration. He said the mass influx of immigrants seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters. Apparently the strategy was to make the UK more multicultural.
What an odious lying bunch of hypocrites the Labour Party has become!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
BBC I am sorry to say I simply don't believe the "spin" you are portraying about the "Question Time" program.
The program did not have a broad reflection of the population, the questions were not broadly reflective of current events, neither were the respondants on the panel reflective to the questions being asked.
The whole program was geared towards the BNP being in the spot light with a hostile audience and a hostile panel.
Unfortuantely the BBC has denegrated itself the to low "spin" ethics of the NuLabour party. If you had ANY moral fibre you simply wouldn't make this excuse.
It is wholey and utterly the BBC's responsibility for the content of it's programs, if other questions were supposedly to be tabled it was down to David Dimbley to maintain the impetus, failing that the producer. Lack of experience is not a factor,,,
If anything the QT the "show" has turned me away from seriously considering the BBC as an unbiased reporter of the news.
A typical example of UK news is to have a single sentance:
"The UK's debt is the worst in history".
"5 die in afghanistan in roadside bomb".
Followed by a 5-10 minute article on some rare animal, celebrity or foreign disaster.
I note on almost every occassion where there could possibly be any political backlash on issues the BBC wimps out. You are failing the public.
Complain about this comment
#190 SONICBOOMER
I am glad you have found a solid relationship in which you prosper.
However, you seem to think BNP supporters are "bitter failures in life". Well everyone fails, I am sure you have failed at some point in your life either in love or in work - it happens. For some of us life turns harsh and failure to recognise and empathise with those leads to a lack of understanding. We all cannot all succeed in everything - fact. Just look at the marrage break up statistics.
Quite simply, just because someone has failed doesn't make their opinions any less valid than yours. They are human, have their opinions based on their circumstances and daily surroundings. If you were in the same position your opinions would be modified by those same circumstances. You seem to be very disingenuous to your fellow humans.
I have travelled to over 20+ countries in the world working mainly in the capitals of each country and I don't recognise either the influences you state as causing the problems in the UK as reflective in other countries at all.
Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain do have to deal with immigration on their borders but they don't have a problem with immigrants taking over cities.
One thing that struck me when I came back to England some years ago was how violent the UK is. In fact during my extended tour of the world I suffered the threat of violence once in New Zealand from the indigenous population - who were very upset about whites taking over their country and rightly so IMHO. In the UK I suffered the threat of violence almost every week.
I cannot think of ANY country other than the USA that has the mix of nationalities similiar to the UK - and the USA is a violent society.
I don't hold with your opinion of Bonnie Greer at all. If I as a white man respect the culture of America, races of Africa and Caribbean, why is my culture and race not even recognised from her lips ?
Personally I found Bonnie Greer's attempts to say we are all from Africa - somehow we are all "African" - extremely upsetting and quite frankly very stupid. Just from a Darwinian point of view Bonnie is totally and utterly wrong. We are seperate races and our DNA shows that, although we have a common ancestor. Just look in the mirror,,, never mind the cultural and religious differences. A very simple point was the mention of the "Letterman" show, Bonnie's culture background is American - and yet she doesn't even seem to recognise this fact, she is VERY confused IMHO.
Bonnie Greer quite simply does not understand what English culture is and yes, as an Englishman I very well understand what my history, morals and ideals are - without it and my ancestors England wouldn't exist. Sorry but Bonnie Greer is quite definately not English.
Why is it my culture is repressed and somehow "offensive" to immigrant minorities ?
Complain about this comment
To the BNP supporters; on QT Griffin was treated in exactly the same way as anyone else would be who held such abhorrent views. In fact, he got off extremely lightly because of the failure of the lightweight panel.
To those who say that they are not BNP supporters but have sympathy with some of their policies, please do not let the SUN and the DAILY MAIL do your thinking for you. Do your own research and discover that the BNP has a point of view based solely on racism and not on anything that could be remotely classed as sensible or ethical.
If you still have any doubts, consider this; if the BNP is correct in it's view of racial separation, then Mugabe is also correct to expel white farmers from Zimbabwe, apartheid was correct in South Africa and segregation was acceptable in the USA. Are those the primitive societies you want? if so join the BNP and campaign openly for it.
The problem with agreeing even in the slightest with the BNP is that certainly the Tories and also the spineless New Labour government will, in order to pacify the righ-wingers, introduce more laws and practices as we have already seen, which cause untold hurt to families when they are split up to satisfy the baying racists.
Complain about this comment
I am confused that Gavin Allen states that 'the programme is driven by the questions submitted by the audience itself'
However, comments above have indicated that the BBC chooses the questions. Since there are so few questions in any show (perhaps 7 at the most) then clearly, if the BBC chose the questions out of the hundreds that were submitted, the claim that the audience drives the programme through its questions is simply not the case.
Also, I note that each biography in the briefing document contains a direct or indirect reference to the BNP. This also suggested that the BBC were trying to drive the programme in a particular direction.
So what is it Mr Allen? Does the BBC pick the questions or do the audience do it? If the audience do it (presumably through some voting procedure) then your comments will stand and I will applaud your efforts at impartiality. If the BBC picks the questions then you owe me an apology for misleading me and I will be making an official complaint.
Also, you must explain how the numerous references to the BNP were included in the briefing document and how this can possibly support impartiality.
Complain about this comment
I do not support the BNP and would oppose their views to my dying breath. I did however feel the BBC on Question Time acted appalingly in its treatment of Nick Griffin. David Dimbleby did NOT do a great job he was biased and openly hostile-it is not his place to be prejudiced against a member of the panel-he is supposed to be an impartial mediator-he and the rest of the panel were utterly smug and ganged up on Griffin-Dimbleby was a disgrace. Just goes to show you what on 'old boys club' the sham of Question Time is.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that Jack Straw exceeded his authority by pre-absolving Nick Griffin for any "racist statement or comment" he was being encouraged to make. Jack Straw - little person, big attitude! "I can do what I like". Reminds me of the rest of the government, they are elected to serve not to abuse power. The whole shower of them are not worth a cupfull of cold pizz.
Complain about this comment
Griffin wasn't bullied David Dimbleby and the panel would've known that doing so would be counterproducutive. I suspect many of those who say that he was bullied are BNP 'Cyberactivists' especially on the 'Have your say' forum. Anyone who has seen the program knows the bullying claim is nonsense and if you haven't, Many people reading this will have access to the program through iPlayer.
Complain about this comment
I have attended a QT show and the audience absolutely does not drive the debate, it is driven by the chair and the producers. Prior to the show, everyone is asked to submit three questions on a card and the producers then choose which of those are put to the panel. They say they do it based upon the number of suggestions on each subject but surely the most democratic way would be to ask for questions directly from the audience.
Most people I guess believe that they live in a democracy but that is questionable, for example, who chooses which candidates we get to vote for? QT is no exception, if you look on their web site they invite suggestions for panel members, those suggestions are mostely ignored unless of course they chime with the producers agenda.
Complain about this comment
Now we have had 200+ replies to the original article by Gavin Allen, will he write a follow-up responding to the comments above?
Complain about this comment
#203 diamond-cutter wrote: "Now we have had 200+ replies to the original article by Gavin Allen, will he write a follow-up responding to the comments above?"
I wouldn't hold your breath. There were in excess of 5 600 replies to Mike Rudin's blog and he only ever popped in once (well after 2000 had clocked up, if I recall) and then never again before it was shut down last week.
Complain about this comment
210 said…….’Griffin wasn't bullied David Dimbleby and the panel would've known that doing so would be counterproducutive’ (sic)
Now that’s an authoritative comment!! So exactly how do you KNOW that? Reminds me of those tennis commentators who always seem to know what the players are thinking and what they are going to do next.
But, of course, without the people concerned specifically telling you, which I very much doubt, you don’t know, so your opinion is only as good as the next person.
Well to me (not a BNP cyber-activist by the way) and the vast majority of people who have commented, are of the opinion that David Dimbleby was well out of order, in allowing and joining in the personal attacks which, in themselves, constituted verbal bullying.
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin was set up as Daniel in the lions den, but he roared the loudest!
Who paid the 'Rent-A-Mob'(most keeping their faces covered up)outside the BBC?
Complain about this comment
Is this a BNP forum? I didn't realise. I wanted to highlight some concerns about the debate on QT, but this forum is as bashing as the one NG got. To the BNP supporter billy, I wanted to see if the BNP had changed and you have proved they have not! Whilst I did feel cheated and set up by the QT program, I wished to complain and for them to run it again..that is different to having the BBC shut down which is NOT want I want! I want the BBC as they are the only not for profit media organisation and whilst they don't always do the best job, they do a VITAL job for the media in this country. I don't want fully privatised Murdoch run media that sensationalise stories to make money. One other reason hey not to vote for the BNP. Thanks for your comments, they were eye opening!
Complain about this comment
To 207
Can you explain exactly what is on this thread that leads you to believe it is a BNP forum?
Out of over 200 comments there is only one which mentions ‘shutting the BBC down’ and if you read it in the context of the post you will see even that is said ‘tongue in cheek’
Otherwise the comments ebb and flow purely around the unfairness/fairness of the program and about David ‘didn’t he do a good job/no he didn’t’ Dimbleby.
I for one am not a BNP supporter, but I have taken the trouble to read their web site (wonder how many people have done that?) and I can see nothing in their manifesto on immigration, etc that leads me to shout ‘racist’. Hard hitting yes, but not racist. A lot of it is plain common sense which if David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron had the guts to emulate his party would win the next election with a landslide.
Complain about this comment
You don't want worry about anything published in Daily Mail Gavin.
Their cretinous subscibers will believe anything that hate-filled anti-british rag prints whilst the rest of the population knows that of all our national newspapers it is the least credible and utterley without merit.
Its hardly suprissing that they've come out against the BBC in this, because they have much in common with the BNP.
Their agenda of demonising immigrants, attacking islam at every opportunity and portraying Britain as a broken ruined society when it clearly is not all chime in perfect harmony with the views & aims of Mr Griffen and his party.
In the interests of not getting moderated the above statements are entireley my own views, not those of the BBC.....
Complain about this comment
Why only Nick Griffin alone to answer the questions? Any other party member usually has back up.
Seems the rest of them need to feed on their own bravado without the courage to deploy their empty words.
Complain about this comment
To belgarion29 #208
Nick Griffin's mother-in-law says the BNP leader is a 'racist'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6431159/Nick-Griffins-mother-in-law-says-the-BNP-leader-is-a-racist.html
Complain about this comment
The pendelum in the UK has swung so far to the loony left nanny state, tax them until the pips squeek, politically correct, cringing, open door Britain, 'let anyone in that that wants to come here' state, that it need someone like Nick griffin to add some kind of balance to our politics. People have real concerns about immigration and they are not being taken seriously by the smug 'we know what's best for you' establishment parties who only want a cushy life, and that means keeping the status quo.
The multi-cultural experiment has run its course and even the lunatics who dreamt it up must admit that it is a miserable failure and has damaged this country immeasurably - now lets give the 'enforced integration' policy a chance.
Complain about this comment
Before commenting I spoke to someone who has actually been in a Question Time audience to ask their views on how they perceived their own experience.
Unfortunately it was very clear that questions raised were those approved by those producing the show and that their own question was ignored because it was considered too controversial.
The final outcome was of a bland show not truly representative of the real views of the audience and that those asking the questions had been pre-chosen and made identifiable to the Chairman by the colour of their clothes and where they sat.
This cannot then be an audience led programme and confirms my own view that Nick Griffiths was indeed set up.
No mention was made of Europe where he gained seats and obviously has a view which appeals to many but focused on areas where he can be criticised for views he has held in the past.
The politicians failed the producers failed and the audience failed apart from one man in the audience.
He was black highly educated and brought the only glint of realism into the programme when he said that there was a problem with immigration and it needed to be sorted out.
Perhaps he realises that it is people like himself and his family who have integrated well into British society that have much to lose if it is not.
Complain about this comment
To sum it all up, you had a right to do it, yet you didn't make it quite right. Practicing is good thing though, still, you have to keep your wits about, as seen here and elsewhere, proles and doublespeak are historical misconceptions. We’re not falle', we're holding on to what's golden, on massive scale.
Universally speaking.
I for one appreciate love hating, love loving BBC.
Ol' farts against new (de)generations? We are way ahead of schedule…
With best wishes to all, as ever.
Complain about this comment
I did not think this before but after reading the version of the instructions issued to the audience for Question Time I am now concerned that Nick Griffin was set up to be knocked down, which for a supposedly impartial publicly funded organisation is disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
211- Marko
Might I respectfully suggest that having a poll on how many people would trust their mother-in-law to supply a character reference would be an interesting exercise!
Complain about this comment
In reply to "memepool"
(95. At 6:10pm on 24 Oct 2009, memepool wrote:
It may not be the most politically correct or polite way to conduct a debate, but in this country political debate is most definitely adversarial, and while those in the EU parliament may be prepared to sit quietly and listen to the likes of Nick Griffin, thankfully the audience and panel on QT weren't.
Why should anyone expect otherwise? If Nick Griffin isn't upto a bit of heckling how would he ever hope to survive the House of Commons? He may be an intellectual giant amongst the kind of morons who are placated by his brand of bigoted drivel but thankfully he was found wanting against an average London audience.
As for the audience being unrepresentative? have any of these posters been to the city?)
Yes I've been to the city many times.
Isn't this just the point of it all?
Should the population of England's capital city be representable by an audience mainly comprised of immigrants?
Doesn't this tell you that immigration has gone too far?
How can the mainsteam parties not see this. And how come when a question was put concerning rampant immigration - and repeated - it was completely ignored?
Complain about this comment
Too many real issues were not discussed:-
Prison over-crowding - would he deport foreign criminals? Does he think sentances are too short? Are prisons a place of punishment or is what I hear about them being more like hotels actually true?
Safe streets - bobbies on the beat (prevention) vs CCTV (recording for watching and posting to youtube)
Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan - are we getting out of there soon?
Housing American missiles in the UK - Should we, or should we not?
Just a small selection of course and I appreciate the QT doesn't have a lot of time to talk about them all but this must not be the last QT with Nick on it; I want to hear what he's got to say on more than just the one topic thank you. Afterall, Labour, CONs and LD's all have things I don't agree with but we get to hear their opinions on those anyway.
Complain about this comment
In many ways, the reactions to the programme are more interesting than the programme itself.
The left has a history of trying to stop people speaking their minds, I saw the Moseleys treated in a similar way at Manchester Uni in the 60's.
There is no doubt that uncontrolled immigration is causing problems. It is also odd that entering the country illegally seems to be a "soft" crime that is treated very differently from say low level benefit fraud.
I look forward to a long and robust debate on the issues that the BNP raise..they are of more relevance to the UK than invading Iraq or Afghanistan or even fighting climate change.....
Complain about this comment
Lets face it you never here any politician answer any question directly, and lets be honest with ourselves the day the likes of Nick Griffin comes to power it’s a very sad day for our country the man clearly has nothing to offer this country, yes we are all fed up with immigration but let’s not confuse that with racism and bigotry. All these posts complaining about how this man was treated on question time are a joke.
Complain about this comment
" David Dimbleby. His job was not to "get" Nick Griffin, or to "expose" him as a racist and crush him in public. It was to chair a debate. Which he did, brilliantly. "
What planet are you on ?
Complain about this comment
Griffin has as much right as any other MEP to appear on QT. Fascist governments suppress openness - which is what Hain was trying to do. Dimbleby went for Griffin's jugular from the start - extraordinary behaviour for the chairman of any debate. Incredibly, it seems Griffin came out of it well with people feeling he was treated unfairly! How ever did the BBC manage to achieve that? No questions on the postal strike, Pakistan, Iran, recession, etc. Just one non-BNP question - on Steven Gately - God help us! An orchestrated, dumbed-down debate for a dumbed-down audience. Any more like that and you'll have lost a long-term fan for good. All told, a bad day for the BBC and for UK politics.
Complain about this comment
Dimbleby's attitude to NG from the start was akin to that of a judge about to pass sentence of (minimum) 50 lashes. He gave the impression of someone just about managing to stop himself punching the guy in the face.
His attitude to the rest of the mainstream /cocktail party / westminster / establishment gravy train 'guests' was ... well, shall we say, typical 'old boy- cocktail party yes we are the well heeled middle classes aren't we and how nice for us. '
My feeling is that the BBC has been seriously wrong footed by the public - though not the media luvvies - reaction to their attempted lynching of Griffin. They thought it would be an easy kill, and they took it for granted - because the national rage at the tsunami of immigration has been kept out of sight - ironically by the media's own self censorship - that the general public would be whooping & cheering the dismemberment of Griffin.
Big mistake.
This is the kind of balls-up you establishment types get yourselves into when you believe you own PC propaganda.
Some will concievably be losing his job over this little boo-boo. (Fingers crossed, eh ? )
Complain about this comment
re: Nick Griffin's mother-in-law says the BNP leader is a 'racist'
Hmmm. I find it most interesting that the Daily Telegraph online article referred to is written without giving any context, but is rather just a series of "She said" or "has said" statements without saying when things were said or in what context, such as during an interview or whatever. So it could be hearsay or from many years back. Or maybe it was on TV or radio - but it just doesn't bother to mention when.
I also note that the article is written by the Digital and Media Correspondent rather than someone with a political commentator role, whose name, Urmee Khan, presumably indicates Pakistani ancestry.
Of course, not that I'd be implying that the DT has dropped its impeccable standards of journalism, or could just be resorting to publishing politically biased hogwash.
Complain about this comment
"As in any Question Time week, members of the public guide producers on what's to be debated. The programme is driven by the questions submitted by the audience itself. And unsurprisingly, they chose to focus on topics that were in the news this week - immigration, Jan Moir's article on the death of Stephen Gately, the BNP's co-option of historical figures...."
This is a ref to Churchill, I guess.
Well, here's a bit of what Churchill really thought ( before the days he was pee-ceed into something acceptable on Play School ) =>
[quote]
"In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase.
On immigration Mr. Churchill remarked to Sir Hugh Foot, Governor of Jamaica, in 1954, “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.”
Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan!"
[unquote]
http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/08/churchills-last-stand-by-david-hamilton.html
Now I suppose you either have to revise your imaginary version of Winston C ( hmm... maybe not your average 21st century multicultural cocktail circuit kinda guy after all ? ) or admit that not much 'co-option' was really neccessary.
Second point - the way QT questions are chosen :
Each week , a certain number of big questions come up in the media. Statistically, it's a certainty that these will be asked by the largest number of the audience. So - while technically the 'questions are posed by the audience' , in fact, the questions are usually entirely predictable, and, in reality , always *entirely under the control of the producers*.
So the sheer number of questions obviously aimed directly at griffin was, in fact, completely under (your) editorial control.
So , why ? Why focus so single mindedly on this one man ? To give him publicity ? ( Well, clearly not, auntie.). So again, why ? The only reason I can come up with, given the blatant 'let's do this nasty racist chav in' bias of the questions & of the otherwise fairly mild mannered Mr Dimbleby's whole demeanour, was that it was designed & planned as a 'masterstroke' (ahem) hatchet job. (Goodbye Mr Griffin, now crawl back under your rug. ).
Perfect.
Peter Hain all lovey dovey again.
Cocktails all round.
Oh dear.
Now you must be haunted by the fear that - due to your complete lack of understanding of the REAL majority opinion in this country - you have screwed up so well you have single handedly boosted the BNP vote by a good 8% !!
Well, you live & learn... :-)
Complain about this comment
What has happened to gentlmanly behaviour these days? Even in the face of such hostility and threat from the mob outside the studios, Nick Griffin came across as polite. I expected a lot more from David Dimbleby but he only succeeded in disgracing himself, as did the other guests.
Complain about this comment
185
'Very easy to claim but is it official BNP policy? No!'
I didn't say or imply that the BNP had a policy to slaughter anyone. I said that is what some of their supporters call for on the net. It was a comment on the people who follow this party. The fact that you felt the need to state that it was not 'official BNP policy' speaks volumes though. I do hope it isn't unofficial policy either.
Maybe I should not have said that anyone with anytime for the BNP was either stupid or racist. They could also be paranoid, they could be fools and they could be cowards. But you get the idea. Sorry, you want to be patronised, don't you? And you wanted your leader to be patronised on tv, didn't you? What kind of a kindergarten party is this?
You didn't answer one of my questions in 179, nor did anyone else. Because you can't. Go on, try.
What is your problem with immigrants, asylum seekers and people 'of foreign descent' ( by which I think you mean people born in this country whose parents were not? These people are called BRITISH, sweetheart). These people usually contribute a hell of a lot more to this country than the average BNP member. You will never have the power to say where people can live. You might as well give up.
Complain about this comment
Amongst the many worrying undercurrents to what was witnessed in QT is the "middle class cocktail party" attitude taken by panel members on everything they discuss. The patronage of an audience, "you are quite right, sir, and that is why we have leveraged the real income of ... " yawn.
So did the appearance of Nick Griffin actually demonstrate just how far QT has departed from a discussion that includes real people, to a discussion that includes only pseudo-intellectuals like Bonnie Greer. What right does a member of US society (where they are so racist that they couldn't stop falling over themselves to let us know that Obama was black) to tell us what Mr Griffin is really thinking? For Ms Greer's benefit Britain has always struggled with large numbers of people arriving on our shores. Unlike the USA we do not have the space. I am sure that Ms Greer lives in a nice leafy street ignorant that that same street, in my lifetime, housed ordinary working class people.
What happened to those folk, Ms Greer? Did you bother to check it out?
The BNP represents something that too many middle class people do not have to grapple with each and every day and we do not need a bunch of middle class dinosaurs to talk down to us every week about things they have ignored for far too long.
How about bravely changing the format of QT Mr Allen and getting real people on the panel? How about having a chair with real bottle instead of a bully boy? How about finding out what Britain is really like Mr Allen? Fancy a few years living on a sink estate do you Mr Allen?
Complain about this comment
Yet another nail in the coffin of the once great BBC. The BBC has become the news these days with Ross/ Brand,rip off quizes and contests, strictly come racist comments, kangaroo court for Carol T, expenses, vastly overpaid and underworked staff, musceling in on the private sector etc. Now this disgraceful biased episode designed to ridicule and bully an elected politician. So much for neutrality with the audience and panel loaded full of non white and no working class faces. In fact the audience and panel was loaded full of guardianistas and BBC lefties. And then Mr Dim-bleby. I wonder how much this family has creamed off the TV poll tax licensepayer over the years with his father and brother thriving in this environment of nepotism for the elite and the establishment? Sorry to me and many others this episode shows the BBC up for what it5 really is and why it must go. I for one will not pay for the corruption that it pervades to so on any longer,
Complain about this comment
I am amused by the comments at 227.
To have to ask what is the problem with immigrants, asylum seekers and people 'of foreign descent' says it all about the person behind the post
The answer is simple there are TOO MANY immigrants and asylum seekers. Don’t believe me? Forget the ‘audience’ who were conveniently shipped in for QT, go out and ask the people of an average working class area who have been neglected by the current Government. You will soon get your answer. Of course whether you believe it or not I doubt as I suspect there is ‘don’t confuse me with facts I’ve already made up my mind’ attitude at work here.
Complain about this comment
The BBC should have focused on griffin. After all he was the big story on it. What people forget is the bnp represent racism, they represent racism in politics, their policies discriminate against ethnic minorities. They say if you are Anglo-saxon, Viking, Celtic etcetera you are entitled to live in the UK, so that means all of white Australia,America and most of western Europe would be entitled to live here. They have policies like only bnp chosen can vote and only bnp chosen can carry firearms, they would recover money from the people they would boot out too fund the NHS, how many people are they planning on kicking out each year? and they would abolish income tax, maybe all these people who think they are the only party interested in the British people should read their latest UK manifesto. When fact is put to griffin about his policies he cannot back them up as was seen on Thursday, he cannot deny his previous quotes over the holocaust, Islam, gays, race. Why he is friends with some extremely nasty white supremacists. Griffin has turned the bnp's message of racism into a soft watered down version, easily swallowed by the public, and reading some of the comments on various boards his racist message has been swallowed, hook line and sinker, so much for Britain's tolerance.
Complain about this comment
The BBCs strategy for exposing the BNP was a total and utter failure. The point is that the BNP feeds on the sight of its leader being persecuted by the "liberal establishment", seeing the mainstream parties ganging up on him is exactly what they want - and the sight of the Tories, Labour and Lib dems getting into a disgusting dutch auction over who would cap the most immigrants after the next election (and who was the "blame" for the "problem" of immigration) is exactly the argument the BNP want to have.
The opinion poll the next day of 22% who would consider voting for the BNP as a result of the appearence of Griffin on QT shoudl serve as a warning to the BBC not to play around with fascism, you will only get your fingers burnt.
I think a socialist approach is the way to go, not this charade of 'debate' http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,2175,0,0,1,0
Complain about this comment
The hypocritical traitors that are the LibLabCon liberal ruling class elite know only too well that they can not defeat the BNP on reasoned argument alone; they therefore try to beat them into silence by playing the racist card. We saw how that manifested during the recent Question Time “debate”. As Nick Griffin has pointed out, the real issues which should have been discussed, which NEED to be discussed, such as uncontrolled immigration and crime, Afghanistan and Iraq, Political Correctness and the erosion of our indigenous national identity by waves of foreign invaders, these were vetoed by a calculated and cynical exercise in character assassination. Shoot the messenger and thus withhold the truth.
What many of us have known for some time has now been made public by a former Blair spin doctor, Andrew Neather, who has blown the lid on Labour’s cynical plan, hatched in 2000, to genetically alter Britain by opening the floodgates to unrestricted immigration. Those few dissenting voices among the establishment that were raised at the time were also shouted down as racists: William Hague was targeted by the Labour heavies and accused of playing the race card when, in 2001, he said Blair was turning Britain into a foreign land. And in 2004 Michael Howard was called a racist when in Burnley he denounced Labour’s stand on asylum seekers. Cynical and self-serving as these pronouncements may have been on the part of the Tory spokesmen, it is yet another example amongst many of the tactics used by this corrupt and devious Labour government (and the BBC) to keep the truth from the electorate.
Complain about this comment
#111. Foxgoose:
"I suggest you read all these comments carefully, together with the first hundred or so on the current HYS on the same subject."
The Far Right's supporters always get through to the top recommended spots because they're the subject of multiple voting by those who use multiple identities linked to a single e-mail address. Any attempt to point this out is rejected by the censors (sorry, moderators).
The moderation on HYS is a disgrace. Most of the posts here would await moderation for ever because they would go right over the moderators' heads. Rather than being rejected, intelligent posts are simply left to wither on the vine.
Contrariwise, the most vile racism gets through under a thin veneer of reasonableness. However, the Most Recommended list is no measure of public opinion; it will continue to be a snare and a delusion as long as it can be so easily manipulated.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"And so to the "rigged audience". The audience, as always, was made up of a broad cross-section of views and backgrounds reflective of the location. That would be the same whether we were in Liverpool, Llandudno or - as in this case - London."
Are you serious? White people where in a minorty in that audience! Your apologist attitude in this blog shows how out of touch both you and the BBC are with public opinion.
Every single person i have spoken to regarding QT and Nick Griffin felt it was a utter farce, a witch hunt deliberatley archestrated by the BBC to try and demonstrate that Griffin does not have a valid opinion.
Well you shot yourselves in the foot, after the nation watched a bunch of self satisfied out of touch middle class mockneys talking about issues that have never affected them personally, there was and is uproar.
You think the Brand/Ross debacle caused outrage? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Complain about this comment
No. 234 makes the claim that on these comment...'the most vile racism gets through under a thin veneer of reasonableness'
Would it be possible to give an example of where this occurs in these posting?
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin got bullied? I thought he was meant to be a politician of sorts? There may well be immigration issues that require debate but if anyone believes that the bnp are the answer then they're asking all the wrong questions. The bnp are first & foremost a racist party & pretending that they aren't is just immature.
Complain about this comment
I am interested in how the panelists were chosen. Was the decision a directive from high up in the BBC - instructing Question Time to invite Nick Griffon on to the show? Or was it set up by Mentorn - the independent production company which produces Question Time? Presumbly if it was Mentorn - there would have been a discussion with the BBC commssioning editors. While appreciating the BBC's responsibility regarding 'due impartiality' the other question is why did the BBC think Question Time the most appropriate platform for Mr Griffin to air his party's point of view?
Complain about this comment
To call "Question Time" a bastion of political debate is really stretching the imagination
Complain about this comment
Ref 179
The thrust of your argument only confirms what I said in my previous reply (233): make enough of a smokescreen and the real issues will remain hidden. You spoke of Nick Griffin’s alleged connections with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Abu Hamza but you fail to explain the nature of those connections. In the world of real politiks one may have to mix within a broad church.
Ask David Cameron about his new East European right wing friends who he has aligned himself with in the European Parliament. Ask Maggie Thatcher about her friendship with the dictator General Pinochet. Ask Ken Livingstone why he cosyed up to the IRA through their “respectable” front, Sien Fein. Ask Peter Mandleson and Jack Straw why they were communists at a time when the likes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was languishing in a Soviet gulag. Ask The Pope why he was a member of the Hitler Youth. Ask successive US administrations why they backed the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I could go on.......... but I suspect that your indoctrination by the leftist education system is so complete that you’ll still be calling Griffin a racist when Britain becomes a caliphate.
Complain about this comment
I have already said what I think about Griffin and it was dismissed by the democratic BBC. people join anything when they are not being heard I would never join the BNP but people who join the BNP are not of interest or importance to the main parties this is also why there are few women or none whites. The main parties are macho, white , middle class, with hidden agenders like why do we have so many Jewish people in parliament when there are such a small amount of them in the country and why are so many PMs members of Friends of Israel? you can send this back to me as you will but I still want an answer. Griffin is no threat Brown Cameron and Clegg are.
Complain about this comment
241. At 11:57am on 26 Oct 2009, mindlegion wrote:
but I suspect that your indoctrination by the leftist education system is so complete that you’ll still be calling Griffin a racist when Britain becomes a caliphate.
---------
Firstly ,Britain can't become a caliphate (it could theoretically become part of THE Calliphate which is quite different and would require a cooperation between various branches of Islam that hasn't been seen in about a thousand years.)
If you are going to demonise islam at least try to understand the concepts you're trying to demonise.
Secondly, if as i assume, you mean britain will become predominately muslim country, the current muslim population is about 3.5% of the whole, even if every body elese stopped breeding tomorrow, then it would still take many decades, perhaps centuries before they reached a majority.
Don't belive everything you see on You Tube, some of it it quite simply, complete fantasist rubbish.
Complain about this comment
All this squealing coming from the lefties about racism makes me laugh.
You can walk into any "Music" shop and find the most outrageous anti-White racist "Gangstarap" lyrics imaginable.
Yet funnily enough,these self-styled "humanitarians" are COMPLETELY silent on such double-standards.
Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White.
Complain about this comment
244. At 1:03pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
All this squealing coming from the lefties about racism makes me laugh.
You can walk into any "Music" shop and find the most outrageous anti-White racist "Gangstarap" lyrics imaginable.
Yet funnily enough,these self-styled "humanitarians" are COMPLETELY silent on such double-standards.
Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White.
-----
you've not actually listened to much 'gansta rap' have you?
been told about it, maybe, read about it, possibly but actually listened to?
i doubt it.
the fact that the genre is constantly slammed by both the liberal and the right wing media with regards to attitudes to women,homosexuals and yes, occaisionally race issues tells me you don't really know what your'e talking about.
Complain about this comment
245. At 1:16pm on 26 Oct 2009, DitkosQuestion wrote:
"the fact that the genre is constantly slammed by both the liberal and the right wing media with regards to attitudes to women,homosexuals and yes, occaisionally race issues tells me you don't really know what your'e talking about."
My point being that while these "odious"(not to leftists though!) "songs" maybe "slammed",they are still on sale in the high street.
I notice you have`nt denied that REALITY,so my point has been made methinks.
Complain about this comment
Are there any anti-black,anti-Jew,anti-Muslim songs for sale at these music shops?
There must be some magical force that only allows the promotion of anti-White hatred in these shops then.
But I thought there were all these laws against "incitement to racial hatred"?
Ha,ha.
Complain about this comment
246. At 1:41pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
245. At 1:16pm on 26 Oct 2009, DitkosQuestion wrote:
"the fact that the genre is constantly slammed by both the liberal and the right wing media with regards to attitudes to women,homosexuals and yes, occaisionally race issues tells me you don't really know what your'e talking about."
My point being that while these "odious"(not to leftists though!) "songs" maybe "slammed",they are still on sale in the high street.
I notice you have`nt denied that REALITY,so my point has been made methinks.
-----------
not really, its a freedom of speech thing.
The BNP are (and should contimue to be) allowed to condemn other races and religions, vile as it is to many of us.
That being the case, you can't really complain that other people are allowed to express similarly intolerant views.
Complain about this comment
belgarion29
"Now that’s an authoritative comment!!.."
Very kind of you to say so.
Well to me (not a BNP cyber-activist by the way) and the vast majority of people who have commented, are of the opinion that David Dimbleby was well out of order, in allowing and joining in the personal attacks which, in themselves, constituted verbal bullying.
Perhaps its only fair as you are asking other people for examples. That I should ask for an example of Dimbleby's 'Verbal bullying'. It would be much easier than any of us who disagree with you typing the whole program into one of these little comment boxes. Best that I can do is recommend you watch the program again on iPlayer.
As well as cyberactivists I forgot to mention posters who just want a fight, and spoof posters. I'm sure you're neither of those though.
Complain about this comment
247. At 1:55pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
Are there any anti-black,anti-Jew,anti-Muslim songs for sale at these music shops?
There must be some magical force that only allows the promotion of anti-White hatred in these shops then.
But I thought there were all these laws against "incitement to racial hatred"?
Ha,ha.
----------
well i can't get down the local record shop but a quick check on amazon tells me the complete works of Skrewdriver and the mac-lads (i'm not a huge expert on the music of tthe right, but they definitely used to be the two big sellers )are all still freely available, so i'd have to say yeas you can.
Complain about this comment
@243.
BBC should call Geert Wilders next, I bet there would be a handful of protestors to greet him, they would emit precisely the same message Mr. Wilders emits, to the letter. Now, I'm not sure how many folks have a sense to sense the crappola when it's in plain sight, but that whole charade in front of Westminster was so poorly staged that it beats those indestructible passports of September 11th. In manner picked up from ol' movies and put into writing by Crichton in Sphere, Mr. Wilders actually managed to materialize his own fears.
To the letter… it could have been silly, if it hadn't been pathetic to watch.
Complain about this comment
The problem is even if the BBC are telling the truth we will not believe you.The BBC is a bigoted left wing Liar bore mouthpiece and should be dismantled immediately.
Complain about this comment
250. At 2:14pm on 26 Oct 2009, DitkosQuestion
"well i can't get down the local record shop but a quick check on amazon tells me the complete works of Skrewdriver and the mac-lads (i'm not a huge expert on the music of tthe right, but they definitely used to be the two big sellers )are all still freely available, so i'd have to say yeas you can."
Ah,but that is over the internet.Not in the High Street.Two different arenas,and I specifically asked about the shops.
You can buy all sorts of otherwise-illegal contraband over the internet.
Complain about this comment
248. At 2:00pm on 26 Oct 2009, DitkosQuestion:
"not really, its a freedom of speech thing.
The BNP are (and should contimue to be) allowed to condemn other races and religions, vile as it is to many of us."
Oh dear,have you cleared that with your fellow lefties,DitkosQuestion?
You do know that there are many "racists" sitting in jail for nothing more than trying to exercise this mythical "freedom of speech" you talk of,dont you,DitkosQuestion?
Of course,you know that your stated opinion(on this blog at least) makes no difference when the entire establishment and it`s paid lefty thugs think differently.
Complain about this comment
I complained, and received a response which was exactly the same as quoted at 'Comment 66' above. Obviously a standard response.
I complained again, stating I was not happy with the response as it failed to address my 2 queries;
1) Will David Dimbleby give an unreserved apology at the beginning of QT this Thursday, for his faliure to chair the previous week's show in a competent manner ?
2) Will David Dimbleby give an assurance that all future panel members - whoever they are - will not be subjected to the same treatment as displayed on QT 22/10/09 ?
I simply abhor bullying in all forms. And it is even more distasteful when I am paying a licence fee to fund this show.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Gavin Allen: Please will you publish the regulations which state that the BBC must invite the BNP to appear on Question Time.
Complain about this comment
I know time has passed since the programme went out, but I would like to say that all the time the BNP remains within the law, regardless of his views we should defend his right to have and express them. I do think he was somewhat ganged up on and not given a fair crack of the whip.
Clearly, from the posts and views I have read here there are issues the British public have on immigration that need to be addressed by politicians. Maybe if they were the BNP would have less of a platform.
Complain about this comment
254. At 2:44pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
Not a 'lefty' cheers, though i am proud to be liberal,despite the Btistish right hijacking the lexicon of the american right (no imagination of their own i suppos), 'liberal' is not widely considered to be a dirty word in the UK. look it up in a dictionary sometime.
This government on the other hand are neither left nor liberal but rather authoritarian which is why they keep trying to ban things.
and no, you can't end up in jail for racism, you can for racially agravated assault or if you racially vandalise someones property, but holding rascist beliefs just isn't illegal. Even using rascist language is extreemely unlikely to result in a custodial.
One more lie your friends in the BNP have told you to make you feel more like a victim i'd guess.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid the BBC blew it big time. Nick Griffin’s party should have been declared illegal ages ago; but the BBC allowed Griffin to use its megaphone to falsely cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. When the BBC’s chair was unable to ensure fair play, the cooling sprinklers of forensic debate were blocked. Lots of heat; no illumination.
The only effective anti-fascist action was taken by Bonnie Greer, who treated the guy like a human being. The binmen, bus-drivers and fire-fighters all striking across Yorkshire at the moment have in common with the postal workers their resistance to management bullying and to the dehumanising logic of the bottom line. People find debate by denunciation, in a flood of mass emotion, a bit…well, fascist. We really can’t afford to be using dehumanising tactics ourselves when investigating those policies, such as indiscriminate privatisation, and those ideas, such as fascism, for whom they are standard procedure.
Complain about this comment
Let's face it, the only reason the BNP are getting any support and publicity at this moment in time is because the UK population (colour irrelevant) are sick and tired of our health service, schools and general infrastructure overrun with immigrants.
Most people are not racist, me included, however I, as an English person, am furious that these people can come here and have free healthcare, free schools, housing and benefits when they've never paid into this society.
To me, the colour of these people is irrelevant. If immigrants want to come and live here in our beautiful country, they should be made to pay for schooling, healthcare etc, until they've earned British Citizenship, say after 5 years of working here and paying into the system.
Ms Warsi (convervative) and and Mr Straw (Labour) on QT both said that they would not "pull up the drawbridge" and stop immigration into this country. Nor do there seem to be any plans to make immigrants pay for things such as schools and GPs. This isn't unreasonable, Australia do it, why can't we? I can imagine the UK will not be so popular a destination if benefits and free housing/healthcare wasn't available.
Mr Griffin and the BNP will be getting more and more support from disillusioned British people, because the three main parties just aren't listening!
Complain about this comment
I imagine that once the BNP amend their constitution to allow British non whites into the party, there will be quite a few lined up to join as I know plenty of non white Britons who are concerned about immigration also.
Complain about this comment
I, like many people in the UK (I expect), welcome anyone into the country whose interests, skills and personality will enrich our communities. I welcome a diversity of religious beliefs, skin colours, hair colours, eye colours. I welcome anybody who wishes to come to the UK and become part of our community and culture. But I am concerned however, about the growth of closed monocultures within our society, and the imposition of new laws, new rights and accommodations for people who wish to come to live in the UK but who have no intention of participating in our society as it currently exists. Since none of the other parties have anything to say about this issue, I believe many people are being seduced by the BNP.
In my opinion, the Question Time program was a HUGE missed opportunity to dispose of the BNP forever. If the 'serious' political parties were to take on board concerns like that described above and lead a sensible debate about immigration and integration, rather than bashing the table and condemning Griffin's every utterance as rascist/fascist propaganda, they would immediately disempower the BNP completely. And if Question Time had invited Nick Griffin to describe his strategy for rescuing the country from the economic crisis, he would have been laughed off the stage and the BNP would SURELY never have been taken seriously ever again.
As it was however, I have to agree that the programme was just an embarrassing, staged exercise which, in my opinion, discredited the BBC and all of the politicians who took part in the show. I found it particularly laughable that the politicians on the panel were taking such obvious delight in describing Mr Griffin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing"; someone who could not be trusted to say what he really means - that is surely the nature of ALL politicians, and has never been better exercised than by 'New Labour'.
Complain about this comment
I for one applaud the BBC on how they have handled the whole issue, they were between a rock and a hard place and were always going to upset someone. I think Peter Hain and others who did not want the BNP to appear on QT were plain wrong - like it or not the BNP are a democratic party and stifling debate is the action of a police state (I forgot, NuLab IS a Police state!).
The panel, with the exception of Jack Straw, gave Griffin a thorough examination of his party's policies and I thought Griffin came out of it very badly, and it displayed the stupidity of the BNP's policies. I think David D was also excellent, with robust examination of Griffin and others, that again showed Griffin for what he is, a bigot.
I do wonder if some of the critics writing on this site actually watched the programme, as I do not recognise the descriptions many of the critics are sating about Griffin being bullied and shouted down, it simply did not happen.
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin is an embarassment to the human race. Anyone who feels sorry for him for the perceived *treatment* he received, clearly needs to examine their conscience.
The biggest problem in the UK are not immigrants claiming benefits and getting housing. The vast majority of leeches in our system of benefits are white, British born folk, which in some cases beling to families whom have not wanted to do a day's work for generations, and the housing is going to all the teenager pregnants girls whom have a right to it! The vast majority white, as most girls from Asian and Muslim backgrounds wait until marriage for sex!
You guys are just looking for an escape-goat for the problems this country faces, and the likes of Nick Griffin and the BNP are counting on your lack of political finesse to win votes and turn Britain into the next Zimbabwe!
I despair.
I am British, white and proud that our country boasts a great record in tolerance and fair play. If the BNP gets in, the last person out of Britain please turn out the lights.
Complain about this comment
I reject with the strongest contempt the claim made above by the BBC that it was just a 'normal Question Time'. Do you honestly believe that people are naive enough to believe that? It appears clear to me that the audience was totally unrepresentative of a typical cross section of British population. For a start there were very few older people and also far too many from ethnic minorities to provide a balanced audience. I also suspect that a number from far-left groups managed to infiltrate the audience. In any case, it was the job of David Dimbleby, the questionmaster, to prevent the whole event from becoming focused on the BNP and Griffin. In this, he failed miserably. He allowed the direction of the questioning to be dominated by a few people obsessed with the BNP's racial policy and as a result the entire programme became a farce. I also suspect that the questioners were 'planted' by the BBC, with the backing of the government, in order to cause as much trouble as possible. I don't know why the BBC did this, but I feel that BBC management is afrid of giving someone like Griffin the opportunity to speak coherently about his policies. I find this quite sinister - who are the real fascists here, I wonder?
Complain about this comment
259. At 3:09pm on 26 Oct 2009, DitkosQuestion wrote:
"254. At 2:44pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
Not a 'lefty' cheers, though i am proud to be liberal,despite the Btistish right hijacking the lexicon of the american right (no imagination of their own i suppos), 'liberal' is not widely considered to be a dirty word in the UK. look it up in a dictionary sometime.
This government on the other hand are neither left nor liberal but rather authoritarian which is why they keep trying to ban things.
and no, you can't end up in jail for racism, you can for racially agravated assault or if you racially vandalise someones property, but holding rascist beliefs just isn't illegal. Even using rascist language is extreemely unlikely to result in a custodial.
One more lie your friends in the BNP have told you to make you feel more like a victim i'd guess."
Just one example will suffice to show that it is YOU who are lying:
The Heretical Two.
As to whether "liberal"(except on issues so dear to them!) is a dirty word,I will let the conduct of the uneducated but well-heeled mockney numpties in the audience of Question Time to make my case.
DitkosQuestion: "This government on the other hand are neither left nor liberal"
Oh dear DitkosQuestions,that really is reality-denial of the worst kind.
Complain about this comment
In an article published in The Times on Sat.Oct.24, Bonnie Greer wrote, 'On Question Time, you are only given an opportunity to speak when you are asked to speak.' In fact, Griffin was the only member of the panel who observed this convention. Not once during the programme did he interrupt his fellow panelists when they were speaking. Huhne and Straw both interrupted him as did Ms Greer on at least three occasions, the most memorable being with the question,'Who are the British people?' Baroness Warsi who generally performed best of a poor bunch interrupted Straw when he was speaking about the government's immigration policy. David Dimbleby's contribution represented an almost complete abdication of the role of chairman in a debate. At one point when Griffin was being quizzed on what he had or had not said about the Holocaust, it was as if, in a court of law, the judge had joined in with prosecuting counsel to fire questions at the defendant in the dock. The Question Time programme was entirely the wrong format for holding up to closer scrutiny the policies of one particular political party.
Complain about this comment
262. At 3:45pm on 26 Oct 2009, happyneet wrote:
I imagine that once the BNP amend their constitution to allow British non whites into the party, there will be quite a few lined up to join as I know plenty of non white Britons who are concerned about immigration also.
--------
i have seen some speculation on other forums that they may end up as the Black National Party..
Complain about this comment
Asia for Asians,Africa for Africans,White countries for EVERYBODY.
That looks like anti-White racism to me.Where did it come from?
Susan Sontag(Writer/luvvie):
"Whites are the cancer of history"
Dr Noel Ignatiev(Harvard Professor):
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Bonnie Greer,22/10/09 :"There is no such thing as indigenous Britons"
Can any lefty/liberal honestly not spot the pattern?
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Complain about this comment
I think someone is protesting too much.
How the show was produced was bound to fuel criticism because in choosing a multi ethnic area in which to hold this Question Time was bound to produce accusations of audience packing, and focusing on Griffin so much was bound to make him look a victim of bullying.
You should have just let him make a fool of himself, rather than playing silly games.
Complain about this comment
"Asia for Asians,Africa for Africans,White countries for EVERYBODY."
The typical argument... However if you want to go down that route, try to remember that the white man, especially the British, invaded and colonised more countries than you can shake a stick at.
All people want these days is to be able to live side-by-side and not be categorised by colour. Hated for something they did not choose to be.
Immigration is being used by the BNP to propagate blind, racist hatred.
They are not interested in the well-being of the whites. They are only interested in a pure race. Forget that at your peril. The BNP only cares about the BNP and their only policy is that of hatred.
Complain about this comment
As I understand it, the only reason that the BBC had to put the BNP on Question Time was that it had already for reasons best known to itself put on the "Greens". Since the BNP had far more support than them it had no choice in equity but to put the BNP on as well.
It is perhaps unkimd to point out that a well advertised promotion of Griffin's presence duly hyped was pretty good for flagging ratings and no doubt this was a consideration,
Omce he was on why not get him and the rest of the panel ask normal questions about issues of the day (like e,g the Postal Strike) rather than make the whole thing a race fest.? With a baying audience and a sententious and generally pathetic group of panellists the BBC nearly managed the unlikely trick of making Griffin look sympathetic and not entirely stupid. The BBC was fortunate that Griffin lacked the oratory or presence of a Hitler or even a Mosely who would have run rings round you.
The real victim in all of this is probably UKIP which has a set of non racist answers to the problems all of the major parties are ignoring. They at least start from the more realistic position that we cannot control our borders while the EU is making nearly all of the relevant laws and is actually working hard to make us take in even more (our fair share) of the undesirables they are incompetently letting in.
Complain about this comment
272. At 4:37pm on 26 Oct 2009, AngelicaUK wrote:
"Asia for Asians,Africa for Africans,White countries for EVERYBODY."
The typical argument... However if you want to go down that route, try to remember that the white man, especially the British, invaded and colonised more countries than you can shake a stick at."
Did we wipe out the populations of those countries?
Is it the fault of Britons living today what our ancestors did hundreds of years ago?
AngelicaUK:
"All people want these days is to be able to live side-by-side and not be categorised by colour"
That`s all,is it AngelicaUK?
No one`s bothered about their Country becoming a divided and dangerous multi-national dumping ground?
Complain about this comment
NG is loathed by so many people that I think the outburst ot continued anger at him was to be expected. I was neithersurprised nor disgusted.
And here is a reminder why:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."
I think most decent people never want to see the need of this sort of thing being written again. This is why the BNP are loathed and I hope they continue to be so.
NG should never be allowed to forget what he is. On the BBC or anywhere else.
Complain about this comment
267. At 3:57pm on 26 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
DitkosQuestion: "This government on the other hand are neither left nor liberal"
Oh dear DitkosQuestions,that really is reality-denial of the worst kind.
----
no i'm afraid its really not.
You will find it very difficult outside of the far right to find any respectable commentators who believe this government is left wing, what they allowed the financial sector to do for so many years being a case in point.
But thats where we differ
Most people on the far right seem to believe that everything not white is black, everything not-left is right and that if youre not entirely with us you are totally against us.
That is dumbing down both politics and society to a an almost dangerous degree and does lead me to wonder what people like Nick GRiffin really thinks about his own membership that they need things simplified into these rather patronising (and totally false) terms.
Complain about this comment
273. At 4:54pm on 26 Oct 2009, diggerjock wrote:
"The real victim in all of this is probably UKIP which has a set of non racist answers to the problems all of the major parties are ignoring. They at least start from the more realistic position that we cannot control our borders while the EU is making nearly all of the relevant laws and is actually working hard to make us take in even more (our fair share) of the undesirables they are incompetently letting in."
So,you`re totally unaware that the BNP is also an anti-EU party?
Complain about this comment
AngelicaUk:
"First they came for the communists..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZcrMn48Xg&feature=PlayList&p=AFF3BB5A102FD756
I can`t think why.
Complain about this comment
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, White countries for EVERYBODY.
You may have noticed that we occupied vast areas of Africa and Asia for quite a few centuries (and our soldiers and administrators had quite a few children with women that lived there too); the descendents of many British colonists in the Americas have helped shape its history since the sixteenth century.
Tiger Woods father was 1/2 African American, 1/4 Chinese and 1/4 Native American. His mother is 1/2 Thai, 1/4 Chinese and 1/4 Dutch. Which country or ethnicity should he most identify with?
As Woods himself said to the press: “The critical and fundamental point is that ethnic background and/or composition should NOT make a difference. It does NOT make a difference to me. The bottom line is that I am an American... and proud of it! That is who I am and what I am. Now, with your cooperation, I hope I can just be a golfer and a human being.”
I’m afraid ever since ships became capable of inter-continental travel in the 15th century people have been migrating and also discovering that sex happens between people the world over, regardless of which country they originate from.
As long as there is travel between countries I can’t see that stopping.
Living on a council estate the terms black, white and Asian are common currency round here when differentiating people. On Saturday someone asked a (mixed race) friend sat next to me in a pub if she’d “seen Linzi recently?” “Black Linzi or white Linzi?” was her answer - she knows two women called Linzi.
Being-mixed race (English mum, Trinidadian dad) and born in this country my friend identifies herself as Black English. (Though you could easily mistake her as being from Spain or Italy.)
I have sympathy with a black man that refused to tick an equal opportunities monitoring form that only had ‘Black African’ or ‘Black Caribbean’ on it; “I’m Black English” he said pointedly, having been born and raised here.
Another black man having been born and raised in Germany, married an English woman and now lives and works in Britain simply ticked the European box; he has a German passport after all.
No I don’t see this country as a ‘divided and dangerous multi-national dumping ground?’
Complain about this comment
Does anyone even know that in Germany before Hitler,there were "anti-hate"/anti-free speech laws?
That was a successful experiment in social engineering was`nt it?
Complain about this comment
279. At 5:43pm on 26 Oct 2009, jayfurneaux wrote:
"As Woods himself said to the press: “The critical and fundamental point is that ethnic background and/or composition should NOT make a difference. It does NOT make a difference to me. The bottom line is that I am an American... and proud of it! That is who I am and what I am. Now, with your cooperation, I hope I can just be a golfer and a human being.”
Who chose a White,blonde-haired woman as a wife.Actions speak louder than words.
Complain about this comment
I would love to agree with the stance of The BBC, I really would. Question Time has a fascinating heritage and The BBC would do well to ensure that is never compromised if it is to retain credibility for this programme.
However, having seen the dumbing down and cringingly awful topics on the latest series of the once decent to watch "Watchdog," I can be forgiven I hope for thinking that The BBC does not always think before deciding what is a good programme.
As for the actual show? It was interesting to see that every time Mr Griffin explained, unsuccessfully, that he has taken the party away from its racist roots, he alienated himself from the core of the party he represents.
An amazing feat of distancing yourself from decent people and thugs at the same time. A true modern politician or what?
All the BBC had to do was sit back and let it happen.....
Complain about this comment
Apparently,mentioning the ethnicity of Tiger Wood`s wife is verboten.
Sorry,Jayfurneaux,I did have a reply to your post,but it must have been deemed "Too reality-driven".
Complain about this comment
I disagree with everything you have written Mr Allen - you cannot possibly justify the shambles that was Question Time last week. It was a disaster from start to finish and how you can claim that David Dimbleby was an "excellent chairman" is beyond belief.
By making Nick Griffin a victim of a baying mob and self serving politicians the BBC have done a great disservice to democracy.
Complain about this comment
I just got back from the gym in town; around 100 people working out, representing just about every shade of colour between white and black.
The race issue has now been lost by the far right; the majority of people just aren't prepared to hate someone because they have a different shade of skin colour; the majority have come to terms with it. Something shown by the 'English Defence League' having black members (check YouTube) who would probably fit right in with the BNP (if allowed to join), though some of its white members would probably leave.
The BNP is now resorting to playing on general fears about uncontrolled immigration (which could be from white Europeans) and one religion, Islam. But on race, white supremacy and so on it has lost. And I very much doubt that the majority in this country believe that the majority of Muslims are extremist terrorists, any more than people think white supremacists represent the majority of the white population. People do have common sense.
Thinking about it, any argument for racial separation and white supremacy was probably lost centuries ago when one of the a settler in the very first English settlement in Virginia married a Native American woman (Pocahontas), or when the first East India Company officials arrived in India in the 17th century and promptly began families with Indian wives.
PS. 283. Swedish. (Not that I see that has anything to do with anything).
Complain about this comment
193, you seem to have some problem comprehending my point you got all vexed about.
The clue is in the words, 'city first' which means that over the past 30 years, governments have, through deregulation and lesser scrutiny, allowed the financial sector to take precedence over other parts of the economy.
Coupled with globalisation, this has lost us (and in other Western nations), a lot of jobs that would and had, been the bedrock of areas of society that the BNP see as ripe for votes.
Since economic policy is always the main issue in an election, the voters had had 7 general elections to be aware of this and vote according to how they see it, how it affects them.
But these sorts of consensus has been with the two main parties before, in the 1950's and 1960's both Labour and Tory followed policies aimed at full employment, partly through a larger public sector-including remember parts of industry back then, we had a higher level of national debt in the 1960's than even now, as well other measures to try to intervene in the economy.
So that was nothing to do with immigration/race etc.
Not everything is, unless you make it so.
196, I do not disagree, we all fail at times.
But it's who you blame, some always have to blame the 'other'; be it gender, race, nationality, creed.
The BNP thrive on this, and yes, given the histories of some of them, is it that surprising?
A question I'd like to have seen asked to Griffin is about his London man getting in trouble for making up two murders as part of a video he was making.
Which would lead to to the fact that the 'shock horror!' stories the BNP circulate are always false.
Always.
Deliberately.
Anyway, I think this this wise observer of politics nailed it here;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/andrew-rawnsley-nick-griffin
Complain about this comment
I think maybe everyone is missing the point,
Question time audience are not your average people to start with.\normal people sit in lock their doors, watch the box and moan about it all to their mates in the morning.Then carry on moaning about the state of the country and how they think NG may have a couple of good points ( but forgetting the bad ones)
There is major unrest in middle england, wether black,white,brown,yellow whatever religion,immagration has to cease,"the country is on its knees"
the country is overloaded and will soon be over taxed too!No work, no industry, no manufacturing with this people will vote for the BNP . All politicians lie and talk s...e,are the BNP any different.
If alleged murdering terrorists can hold office in Ireland why can't the Bnp do so here,they've not killed anyone?
At least they would get us out of Europe (god help is if we end up with the Euro then it will all be over!)and bring our lads back from Iraq/afgahnistan....remind me why we're their again please?
Complain about this comment
Just reading this blog reminds me of how far out of touch commentators are with the average man in the street.There is an anger rising in many communities of England that could easily explode in months to come.We see it with unions and strikes, we see it with MP's expenses and their state of denial and immigration could be the catalyst.At its heart is the sheer hatred of the political classes and the media that ,far too often, seem to dance to the spin doctor's tunes instead of reporting what concerns the public. I note the deliberate relaxation of immigration controls to cause a left of centre,multi cultural society has seen very little media comment as if it is being suppressed. Since the BNP are the only party that seeks to expose this cosy agreement it is inevitable that they will rise in appeal.
Complain about this comment
I agree with #288 treetop91.
Things are getting dangerous, especially in our cities.
Although politicians are ultimately to blame, I strongly believe that the media, and the BBC in particular with its lion’s share of broadcast and on-line media, is the greatest problem. The rigged Question Time programme is only 1 example of continuous bias at the BBC.
Politics have been hemmed in by the philosophy of the BBC/Guardian/New Labour set.
Up until recently it was impossible for a politician to even mention immigration without being lambasted by the BBC and those that the BBC invited into its studios. Same for the quango eu. The outcome has been three main political parties with the same BBC-friendly façade. Basically, if it isn’t going to pass the 10 O’clock News Nick Robinson test then don’t mention it.
The latest examples of the BBC skewing politics is in their suppression of 2 news stories. Firstly, the move to put the unelected Peter Mandelson in the House of Commons. Yet another assault on our constitution by this extreme government.
Secondly the waste of multi millions in vetting our farmers for eu quango subsidies where, in the majority of cases, the vetting has cost more than the subsidies themselves.
Remember, most ‘the BBC has learned’ stories come from the Labour Party and not the Conservative Party. This has not changed for many years. The BBC admitted to drinking many bottles of champagne the night when Tony Blair became PM.
I don’t agree with calls to bring down the BBC. Why should a bad batch of journalists and editors bring down what was once a fine institution?
However, there must be a major clear out of the people that have brought it to the low ebb it is at right now. The greatest issue is the propaganda that has damaged our country so much and created the tension that most of us are feeling right now.
For starters, Gavin Allen must be sacked, not just for the kangaroo court of Question Time but for misleading is into thinking that this programme was driven by the audience.
I also echo comment #257 from Jackturk: how did the BNP get on the programme in the first place? What were the criteria? If such criteria exist, please ensure they are published. Perhaps this could be Gavin’s final act before his departure.
Complain about this comment
285. At 9:21pm on 26 Oct 2009, jayfurneaux wrote:
"I just got back from the gym in town; around 100 people working out, representing just about every shade of colour between white and black."
How very metropolitan.You must have been on P.C cloud nine.A gym full of multi-racial Britons is no excuse for a bloodless(minus the ethnic-on-White crime "stats") genocide.
"The race issue has now been lost by the far right"
The establishment and it`s toadies have been saying that since at least the early nineties.The BNP(and other nationalist orgs),their supporters and sympathisers,simply would`nt exist if that was the case.
"PS. 283. Swedish. (Not that I see that has anything to do with anything)."
Ah,but it does.I`ll have to watch my step,and fingers crossed the censors don`t get offended,but have a good think about why Baywatch was the most popular Global tv program for a decade.
Hint:It was`nt the scripts!
Complain about this comment
225 just_another__dave
"This is a ref to Churchill, I guess.
Well, here's a bit of what Churchill really thought ( before the days he was pee-ceed into something acceptable on Play School ) =>
[quote]
"In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase.
On immigration Mr. Churchill remarked to Sir Hugh Foot, Governor of Jamaica, in 1954, “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.”
Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan!"
[unquote]"
---
Indeed Churchill made some comments that would today be considered racist - but think about when he lived, I bet you we all have at least one grandparent, or even parent who was pretty racist, my own grandfather disliked anyone who wasn't white - he would never have voted BNP, even with his views it wasn't his primary concern and he certainly wouldn't actively support a party who wanted repatriation and had link to the National Front and fascist parties
Intriguingly, despite the views held by many of the older generations, we never went down the BNP (or equivalent) road after the war - the worst we got was people like Enoch Powell and views like Churchill's, nobody violently racist in politics - and think, even though Churchill had these views - he still didn't do anything to throw out dark-skinned people, despite being prime minister twice - as you quote, he said it wasn't an easy problem, so no, of course he wouldn't have supported the aims of the BNP (who do think it's an easy problem), because he was a liberal who believed in personal freedom and hated fascists, even if he personally disliked coloured people, to say he would support the BNP is an insult to his memory
Complain about this comment
Finally got to see some of the show (Monday, 5:30 am), after reading the many pages of comments, and talking on the phone to a couple of friends. Some thoughts;
1. Mr. Griffin looked stunningly unimpressive and dealt with most questions badly and without much depth.
2. The rest of the panel weren’t much better, oozing smugness and trying to score political points rather than answering questions.
3. Why didn’t anyone try to challenge Griffin on any policies other than immigration? Part of the BNP appeal is based on the way they talk about education, jobs, crime, etc. Show them up as just a bunch of barroom malcontents without any real ideas.
4. There are some real issues that people want dealt with.
5. If these are the calibre of our political class, then I think the British people deserve better. We don’t need an election, we need a revolution.
The one really hot potato is the immigration issue that all governments have mishandled for the last 40 years. Countries like Australia or Canada have proper immigration laws. So do other countries. What is it about migration control that the UK finds so difficult? I have been living in an Asian country now for about 12 years. I have to obey their laws and generally conform to the local way of life. That’s how things are done here. Every couple of years I have to present myself at an immigration office to renew my visa. If I fail to do so, then I can expect to be arrested and deported as an illegal alien. There’s no PC rubbish about human rights – I WILL be deported. And that’s the real nub of the issue. If you discuss the UK’s immigration policy, or lack thereof, with business people here, they think it’s crazy. The idea that any Asian country (here I’m talking East Asian – China, Korea, Japan, etc) would allow sufficient foreign immigrants in that the native population of a major city became a minority is almost unthinkable. Whilst everybody pays lip service to the ‘international ideal’ most people laugh at the idea of multiculturalism – and I do mean that literally. They regard the Brits as stupid. As one businessman said to me, ”Why do people travel abroad? To see different cultures. Why travel to see something you’ve got at home?” A few years ago the Malaysian government rounded up and deported all illegal aliens in a huge police operation. Little said in the West and the affair is now forgotten. This summer Japan started offering cash inducements to immigrants of Brazilian-Japanese descent to leave the country. Where are the liberal protests?
Re the other related question of how long people have to be in a country to qualify as ‘native’, a few years ago on ‘Simpson’s World’ Mr. S was talking to a South African poet in Soweto. The poet suggested that the Afrikaners had to behave themselves in the new SA or they would be expelled. John Simpson replied that having been in Africa for some 350 years the Afrikaners belonged there – it was their country (whatever you happen to think of apartheid). The poet said no, they could never be African. They were white, and they lived in South Africa as guests. The only true Africans were black. John Simpson looked quite taken aback.
OK, there is the legacy of Apartheid and colonialism to consider, which may explain such sentiments, but it does not excuse them. Imagine if a European right winger expressed similar sentiments about Europe and immigration.
Complain about this comment
The BNP are growing in strength because the Westminster leeches have long ago lost touch with reality. Westminster invented its own, largely based on the witless hippy philosophies of the 60's. They have passed law upon law which seeks to emulate those 'glorious student days' but which are quite useless in the real world. Now the people - the real ones who have to live and work in the real world - are suffering daily abuse, persecution, and oppression and have no one to turn to. So they are creating their own support structures. It was what gave birth to the Unions, and the original Labour Party, before both got lost in comfortable suburbia.
I do not know if the BNP will be good for Britain. Do I care? Britain is no longer the society I grew up with. It has become a moral shambles, a philosophical nightmare. One cannot blink without some or other useless, non-producing parasite wagging the finger of oppression at you. I have already voted for the BNP and will continue to do so. If they are banned, it will pursuade me to even greater support.
One thing is for certain, the traditional Westminster parties have nothing to offer me. They represent the miserable, corrupt system that has ruined this once beautiful country.
Complain about this comment
Resistance is futile. Last night on the television was a spokesman (sorry spokesperson) for the government QUANGO that dealt with Social Cohesion (I kid you not!). Be afraid, very afraid, you are going to be assimilated (integrated) by stealth!
Complain about this comment
Churchill understood the true nature of Hitler's race-agenda in the 1930s, what he called 'the pitiless ill-treatment of minorities',
Griffin is fond of citing Churchill's misgivings about mass non-white immigration to Britain in the 1950s. Yet while he was prime minister, the Tory party clung to its traditional view that all inhabitants of the empire were citizens of the motherland – the doctrine of "civis britannicus sum". Churchill did not easily abandon the vision of a multi-ethnic, multicultural empire allowing the free movement of peoples.
Above all, Churchill gloried in the solidarity of peoples from many different parts of the empire united against fascism and Nazism; without the Canadian, Indian, Australian, African West Indian etc troops, airmen and sailors Britain's war effort between Dunkirk and D Day would have been impossible.
Pre-Independence India provided the largest volunteer force (two and a half million) of any nation during World War II and served notably in Burma and SE Asia, N. Africa and Italy. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War. The largest number of non-British Victoria Crosses during the Second World War for their bravery.
Asking what Churchill would be like if born today is an impossible question, rather like asking what Gladstone, Disraeli or Pitt the Younger would have be like? Everyone is a product of their times; Churchill was also a product of an Aristocracy that was much more powerful in his day.
Andrew Marr had some interesting reflections on what Churchill would be like if transported forward in time:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222625/What-Churchill-make-Britain-today.html
I suspect Churchill would be his usual contradictory mixture, probably an independent who'd agree with the Tories party on some issues and the left on others, Churchill was both a social reformer and also not a sexual prude, as this story from the 1950s shows.
An aide brought Churchill the morning paper with the news that one of his [male] Cabinet Ministers would have to resign because he had been caught having sex with a Grenadier Guardsman in Green Park the night before.
Churchill said: "It was cold last night was it not?"
The aide replied: "Yes Sir, only 23 degrees F." (Minus 5 C)
Churchill replied: "Makes you proud to be British."
Complain about this comment
Nick Griffin is a loathesome man in every way, and he doesn't have the political skills required to even defend his own outpourings. As far as I'm concerned he got off fairly lightly.
Also, demonstration is a perfectly legitimate part of belonging in a democracy, just as going on strike is.
Those who voiced their anger at the BBC were perfectly within their rights to do so, just as Griffin is to spout his own bile, albeit in a pathetic, ineloquent manner
Complain about this comment
Nah. You only need to read this site's HYS debates on the subject to see that about 80% of the people who listened to that programme were not unimpressed by what he had to say and the way he handled himself in a hostile environment.
And people here are hardly core BNP voters, since tehy seem to be gaining mostly from disaffected white working class, previously core Labour voters. Now they seem also to be gaining ground in middle England.
And the only people who seem to be saying otherwise are virtually all the journalists. I find that very worrying. It's unlikely that they all misunderstood what was going on - so how can that happen?
We could be forgiven for dreaming up conspiracy theories. Why don't the major parties get on board with what the public really want - zero immigration?
Complain about this comment
It seems to me the BNPs complaints are all about the standard format of the program.
As for the host being impartial, he slammed Jack Straw for waffling, told him repeadly that he wasn't answering the question and he called Barroness Warsi on past comments critical of civil partnerships.
He frequently allowed Nick Griffin time to finish when other guests and the audience were interupting, asked the other panelists to let him finish a number of times, criticised the audience member who swapped the N for a D in his name and allowed time for questions on imigration from audience members who were critical of the goverments stance on the subject.
It was question time! The show is about the audiences questions, the clue is in the name.
It's not a party political broadcast.
It doesn't have preset questions which you can practice the answers to.
Its host will call you on previous comments and any contradictions you make.
You will get hostile questions from an audience which includes people who disagree with you.
You will get questioned and opposed by your political oponants.
You will not always be allowed to finish you statement and will often be cut-off by other quests.
You will have to deal with an guest who is not a politician.
You will have to answer the questions truthfully and frankly or the other panelists will call you on it.
If you can't deal with that then maybe it's a bad idea to appear on the program because you will be made to look a fool, exactly as has happened to Nick Griffin.
Complain about this comment
I was quite disapointed that no-one asked about the recent anti islam marches that have been conducted by the English and Welsh defence leagues. There does seem to be a link between the BNP and these groups and I would have liked it to be questioned.
It is exactly the same tactics as the BNP have used before with the marches in the 60's and 70's.
I'm just glad to be in wales where a WDL march in Swansea of 60 people was countered by over 200 people and a similar WDL march in Newport was canceled due to lack of support with an anti racism vigil held in the town the day the march was due to take place.
It was nice to see people come out to show that there is no place in Wales for racism or any such views.
People in Wales know a thing or two about being a minority. It has made me proud to be Welsh.
Complain about this comment
159. At 00:00am on 25 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
"Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White."
I'm White.
I'm anti-racist, it's disgusting whoever it comes from.
You could be blue and hate green people for all I care, if you negativly judge someone for thier race, religion, sexuality or origins you make yourself the only type of person that should be loathed.
You are a sad deluded fool hiding behind anonimity to spout pathetic nonsense about people that have done nothing wrong.
My names Colin Walker and I live in Cardiff. And I dont have to be afraid of linking my name with my views.
Complain about this comment
295. At 10:12am on 27 Oct 2009, jayfurneaux wrote:
"Andrew Marr had some interesting reflections"
If you call Stalinism interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/feb/28/lawrence.ukcrime4
Andrew "Oppression is good" Marr:
"The establishment would like to see racism as something perverse, a kind of unreasonable wickedness that appears in badly-educated people. But this painless, convenient explanation can only come from people who don't really bother to look at, or listen to, their fellow citizens. In fact, racism is natural and at its worst wherever there is serious poverty."
"It's nasty and it's natural which is why I am, on the whole, against too much nature. 'Natural harmony', accurately investigated, means a bloody and unstable cycle of massacre and extermination. Though human experience happens inside nature, human progress also depends on surmounting it. The tools by which we do so include politics and taxation, as well as science and art. But it needs a whole nation to move, not simply pious exasperation directed at the lower orders. I think the silent, sullen 'complete ignoral' which greets establishment outrage about the Lawrence case is caused by too much 'natural instinct' on the part of impoverished, retreating communities"
"What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy.)"
"And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off."
Complain about this comment
#300 Colonicus42 wrote:
"I'm White.
I'm anti-racist, it's disgusting whoever it comes from.
You could be blue and hate green people for all I care, if you negativly judge someone for thier race, religion, sexuality or origins you make yourself the only type of person that should be loathed."
You state you are anti-racist.
I'll quote a Bob Marley song:
"If you know your history, Then you would know where you coming from".
Know your history, know your culture and then apply your ethics and morals to todays multi cultured Britain.
Can you state you live in a society where your white:
1) Race is recognised and upheld.
2) Culture is recognised and upheld.
3) Morals are recognised and upheld.
4) Ethics are recognised and upheld.
Bonnie Greer,22/10/09 :"There is no such thing as indigenous Britons"
Have a look at the government, law, education, your council and the media. I take it the MOBO's are not racist ?
Is your quotation for "disgust" targeted at these organisations that masquerade themselves as "pro ethnic minority" and then go on to suppress white culture because it offends ethnic minorities ?
Do you know who you are ?
Like it or not, you ARE judged on your race, culture, sex and disabilities every moment of every hour of every day by the whole government system and the media.
What is your culture ?
As regards your comment:
"You are a sad deluded fool hiding behind anonimity to spout pathetic nonsense about people that have done nothing wrong."
Like anything there is no wrong or right - just shades of grey depending on what is said, who it is said about and who you are.
Who are you ?
Personally, as a white man I find Bonnie Greer's comment highly offensive, racist and a total denile of my existence, history and culture.
Do you exist ?
If you do exist and you are not offended by Bonnie's comments, what has led you to believe you are of such little worth as to be not offended by a denial of your existence.
I am very happy as a white man to know my history, culture, ethics, morals and be proud of it. I treat all others with respect and equality - what should be none racist. Ant racism applies to me as well,,, yet I don't see it in the UK - far from it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I’ll try and be more circumspect rather than directly quote. My last post, 303, was 'modded'.
In Google News search for: griffin + dominic carman + mail
For the follow up search Google News for: griffin + firth + mail
Complain about this comment
JackMaxDaniels wrote:
"I take it the MOBO's are not racist ?"
Considering that Tim Westwood and Amy Winehouse have won a MOBO I'd say that would mean that the MOBO's are not racist. The hint is in the name, Music of Black Origin, it is the music that has its origins in the African community, not the musicians.
The MOBO's are more about genre than race and anyone who makes music of the right genre can be nominated for an award, regardless of their race or nationality, but I suppose that doesn't make for such sensationalist, self-pitying outrage, does it.
Complain about this comment
How can it be in this, our own country, that a council can ask a business not to fly a Gt George's flag so as not to offend the Muslim community? I'm sorry but they chose to come and live here, in our country. We are not asking them to give up their customs but merely let us get on with ours, without being branded racists.
It's situations like this that are causing people to look to a party who are not afraid to stand up for the people of this country.
I don't agree with the majority of the BNP's policies, such as their view on homosexuals and capital punishment but at the moment they seem to be the only party speaking out on immigration, which I feel very strongly about.
That doesn't make me a racist.
Complain about this comment
Tarquin #291
Where did you get the idea that Churchill ‘personally disliked coloured people?’
Complain about this comment
Personally I certainly don’t consider myself a racist. I and my wife are quite happy to mix with any race as long as we (sort of) speak a common language, which unfortunately is not always the case. The main problem as I see it, is not us mixing, it is certain immigrants not wanting to integrate with us. No where is this better demonstrated by the increasing fashion of wearing the burkha. I say fashion deliberately as nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman's face and body must be covered in a layer of heavy black cloth.
I think this is well summed up by Saira Khan, herself a Muslim women….
The burkha is an extreme practice. It is an imported Saudi Arabian tradition, and the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of creeping radicalisation, which is not just regressive, it is oppressive and downright dangerous.
It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it is alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask.
The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.'
Complain about this comment
302, JackMaxDaniels:-
Oh for a world class physcologist!
Firstly you have taken my comment totally out of context, as you have done with the Bonnie Greer quote you used but we'll get back to that.
My comment was linked to a comment at #159 above which lists some quotes which are distinctly anti-white and trys to link them to anti racism as a whole. I was merely stating the fact that racism is racism no matter who you are, as you have said.
You say, "Know your history, know your culture and then apply your ethics and morals to todays multi cultured Britain."
Ok, I'm Welsh, can trace my family back to my great great grandparents in the south wales valleys. My ethics and morals which were given to me by the way I grew up, in a dominantly white area of the country (literally 4 kids in my year group that wern't white and less than 20 in the whole school). My morals and ethics tell me that discrimination of any sort is wrong, applying that to todays multicultural britian doesn't change that fact at all.
You also say,
Can you state you live in a society where your white:
1) Race is recognised and upheld.
2) Culture is recognised and upheld.
3) Morals are recognised and upheld.
4) Ethics are recognised and upheld.
Well being Welsh I can definatly say yes, and being welsh I can definatly say no. I've been on the recieving end of racism of a sort, I get funny looks and abuse because of my accent, I have the hilarious jokes about sheep thrown at me. Some of the most bigoted comments I have ever heard have come from the mouths of white people directed at other white people. My post might have given you a hint to the fact that I think all forms of racism or discrimination are wrong.
Now lets look at your comment about the MOBO's being racist. That is one of the most idiotic comments I have ever heard. As the post at #305 said the MOBOs are about Music Of Black Origin, its about the origins of the music. Many white, asian, oriental and hispanic people have won MOBO awards. That indicates to me that they arn't racist, they do not discriminate at all.
I wont start on you questioning me about if I know my culture, I'm Welsh incase you missed that, I'm one of the most patriotic people I know. So just don't! I wouldn't be able to post my initial response on reading that.
The 'pro minority' groups you mention are not anti-white. They accept white members and indeed wlcome them in most cases. I'm not saying there arn't anti-white racist organisations, your the one who seems to have a distorted view of racism. As I said in the post you attacked, it's disgusting whoever it comes from.
With regard to the comments about Bonnie Greer, saying there is no such thing as an indiginous british person, you have taken the comment totally out of context. What she was saying was the indiginous british that the BNP define don't exist. I'm as indiginous british as you can get, but then I'm 6ft3 and blonde so there's probably some viking in me. If you actually try to define and indiginous british person then you have to include all sorts of people that the BNP wouldn't like you to. The Romans brought soldiers from Africa, Egypt and all across their empire when they invaded, and many stayed, that was only 2000 years ago!
You somehow seem to think that in a country that the vast majority is white that white people are a minority that need protection from an opressive majority. That is one of the most deluded views I have ever heard. Yes there are problems, yes there are problems with imigration, yes there are racists who arn't white. But did I say any different?
How dare you insult me or accuse me of thinking myself worthless, how dare you accuse me of not knowing about my culture our colective history and my ethnic origins.
Complain about this comment
#305 Secratariat wrote:
"Considering that Tim Westwood and Amy Winehouse have won a MOBO I'd say that would mean that the MOBO's are not racist. The hint is in the name, Music of Black Origin, it is the music that has its origins in the African community, not the musicians."
Yes you say it quite plainly "The hint is in the name, Music of Black Origin, it is the music that has its origins in the African community, not the musicians."
Awards which discriminate the origin both on culture and race, if there was no racial discrimination the categories would be used - as they are in all music outlets.
I am not outraged. I am sorry to hear you think standing up for white culture is piteous, outrageous or sensationalist.
Complain about this comment
The sad thing is that I now feel afraid because of my ethnic origins.
I'm afriad that people will see a white blonde man and assume that I'm a racist.
Complain about this comment
#308 belgarion29
Who are you to tell people how they should dress?
Complain about this comment
I think some commentators are missing/ignoring the central point,which is:
Asia for the Asians,Africa for the Africans,White countries for EVERYBODY.
That is an anti-White policy being conducted against the wishes of the White people by their selected leaders.
Why are our "leaders" betraying our genetic heritage in such a cavalier fashion?
Is there some sort of conspiracy(ref the recent admission by the ZanuLab operative)?
Complain about this comment
No. 312
You miss the point I was not TELLING anyone how to dress merely pointing out that items like the burkha are a deliberate and definite obstruction to integration. I would think that fairly obvious to most people and it certainly is to Saira Khan who is a Muslim herself. However, you have your views and maybe you have struck up a lively conversation with a woman in a burkha, which I very much doubt, unless of course she is your wife!
Complain about this comment
#309 Colonicus42
I see you are offended and indeed insulted by me asking if you know your culture and history.
Yet in the same breath are not offended by Bonnie Greer's comments.
I take it the Welsh are not an indiginous to Wales ?
When you state majority and minority consider the context of where you live. Leicester will soon be the first city where the majority is Asian and there are many councils where even Christmas decorations are banned - because they are deemed offensive.
While I applaud your views broadly, when I was much younger I would have been there with you. Now I am older and very much recognise that balance doesnt exist.
As an Englishman I have no recognition of my culture, whereas you as a Welshman do. As do the Scots.
I will re-itterate my comment that I put as much viguor and verocity , in fact a lot more so, behind my feelings about Bonnie Greer's comments. I am indiginous to these islands - there might well be immigration and invasion in our history but that simply made us indiginous by the fact we are all here and have our history !
Yes I am offended,,, very offended, especially as I have always treated other cultures and races with respect.
Complain about this comment
"No where is this better demonstrated by the increasing fashion of wearing the burkha"
I'd hardly say it was an increasing fashion, I live in an area with quite a few people originating from South Asia and the Middle East (there is also of course SE Asia, northern Asia and East Asia) and I'd say the opposite is happening.
Younger 2nd and 3rd generation women of Asian descent are increasingly choosing not to cover their hair at all and their dress is quite westernised, jeans etc.
Don't forget many people from Pakistan and the Middle East are here because of the freedoms it brings, education for girls being one of them. There is a quite strong modernising, liberal side to Middle Eastern societies, the great many anti-government demonstrators in Tehran recently being an example, their supporters wanting an end to Iran's religion-based political system.
I don't actually have a problem communicating with anyone as long as I can see their eyes and hear their voice.
I actually think there is a principle about freedom to dress how one pleases here. Some are offended by people having swastika tattoos, others by those with Mohican hairdos and the like, but I don't think they should be banned.
For those that aren't racist but want stricter immigration controls then vote UKIP; they have more MEPs [13] than either Labour [11] or the Lib Dems [10] now; many more than the BNP [2].
UKIP wll get a much, much bigger share of the vote than the BNP at the next election.
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/226-immigration-ukip-policy-2009
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr. Allen, at 48 I have watched virtually every showing of QT as long as I can remember and to say that the show was in it's normal format is a joke... the Chair of the Panel normally would move the audience and the panel members on to ensure the subjects are covered, however this was not the case at all.. there was hardly any argument against Mr. Straw failing to come clean about the current immigration policy and what the Government plans are to address the genuine concerns of many of the people that voted Labour into power...
As a tax payer and licence payer, the show was NOT what I expect from the BBC, I expect and want impartiality, I want fairness and dignity... it was a witch hunt!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I agree with #316 SheffTim. UK Independence Party offers a way out of the eu quango and a way of reducing (and temporarily halting) immigration if that is what you are looking for, which I, for one, am.
The only trick I think they are missing is the BNP policy of voluntary repatriation which I agree with, as long as it is truly voluntary and is properly funded. I believe that not only should we drastically cut down on new immigration; we should also do what we can to reverse some of the immigration we have experienced within the last few years.
Unfortunately the BNP have dirtied what would have been a good policy for many people including many immigrants themselves and their descendants.
Complain about this comment
nick griffin was extremely brave to face the kangaroo court that was last weeks question time. no wonder he was trembling and grinning nervously. question time was a shambles as no one answered any questions, least of all jack straw who should have been pressed on the immigration question.
i want all immigration stopped, NOW. it's not about race, it's ALL about numbers. no more immigrants. that includes white immigrants from usa, canada australia, poland, ireland, etc. no more! we are full up.
maybe if your from the wealthy elite then immigration works in your favour -- cheap labour!
but alas i'm a lowly working class man (who will be villifed on here by the liberal elite and condemded as ignorant and racist, which i'm not)and immigration keeps wages down and is one of the factors pushing up house prices.
come next year , jack straw and his cronies will be SO gone. i don't say this happily as a former labour voter.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Allen - you where somewhere else when QT was aired, I'm sure of it because what your explaining to us is not really what happened.
I have to say there was a poor girl on there with blonde hair asked clearly 'Mr Giffin could you explain more about repatration' and Jonathan said very quickly where not on that subject now and quickly moved to another idiotic question and continued to join in the mobbing, the poor girl was like oh and look like well I thought that was a vaild question.
I am ashamed of this country and I am working my butt off to gain a visa to live elsewhere in the world where I know that they look after there own and that I am going over there to fit in with their culture.
Unfortunatly I have grown up in a country that has excepted every tom, dick and harry and they have been allowed to live by their ex countries standards and not ours. I am to young to appriacte the impact the Enoc Powells speach had on people but I am told that it was fantastic however instead of listen to it the goverment had him sent off somewhere. I think it is becomming a reality now after all these years. Please don't get me wrong I am not about to kick those who have been born and raised here but at least start sending those who are not supposed to be here off on their merry way. However I was concerned by one of my work mates comments directly after 7/7 I said it's all disgusting and not sure what their chip on their shoulder was. I was replied to by an asian born and breed in this country he said we want to live out our cultures he said india is his prority and that it was his home and Uk was 2nd place. I ask him where he was born he said Uk I then asked him how many times he had been to india he replied twice so I then asked so how can you say India is your home? and if you you love it so much why don't you go live there? He quickly scuttled off. I feel insulted that someone like this is living in our country. I also believe that he is not the only one that feels that way, so I say if that is how you feel go, you will not be missed.
At this point the UKIP party was getting a lot of attention along with teh BNP party. If I wasn't a supporter of those parties, after the above comments I was then. all the comments that have been made previous to mine are good comments but when will the so called elite politians take note? when are we going to have our voices heard? One day there will be an uprising and the government will only have itself to blame. I just fell it is so sad that although we live in the 21st century QT were discussing things like the 2nd world war. We should never forget but we should also move on and quite frankly Nick Griffin is not a Nazi! I think he is a little confused but not a Nazi! so lets all move on to the problems we face today and that is we have a democratic issue, hardly any free speech, Banks bleeding us dry and then the current government feeding them on the sly. I am scared for the future on the UK I wish that when Gorden Brown said he wanted a Great British Day he only meant it. Another false promise!
I would like the UKIP party to start gettin more involved they seem to be here 1 min and gone the next. I will never vote for labour, tories or libs ever... not after the shambles of the last 30 yrs! If the BNP and UKIP get together what a wonderful force, maybe just maybe we might have our old values back!
Complain about this comment
The British establishment really cares about British people,don`t they?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23761212-blairs-think-tank-airbrushed-link-between-crime-and-immigrants.do
Increased muggings,rapes,murders,all were no problem whatsoever to the maggot-folk of Mordor/Troughminster,as long as the Ponzi scheme contributions kept rolling in from the regime`s supporters!
Complain about this comment
well - a few days later and time for all to take stock - I am not a supporter of the BNP, and have no desire to be associated with them. I am a supported of the BBC and think the service offered (although using a very very large budget) is firstclass. HOWEVER, what I find particulary annoying is firstly, it was quite clear that Question Time was a completely differant 'format' to the usual. It became a witch-hunt against 1 democratically elected MEP - this is not what the BBC is there to do. I applauded them for their stance ahead of the programme, but found it absolutely unbelievable what happened - what I find even more annoying is that there seems to be a complete denial culture within the BBC as to what they have done - their complaints page denies any issue with a patronising statement, and the 'blog' of the Editor is even more disgraceful - completely ignoring what all of the comments posted have been saying.
In a time when DJ's make stupid comments and resign, and didnt the Radio 2 boss also resign following the Ross incident, here we have a flagship politics programme on BBC1 behaving in a manner that is clearly not correct, even handed or sensible, and what I'm seeing is the BBC closing ranks to try and protect itself.
They made a serious error of judgement allowing the format of the programme to be changed, a serious error of judgement by going in to denial, and the person or persons who made these decisions really should stand up and be counted!
As I said at the top - I do not support the BNP, but do support the right to free speach and what I thought was supposed to be an even handed and balanced BBC - how wrong I was !
Sad - BBC - do something !
Complain about this comment
Come on 316, methinks you jest. You really are an exception if you are happy to hold a conversation with a pair of eyes and a disembodied voice? As any psychologist will tell you an important part of any ‘face to face’ conversation is the feedback you get from the facial expressions of the other person. Even Jack Straw knows this and is the reason he asks Muslim woman to remove their veils at his surgeries.
Oh and by the way have you actually tried talking to a woman in a burkha?. You will invariably get no response because that’s the reason it’s there in the first place – isolation. It’s a deliberate barrier to integration.
Complain about this comment
I've scanned most of the previous 325 comments and it would appear that the concencus based on those comments made above are that the program, and especially Mr. Dimbleby, was biased and poorly managed. The chair did a particulalry bad job and the panelists were not allowed to answer questions in full without frequent, rude interruption. The chair would typically allow a diversity of questions from the audience but on this occasion he chose to stay focussed on Griffin. The format, style, feel and execution were exceptional. Gavin Allen's wishy washy claims at the top of this page are in stark contrast with the overriding opionion expressed by the contributors here. I received a similar response when I wrote a formal complaint to the BBC and it seems to me that the BBC has lost sight of reality, much like the government. It is precisely this type of denial which allows disaffected people to be attracted to extremist parties. There is a very worrying trend in our society and our government and it quangos and institutions including the BBC continue to stick their collective head in the sand. What we do about this I'm not sure but voting at the next general election for the same, tired political parties as before suggests that we, as a country will be no closer to solving this collective problem.
Complain about this comment
I am in no way a supporter of the BNP but this was obviously a stitch up, and what's more its brought the BNP nothing but positive PR. The "guided by the public" excuse is laughable, the BBC gets lots of Questions sent in two weeks in advance, and then SELECTS the question the BBC want to ask. They also select the panel, and it was beyond obvious why Bonnie Greer was there and seated next to Griffin.
I'm afraid a crass attempt to show Griffin up as a racist has badly backfired. Question Time and Dimbleby are now fatally damaged, I suggest you wind up this moribund show before further mistakes are made.
Complain about this comment
323 – interesting article. I note the comments following it. Of course they would be dismissed by some ‘head in the sand’ individuals who are in denial about the damage that immigration has done to this country with the standard excuse that they are merely BNP supporters.
This country could learn a lot from the immigration policies of New Zealand and Australia. If they catch an illegal the offender is usually on a flight out within 24 hours if not the same day! No messing, no human rights, just bye bye and if you want to complain do so when get back to where you came from.
Complain about this comment
JackMaxDaniels wrote:
"Awards which discriminate the origin both on culture and race, if there was no racial discrimination the categories would be used - as they are in all music outlets."
In an ideal world this would be the case, unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.
As everyone knows, the MOBO's were started up at a time when Black-British music was generally being ignored by the music industry and they were set up for the sole reason of recognising these genres of music that were otherwise unrepresented by groups such as the Brit Awards.
To claim that this is some sort of racism is, in my opinion, hilariously wide of the mark.
All you're doing is saying that these people who were, less than 20 years ago, being discriminated against by the mainstream are now racist because they started up an awards ceremony to recognise people who were otherwise being ignored.
It is this constant refusal to put things into context that I find so amusing, forget about the many years the Black community were discriminated against and forget about the reasons groups like this were ever set up, just sit back and whine about how you're being discriminated against, how they're the racist ones and how it's all so unfair.
And as for:
"I am sorry to hear you think standing up for white culture is piteous, outrageous or sensationalist."
You're not standing up for white culture, you're just complaining about the fact that other people have got off their backsides and done something for themselves.
Although I've never felt my own culture to have a colour, in case you've forgotten, the British Empire once covered over half of the world and included many different races, religions and cultures, as far as I'm concerned they're all a part of my cultural history and the Raj is just as important to my identity as the Celts, Picts, Vikings & Romans.
Complain about this comment
"Oh and by the way have you actually tried talking to a woman in a burkha?" 325
Yes, I work with the public. I don't see many wearing a Burkha, they're much less common than popular mythology makes out. Banning Burkhas wouldn't force those that wear them to remove them, more likely they would simply just stay inside their homes.
I also talk to women with scarves wrapped round their lower faces on cold days which combined with hats or hair covering much else of the face means you can be effectively talking to just one visible eye.
A much bigger problem is dialect, I've had to ask Geordies to slow down and repeat themselves for example. Communicating with the deaf can lead to resorting to pointing and miming.
I do wonder how many of those that say that they couldn't talk to someone in a Burkha would actually strike up conversations with Asian women that don't wear one? Not many I suspect.
As a general principle I'm against banning things simply because some don't like it (there are exceptions, the carrying of knives for example).
Burkhas are more to do with the culture of particular countries than Islam, but if someone wants to dress as a nun, walk round in black robes (vicars and priests), dye their hair pink, cover themselves in tattoos or wear a Burkha etc. etc. then respect for individual freedom of expression demands that we allow them to.
Individual companies etc can by all means have dress codes (I doubt I keep my job for long if I turned up in torn jeans and tee shirt) but outside of work I should have the right to choose the clothes I feel comfortable in; that freedom has to apply to others, not just myself.
Complain about this comment
315. JackMaxDaniels
Again you are taking it totally out of context!
What Bonnie Greer was doing was saying that the indiginous british people that the BNP seek to define don't exist. Nick Griffin actually used the words 'when the ice melted' to define the ethnic origins of 'indiginous british'. There is pratically nobody in britian who could say they are that british, it's pretty much impossible. She didn't say our culture doesn't exist, given her backgrounds she knows more about our culture than both of us put together, she said the indiginous british race the BNP seek to define doesn't exist.
The use of the word indiginous has always worried me. It's definition is 'naturally occuring in' and is more typically used in context of plant and animal species. Species is the key, are you suggesting someone from another country is a different species? We are all the same!
Natural is the key word in the definition. Is human migration natural? If not then the migration from africa wasn't natural. If human migration 'is' natural then people who have moved to an area are then indiginous or 'naturally occuring' in that area. It's the wrong word to use when discussing race.
If on the other had you refer to culture then sure, britian has an indiginous culture, it's the culture that has naturally developed in this area and continues to change with the times. 50 years ago most people wen't to church on sunday and sunday trading wasn't allowed, that has changed with the times and our culture is still changing. That culture shouldn't be based on race, that should be based on just growing up in and living in britian. Our laws, rules, moral codes, ethics, activities, hobbies, etc. define it not the colour of our skin or the religion you follow. There's too much nostalga about the whole subject, times change!
I think the problem you have is you feel you dont have a culture. Your comment on the Welsh and Scots having a more respected culture is part of us being a minority.
There's not many of us, we better stand up for ourselves.
Thats a common feeling among all minorities.
The problem you and people like you have is you feel you don't belong, there's no overt 'cultural group' you feel you fit into. Your problem is you see other groups celebrating their culture and you feel jellous that you don't have somewhere you fit, and afraid that your culture will be altered or washed away by the other. Jellousy and fear inevitibly leads to racism in some people.
But the thing is you do have a culture!
Being english your culture is everywhere! The problem you have is your imersed in it for the majority of your life, so you only notice it when it's not there.
Complain about this comment
I felt that the programme did feel like Nick Griffin vs the panel and audience, and though this was probably inevitable given the circumstances this was a mistake. The resulting debate was lively, but I found myself less knowledgeable about what the BNP stands for than I was at the beginning, and even found myself almost feeling sorry for Griffin.
I'm sure lots of people in the audience wanted to talk about the BNP but it was up to the producer to make sure the audience knew that wouldn't be the only topic of discussion and actively to solicit questions from other areas. In a normal programme there would certainly have been some debate about the Post Office strike for instance.
I also felt David Dimbleby didn't do a very good job in places. He should have been there to moderate the debate and keep speakers on the question, but joined in the attack on Griffin. There was at least one apparently pro-BNP person in the audience who used their time speaking to spread misinformation - surely Dimbleby knew that Enoch Powell was sacked immediately after giving his "rivers of blood" speech by Ted Heath, who made his displeasure very clear, and Enoch was consigned to the political wilderness for the rest of his career.
I'm glad the BBC are starting to tackle such difficult matters. I watched the beginning of the following programme This Week, only to hear Andrew Neil introduce Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo as the "chocolate hobnob and custard cream", thus making a discrimination between them on the basis of colour and nothing else. Clearly television should be dealing with racism more.
Complain about this comment
Many people (including myself) are becoming more and more sympathetic to the BNP because they is actually addressing the core issue.
Britain has over 2 million unemployed, another 2+ million on disability benefit, and countless more millions of working age in the ‘economically inactive’ category – not technically unemployed but living off the state in some way.
The great majority of immigrants want to work hard and earn a living. But for every job filled by an immigrant, the British taxpayer funds a Briton to sit idle. The employer wins – they get a hard-working employee. But the taxpayer loses – they have to support another unemployed Briton. And in the fullness of time, the taxpayer loses again – because the immigrant brings their wife/children here. The taxpayer pays for the immigrant’s and their family’s free education, free health care, tax credits, child benefit and the rest. The race of the immigrant is immaterial.
The biggest problem in Britain is actually welfare dependency, not immigration. Make work pay, then British jobs (even the nastiest ones) will be taken by British workers. Don’t consign British school-leavers to the dole queue – train them the necessary skills rather than employing immigrant nurses, doctors, teachers etc. Liam Byrne (Labour MP) recently made a very good point on this issue – Bangladeshi chefs were quite legally emigrating into his Birmingham constituency to fill jobs in Indian restaurants, and in the meantime none of the tens of thousands of unemployed Brummies would take these jobs. Crazy.
Britain has no spare capacity for a population increase of 10 million. Where will the houses/schools/hospitals be built, the power stations, the reservoirs, sewage works, roads, etc etc? Only the BNP seem interested in tackling this issue. We can't kill off pensioners or impose Chinese birth-control laws, but we have to slow (and ideally reverse) the rate of population increase. The only way to do this is to stop immigration. That’s why the BNP's support will continue to grow.
Complain about this comment
BrownbankruptsBrits, I have never seen so much hate in one person.
Looking at your previous comments you seem to think that Nazi Germany was caused by imigration.
I'm confused about you comment on Tiger Woods wife, are you suggesting that a black man shouldn't have a white wife?
And the follow-up to that comment where you seem to suggest (correct me if you wern't) that the reason for Baywatch being hugely popular was because everyone wants to be white or find white people more attractive. I personally though it was something to do with the excellent writing and thought provoking storylines...OK maybe it was the bikinis and six-packs.
You seem to have a delusion that somehow we are something special that other races seek to emulate.
You seem to have some form of paranoid delusion. I'd be interested to hear what event in your life lead you to believe that non-white folk are in some way beaneth you.
Complain about this comment
Is it really true that in Leicester, Christmas Decoration in public are being banned? It's a trule sorry state of affairs if this is correct.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
336. At 3:02pm on 28 Oct 2009, jeanlucleopoldi.
You have utterly disgusted me, I feel physically sick after reading your post.
You are one of the most abhorant individuals I have ever had the misfortune to observe. Your blatent and unashamed racism is something to behold.
Complain about this comment
Can someone tell me the point of pre-moderation if comments like this are going to get through??
336. At 3:02pm on 28 Oct 2009, jeanlucleopoldi wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Complain about this comment
331. At 11:40am on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"315. JackMaxDaniels
Again you are taking it totally out of context!
What Bonnie Greer was doing was saying that the indiginous british people that the BNP seek to define don't exist."
So,White Britons(as defined by the BNP and others) "don`t exist"?
I think the "contextual sensitivity" is plain for all to see,hence your desperate attempts at minimisation.
334. At 1:54pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"BrownbankruptsBrits, I have never seen so much hate in one person."
309. At 4:14pm on 27 Oct 2009, Colonicus42
"Oh for a world class physcologist!"
Ha,ha.
334. At 1:54pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"I'm confused about you comment on Tiger Woods wife, are you suggesting that a black man shouldn't have a white wife?"
I would prefer my daughter to marry within her own race.
There`s something wrong about that,is there?
You`re not an anti-White racist though are you Colonicus42?
334. At 1:54pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"You seem to have a delusion that somehow we are something special"
Every race IS special.That`s why I believe they should remain so,by not casually throwing their genetic inheritance away.That perfectly reasonable concept is a no-brainer for many cultures around the World,but one that seems to give you big problems.
Who`s really got the hang-ups?
334. At 1:54pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"You seem to have some form of paranoid delusion."
White people are a shrinking global minority(currently around the 6-7% mark),yet we have:
Asia for the Asians,Africa for the Africans,White countries for EVERYBODY
What kind of anti-White masochist would`nt be alarmed at such a situation?
334. At 1:54pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"Looking at your previous comments you seem to think that Nazi Germany was caused by imigration."
A ridiculous assertion with no quotation to back it up.
I was talking about the "hate speech" laws that were in force before Hitler took power,and comparing them to the current orthodoxy of telling people to keep their thoughts to themselves.
It just does`nt work.
Complain about this comment
337. At 3:14pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"336. At 3:02pm on 28 Oct 2009, jeanlucleopoldi.
You have utterly disgusted me, I feel physically sick after reading your post.
You are one of the most abhorant individuals I have ever had the misfortune to observe. Your blatent and unashamed racism is something to behold."
I saw what jenlucleopoldi wrote,presumably before you and your lefty friends started squealing to the mods.
It seemed to just be pointing out the influence of the Israel lobby.
Labour friends of Israel,
Conservative friends of Israel,
Liberal democrat friends of Israel.
Let`s see if this comment get`s censored as well.
Complain about this comment
You admit that you would not like your daughter to marry someone who wasn't 'within her own race' and yet you call me a racist?
As I have said before.
I'm anti-racist, it's disgusting whoever it comes from.
You could be blue and hate green people for all I care, if you negativly judge someone for thier race, religion, sexuality or origins you make yourself the only type of person that should be loathed.
You don't understand what I'm trying to say do you? Some of the worst racism I've heard has come from black people against white people or from white people against other white people. Like I said it's disgusting whoever it comes from and whoever it targets.
Your comment about the contextual sensitivity of saying that indiginous people as the BNP define them don't exist, I find quite confusing. The BNP define indiginous white british people in a way which they cannot and do not exist. It's just a fact, sorry. The quotes used about what Bonnie Greer said are often misquotes and take her comments completly out of context. If you wan't an example, I can 'directly' quote you as saying, "The British establishment really cares about British people", but that's not what you were trying to say, it's a slightly truncated quote of what you said and it takes the comment totally out of context.
Incidentally I do find it interesting that the pro BNP comment all focus on Bonnie's comment when Jack Straw and Barroness Warsi said exactly the same thing, and I believe that Mr Straw was the first person to bring it up. Could I be that she is the panelist who is most obviously not white and british and therefore recieves the brunt of the BNP assault?
You say every race is special so we shouldn't interbreed. Why not? What is so special about being white? What is so special about any partcular ethnic bracket you wish to define? We are all human. Does your suggestion of not interbreeding include people with different colour hair? What about different colour eyes? What about height? Is level of body hair a criteria? Or is it just with skin colour that you seek to draw lines?
Genetic diversity is the only way we exist, without it we wouldn't have evolved. Look at thourough bread dogs, without diversity you get increased congenital diseases and other helth problems.
Incidentally I appologise for getting the wrong message from your previous post, but you must admit it was very brief and not very clear what you were implying.
I actually find myself bordering on agreement with you in your final point. You say that 'hate speech' laws don't work and could lead to Nazi views. I totally agree that freedom of speech is fundamental. I would quite happily march side by side with Nick Griffin to uphold his right to say what he want's. But, and it's a big one, you have a responsibility alongside any right. You have a responsibility to try to avoid needlesly offending other people, you have a responsibility to avoid distorting facts and you have a responsibilty to allow others to voice their views as well. In the ideal world nobody discriminate against anyone for anything (except their capabilities when it come to jobs obviously), but that sadly doesn't exist so I suppose I'll have to put up with bigoted comments from some people for now.
Complain about this comment
"340. At 4:52pm on 28 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits wrote:
337. At 3:14pm on 28 Oct 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:
"336. At 3:02pm on 28 Oct 2009, jeanlucleopoldi.
You have utterly disgusted me, I feel physically sick after reading your post.
You are one of the most abhorant individuals I have ever had the misfortune to observe. Your blatent and unashamed racism is something to behold."
I saw what jenlucleopoldi wrote,presumably before you and your lefty friends started squealing to the mods.
It seemed to just be pointing out the influence of the Israel lobby.
Labour friends of Israel,
Conservative friends of Israel,
Liberal democrat friends of Israel.
Let`s see if this comment get`s censored as well."
What they said was justifibly removed. It was a torrent of hate filled falsehoods specifically (as is pretty much word for word) claiming amongst other things that most rapes were comitted by black me on white women, that WW1 and 2 were jewish conspiricies and that most 'deliquents and prison inmates' were muslims.
As I said before it made me feel physically sick.
I think even you would stop short of claiming such things.
Complain about this comment
Just incase you couldn't work it out my post at 341. is in response to 339. At 4:08pm on 28 Oct 2009, BrownbankruptsBrits.
I would like to add this to it.
Most of the pro BNP posts hide behind anonimity to spout pathetic nonsense about people that have done nothing wrong merely because they look different.
My names Colin Walker and I live in Cardiff, I dont have to be afraid of linking my name with my views.
Complain about this comment
I`ve said my piece for tonight.
Good night leftside :)
Complain about this comment