[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]It may well be viewed as apathy - but I know its not. But if I need to turn one out when I am around the polling station next may I may well soil my paper. I mean spoil.
It was sadly people not voting that created the low turnout that got Griffin elected as an MEP.
It's the current governments fault that people didn't vote or voted for BNP which got Griffin elected as an MEP.
Really? Well they get the blame for everything else so why not this! I'm sure big Dave (the man with the plan) will sort out all your problems for you.....A word of advice don't hold your breath :-)
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]
The nation will no doubt be waiting with baited breath to get the insightful thoughts and well rounded opinion of Kelly , 23, Romford tommorrow as she stands there with her baps out. ;-)
.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]It may well be viewed as apathy - but I know its not. But if I need to turn one out when I am around the polling station next may I may well soil my paper. I mean spoil.
It was sadly people not voting that created the low turnout that got Griffin elected as an MEP.
It's the current governments fault that people didn't vote or voted for BNP which got Griffin elected as an MEP.
In fairness, it's a fault of all the mainsteam parties that people didn't vote or voted for the BNP/Griffin.
"disillusionment" (real word or not) sums it up pretty well.
The only guest that talked any real sense was Bonnie, apart from that, the other guest politicians proved why this country is in such doodoo, none of them answered the questions they faced directly only caring about their own personal image on national tv!And i agree with whoever said this before, if the other parties werent so self serving then the BNP would never have arrived in the first place!
My main gripe with the whole programme is that it was just a series of points intended to bully Griffin. Right at the start they mentioned the holocaust, a shocking, terrible thing but not relevent to modern Britain (I'm not saying it should be forgotten or that lessons should not be learned before you all start but it is not something that needs to be debated on Question Time in Oct 2009), would they ask the socialists or communists about all the Jews killed by the Red Russians (more than Hitler killed if my history teacher was right)?
Why wasn't there any questions about relevent issues, like housing, unemployment, nationalisation of service industries, the banking crisis, the credit crunch, global warming, the de-forestation of the rain forests, the Post Office dispute, council tax, benefit fraud, crime etc, etc, etc, etc.why?
Surely that is what we needed to hear
And as I said before, I thought he came out of it pretty well and it will certainly not put anyone off voting BNP, as Diane Abbott said in the programme following "he will probably get the sympathy vote now" and she was genuinely concerned that the BNP will do well out of this. If Labour don't sort the immigration problems out, we'll see!
..........
More or less exactly what I heard from a BNP spokesman this morning on the radio (R4) - the complaint being that having invited Griifin on to the programme that they dared question his beliefs and expose the hypocrisy in many of his positions.
If Griffin (and the BNP) want to be considered credible voices then being questioned over what they believe in and the hypocrisy highlighted comes with the territory - if Griffin and you don't like his being cross-examined so intently then he should go back to the gutter of British politics which is where he and his ilk belong.
But if you think Griffin came out of this "well" then you were probably haven't heard the howls of protest from the BNP excuse-maker/spokesman this morning and are already convinced of his credibility and the strength of his argument.
All that has happened is that Griifin and the BNP have given up the skinhead hair cuts, drainpipe jeans, braces, DMs and the whole aggro thing and are wearing suits and trying to appear respectable. They are the same thugs underneath added to which they are cheap political opportunists having swapped the anti-semitism and holocaust denial for more profitable anti-Islamic polemics. The irony of Griifin being pro-British and quoting Winston Churchill is that if this were 1939 and not 2009 he'd have been interned as a pro-Nazi sympathiser.
Question time got Griifen on so didnt even ask him about Education, Health service, Defence/Army ect. All they decided to do was go on and on about race/immergration. Its just like asking the green party about the enviorment with out asking them about their other polices. I am sure if he was asked about other issues alot of people would agree with him.
Did anyone here his comment about you cant trust polititians even though he is one himself ? how many of us aggree and have said that before?
Asked about his hollucoust deniail, he said that that was right from what he had learnt but has now changed his mind due to more evidance/research. When asked to tell us all why he denied the hollucaust and then changed his mind he told us quite rightly that it was against the law to say why to which Jack Straw said "it wasnt" and said he was justice minister. He knew full well that Nick Griffen would more than likley have to visit Germany as a MEP where it is illegall and therefore face arrest.
As he has just said how about putting himself and Jack Straw head to head for an hour and disscuss all things ie the postal strike.
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.
Actually, I do think that was a great example of snidey shots. Straw took the conversation down that line suggesting that people had fought and died for the country to prevent people like Griffin from gaining power. Griffin's response was that his father fought in the war, while Straw's was jailed for refusing to do so, which gave him an awareness of what motivated people to fight.
This is the problem with politicised people: from a neutral's viewpoint Griffin wiped the floor with Straw there. Straw and indeed all political parties are not above basking in the achievements of the armed forces. He accused Griffin of not having a right to, and he got made to look like a hypocritical fool. Which he is, sadly.
From my perspective those opposed to Griffin did not make enough capital of the event and jockeyed to make pathetic points which allowed him to not concentrate on the items mentioned in your final paragraph.
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]I still want to know who these "indiginous British people" are.
Yep, but is that before or after waves of Bretons, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes, Norse, Hugenoets and sundry other Flemish, Germanic and Scandinavian tribes etc settled in the UK? And then there were the Romans...
Having watched the programme the one danger I can see is that, given the (understandable) targeting of Griffin and the fact that "the establishment parties" to a man (and woman) condemned the BNP, the BNP will be considered an effective protest vote as it could be perceived that it will wind up the establishment far more than not voting or voting for another smaller party.
Jack Straw reminded me of that Episode of Knowing me, Knowing you with Alan Partridge, where he did a spoof of Question Time, called Partridge over Britain.
When Straw talked about immigration, he came across like the Conserative bloke, Adrian Finch on that episode.
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]I still want to know who these "indiginous British people" are.
Yep, but is that before or after waves of Bretons, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes, Norse, Hugenoets and sundry other Flemish, Germanic and Scandinavian tribes etc settled in the UK? And then there were the Romans...
A British Indian just called up on the radio regarding this point and actually said that the panel were being cherlish in not understanding the point he was making. He said that a white British person would be laughed at if he went to India and said he was indigenous and referred to ancestors that have been in India for centuries through colonisation etc.
Interesting point i thought and it seems that perhaps the most listened to opinions or perhaps those most impacting comments on such matters come from those of non- white skin colour on this issue.
For example the white skinhead in a suit in the audience pointed out that there was too much immigration and why was it still being entertained with mass unemployment and got booed and swept over by the panel. Ten minutes later the black guy in the pin stripes made precisely the same point and was entertained.
Possibly because at first thought the white guy may be a racist or BNP supporter with no obvious ancestory of immigration whilst for the other fella this is obviously not an assumption?
eg im white with polish/ irish ancestors and my mate has jamaican ancestors both speak with london accents but it would be obvious at first glance who has a history of immigration in their family so would his comments be more valid than mine in that audience?
I think you will find that the majority of people that voted for the BNP voted on one major issue. Immigration. Not only are we letting too many people in but we are letting the wrong people in. I would be interested to know what percentage of immigrants have skills which are in shortage in this country, a very low figure I would guess.
Until the main parties start to address the concerns of, not just the white British people, but of the Asian and Black British people, over immigration the BNP will continue to accrue support. Before anyone has a go at me about Blacks and Asians not liking our current immigration policies I am talking from experience. I work with people of Nigerian, West Indian and Indian heritage and they all agree with me on this point.
Further to Question Time, did anyone notice that Jack Straw had his answers written out in front of him. It would appear that all but Nick Griffin were given access to the questions prior to the show. Even so Jack Straw still stole the thunder of looking the biggest pillock on the panel.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]Also did i mishear or was dimbley asking people to text in with their thoughts even though it was a pre- recorded affair?
I think that was for their online thing. I would imagine they ended up with a lot of nonsense from both extremes
Another thing that would be interesting to know is where the more Liberal of the contributors on this site live. From my experience it tends to be the richer areas that feel little impact from immigration. Maybe a year in Erith or Woolwich would open a few eyes.
That's a moot point Len, and that's the risk of inviting Griffin onto the programme (along with giving him exposure). The consequence I think though is that while the BNP may win some protest votes (and in recessions extremist parties generally do better) that the shambles he made of defending his often contradictory principles will surely alienate even more voters.
We have someone who claims not to be a Nazi, but takes positions that are more-or-less identical with Nazis.
He was anti-semitic and a holocaust denier in the day, but is pro-Israel now.
He took money from Gadaffi an Islamic nationalist, who also funded the IRA, but is now firmly anti-Muslim.
He is or was homophobic but will live and let live.
He claims to have changed his mind and stance on these and so many other issues that he can't be taken seriously or have any credibility except among those who are already convinced. Outside of his coterie of fellow conspiracy theorists he's a joke, a dangerous joke, but one who now he's had his few minutes of fame can return to hating everything he dislikes.
The other main political parties though had better learn to start turning their attention to addressing the concerns of the voters who feel the need to stop supporting or putting trust in the Tory and Labour parties who are increasingly resembling two ends of a pro-corporatist industrial/business party.
The homophobic thing...I have mates that are gay (really fucks me off that i have to put this caveat so i dont get accused of being a homophobe) and i find it disturbing when i see them or other blokes kissing in public...dont know why...have no problem with it in principle i just dont like seeing it.
And i agree with what he said about sex education (either hetero or homo) in primary schools.
Does this make me a bad person?
As i have emphasised many times, dont like the bnp or their racially undertoned tones but im sure he wasnt the only politician that agrees with what he said above but they wouldnt have the balls to admit it as its not polite.
After watching him last night, can anyone genuinely imagine Griffin in a position of any sort of power? Let alone his scumbag followers.... he'd be found out in a matter of minutes. The bloke is a complete cretin - if hes an example of the kind of 'indigenous' Britons who would make up the BNP's utopian white nation, then i'm gonna ask if the repatriation express can drop me off somewhere on their way....
Thought, like many others it would seem from reading this, that it was a missed opportunity to seriously damage his political career. Focusing on reiterating that racism is bad just played into his hands, we all know hes a racist, he knows we know hes a racist, but hes still gonna trot out their publicity friendly 'skin colour is irrelevant, this is a nationalist matter' rubbish. Calmly and thoroughly exposing his lack of political credibility on a broad range of issues would have done him far more harm.
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]The homophobic thing...I have mates that are gay (really fucks me off that i have to put this caveat so i dont get accused of being a homophobe) and i find it disturbing when i see him or other blokes kissing in public...dont know why...have no problem with it in principle i just dont like seeing it.
Perhaps if your education had been more thorough and not skirted around issues that some would rather not be discussed you'd feel more comfortable about same sex couples etc kissing. Griffin etc would rather not teach these things, draw your own conclusions from that.
I don't disagree in sex education at primary schools but more the simple biology, ie the birds and bees stuff most of us had. Mainly because of the amount of young mothers we seem to be getting. However teaching them about sexual variance ant that age does seem inappropriate and should be held back until the secondary school education
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]I still want to know who these "indiginous British people" are.
If you went to China would you know an indiginous chinese person?
My misses looks like a Chinese person (she is from Beijing) but is an eighth Dutch. When the BNP forcibly repatriate her, will they send most of her to China, but one of her legs to Holland?
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]The homophobic thing...I have mates that are gay (really fucks me off that i have to put this caveat so i dont get accused of being a homophobe) and i find it disturbing when i see them or other blokes kissing in public...dont know why...have no problem with it in principle i just dont like seeing it.
And i agree with what he said about sex education (either hetero or homo) in primary schools.
Does this make me a bad person?
Asked myself the same question for exactly the same reason.
[cite]Posted By: FTP[/cite]I don't disagree in sex education at primary schools but more the simple biology, ie the birds and bees stuff most of us had. Mainly because of the amount of young mothers we seem to be getting. However teaching them about sexual variance ant that age does seem inappropriate and should be held back until the secondary school education
Why? If young children ask questions, they surely deserve an answer that is accurate and reflects their current level of understanding. If for example a child asks 'why are those men kissing', it's relatively easy and neutral to say that men can fall in love with men. If they reply that's yucky ( as does happen) then it's again sufficient to say, 'That's interesting, I don't find it yucky at all.'. It will generally get left at that. The child has received a challenge to their view and thinking which is good education. Griffin clearly knows nothing whatsoever about the subject and merely reacts to a series of internal prejudices that he hopes will resonate with the public.
Comments
Really? Well they get the blame for everything else so why not this! I'm sure big Dave (the man with the plan) will sort out all your problems for you.....A word of advice don't hold your breath :-)
Will have to look in to the Lib Dems!
In fairness, it's a fault of all the mainsteam parties that people didn't vote or voted for the BNP/Griffin.
"disillusionment" (real word or not) sums it up pretty well.
Why wasn't there any questions about relevent issues, like housing, unemployment, nationalisation of service industries, the banking crisis, the credit crunch, global warming, the de-forestation of the rain forests, the Post Office dispute, council tax, benefit fraud, crime etc, etc, etc, etc.why?
Surely that is what we needed to hear
And as I said before, I thought he came out of it pretty well and it will certainly not put anyone off voting BNP, as Diane Abbott said in the programme following "he will probably get the sympathy vote now" and she was genuinely concerned that the BNP will do well out of this. If Labour don't sort the immigration problems out, we'll see!
..........
More or less exactly what I heard from a BNP spokesman this morning on the radio (R4) - the complaint being that having invited Griifin on to the programme that they dared question his beliefs and expose the hypocrisy in many of his positions.
If Griffin (and the BNP) want to be considered credible voices then being questioned over what they believe in and the hypocrisy highlighted comes with the territory - if Griffin and you don't like his being cross-examined so intently then he should go back to the gutter of British politics which is where he and his ilk belong.
But if you think Griffin came out of this "well" then you were probably haven't heard the howls of protest from the BNP excuse-maker/spokesman this morning and are already convinced of his credibility and the strength of his argument.
All that has happened is that Griifin and the BNP have given up the skinhead hair cuts, drainpipe jeans, braces, DMs and the whole aggro thing and are wearing suits and trying to appear respectable. They are the same thugs underneath added to which they are cheap political opportunists having swapped the anti-semitism and holocaust denial for more profitable anti-Islamic polemics. The irony of Griifin being pro-British and quoting Winston Churchill is that if this were 1939 and not 2009 he'd have been interned as a pro-Nazi sympathiser.
Did anyone here his comment about you cant trust polititians even though he is one himself ? how many of us aggree and have said that before?
Asked about his hollucoust deniail, he said that that was right from what he had learnt but has now changed his mind due to more evidance/research. When asked to tell us all why he denied the hollucaust and then changed his mind he told us quite rightly that it was against the law to say why to which Jack Straw said "it wasnt" and said he was justice minister. He knew full well that Nick Griffen would more than likley have to visit Germany as a MEP where it is illegall and therefore face arrest.
As he has just said how about putting himself and Jack Straw head to head for an hour and disscuss all things ie the postal strike.
*excuse spelling
Actually, I do think that was a great example of snidey shots. Straw took the conversation down that line suggesting that people had fought and died for the country to prevent people like Griffin from gaining power. Griffin's response was that his father fought in the war, while Straw's was jailed for refusing to do so, which gave him an awareness of what motivated people to fight.
This is the problem with politicised people: from a neutral's viewpoint Griffin wiped the floor with Straw there. Straw and indeed all political parties are not above basking in the achievements of the armed forces. He accused Griffin of not having a right to, and he got made to look like a hypocritical fool. Which he is, sadly.
From my perspective those opposed to Griffin did not make enough capital of the event and jockeyed to make pathetic points which allowed him to not concentrate on the items mentioned in your final paragraph.
As Greer said Churchill's mother was an immigrant. So was I. Kingdon-Brunel's father. Both still made the top ten Briton's list a few years back.
Yep, but is that before or after waves of Bretons, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Jutes, Norse, Hugenoets and sundry other Flemish, Germanic and Scandinavian tribes etc settled in the UK? And then there were the Romans...
When Straw talked about immigration, he came across like the Conserative bloke, Adrian Finch on that episode.
A British Indian just called up on the radio regarding this point and actually said that the panel were being cherlish in not understanding the point he was making. He said that a white British person would be laughed at if he went to India and said he was indigenous and referred to ancestors that have been in India for centuries through colonisation etc.
Interesting point i thought and it seems that perhaps the most listened to opinions or perhaps those most impacting comments on such matters come from those of non- white skin colour on this issue.
For example the white skinhead in a suit in the audience pointed out that there was too much immigration and why was it still being entertained with mass unemployment and got booed and swept over by the panel. Ten minutes later the black guy in the pin stripes made precisely the same point and was entertained.
Possibly because at first thought the white guy may be a racist or BNP supporter with no obvious ancestory of immigration whilst for the other fella this is obviously not an assumption?
eg im white with polish/ irish ancestors and my mate has jamaican ancestors both speak with london accents but it would be obvious at first glance who has a history of immigration in their family so would his comments be more valid than mine in that audience?
Until the main parties start to address the concerns of, not just the white British people, but of the Asian and Black British people, over immigration the BNP will continue to accrue support. Before anyone has a go at me about Blacks and Asians not liking our current immigration policies I am talking from experience. I work with people of Nigerian, West Indian and Indian heritage and they all agree with me on this point.
Further to Question Time, did anyone notice that Jack Straw had his answers written out in front of him. It would appear that all but Nick Griffin were given access to the questions prior to the show. Even so Jack Straw still stole the thunder of looking the biggest pillock on the panel.
Another thing that would be interesting to know is where the more Liberal of the contributors on this site live. From my experience it tends to be the richer areas that feel little impact from immigration. Maybe a year in Erith or Woolwich would open a few eyes.
We have someone who claims not to be a Nazi, but takes positions that are more-or-less identical with Nazis.
He was anti-semitic and a holocaust denier in the day, but is pro-Israel now.
He took money from Gadaffi an Islamic nationalist, who also funded the IRA, but is now firmly anti-Muslim.
He is or was homophobic but will live and let live.
He claims to have changed his mind and stance on these and so many other issues that he can't be taken seriously or have any credibility except among those who are already convinced. Outside of his coterie of fellow conspiracy theorists he's a joke, a dangerous joke, but one who now he's had his few minutes of fame can return to hating everything he dislikes.
The other main political parties though had better learn to start turning their attention to addressing the concerns of the voters who feel the need to stop supporting or putting trust in the Tory and Labour parties who are increasingly resembling two ends of a pro-corporatist industrial/business party.
And i agree with what he said about sex education (either hetero or homo) in primary schools.
Does this make me a bad person?
As i have emphasised many times, dont like the bnp or their racially undertoned tones but im sure he wasnt the only politician that agrees with what he said above but they wouldnt have the balls to admit it as its not polite.
Thought, like many others it would seem from reading this, that it was a missed opportunity to seriously damage his political career. Focusing on reiterating that racism is bad just played into his hands, we all know hes a racist, he knows we know hes a racist, but hes still gonna trot out their publicity friendly 'skin colour is irrelevant, this is a nationalist matter' rubbish. Calmly and thoroughly exposing his lack of political credibility on a broad range of issues would have done him far more harm.
Perhaps if your education had been more thorough and not skirted around issues that some would rather not be discussed you'd feel more comfortable about same sex couples etc kissing. Griffin etc would rather not teach these things, draw your own conclusions from that.
Asked myself the same question for exactly the same reason.
Why? If young children ask questions, they surely deserve an answer that is accurate and reflects their current level of understanding. If for example a child asks 'why are those men kissing', it's relatively easy and neutral to say that men can fall in love with men. If they reply that's yucky ( as does happen) then it's again sufficient to say, 'That's interesting, I don't find it yucky at all.'. It will generally get left at that. The child has received a challenge to their view and thinking which is good education. Griffin clearly knows nothing whatsoever about the subject and merely reacts to a series of internal prejudices that he hopes will resonate with the public.