Whilst I suspect Goonerhater and myself may be poles apart politically, I think he did made very valid points, albeit in a rather robust way. Politicians of all hues, have determinedly ignored the very very real problems that have affected many of us. There have been real problems and tensions in, for example, health, housing and education. Politicians have not felt these effects in the same way as they are protected by their relative wealth, access to education and work. A great many of them are out of touch with the problems that many people face. It has led to the formation of a very deprived underclass and it is no accident that that it is from this underclass that the BNP gains its support. But if anyone seriously believes that the issues will be better tackled by a Conservative govt. then I fear for their sanity.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Mog the people who want 2 hear him speak well will hear that-- the people who want to hear him talk bollox will hear that.
How do you stop people voting for the far right if the main stream dont win the agruement or know whatt it is?
Fair comment. This is why in my opinion the BBC should not have invited him (he didn't seek an invitation) on to QT. It is normally the wrong format for detailed analysis. Sound bites and ya boo depending on which party you support is the norm. Stopped watching it long ago. Hopefully tonight will be different. But one thing is for sure if "all publicity is good publicity" Griffin has hit the jackpot today!
I already know of 1 person who, after seeing the clips on SkyNews thinks he came across shoddally (is that a word), and He voted (as in a protest vote !) for them in the London elections. In my opinion if tonights show stops 1 person from re-voting for them I'm happy.
If I might just add something as i was there, I was there from 8.30 this morning and have just come in at 9.30. I have nothing to do with the programme but support the right of the bbc to show it, not because I work for the BBC , and not because I support Griffen or his type. It is called freedom of speech a flawed value, but one that thank god we still have in this country. It is not up to the BBC to decide who can and cannot appear on tv in a political sense. It is up to the goverment to do that.
Personally speaking and it is a personnal view I would have preffered to have heard from Sein fein than the bombs, as well as the loyalists.
If people are so scarred of there beliefs they cannot defend and oppose others that attack them , then perhaps they should question themselves!. ' Most of the people that i saw were political activists, but there were sincere people who believed in the protest. Some also just wanted a good go at the police and the BBC and a ' tear up'
The BBC has it's fault's, and had made some mistakes in the past , but they are in a no win situation on this one.
I do not hold strong political views , but I come from a family who had strong political views, and fought for them. They did so for freedom and freedom of speech , sometimes it is abused.
From what i know of the staff and i have worked there for 8 years very few people at the BBC if any support this view , but then we are all 'lefties anyway' , if you read the Daily Mail.
I'm pleased Nick Griffin is on question time. There does need to be a national debate around some of the main issues, it is clear to me modern immigration is a boon to the middle class but not always a bonus for the skilled working class; something many investigations into poverty have highlighted but something which is whole-sale ignored by main-stream politics, whilst they claim there's been no evidence??? The underclass of any indigenous population will suffer in regards to social mobility in a mercantile and open society.
Soundas£ where do you get your all round crazy factotums? Firstly Churchill had no interest in meeting a 'Soviet' threat, yes he was most aware of Stalin's intentions compared to FDR but who wouldn't have been compared to that administration. Considering Churchill new that after the Normandy campaign the British effort would have to be the minor player to the Americans, considering that he new Britain's resources were on the wane and manpower could not sustain another phase of even messier total war, considering Chruchill agreed to split yugoslavia 50-50 with Stalin, and considering he new the Americans had no intention of aggravating the Soviets do you really think a pragmatic man wanted to wage war on USSR?
And don't reel out the right wing death count for Stalin. If you take ten million or twenty million - wholesaley placing the '32 famine on him - is at as much as the deaths that occurred because of the the invasion of Poland and Barbarrossa? Frankly I doubt you have a clue what casualties occurred and the debate therein, and making a ludicrous statement on Churchill's intentions shows how ridiculous the extreme left-right debate is. Ridiculous perceived truths are grabbed by extremists of both sides, rarely are they interesed in solutions only the pursuit of power. Democracy and a strong constitution, encourages debate and some control to those that seek just to maintain power. Get the debate on.
MOg last week on sky they went to Jaqui Smiths ward and asked a lady about 50 if she had voted for Smith , she said yes 3 times, when asked if she would vote for her again she said no and when further asked who she would vote for said BNP !
When the Generals said their stuff this week and the Tory Lord launched his anti BNP campagn they went to Burnley and asked 4 diferant types what they thought one young lad (herbertish) said he didnt see a problem with them, neither did a woman about 30 or a guy about 40 the only people who said "BNP just thugs" where two OAPs.
The point is its not just the people who would have votes NF in the 70s who are turning to the right--its not the pissed off Torys --- its the traditional Labour vote.
Frank Field (Labour MP)said we should have put some form of protection in place for our workers as they have in Italy-- main stream Labour siad it was only racists that said there was a problem. Frank Field was to stand as Speaker but withdrew after the left of his own party refused to back him.
the BNP only have two MEPs because the Labour vote collapsed. Nothing can change that for 4 years.
Just watched the clips of this on the BBC website.
As expected Griffin came across as a complete clown, which is all the more reason why they should not deny him and his party airtime.
Give him all the airtime he wants and he and his ilk will destroy themselves because they sure as hell are nowhere near ready for the big stage and people will have a chance to see them actually challenged on their policy positions.
People arguing that the BNP should be locked out of the debate are actually helping to promote the BNP agenda.
I dont like the BNP but they have a right to be there on that show as an elected party but thought tonight descended into a bit of a shambles. Entirely focused on the racial issue and did not ask any questions apart from the ridiculous Stephen Gately crap that did not revolve around race or immigration. The guy has probably spent the last X years honing polished answers and making them sound almost reasonable to many "men in the street" in terms of immigration and islam etc so why focus on asking him that as its water of a ducks back to him.
No question on the postal strike etc or what policies were on the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime etc. Why not? Were the other parties afraid that he might have appealing policies and on the other hand it would have also been interesting to see if he did crumble under questioning on those staple issues of government.
Turned into a bullying event with everyone taking snidey shots at him including dimbley. Many of the questions seemed loaded and i dont know if the audience was truly balanced. Why was none of his supporters there? Were they not selected for the heavily screened audience or were they too cowardly to stand up for what they believe.
I think the bloke is a complete prick with warped views and racist undertones but by the same measure his party got a million votes which probably is representive of 5% of the voting public
Didnt learn anything i didnt already know a couple of hours ago and i think it was a wasted opportunity as it descended into a bit of a pantomime.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]Very misjudged episode of question time.
I dont like the BNP but they have a right to be there on that show as an elected party but thought tonight descended into a bit of a shambles. Entirely focused on the racial issue and did not ask any questions apart from the ridiculous Stephen Gately crap that did not revolve around race or immigration. The guy has probably spent the last X years honing polished answers and making them sound almost reasonable to many "men in the street" in terms of immigration and islam etc so why focus on asking him that as its water of a ducks back to him.
No question on the postal strike etc or what policies were on the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime etc. Why not? Were the other parties afraid that he might have appealing policies and on the other hand it would have also been interesting to see if he did crumble under questioning on those staple issues of government.
Turned into a bullying event with everyone taking snidey shots at him including dimbley. Many of the questions seemed loaded and i dont know if the audience was truly balanced. Why was none of his supporters there? Were they not selected for the heavily screened audience or were they too cowardly to stand up for what they believe.
I think the bloke is a complete prick with warped views and racist undertones but by the same measure his party got a million votes which probably is representive of 5% of the voting public
Didnt learn anything i didnt already know a couple of hours ago and i think it was a wasted opportunity as it descended into a bit of a pantomime.
Very good points, they should have taken him surprise by taking him out of his favorite race-based topics and onto the real questions of government like the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime, foreign policy and demanded answers on costings.
The BNP benefit from being allowed to be a single issue party but a government has to take on EVERY issue not just the ones it chooses.
The woman, was it Greer on Griffins left said something like "All BNP members should be afraid", I wonder what she meant, was it a threat?
The Tory Baroness called Griffin several offensive names and I wonder if Dimbleby would have allowed that to go on if it had been anyone else but Griffin.
They attacked him from all sides including a very hostile audience and I think he came out of it pretty well.
I certainly don't think the programme would have put anybody off voting for the BNP, if that was the intention.
Towards the end one man in the audience asked the panel "why are more immigrants allowed to come into Britain when we have so many unemployed", he was shouted down by some woman also in the audience and Dimbleby allowed the woman to carry on instead of going back to the questioner, something he would never normally have allowed.
The biggest fool on was Jack Straw, he was made to look like a bumbling idiot several times.
[cite]Posted By: D_F_T[/cite]The woman, was it Greer on Griffins left said something like "All BNP members should be afraid", I wonder what she meant, was it a threat?
The Tory Baroness called Griffin several offensive names and I wonder if Dimbleby would have allowed that to go on if it had been anyone else but Griffin.
They attacked him from all sides including a very hostile audience and I think he came out of it pretty well.
I certainly don't think the programme would have put anybody off voting for the BNP, if that was the intention.
Towards the end one man in the audience asked the panel "why are more immigrants allowed to come into Britain when we have so many unemployed", he was shouted down by some woman also in the audience and Dimbleby allowed the woman to carry on instead of going back to the questioner, something he would never normally have allowed.
The biggest fool on was Jack Straw, he was made to look like a bumbling idiot several times.
Came out of it pretty well, eh?
Hmmm, I think that somebody who smirks when asked about whether they are a holocaust denier and says "I have never been convicted of holocaust denial," has almost certainly just cemented their position in the sewer of politics.
His ridiculous insistence that he had been "misquoted" by every media organisation in the country, despite many of his comments being verifiably on the record, was also ridiculous.
Still, if he's your cup of tea then that's your right.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]No question on the postal strike etc or what policies were on the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime etc. Why not? Were the other parties afraid that he might have appealing policies and on the other hand it would have also been interesting to see if he did crumble under questioning on those staple issues of government.
Turned into a bullying event with everyone taking snidey shots at him including dimbley. Many of the questions seemed loaded and i dont know if the audience was truly balanced. Why was none of his supporters there? Were they not selected for the heavily screened audience or were they too cowardly to stand up for what they believe.
[cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite]pretty much word perfect
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]No question on the postal strike etc or what policies were on the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime etc. Why not? Were the other parties afraid that he might have appealing policies and on the other hand it would have also been interesting to see if he did crumble under questioning on those staple issues of government.
Turned into a bullying event with everyone taking snidey shots at him including dimbley. Many of the questions seemed loaded and i dont know if the audience was truly balanced. Why was none of his supporters there? Were they not selected for the heavily screened audience or were they too cowardly to stand up for what they believe.
Snidey shots, eh? Griffin opened his evening with an accusation that Jack Straw's father had been imprisoned for not joining the armed forces during World War Two.
Straw's father was a conscientous objector, I don't know if he was jailed or not, but I don't see how that is any fault of Jack Straw's given that he was not even born until 1946, a year after the war ended.
Taking a shot at the actions of someone's father - for which they cannot possibly be held responsible - is just about as snidey as you can get I would have thought.
If Griffin or his supporters think that being called to account for his denial of the holocaust or his opposition to inter-racial marriages or plans to criminalise homosexuality are "bullying" then maybe they are not quite ready for the big stage after all.
What Rodney said. The programme became a screaming witch hunt and that will favour only one person, the persecuted. Why did the questions çentre on one issue only and not tackle other areas he might struggle on? Is it because of the limitations of the other panellists. Surely Jack straw would of been more comfortable on other issues and would of had a field day. It came across as bullying and that is exactly what the BNP wanted.
The BNP are a sideshow and always will be. They are a carload of hypocrites, thicko's and repressed homosexuals. Their relative success - let's face it they don't have an MP in the land - is due to white working class frustration at they way they see themselves being treated by a right-on, politically correct Labour party. However, they are entitled to their small minded opinion in a free country. Those middle-class lefties who would deny them the right to have their legitmate say are the bigger danger as they promote censorship which is a bigger threat to democracy than far-right crackpots. Nick Griffin was made to look a bit of a fool last night and had to say things he was clearly uncomfortable with personally. However, it looked like a loaded audience to me, even if his supporters are hardly the type to be regularly volunteering for tickets to participate Question Time and if the show is representative of the country, then it's still no surprise their were no pro-BNP questions.
I thought the holocaust denial thing is a bit weird really. How can it be a crime to think something anyway, what is weirder, denying it, or locking people up for thinking what they think?
You are all viewing his performance on how it plays in your own pre determined mind, not how it looks to his supporters and potential supporters. He looked like he was being bullied and when given a chance to address the issues concerning the people who vote for the BNP none of the others had anything sensible to say. Plays right into his hands.
He got an absolute mauling, the attacks on him were pretty much orchestrated from the off i.e. did you say this, we have seen video footage of you saying this. IMO he was shown up to be what he really is, he was outflanked and outclassed and shown up on tv.
However, the shown really should have got beyond the first couple of issues, I know for myself these are the issues that are most abhorrent, but it would have liked to hear what he had to say on wider issues, might have seemed less like a hatchet job.
As a husband and son of an immigrant, and the father of a mixed race child I feel threatened by Mr Griffin (when the HQ was in Welling there was a rise in racist attacks locally), those inclined to think of Britain in terms of Aryan Anglo Saxon DNA, and people here without such DNA should either leave or be attacked in some way, I suppose are my enemies. I saw the first half of the programme last night, and I didn't think Mr Griffin was put under enough pressure to detail BNP policies, especially repatriation.
I thought he looked like a complete idiot (the non-violent KKK for goodness sake) but one thing it did show up that all bloody politicians can't answer a question directly. There are inadequacies in the country's immigration policy but none of the parties could put together a coherent argument.
I think Jack Straw and Nick Griffin came out of it looking like complete tools. I thought the Tory bird did ok though and I have no real political allegiance.
Good on everyone keeping the thread well debated and civil as well - it's appreciated.
The libs and torys explained their plans to tackle immigration and pointed out labour's incredible failings, especially their prediction of only 60k coming from eastern europe when it turned out to be 700k! Labour are going to take a big hit in the election and the BNP's votes will lower.
the gately comment was indirectly included to bring the topic round to homophobia and for the BNP's stance - which it did by him stating that sex eductation between homosexuals or hetrosexuals should not be taught in primary schools. He then went on to explain that some people find two men kissing in public disgusting.
I hated the way he sneered and clapped that Bonnie Greer and the way she cut him off was great. Too many panelists though for a show that scraped the surface of 1 or 2 minor issues.
Should have had the Baroness, Jack Straw, Dimbleby and Griffin and dropped the other 2. The panel and audience were as far as I could tell 100% against Griffin, and he was only given equal speaking time as the other guests (apart from the fella on the left who only spoke twice) it should have been more discussion of issues and less comments and statements from the audience. it was a bizarre hour of television though.
this morning on bbc and gmtv they were inviting comments from the public - people were writing in saying that all people that vote for the BNP were racist which is wrong and they established on the show that probably the majority of bnp voters are fed up with the current policies available on certain issues by the other parties with regards to immigration (for example) and it is a protest vote rather than an actual belief in ALL things BNP.
The comments are going to go on and on and on and be stretched and taken out of context every which way which will be very disappointing. Why can't the public listen and take on board what has been said?
I thought the audience was a good mix of people from different backgrounds, races and religions and a mixture of questions were asked - not sure what programme someone further up the thread was watching? unless i read that wrong?!
As I said earlier in this thread QT was the wrong type of programme to get to the bottom of what Griffin stands for. As has been said people take from his performance what they want. It won't have changed any minds and has only served to give the BNP more publicity (as I also said earlier no publicity is bad publicity for organisations like this).
By the way the audience was selected before they knew who was going to be on the panel.
Comments
Let him show himself up in public.
20 mins & counting............
How do you stop people voting for the far right if the main stream dont win the agruement or know whatt it is?
Fair comment. This is why in my opinion the BBC should not have invited him (he didn't seek an invitation) on to QT. It is normally the wrong format for detailed analysis. Sound bites and ya boo depending on which party you support is the norm. Stopped watching it long ago. Hopefully tonight will be different. But one thing is for sure if "all publicity is good publicity" Griffin has hit the jackpot today!
Personally speaking and it is a personnal view I would have preffered to have heard from Sein fein than the bombs, as well as the loyalists.
If people are so scarred of there beliefs they cannot defend and oppose others that attack them , then perhaps they should question themselves!.
'
Most of the people that i saw were political activists, but there were sincere people who believed in the protest. Some also just wanted a good go at the police and the BBC and a ' tear up'
The BBC has it's fault's, and had made some mistakes in the past , but they are in a no win situation on this one.
I do not hold strong political views , but I come from a family who had strong political views, and fought for them. They did so for freedom and freedom of speech , sometimes it is abused.
From what i know of the staff and i have worked there for 8 years very few people at the BBC if any support this view , but then we are all 'lefties anyway' , if you read the Daily Mail.
Soundas£ where do you get your all round crazy factotums? Firstly Churchill had no interest in meeting a 'Soviet' threat, yes he was most aware of Stalin's intentions compared to FDR but who wouldn't have been compared to that administration. Considering Churchill new that after the Normandy campaign the British effort would have to be the minor player to the Americans, considering that he new Britain's resources were on the wane and manpower could not sustain another phase of even messier total war, considering Chruchill agreed to split yugoslavia 50-50 with Stalin, and considering he new the Americans had no intention of aggravating the Soviets do you really think a pragmatic man wanted to wage war on USSR?
And don't reel out the right wing death count for Stalin. If you take ten million or twenty million - wholesaley placing the '32 famine on him - is at as much as the deaths that occurred because of the the invasion of Poland and Barbarrossa? Frankly I doubt you have a clue what casualties occurred and the debate therein, and making a ludicrous statement on Churchill's intentions shows how ridiculous the extreme left-right debate is. Ridiculous perceived truths are grabbed by extremists of both sides, rarely are they interesed in solutions only the pursuit of power. Democracy and a strong constitution, encourages debate and some control to those that seek just to maintain power. Get the debate on.
When the Generals said their stuff this week and the Tory Lord launched his anti BNP campagn they went to Burnley and asked 4 diferant types what they thought one young lad (herbertish) said he didnt see a problem with them, neither did a woman about 30 or a guy about 40 the only people who said "BNP just thugs" where two OAPs.
The point is its not just the people who would have votes NF in the 70s who are turning to the right--its not the pissed off Torys --- its the traditional Labour vote.
Frank Field (Labour MP)said we should have put some form of protection in place for our workers as they have in Italy-- main stream Labour siad it was only racists that said there was a problem. Frank Field was to stand as Speaker but withdrew after the left of his own party refused to back him.
the BNP only have two MEPs because the Labour vote collapsed. Nothing can change that for 4 years.
As expected Griffin came across as a complete clown, which is all the more reason why they should not deny him and his party airtime.
Give him all the airtime he wants and he and his ilk will destroy themselves because they sure as hell are nowhere near ready for the big stage and people will have a chance to see them actually challenged on their policy positions.
People arguing that the BNP should be locked out of the debate are actually helping to promote the BNP agenda.
I dont like the BNP but they have a right to be there on that show as an elected party but thought tonight descended into a bit of a shambles. Entirely focused on the racial issue and did not ask any questions apart from the ridiculous Stephen Gately crap that did not revolve around race or immigration. The guy has probably spent the last X years honing polished answers and making them sound almost reasonable to many "men in the street" in terms of immigration and islam etc so why focus on asking him that as its water of a ducks back to him.
No question on the postal strike etc or what policies were on the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime etc. Why not? Were the other parties afraid that he might have appealing policies and on the other hand it would have also been interesting to see if he did crumble under questioning on those staple issues of government.
Turned into a bullying event with everyone taking snidey shots at him including dimbley. Many of the questions seemed loaded and i dont know if the audience was truly balanced. Why was none of his supporters there? Were they not selected for the heavily screened audience or were they too cowardly to stand up for what they believe.
I think the bloke is a complete prick with warped views and racist undertones but by the same measure his party got a million votes which probably is representive of 5% of the voting public
Didnt learn anything i didnt already know a couple of hours ago and i think it was a wasted opportunity as it descended into a bit of a pantomime.
Very good points, they should have taken him surprise by taking him out of his favorite race-based topics and onto the real questions of government like the economy, unemployment, education or health, crime, foreign policy and demanded answers on costings.
The BNP benefit from being allowed to be a single issue party but a government has to take on EVERY issue not just the ones it chooses.
The Tory Baroness called Griffin several offensive names and I wonder if Dimbleby would have allowed that to go on if it had been anyone else but Griffin.
They attacked him from all sides including a very hostile audience and I think he came out of it pretty well.
I certainly don't think the programme would have put anybody off voting for the BNP, if that was the intention.
Towards the end one man in the audience asked the panel "why are more immigrants allowed to come into Britain when we have so many unemployed", he was shouted down by some woman also in the audience and Dimbleby allowed the woman to carry on instead of going back to the questioner, something he would never normally have allowed.
The biggest fool on was Jack Straw, he was made to look like a bumbling idiot several times.
Came out of it pretty well, eh?
Hmmm, I think that somebody who smirks when asked about whether they are a holocaust denier and says "I have never been convicted of holocaust denial," has almost certainly just cemented their position in the sewer of politics.
His ridiculous insistence that he had been "misquoted" by every media organisation in the country, despite many of his comments being verifiably on the record, was also ridiculous.
Still, if he's your cup of tea then that's your right.
Snidey shots, eh? Griffin opened his evening with an accusation that Jack Straw's father had been imprisoned for not joining the armed forces during World War Two.
Straw's father was a conscientous objector, I don't know if he was jailed or not, but I don't see how that is any fault of Jack Straw's given that he was not even born until 1946, a year after the war ended.
Taking a shot at the actions of someone's father - for which they cannot possibly be held responsible - is just about as snidey as you can get I would have thought.
If Griffin or his supporters think that being called to account for his denial of the holocaust or his opposition to inter-racial marriages or plans to criminalise homosexuality are "bullying" then maybe they are not quite ready for the big stage after all.
You are all viewing his performance on how it plays in your own pre determined mind, not how it looks to his supporters and potential supporters. He looked like he was being bullied and when given a chance to address the issues concerning the people who vote for the BNP none of the others had anything sensible to say. Plays right into his hands.
All that has come out of this is the BNP will be an even more legimate protest vote.
NB: Protest vote
However, the shown really should have got beyond the first couple of issues, I know for myself these are the issues that are most abhorrent, but it would have liked to hear what he had to say on wider issues, might have seemed less like a hatchet job.
I think Jack Straw and Nick Griffin came out of it looking like complete tools. I thought the Tory bird did ok though and I have no real political allegiance.
Good on everyone keeping the thread well debated and civil as well - it's appreciated.
I hated the way he sneered and clapped that Bonnie Greer and the way she cut him off was great. Too many panelists though for a show that scraped the surface of 1 or 2 minor issues.
Should have had the Baroness, Jack Straw, Dimbleby and Griffin and dropped the other 2. The panel and audience were as far as I could tell 100% against Griffin, and he was only given equal speaking time as the other guests (apart from the fella on the left who only spoke twice) it should have been more discussion of issues and less comments and statements from the audience. it was a bizarre hour of television though.
this morning on bbc and gmtv they were inviting comments from the public - people were writing in saying that all people that vote for the BNP were racist which is wrong and they established on the show that probably the majority of bnp voters are fed up with the current policies available on certain issues by the other parties with regards to immigration (for example) and it is a protest vote rather than an actual belief in ALL things BNP.
The comments are going to go on and on and on and be stretched and taken out of context every which way which will be very disappointing. Why can't the public listen and take on board what has been said?
I thought the audience was a good mix of people from different backgrounds, races and religions and a mixture of questions were asked - not sure what programme someone further up the thread was watching? unless i read that wrong?!
By the way the audience was selected before they knew who was going to be on the panel.