BNP Question Time review


by Rumbold
23rd October, 2009 at 9:48 am    

How effective was Question Time at hurting the BNP? I would say somewhat. It went better than it might have done, but worse than it should have done. Here’s how I thought each of the panellists did:

Chris Huhne (5.5/10): Fairly anonymous, and struggled when confronted with Nick Griffin’s assertion about Liberal Democrat support for free movement to Britain from Eastern and Central Europe. One or two good points.

Bonnie Greer (7/10): Much better than expected. Rambled a bit at times, but landed some useful blows onto Mr. Griffin. Different approach (the more chummy approach) seemed to throw him off his stride.

Baroness Warsi (8.5/10): Had a wonderful moment during the programme when she acknowledged that not all the people who voted for the BNP did so out of racism. Talked about tackling issues like depravation and the pace of change in order to draw people away from the BNP and back to the mainstream parties. Just the sort of thing wavering BNP supporters needed to hear, especially from a non-white Muslim politician who is likely to be in charge of aspects of this in a year’s time. Even if you didn’t agree with everything she said, this was a powerful pronouncement. Took a bit of time to get going, and should have asked a few more probing questions.

Jack Straw (2/10): Worse than useless in many ways. Started off relatively well (the first minute or so), but then ruined it by failing to actually press the BNP on anything much. It got worse when his answer about whether or not immigration management in the last ten years has helped the BNP turned to waffle. Just the sort of thing to drive people into the arms of the BNP. Failed to ask penetrating questions of the BNP. Arguably his own populist attacks on Muslims in the past limited his effectiveness.

David Dimbleby and the Question Time audience (9/10): David Dimbleby was simply wonderful. He was one of the few people to press Mr. Griffin on quotations, and it was this forensic questioning that had Mr. Griffin squirming more than at any other time. As I and others have long argued, this is the way to beat the BNP. Mr. Dimbleby also was able to deflect accusations of anti-BNP bias by trying to cut through Jack Straw’s waffle as well. The audience too played their part very well. We were thankfully not treated to the display of anti-fascist protestors disrupting the programme, which would have proved an excellent recruiting sergeant for the BNP, while the audience did not treat Nick Griffin as some sort of pantomime villain and boo him whenever he tried to speak.

Nick Griffin came out of this evening diminished, especially as it came at the end of a week where the BNP have been on the defensive, most notably over the threats to British generals. He was embarrassed and squirmed when questioned on specifics. Yet it could have been so much better. Pickled Politics, eGov and other blogs had done plenty of groundwork in forensically exposing and highlighting BNP policies. The information was all there for the panellists, who failed, for the most part, to really skewer the BNP. There will be a few glasses raised to Jack Straw in BNP headquarters tonight.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,The BNP






135 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. NFPB

    RT: good assessment of last night @pickledpolitics New blog post: BNP Question Time review http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6289


  2. kate_nightingale

    RT @pickledpolitics New blog post: BNP Question Time review http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6289


  3. Tanzeel Akhtar

    RT @pickledpolitics New blog post: BNP Question Time review http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6289




  1. Yakoub — on 23rd October, 2009 at 10:06 am  

    Without a doubt, the greatest damage done to the BNP’s credibility was by Griffin himself. He looked nervous, even flustered at times. His lame replies to issues such as his links to the KKK betrayed him as a pathetic liar, and he underestimated the extent to which homophobia has become unacceptable prejudice(highlighted by a brilliant reposte from an audience member). I don’t think he conned or convinced anyone, bar the usual fools, nutters and angry losers already seeking refuge under the BNP’s hypermasculine canopy.

  2. Dan — on 23rd October, 2009 at 10:20 am  

    I think he came across pretty badly, but wasn’t as impressed with the audience as you were. Too many ‘questions’ were personal accusations, rather than proper questions about policy which i feel could have been more useful.

    The man hasn’t a clue about how to run a country, and I think exposing that as well as his odious views would have been a good idea.

  3. Edsa — on 23rd October, 2009 at 10:30 am  

    Griffin didn’t come out that badly. Sayeeda Warsi was the best – confidently articulate and looks good too. Jack Straw was quite ineffective – just stumbled along. He is past his expiry date.
    The moderator, Dimbleby, intervened too much with his own pet notions – he should have given Griffen more time to air his views on various topics. Griffin was firmly against the Middle East wars – he rightly asserted that those people should be left alone. His criticism against Muslims was not a rabid rant but more measured – he was right to criticise Islam on its shabby treatment of women. Bonny Greer contributed little to the debate – Trevor Phillips was preferable.

  4. Narinder Purba — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:00 am  

    It was a bit of an anti-climax in my opinion after the huge build up and expectation placed by all the talk of the moral implications of hosting Nick Griffin on QT.

    That said, and as Sunny rightly observes, Nick Griffin came across as a man without substance and was throughly shut down and revealed as an empty “politician”. He can talk, sure, but it was palpable to everyone that his logic was parochial and grossly misplaced and peppered with what is clearly a race orientated way of seeing the world.

    DD was fun.

  5. coruja — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:03 am  

    Agreed, Griffin managed to wriggle and squirm his way through the questions quite well. Most of the audience and the entire panel were against him but he managed it get thorough it all and even scored a few points against Jack Straw, If he were better briefed he could have hung Straw, some pointers here for Nick for the future: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/jack-straw-bnp-griffin-hain

    There was a ridiculous debate about Churchill who was a vehement racist but not a fascist. Nobody wanted to go there. In fact no one wanted to go to the real heart of the BNPs popularity – they don’t have a massive media budget, they are simply racists trying to get as many votes as possible by any means possible.

    He’s there and he gets votes because the main parties are dishonest about reality and economic necessity of immigration in the past, the demographics of immigration in the past and present, and colonial Britsh history.

    Immigration is not a race issue anymore – the real causes of population increase is ‘white’ immigration from Europe (now that they have closed Europe down to darker skinned people) and the ageing popluation here. The race issue is to do with the skin tone and cultural differences of the people who have come and stayed.

    Griffin is very good at conflating these various issues. There were well meaning people in the audience and people like Warsi asking for an ‘honest debate about immigration’ …but when did any party do this, especially hers?

  6. Katy Newton — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:09 am  

    Too many ‘questions’ were personal accusations, rather than proper questions about policy which i feel could have been more useful.

    That was my opinion too. The BNP’s biggest weakness is that it can’t actually come up with any sensible definition of “indigenous Briton”. In particular, as I think Leon tweeted last night, they can’t give any sort of sensible time frame for when someone who wasn’t indigenous becomes indigenous. If you have to be able to trace your line back 17,000 years then I would imagine that the population of this country would be reduced to one. And yet he wasn’t really pressed on that at all, or on the BNP’s manifesto generally.

    I think the programme’s big mistake was that it clearly assumed that everyone in the audience at home and in the studio would despise Griffin for his views. That is not the way to reach his supporters. I haven’t looked at the Stormfront forums but I’m willing to bet that they all think Griffin did very well and what would you expect from a bunch of middle-class liberals, academics and ethnics anyway.

    For me Bonnie Greer was very good in some respects but her taunting of Griffin for having a 2:2 degree? Seriously? What does she think the BNP’s supporters are, postgrads? Who gives a shit whether Griffin did well at university or not? I certainly don’t. There’s plenty to loathe about him but certainly not that.

    No one on the panel, including Dimbleby, was prepared to deal with the fact that the people who support the BNP are not revolted by racism. And so, in my opinion, they missed a wonderful chance to actually show racism up for the farrago of lies, myths, spite and jealousy that it actually is – they touched on it, certainly, but they didn’t actually wrestle with it. Yes, most people (I like to think) agree that racism is horrible. But that is because racism is stupid and misconceived and based on lies and misunderstanding. The myths and lies that racism is based on are easily pulled apart and yet no one really tried to.

    For me, therefore, a disappointment, I’m afraid, although it certainly could have been worse.

  7. Binky — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:26 am  
  8. dave bones — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:30 am  

    Yeah none of this was surprising but the whole thing was too Griffin focused. All the politicians trying to jump in at the same time with their researched accusations came across like school kids. They were so obviously relieved to have a politician with a worse reputation than themselves in the room, but to people who are tempted to vote BNP I am sure they still fall way wide of the mark.

    I have no idea why all three politicians, and quite obviously the person who asked the first question are trying to promote a fantasy image of Winston Churchill, which the audience obviously went along with. I was incredulous.

    I would have answered

    “Yes. Churchill would be BNP today. In fact by these new rules he would probably be chucked out for being too extreme. Next question.”

    Why fantasize? I don’t get it.

    Didn’t he call Ghandi a “half dressed fakir?” or something? I mean half dressed is technically correct but calling someone a fakir is a bit over the top no? And what about concentration camps?

    The only person on the panel who was interesting was Bonnie Greer because she crucially didn’t look at the whole concept as scoring enough points to win, and was just being herself, which I think is the correct way to approach someone like Nick Griffin.

    I thought the body languiage between herself and Grif was fascinating and made me think that the BBC know what they are doing with this. They have made Question Time into a really interesting thing. They should have more controversial characters on it so that people get used to it and it is not such a great big deal.

    I do wonder how this plays with people who are tempted to vote BNP. As someone said on the thread below, a Question Time audience isn’t really reflective of BNP waverers but Jack Straws attempts to deal with the topic of immigration would blatantly have big holes for these people which you could sense in the room a bit.

    Someone on Facebook pointed out to me that Labour have suffered because from Kinnock onwards they have abandoned working class communities who are now voting BNP, and thats almost a “generation”. I mean, I am pro immigration and very pro racial mixing but I can see that its a different world outside London and if politicians don’t deal with reality, (ie voters who aren’t like me) the BNP could easily grow.

  9. Eshaan Akbar — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:34 am  

    Er…was I watching the same Question Time as you?

    People fail to realise that Griffin looking shifty or being lambasted by the “political elite” means nothing to the people who vote for them.

    If anything, yesterday served Griffin’s purpose on many fronts. It highlighted the incompetence of our political leaders; gave credence to the BNP as a force to be reckoned with (and rightly so…they now have democratic immunity) and showed that no one except Griffin is willing to stick his neck out and stand for something.

    It was a total farce. Griffin made a point about white working class under-representation and I’m with him on that – luckily, there was enough hot air blowing around for it to fall by the wayside.

    Greer was the best of a bad bunch but even she had NOTHING to add to the debate. QT lost its structure, Dimbleby got sucked into the Griffin bashing (with some moments of mediation) and Huhne, Warsi and particularly Straw were just not facing up to the issues.

    Ultimately, the BNP have 2 democratically elected MEPs. We cannot ignore them. But addressing them is not going to solve anything – people need to address the voters who give them credence.

    It was pathetic – Griffin did what Straw did…avoid the issues. So he is no different from the politicians we have now and as for Warsi…aside from holiding Straw to account, Griffin bashing did nothing to help anyone.

    Pathetic.

  10. Paul — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:48 am  

    The claim that

    Nick Griffin came out of this evening diminished

    is premature. Wait for three months of opinion polling before you say that.

    It is difficult to say much more about this, because of course theoretically ‘Rumbold’ might be right. Perhaps the BNP will collapse next week because of internal feuds over Griffin’s performance. I can’t prove the BNP will not collapse next week. I can’t disprove any similar claims that it “has now been defeated / exposed”. It’s like the religious sects which predict the end of the world on a certain date. When it doesn’t happen, they shift the date. Some people will continue to believe that the BNP can be defeated, and their former marginality restored.

  11. Binky — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:51 am  

    Straw wooed the electors of Blackburnistan and similar places …

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/06/0605/straw.shtml

    … with this!

  12. chairwoman — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    Didn’t anybody else notice Griffin positively salivating over Bonnie Greer?

    I actually thought he was about to leap on her with a low growl!

  13. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

    If I were a BNP member I’d be cringing behind the sofa the way I used to cringe as a stupid child when a nervous bumbling eager-to-please chortling fat Asian man came on Blind Date. What a blithering dork that man is. Political rough and tumble my arse.

    Straw was irritating. Reminded me why I hate politicians. Answer the fucking question.

    That Chris bloke. Top geezer. He should belong to a political party, I reckon.

    Top marks to Warsi for taking fatso up on the genocide comment.

    I so hope Bonny Greer tried to pass on some of her knowledge about culture to Mr Pie Eater 2009 after the show but I somehow doubt she gave up when she reduced him to his knees begging ‘please fuck me’

  14. Pete — on 23rd October, 2009 at 12:27 pm  

    If they had planned to drown him out him with self-righteousness they very nearly succeeded.

    Part of the BNP’s schtick is that it represents all those marginalised by a London-based political and cultural ‘elite’ that looks down on them and responds to their concerns (heartfelt, whether they are or are not legitimate) with supercilious sneering and disingenuous debate. (Many of BNP votes are a petulant ‘Fuck you’ to an equally petulant establishment.)

    And what did we see last night? A cherry-picked west London audience and a panel of the political and cultural elite (well, a Newsnight Review regular anyway) sneering and evading the issues that have led to the BNP’s rise. And audience members delivering pompous sermons or witless ‘jokes’ before asking their questions.

    Nick Griffin’s attraction is that he IS racist and his party IS racist – to spend an hour reinforcing the fact is hardly going to diminish his popularity. Questions on ordinary run-of-the-mill political concerns (economic recovery, increasing illiteracy in schools etc) would have exposed his essential inability to think beyond this single issue but a pompous and histrionic audience blew it by keeping the focus on racism – wherein all his appeal lies anyway.

    The inability of the mainstream media and politics to land anything approaching a knock-out blow on Griffin is becoming increasingly telling – perhaps it demonstrates how much of a complacent establishment con-trick political debate in this country is.

    And to lambast and demonise Griffin for Holocaust denial while cheerfully turning the other cheek when Galloway fundraises for Hamas and shills for the rapists and torturers and Holocaust deniers of the Iranian government is beyond farcical – it points to something deeply intellectually corrupt about the lazy middle class Liberal/Left establishment as represented by the BBC. And I write as one whose views can only really be described as Liberal/Left.

  15. Leon — on 23rd October, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

    Bonnie Greer did better than Warsi imo. She actually understood the nature of the beast. Dimbo was a real tool for not letting her speak at times and then letting others speak for ages. His worse line was something like ten minutes before the end saying he didn’t want the show to be about the BNP after letting the show be about the BNP!

  16. Leon — on 23rd October, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

    Nick Griffin came out of this evening diminished

    In the eyes of who? If anything he’s going to pick up more support because he’ll just play the victim. His supporters and sympathisers aren’t going to be persuaded by him being bashed about by a bunch of liberals either.

  17. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

    We had 2 extremes.

    Griffin with his racism and intolerance. The rest of the panel with their denial.

    Straw’s fudging and denial on the immigration question reminded my of the Monty Python parrot sketch. Of course it’s about your immigration policies you f*cking lying scumbag!

    Thankfully Griffin came off badly. That was more due to his repulsive physical appearance (Julie Burchill described him as looking like a plain man who is halfway through eating a handsome one. Brilliant) and obsequious manner than the sometimes childish baiting he received from the panel and the audience.

    Warsi was actually the only panellist that took some of the wind from Griffin’s sails by addressing the immigration question in a way that might reassure some British people. Albeit the trusting and gullible ones.

    And that example alone vindicates the importance of allowing free speech. All views, even the extreme ones, have to be allowed, otherwise there can never be balance.

    If it wasn’t for Griffin being on that panel then I have no doubt that Warsi would have fudged the immigration question. And as usual, we’d see a bunch of multiculturalists demonstrating their utter contempt for the views of the British people by simply agreeing with each other about the wonderful cultural ‘enrichment’ and ‘diversity’ that each and every lovely immigrant brings to these bland and culturally worthless shores.

  18. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:07 pm  

    I’m willing to bet that they all think Griffin did very well and what would you expect from a bunch of middle-class liberals, academics and ethnics anyway…. No one on the panel, including Dimbleby, was prepared to deal with the fact that the people who support the BNP are not revolted by racism… And so, in my opinion, they missed a wonderful chance to actually show racism up for the farrago of lies, myths, spite and jealousy that it actually is…

    If people are not revolted by racism and the uglyness that it entails, then I feel that anything you say around racism is a waste of time. They are permanently locked to the BNP.

    I did enjoy QT – the first half was brutal to Nick Griffin. There were brilliant moments from all elements of the panel:

    -> Jack Straw started very well by mentioning that non-whites fought along side with British troops and he read a few names of soldiers buried in France.
    -> Chris Huhne and Mr David Dimbleby by bringing up that infamous speech that he gave to the friends of the BNP in America.
    -> Baroness Warsi by bringing up the fact that Nick Griffin met nasty Islamic leaders in Lybia, Iran and the US. It was also brought up the fact that he went to Lybia to get funded by Gaddafi.
    -> Bonnie Greer had several good moments. My favourite one was when she mentioned that BNP members would not be pleased (and quite scared) to open its membership to non-whites.

    The second half was pretty bad in my opinion. Jack Straw couldn’t come with a convincing answer on immigration, and I also did not like Baroness Warsi’s opportunistic reply. That was a freebie to Nick Griffin.

    All in all, I enjoyed QT, specially the first part. This was not about winning over racists, but to show that Nick Griffin has a trail of racism and dishonesty. The audience was great, except for the black woman with a pink bow, whose contribution was appalling.

    I totally agree that they should have dug deeper on the concept of indigenous and miscegenation, and their policies on those two subjects.

  19. Shamit — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:30 pm  

    Reza

    Vocal diarrheoa with constipation in the brain is the sign of stupidity and not eloquence. But you know that already yet you continue to fill these pages with your crap about multiculturalism being a bad thing for Britain.

    IF you hate multicultuarlism so much why live in one of the most multicultural societies in the world — there are options you know.

  20. dave bones — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

    Yeah none of this was surprising but the whole thing was too Griffin focused. All the politicians trying to jump in at the same time with their researched accusations came across like school kids. They were so obviously relieved to have a politician with a worse reputation than themselves in the room, but particularly to people who are tempted to vote BNP I am sure they still fall way wide of the mark.

    I have no idea why all three politicians, and quite obviously the person who asked the first question are trying to promote a fantasy image of Winston Churchill, which the audience obviously went along with. I was incredulous.

    I would have answered

    “Yes. Churchill would be BNP today. In fact by these new rules he would probably be chucked out for being too extreme. Next question.”

    Why fantasize? I don’t get it.

    Didn’t he call Ghandi a “half dressed fakir?” or something? I mean half dressed is technically correct but calling someone a fakir is a bit over the top no? And what about concentration camps?

    The only person on the panel who was interesting was Bonnie Greer because she crucially didn’t look at the whole concept as scoring enough points to win, and was just being herself, which I think is the correct way to approach someone like Nick Griffin.

    I thought the body language between herself and Grif was fascinating and made me think that the BBC know what they are doing with this. They have made Question Time into a really interesting thing. They should have more controversial characters on it so that people get used to it and it is not such a great big deal.

    I do wonder how this plays with people who are tempted to vote BNP. As someone said on the thread below, a Question Time audience isn’t really reflective of BNP waverers but Jack Straws attempts to deal with the topic of immigration would blatantly have big holes for these people which you could sense in the room a bit.

    Someone on Facebook pointed out to me that Labour have suffered because from Kinnock onwards they have abandoned working class communities who are now voting BNP, and thats almost a “generation”. I mean, I am pro immigration and very pro racial mixing but I can see that its a different world outside London and if politicians don’t deal with reality, (ie voters who aren’t like me) the BNP could easily grow.

  21. Mark — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    Shamit

    The fact still remains that so called ‘multiculturalism’ has been forced on people to justify the uncontrolled immigration into this country regardless of its inhabitants. For people to disagree with it is entirely their choice if they believe it to be a bad thing. They are entitled to their opinions are they not?

    By “there are options you know” I’m guessing your telling them to leave this country are you not? Isn’t that what the BNP say to people they don’t agree with or like? So if people don’t like what you have to say or believe in then they should leave? Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

  22. Maurice Rodger — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

    Rightly or wrongly I am of the opinion that the BNP Question Time programme was nothing but a kangaroo court. It seemed to me to be staged as a deliberate attempt to discredit Nick Griffin and his party.
    Although I do not agree with everything that the party stands for I do believe that we need to look after the British people better than we are doing.
    The government seems to be determined to ruin this country whilst lining the pockets of the rich. Reluctant as I am to change parties I find that after last nights fiasco I will be voting for BNP.

  23. Shatterface — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

    Huhne put in a who he? performance. If I didn’t know who he was I wouldn’t have learned from this programme.

    Warsi was okay on immigration but I couldn’t put a rizzla between her and Griffin on homosexuality.

    Straw, smug but competant. Shrugged off Griffin’s attack on his father with dignity. I’d have smacked Griffin.

    Greer, excellent. The star of the show, much to my surprise.

  24. Rumbold — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    The audience could have asked more probing questions, but because of my low expectations I was impressed with them (apart from the boy quoting incorrect statistics on trade in order to try and smear Nick Griffin as a Euosceptic- that will hurt him).

    Mark:

    “The fact still remains that so called ‘multiculturalism’ has been forced on people to justify the uncontrolled immigration into this country regardless of its inhabitants. For people to disagree with it is entirely their choice if they believe it to be a bad thing. They are entitled to their opinions are they not?”

    Not really, by any measure. Multiculturalism as a policy was much more prevalent ten or twenty years ago, especially at a local level. Nor is there anything wrong with a debate about immigration and culture. What I, and others, object to is the stereotyping of minorites, the suggestion that immigration represents an invasion or genocide, and that non-whites aren’t welcome here.

  25. Lordy — on 23rd October, 2009 at 1:59 pm  

    I bet Nick Griffin came out of the whole thing happy with what he achieved. Nobody really dug deep into the BNP’s policies to try to expose their weaknesses. Instead they just either pointlessly criticised him and his party or tried to rake up things he may or may not have said in the past. At one point they even discussed the ice age for goodness sake. I would have liked someone to ask him what the BNP hoped to achieve in the European parliament for example.

    I never new Nick Griffins name before today but I do now. I also know he is not afraid to address important UK issues without beating around the bush. I think I prefer his straight forward attitude to Jack Straws evasive denial of the obvious.

    I would never vote for the BNP because of their party roots based in racial and social intolerance but I would vote for some plain speaking and common sense.

    Even a monster like Griffin can maybe teach us something.

  26. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:02 pm  

    I though Bonnie Greer did very well. The peculiar thing was that Griffin looked to be trying to ingratiate himself with everyone, especially Greer.

    I missed Greer mentioning the 2:2. In usual circumstances it would look undignified. But last night it was ironical. Here is a black woman able to poke a leader of a party which for so long peddled the lie that black people are intellectually inferior. Something that goes back to the early days of empire.

    I am sure Bonnie Greer knew exactly what she was doing. Even where she, a black woman, was inviting Griffin to visit the British Museum.

    Smart.

    I don’t agree that the event should have been reaching out to BNP voters alone. It needed to be laid at the door of the mainstream parties. And it most assuredly was.

    And for the rest of us, it was the rallying call which says it does not end here – the fightback has begun. The country will see or needs to be continuously reminded of what is at stake.

    So the most positive thing that came out of the whole build-up and the event was that it drew some lines in the sand for the political class (note how Griffin tried to include himself in that, despite his own attacks) for the BNP; and it will have encouraged people to take it and politics seriously.

  27. Bearded Socialist — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

    I thought Straw and Warsi had a good debate about immigration, but overall none of them really tackled a big issue, which is that people buy the myth that English people have been made into second-class citizens.
    The BNP thrive on the idea of a conspiracy, that X, Y and Z are conspiring against X, Y, and Z (the indigenous British in this case).
    It’s a shame that immigration is not tackled and then it takes the BNP getting 1 million votes before it enters mainstream debate, and then most of the show is about it.
    Griffin showed himself as a far-right nasty-man who relies on the idea of this conspiracy, but the issues which force people into his grubby paws were not properly addressed. Straw tried, and I thought did pretty well all night, but didn’t make the case forcefully enough. People need to know that it’s ok to feel proud to be British without being labelled racist, which is something the Tories have traditionally done far better than Labour. Due, I think, to our more bleeding heart liberal wing (including me to some extent).
    Griffin’s a right winger, so I don’t like him. But if enough people shun pride in their origins (e.g. being British), there is a vacuum created into which the likes of Griffin step.

  28. Rumbold — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    Paul and Leon:

    I think that Nick Griffin came out of the programme dimished for two reasons:

    (1) Sayeeda Warsi actually showed an awareness of non-racist issues that the BNP play on.

    (2) Nick Griffin was pressed on specifics and prevacated. He should have been pressed more, but somethign was better than nothing. This is likely to have had more more of an effect on wavering BNP voters’ minds, as it is not the same as shouting ‘racist’ at him for an hour.

    Lordy:

    I find it difficult to believe that people watched Question Time without knowing who Nick Griffin was. I agree with you that there should have been more pressing of Nick Griffin.

  29. squizzyfish — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

    for a country that supports freedom of speech? where was Nick Griffins? These are the supposedly highest order in the UK and they are acting like children. Nick has won my vote. what more can he say? the people who are here can stay here.
    Shame on the British people for denying their own historic fight to be British! I am appalled at my own Nation. We need to stand up and be counted, not sit down and wallow in self loathing at our fear of doing what our ancestors have done.
    Stating the BNP as oppressive is political tactical rubbish. The BNP does what it says on the tin. It supports the British! Fair Enough!

  30. Matthew — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:25 pm  

    I think accusing Jack Straw of ‘attacking’ muslims because he prefers to see who he’s talking too is a little below the belt. Whilst of course the BNP are an abhorrent organisation it’s important to bear in mind the idea that religion (whichever religion) needs to be kept in check. This battle, for me, is against authoritarianism and I’d happily put political religion in the same ship as traditional religion. People can believe what they want but the public sphere must be the domain of rationality and reason rather than dogma and blind emotion. Let’s not slip into cultural relativism please.

  31. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

    Lordy,

    I think the ice age came up more as ridicule, thanks to Griffin claiming lineage going back 700 years.

    Height of stupidity on his part I thought.

    Now what impressed me more was his claim on aboriginal rights. He will be wanting reservations next.

  32. Leon — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

    Rumbold #27 Like I said, to who? Who would now see him as diminished that hadn’t already seen him that way?

  33. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

    In the eyes of who? If anything he’s going to pick up more support because he’ll just play the victim. His supporters and sympathisers aren’t going to be persuaded by him being bashed about by a bunch of liberals either.

    Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it. The fear was that Nick Griffin came as acceptable, moderate and mainstream, and that didn’t happen, not by a long margin.

    My favourite moment was when he claimed he couldn’t talk about the Holocaust because of some European Law, and the panel informed him that he could indeed talk about it because no such laws existed, and they insisted he shared his views. Jack Straw was brilliant there.

  34. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

    In the eyes of who? If anything he’s going to pick up more support because he’ll just play the victim. His supporters and sympathisers aren’t going to be persuaded by him being bashed about by a bunch of liberals either.

    Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it. The fear was that Nick Griffin came as acceptable, moderate and mainstream, and that didn’t happen, not by a long margin.

  35. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

    Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it. The fear was that Nick Griffin came as acceptable, moderate and mainstream, and that didn’t happen, not by a long margin.

    My favourite moment was when he claimed he couldn’t talk about the Holocaust because of some European Law, and the panel informed him that he could indeed talk about it because no such laws existed, and they insisted he shared his views. Jack Straw was brilliant there.

  36. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    In the eyes of who? If anything he’s going to pick up more support because he’ll just play the victim. His supporters and sympathisers aren’t going to be persuaded by him being bashed about by a bunch of liberals either.

  37. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

    Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it. The fear was that Nick Griffin came as acceptable, moderate and mainstream, and that didn’t happen, not by a long margin.

    My favourite moment was when he claimed he couldn’t talk about the Holocaust because of some European Law, and the panel informed him that he could indeed talk about it because no such laws existed, and they insisted he shared his views. Jack Straw was brilliant there.

  38. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

    My favourite moment was when he claimed he couldn’t talk about the Holocaust because of some European Law, and the panel informed him that he could indeed talk about it because no such laws existed, and they insisted he shared his views. Jack Straw was brilliant there.

  39. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

    My favourite moment was when he claimed he couldn’t

  40. Paul Moloney — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:35 pm  

    Griffin criticised Jan Moir for her insensitive Daily Mail article about Stephen Gately’s death. If the leader of a racist, fascist party thinks you’re homophobically insensitive, it really is time to start questioning your life.

    P.

  41. Rumbold — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

    Matthew:

    It was the way Jack Straw did it.

    Leon:

    The wavering BNP voters will have been shown a different side to Griffin, as well as the Conservatives.

  42. Rumbold — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:38 pm  

    Oh, and sorry Ravi. The spam filter seems to love you.

  43. Binky — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:50 pm  

    The odd fact remains that the BNP website is claiming victory and yelling that hundreds are clamouring to join.

    Very rum, all things considered.

  44. fugstar — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

    never seen jack straw like that. he actually went red. its almost as if he is some kind of human being. he gave good context when reading out the muslim indian names of those who died fighting in WW1.

    also, maybe you didnt notice, but he was the first person(really) to say the word Muslim. Before, folks had only used race and ethnic minority language.

    i wonder how the programme was received in parts of Bexley and Barking and Dagenham. I hope there’s more televisual dialogue in future.

  45. Binky — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:53 pm  
  46. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 2:55 pm  

    It is what they claim anyeway …

    I am sure we will know who these 3000 people are when their membership list is leaked for the 3rd time.

  47. Katy Newton — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

    If people are not revolted by racism and the uglyness that it entails, then I feel that anything you say around racism is a waste of time. They are permanently locked to the BNP.

    I don’t think it’s ever a waste of time to try to reason people out of racism.

  48. halima — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

    “Top marks to Warsi for taking fatso up on the genocide comment.”

    Well said. I thought the comment on genocide was the most disgusting of the BNP’s contributions on Question Time. How dare he deny the biggest holocaust that took place in Europe in the c20th in one breath, and then go on to fantasise about a mythical one taking place against white Britons today? It just goes to show how murderous they could be – if given the chance, platform and dare we ever see it – power.

    Is that the best panel we could come up with?

  49. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:09 pm  

    Katy

    ‘I don’t think it’s ever a waste of time to try to reason people out of racism.’

    Absolutely right.

  50. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:12 pm  

    Blinky,

    This claim for a surge in membership, in due course, will also be shown to be a lie, and it will be used to put them out of their misery.

    And anti-BNP campaign slogan will be

    ‘BNP lies working for you?’

  51. damon — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:21 pm  

    I do tend to find my self agreeing the Spiked-online position to this whole thing.

    ”It was a cultural lynching of Griffin by members of a political elite bereft of ideas and lost for words. It was a cynical performance by politicians and BBC bigwigs, designed to demonstrate their inherent goodness and sense of mission against the easy target of a bumbling buffoon with backward ideas. It was a calculated act of moral distancing, an attempt to conjure up two moral universes – Us and Him – at a time when British political life has little else going for it. And it involved, not open, adult debate, but its opposite: the suppression of discussion, analysis and nuance, all buried beneath the theatrical display of the new Non-Nick consensus.”
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7611/

  52. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:25 pm  

    Isn’t it indicative of the oppressive society we now live in that the only people who felt brave enough to address concerns about immigration were a black member of the audience and Warsi?

    Decades of liberal fascism have intimidated ‘white’ people to be fearful of being labelled as ‘racists’ (whatever that means) if they ever dare oppose mass immigration and multiculturalism in public.

  53. Matthew — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:25 pm  

    Rumbold:

    I’m of the opinion it was the way it was reported and subsequently sensationalised. His views are pretty tame, sensible and absolutely worth discussing; it’s very worrying that he’s been turned into a hate figure for this. To quote the BBC article you originally linked to:

    Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: “Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?”

    This is exactly the problem. He has every right to criticise, just as she has every right to criticise Christianity. To hold religion as ‘untouchable’ is as dangerous an idea as having ‘racial purity’ as a legitimate political concern.

  54. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

    ‘Julie Burchill described him as looking like a plain man who is halfway through eating a handsome one. Brilliant’

    She’s another repulsive character.

  55. Lordy — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:29 pm  

    Rumbold

    You might be suprised how many people will be aware of Nick Griffin for the first time this week. I think this will be a massive boost for his profile. I just hope people have the common sense to see through his retoric to the ugly truth of what he really stands for.

    Refresh

    I never really felt like a Red Indian…but I did always kind of want to be one as a small boy. Maybe Nick did too and he’s just taking things a step further?

  56. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:36 pm  

    I don’t think it’s ever a waste of time to try to reason people out of racism.

    I feel it is very difficult to turn racists into non-racists, and I can’t think of anything QT could have done or say to change people’s minds on race. It’s in that sense, that I say such effort (or goal) would be a waste of time.

    Instead, a more realistic goal, in my view, would be to make voters considering voting BNP to be less likely to do so, regardless of how they feel about ethnic minorities.

  57. Lordy — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:39 pm  

    Reza

    I agree. These days’ people are worried if what they say next may or may not be politically correct or get them branded as being racist, sexist, heightist ect. I think we are fast reaching a point where our society is so geared towards protecting the rights of every minority that the majority start to themselves feel persecuted.

    This must play right into the hands of extremists?

  58. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    And it involved, not open, adult debate, but its opposite

    Oh, do you really think you can achieve an open debate with a man who makes up laws so that he can be excused of sharing his views on the Holocaust, or have the gull to say that the colour of skin is not important when talking about indigenous?

    You think you can achieve an adult debate with a grown man who uses the line “my father was better than your father” ?

  59. Shatterface — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:49 pm  

    ‘Julie Burchill described him as looking like a plain man who is halfway through eating a handsome one. Brilliant’

    She’s another repulsive character.’

    True, but that IS rather funny!

  60. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

    Refresh

    Yes, I agree that Julie Birchill is a repulsive character. However her description of Griffin’s appearance was funnily accurate.

    Lordy

    “This must play right into the hands of extremists?”

    Of course it does.

  61. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

    ‘Julie Burchill described him as looking like a plain man who is halfway through eating a handsome one. Brilliant’

    I do not find this funny. Mocking people’s appearances is just petty.

  62. Ala — on 23rd October, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

    Jack straw made a pertinent point about immigration that no one seems to bring up or even realise: caps on immigration are not about stabilising the population, as that would mean you should also put a cap on the number of children we’re allowed to have. But no, everyone seems to think it’s a legitimate argument to say “too many people, not enough resources, it’s all because of them immigrants”. At least Nick Griffin is honest in his xenophobia.

  63. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 4:09 pm  

    Frank Field hit the nail on the head in the Telegraph yesterday:-

    “Cowardice on immigration has allowed the BNP to flourish”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6400553/Cowardice-on-immigration-has-allowed-the-BNP-to-flourish.html

    At last, were beginning to see an honest and rational debate on immigration and demographic change from the political mainstream.

    And as much as people hate to admit it, the rise of the BNP has helped make that debate possible.

  64. Adrian — on 23rd October, 2009 at 4:28 pm  

    In “… did not treat … booed him” change “booed” to “boo”.

  65. Joe — on 23rd October, 2009 at 4:29 pm  

    I found question time extremely uncomfortable last night. Before you jump to conclusions and think i felt uncomfortable about nick griffin think again, i was actually appalled at the fact that a room full of do gooders asians and blacks tried to play down what is true british. correct me if im wrong but whites are the true british? regardless of invasions this country has endured i found it disgusting that our nationality and culture has been handed around and questioned about how legitimate it is, this i believe is fuel for the fire for the BNP, as for jack straw he is a complete pillock who used the old ‘my mothers mother was jewish’ so it would give him immunity and more respect because people with foreign linage or a migrant past do seem to be shown more respect and given more rights than our people these days! bad times for great britain.

  66. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 4:44 pm  

    Ravi Naik

    “…or have the gull to say that the colour of skin is not important when talking about indigenous?”

    Are you saying you accept that there is such a thing as indigenous peoples in this country?

  67. Sunny — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

    Frank Field hit the nail on the head in the Telegraph yesterday:-

    “Cowardice on immigration has allowed the BNP to flourish”

    That should be changed to: lies about immigration has allowed the BNP to flourish.

  68. Jack — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

    Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: “Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?”

    This mentality is part of the problem of our society. Jack Straw has every right to comment on whatever he wishes to. It is this inhibition of discussion that actually plagues our society right now.

  69. dave bones — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    Yeah. Agree with most here. I told you Bonnie Greer would be good. Very good idea to sit griffin between her and Dimbleby and put the dishonest politicians further away. That Spiked article is bang on- and totally why the program wont do anything to stem the rise of the BNP. Cheers for posting

  70. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    There you go again Sunny. I’ve never considered “liar liar” to be an intelligent debating strategy.

    Clearly you’re one of those people who tell the uneducated and unwashed proles to ignore what they see in their own neighbourhoods and listen to what you tell them is real.

  71. J.R. — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:25 pm  

    While there is almost certainly no ‘indigenous’ British people, as in people that have been here as long as the Australian aboriginies have lived in Australia, that doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to be proud of Celtic or Viking ancestry?… Does it?…

  72. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

    From Frank Field’s Telegraph article, here are some of those “lies” that Sunny claims are being made about immigration. Judge for yourselves.

    “In the next 20 years, the population of the UK will rise from 61 million to 70 million – and then go on rising. The bulk of that growth will be due to immigration, which will have added seven million – seven cities the size of Birmingham – to our population by 2034.”

    “But the jokes about Polish plumbers have hidden a key fact: two thirds of immigration comes from outside Europe, and is of people who want to make our country their home for good.”

    “Immigration now accounts for 40 per cent of new households formed, just as the waiting list for social housing in England tops 1.8 million – an incredible 80 per cent increase in the past six years.”

  73. Cauldron — on 23rd October, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    Sadly, he got away with it.

    Jack Straw, that is.

    Apart from one chap in the audience, nobody really pointed to how the rise of the BNP coincided with the implementation of Labour’s badly thought through immigration policies. And I don’t think anyone pointed out that the Left’s embrace of identity politics fueled an equal and opposite reaction on the far right.

    I would have had far more respect for Jack Straw if he’d said “We messed up in our first few years. But we’ve learned our lesson. We no longer automatically embrace identity politics language (although some of our jobsworth council officers still come up with idiotic race sops to enrage the WWC). And our adoption of a points-based immigration system means that we finally acknowledge that the Left was wrong to assert that all immigrants are equally desirable. Oh, and adopting PR for the euro-elections might have been a bit of a blunder too”.

  74. dave — on 23rd October, 2009 at 6:19 pm  

    i never bothered to watch lastnites QT, but id like to say, im of mixed race and i fully understand why alot of the white british public vote BNP, i dont belive they are all racist, more that they are fed up with people from other countrys being given everything whislt they get nowt, i was born here and england is my country the land i love, but i had to move out of london as everytime a council home became available my family was pushed aside, with the home given to immargrants, so yes that perhaps has made me racist if thats what racism is, feeling letdown by my country of birth, but only im not racist im just sick to the back teeth of everyone else been given what ever they want while us brits get nothing, just to end i think nick griffen is nothing more than a parasite preying on us brits who are fed up.

  75. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

    Are you saying you accept that there is such a thing as indigenous peoples in this country?

    You claim that you hate the BNP, no doubt because they hate you, but you frame your arguments according to them, like you can’t think for yourself.

    British people have different origins, some come from Anglo-Saxon stock, others have origins in South Asia, others from Africa, and a lot of people are mixed. Why do we need the concept of indigenous? Nick Griffin is incapable of defining what indigenous mean, apart from “you just know”.

    The BNP brought up the concept of ‘indigenous’ to keep people like you, your descendants, and anyone who is mixed excluded from Britain, or to be made second class citizens. It is a by-product of their whites-only policy.

    Since you sympathise with the BNP mindset, can you explain to me why we need the concept of indigenous?

  76. Yurrzem — on 23rd October, 2009 at 7:23 pm  

    The most significant and worrying effect of this huge mistake by the BBC will be felt in marginalised ethnic communities who will feel less secure and amongst racists who will feel legitimised. It was foolish and complacent to put him on a programme with such a superficial format.

    I doubt the truth of the BNP claim that they have a fresh 3000 people registered to join them once they have revised their constitution (er?). However he succeeded in his aims, Griffin’s target audience wasn’t the metropolitan chatterati.

  77. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 7:55 pm  

    Ravi

    “…can you explain to me why we need the concept of indigenous.”

    If you won’t accept that there are such things as indigenous English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish peoples then you are denying millions of people the right to an identity or a shared history.

    I am proud (and allowed by multiculturalists to be proud) of my Persian heritage. I teach my children about the wonderful civilization that once existed there. They ask if they are descended from the great kings, Cyrus or Darius. I tell them that it’s possible. Yes, I know it’s unlikely, but everyone has the right to know where they came from.

    The fact is, despite considering myself as British and loving this country and its history, I’m big enough to admit that it wasn’t inhabited by my ancestors. And I’m confident enough in my identity to allow the people whose ancestors have been here for generations to be proud of and to celebrate their unique identity.

    In fact I’ll gladly celebrate it with them.

    However, many other members of ethnic minorities won’t even allow the indigenous peoples here to define themselves, never mind actually celebrate their history and culture. Because they believe it excludes them. Because they know their ancestors are not part of that history.

    And the irony is that those same people are so aware and proud of their own ancestral ethnic identity.

    It’s shameful and it’s unfair.

  78. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 8:51 pm  

    If you won’t accept that there are such things as indigenous English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish peoples then you are denying millions of people the right to an identity or a shared history.

    This is a strawman argument. Nobody disputes that there are English, Welsh, or Scottish whose ancestors lived in this land for thousands of years. And nobody denies anyone from celebrating their heritage and their cultural identity.

    I am proud (and allowed by multiculturalists to be proud) of my Persian heritage. I teach my children about the wonderful civilization that once existed there. They ask if they are descended from the great kings, Cyrus or Darius. I tell them that it’s possible. Yes, I know it’s unlikely, but everyone has the right to know where they came from.

    I am surprised (and pleased) that you acknowledged something good about multiculturalism. But let me ask you this. Do you consider your children indigenous, considering their mother is English?

    And the irony is that those same people are so aware and proud of their own ancestral ethnic identity.

    Are you saying that Asians who feel proud of being British are somehow denying others of their identity?

  79. Amy — on 23rd October, 2009 at 9:42 pm  

    It is unfortunate that there are people with the same views as Griffin. They should not be allowed to be in politics.

  80. Reza — on 23rd October, 2009 at 9:57 pm  

    Ravi

    “This is a strawman argument. Nobody disputes that there are English, Welsh, or Scottish whose ancestors lived in this land for thousands of years. And nobody denies anyone from celebrating their heritage and their cultural identity.”

    But lot’s of people deny it. It was denied and even laughed at on QT last night.

    “I am surprised (and pleased) that you acknowledged something good about multiculturalism. But let me ask you this. Do you consider your children indigenous, considering their mother is English?”

    What would be good is if multiculturalism allowed the indigenous peoples of this country to acknowledge and celebrate their ancestral heritage in the same way that you and I are allowed to celebrate ours.

    My children are mixed race. (Actually, for once I prefer the latest PC term, ‘mixed heritage’). Of course they’re 100% British. But ethnically they are half English, half Iranian. That’s how they describe themselves to their friends.

    “Are you saying that Asians who feel proud of being British are somehow denying others of their identity?”

    Of course not. We should all be proud of being British. However, we have to allow the ethnic English to be proud of being ‘English’.

    Currently we don’t. Indeed as I said before, many people deny that there is even an English ethnic group. And that’s wrong.

  81. Boyo — on 23rd October, 2009 at 10:23 pm  

    “Poll Finds Voters ‘Considering’ Voting BNP

    10:03pm UK, Friday October 23, 2009

    More than a fifth of voters would consider voting for the British National Party according to the first opinion poll taken since the controversial appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time.

    Taken in the hours after Mr Griffin’s appearance, the YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph found 22 per cent of voters would seriously consider voting BNP in a future local, general or European election.

    Two thirds said that they would not be considering voting BNP under any circumstances, with the rest unsure.

    More than half of those questioned said that they agreed with the BNP, or thought that the party had a point, in wishing to speak up for the interests of the indigenous, white British people which successive governments have done far too little to protect.”

    I rest my case.

  82. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 10:26 pm  

    But lot’s of people deny it. It was denied and even laughed at on QT last night.

    Nobody denies what I said, let alone laugh at it. What people laugh is the BNP’s concept of “indigenous”, because it is simply a racial term to denote “white”. I would understand if the BNP wanted to do genetic tests to determine how much of your genes are from these British Isles. But they don’t defend that, it is – according to Nick Griffin – just a matter of how you look. This is just racism pure and simple, it has nothing to do with celebrating your English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh heritage.

    Of course not. We should all be proud of being British. However, we have to allow the ethnic English to be proud of being ‘English’.

    You are just parroting the rhetoric of the BNP, which is really absurd.

  83. Parvinder — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

    Rumbold: ‘Nick Griffin came out of this evening diminished’
    Ravi #32: ‘Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it.’

    Rumbold and Ravi, I totally agree with your analysis regarding each panellists and agree Griffin lost the argument in front of a largely multi-ethnic audience and liberal panel but…

    I still have my doubts that QT was the appropriate programme. Surely a Newsnight or Dispatches programme outlining the BNP’s policies and its Nazi /KKK links and allowing Griffin time to reply could have been more appropriate without the storm and publicity of the last few days?

    Griffin is now crying foul play and is playing the victim. So whether he’s given a platform or not, he still maintains he’s the victim. This may be a political coup for his party, despite being exposed as a liar and blatant racist.

    Don’t you think he has a longer game plan?
    I caught the Wright Stuff this morning, and the majority of callers were saying they sympathise with Griffin in the way he was treated. Most were not from cosmopolitan London.
    I hope I am wrong, but there is a possibility that BNP support in mainly white working class areas could rise in the run up to next years’ General Election. The depth of alienation in these deprived areas is such that even a few percentage swings could land them MPs.
    Griffin is no Le Pen, but the tactic is exactly the same when it comes to courting public platforms.
    In Denmark, the Danish Freedom Party dressed respectably, got on to media platforms to stir up their poison. Within a decade they have become the third party and racism has become respectable in the country.
    Again, I hope I’m wrong.

  84. douglas clark — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:08 pm  

    Reza,

    You know me, I am that annoying little Scotsman what doesn’t agree with you!

    No-one has told me that I must stop celebrating my culture, to the extent that any Scotsman or woman would actually want to go around celebrating it.

    Quite what it actually is: from a maudling tartanry to anti-Englishness to an invented past has been the subject of local debate for bloody ages. Without a resolution in sight.

    Generally speaking it tends not to be the whole of someones identity. Sure, it’s there in the background, but it is not all consuming.

    When all is said and done, why should anyone be proud of an accident of birth?

    Which, to my mind, is what is wrong with the BNP.

    Monomaniacs.

  85. dave — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:11 pm  

    ravi, i take it your aimming your point at myself, if so you clearly misunderstood what i wrote, i never wrote anything about indigenous, and neither did i say i hated the BNP or its voters, i stated that i fully understand why people are voting for them, and that i dont belive that they are all racist, more that they are sick and tired of being treated like 2nd class citizans in their country of birth, i totally disagree that all BNP voters hate me and other mixed races, what most hate are the never ending immirgration that this goverment has allowed to happen, finally i do have my own opinons, ive just given them, your problem is if anyone says something you dont like then they must be wrong? also i feel that when people enter our country they should adapt to our way of live, but no they insist on living as though they are still back in their own country, if you dont like this then tuff

  86. Ravi Naik — on 23rd October, 2009 at 11:40 pm  

    Dave – my point was with reza, not with you.

    In your case, I understand that some white English individuals feel a sense of entitlement, and they feel its unfair that non-whites in a time of economic hardship, are better off than they are. They feel – thanks to tabloids and the BNP – that immigrants get everything free without doing anything, while they don’t.

    In Reza’s case, I feel disappointed that he has fallen for the BNP rethoric. Nobody prevents English pride, Welsh pride, Scottish pride or Irish pride. You would think that no one is allowed to cheer for the English national teams (or that we had national teams), or celebrate St. Patrick. The BNP is selling a racist concept of pride, and when it is rejected, they say – you know, they do not want you to be proud of your ancestry. Rubbish.

  87. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 12:56 am  

    Ravi Naik,

    I am utterly pissed off with the entire entitlement culture. A better man than me said:

    “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

    There is no evidence whatsoever that we are about to adopt that idea. We have managed to import an American or Shakesperian idea that gangs is where it is at.

    This might get you in the groove:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA&feature=PlayList&p=3EF72D1E34CF8A79&index=0

    Just make the Russian guy a Muslim guy in your head.

    That is how we get conflict.

    Same as it ever was.

  88. Kulvinder — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:54 am  

    I am proud (and allowed by multiculturalists to be proud) of my Persian heritage. I teach my children about the wonderful civilization that once existed there. They ask if they are descended from the great kings, Cyrus or Darius. I tell them that it’s possible.

    Achievement through association is the first act of the unworthy.

    Presumably you also tell your children they’re descended from the various tyrants, despots and common criminals in your ‘persian heritage’

  89. flipside — on 24th October, 2009 at 2:11 am  

    Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

    Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed. LINK

    By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
    Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

    As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

    Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

    Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

    Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

    He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

    He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

    He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

    “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended ? even if this wasn’t its main purpose ? to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

    The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

    Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

    On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

    In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.

    He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

    But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

    “Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

    “But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.

    “Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

    “This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

    The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: “We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

    “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

  90. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 2:48 am  

    flipside,

    I think that that is a lot of shit. However, rather than cutting and pasting a piece of nonsense – that immigration policy started in 2000, and not in the fifties of the last century, could you do me the favour of doing some research?

    Save me the effort. Do it for your own sake.

    I’d argue that Britain, along with other culturally not very diverse, countries opened their doors to cheap labour to do the jobs the indingenous – remember that word – brits didn’t want to do for themselves, and were shocked, no horrified, when these people played the system and became Doctors and Barristers and such like. It was, at the time of Windrush, an attempt to import an underclass. And the fact that it failed is something we should celebrate. For an exploitative Empire that is gamed ought to be something we all admire and understand. Apart, obviously, by flipside.

    Bloody hell! Brits can’t do shit.

    The flipside of the flipside.

  91. Binky — on 24th October, 2009 at 4:11 am  

    - 79 -

    So the grandchildren of the Windrushers are all high-achieving doctors and barristers, are they?

    Really?

    How is it that every prison in Britain [and Canada, France, Holland ...] has a disproportionate percentage of convicted criminials of Afro-Caribbean descent?

    Ditto, Muslims. Muslims are three times statistically overrepresented in the UK prison population.

    On the other hand, Hindus and Chinese, like Jews, are underepresented statistically.

  92. Stevie Wonder — on 24th October, 2009 at 7:10 am  

    Yes Nick Griffin got a hammering from an audience that were dead set against rascism and fascism but were willing to accept extreme measures to bombast aguy with somewhat disagreeable views to their own. In fact if this had been 1930s Germany many of those in the audience would have been putting the boot it just like the Black shirts.

    Jack Straw is a clown, along with most of the cunning and devious clowns people have returned to Parliament.
    Yes Indians did fight in the second world war, they were conscripted to do so as BRITAIN ran the bleeding place and when we pulled out they went back to there natural habitat of slaughtering each other, 1947 when Pakistan was formed to seperate them. Plus we must remember that the japs were getting too close to their borders.
    Theres one thing though Jack Straws father didnt do much to help.

    People came to this country because they LIKED OUR way of life and our sense of belonging – now people come and want to turn Britain into some sort of free for all.

    These politicians are the creators of hatred because whilst we are hating each other, we aint keeping an eye on them as they rob and embezzle the tax payer.

    Non entities are being allowed to dictate policy, like climbing power station fences – what do these clowns want, shut it down and go back to candles????

    We have undergone drastic changes these last 30 years, and non of them have been for the better. Industry has been decimated and we are beholden to Europe for our very sustanence. Can go back to town gas if the russians throw another wobbler as you bleeding brain dead cretins have allowed all the mines to be shut.
    Cant build any war planes or ships to defend ourselves as theyve all gone.

    When was the last time anyone saw ENGLISH on an official document? the race is dead but that isnt rascism or acceptable racial genocide as traitors did it with the full backing of the ball less British.

    Wait till 2010 and yor all living on 64 quid dole money and queing at the soup kitchens and the Europeans are filling their bellies coz theyve got your job….

    BRITAIN is finished unless we get a true govt who are willing to put the BRITISH first, and that includes anyone born here irrespective of creed.

    Anyone who wishes to make these islands there home must be willing to give up joint citizenship, as when Im in the shitwe are are all in the shit together – coz I aint got nowhere to run back to, unless Canada is taking refugees coz Labour are starving us out…..

    Labour policy is to drag my 55 year old wife down the dole ( a wife I have cared for for 36 years and not been her pimp) just so that I can receive what I have worked 42 years for and thats dole money to feed us both, instead because I and she has refused to join there system we have to live on my 64 quid…

    I wonder if foreigners have to drag their spouses around to go cap in hand…..

    Im ashamed to be British….. and should have left years ago, but its too late as Im too old and no-one wants to take refugees from England – sounds like a mirror image of 1930′s Germany when no one wanted the jews….

  93. abcd — on 24th October, 2009 at 9:05 am  

    1. If this is a true democracy, then something as big as immigration should have been on the platform of every party at every election. The voters have an undeniable right to know. Those who are for it can explain their view, those who are against can explain theirs.

    2. This is not what Labour did. They won three elections without once being honest about their immigration policy, not in 97, 01, or 05. In the meantime, they decided to let in millions of newcomers. This is dishonest politics.

    3. There are those who will say Labour did it to bring in new workers. There are those who will say that Labour did it to strengthen their electoral base, since they had decided to shaft the old working class with their City-kissing economic policies.

    You can decide.

    4. There are similarities here with their approach to the expansion of the state. It has been shown by the FT among others that the majority of job growth in the recent boom happened due to the breathless expansion of the public sector. Why, one might ask? Some would say it was because Labour wanted to create an ever larger client base among public sector workers who would not risk voting for anyone else, since their very jobs depended on the continuing power of Labour.

    The credit crunch and the vast rise in state debt makes the shrinkage of the state sector inevitable.

    5. All the while Labour’s interference in education has lowered standards and turned large numbers of white working-class kids basically unemployable. See Terry Leahy this week. The young have no technical skills, a la Germany which has managed to remain a global powerhouse in technical manufacturing in spite of China. The mass-scale shipping of industrial jobs is NOT an inaevitable phenomenon, no matter what neoliberals in the UK and USA would have you believe.

    6. If the white working class feel they’ve been fucked, just ponder these facts.

  94. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 9:41 am  

    Binky,

    I was talking about the Windrush generation, and what became of them. I think that that would be an interesting study for someone to do.

    So, perhaps not all of them, but some of them became Barristers and Doctors. You could say that they reflect society these days.

    Your statistics, which may or may not be true, aren’t particularily helpful. Do you know how that breaks down between older, longer established immigrants and younger, more alienated immigrants? Do you have a correlation between age at incarceration, sex and testosterone? Or respect for authority? Can you break these figures down by country of parental or personal origin?

    Have you looked an inch behind the headlines?

    This, so-called alienation that you love to highlight so, so much, is largely restricted to young males aged from puberty to about twenty five. Sure, it’s a problem, but you use the issue in a particularily blind and irritating way. Do you have a solution rather than just difficulty stating? Y’know, apart from aligning yourself to the BNP?

  95. Binky — on 24th October, 2009 at 9:56 am  

    - 78 -

    Mass immigration under Blair; not a cock-up but a conspiracy, it seems.

    Well, will the story curl up and die now?

  96. MaidMarian — on 24th October, 2009 at 10:11 am  

    Just wish people would stop throwing around the phrase ‘white working class’ as if it meant anything.

    There is barely a working class in the UK at the moment of any colour – at least not one my grandparents would recognise in any meaningful sense. We should always be careful not to confuse working class with underclass.

    Griffins politics are of division, not race per se. He is just using the traditional divide in British politics – class – to push his them and us agenda. That many have been unable to resist the temptation to make this about identity politics is sad.

    flipside – out of interest, can you define, ‘immigrant.’

  97. dave — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:00 am  

    ravi, firstly may i apolgise for mistaking what i thought was a go at me, but i have to ask why do you keep going on about the BNP and their likes hating coloured folks, if you look with open eyes you will understand that its not just people of a certian skin tone they dislike, its the polish and others who are white, and thats my problem not agaisnt any colour of skin, but our countrys open door polices to all and sundry, like i always state im of mixed race and very proud of it, but mainly im british, its my country of birth, and the only country i would go to war for, if you attack britian your attacking everyone whos born here whatever their colour, so please stop making it out to be about colour, because its a whole lot more than that,this is what the BNP are all about making us hate each other because of our colour, dont fall into their trap, im aware this sounds like a contridition of words, but i say this because your points always come back to the issue of colour

  98. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:12 am  

    dave,

    If you are a British citizen then you are just as entitled to go anywhere in the EU as anyone in the EU is entitled to come here. It is one of the benefits of EU membership. I think it’s called a Treaty or summat.

  99. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    Binky,

    Do you recall the mass immigration from Uganda as a consequence of Idi Amins’ expulsion of Asians? Predates Blair a bit, doesn’t it?

  100. damon — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:35 am  

    The BNP’s press spokesman Simon Walker was on radio 5 last night, complaining about Griffin’s treatment on Question Time. It wasn’t fair he says and that they all ganged up on him and it wasn’t a normal programme (which is true, but so what?)

    Personally I prefer the approach of the BBC radio guy Stephen Nolan, who will take on someone like that, but still allow them to speak and say what they’ve got to say.

    You can listen to it (in the next seven days) by clicking on Stephen Nolan’s show on this link.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/programmes/schedules/2009/10/23

    It does make it easier that Griffin has these dreadful things like holocaust denial and hanging out with the KKK in his past, as it’s so much easier to demonise him. If they could get away from their ”Nazi” past (and get rid of Griffin to and find some leader who was less gaffe prone), I think they could do quite well.

    The message that ”that audience in London was not typical of Britain” and that London is no longer a recognisably English city, might chime well with some northeners (who had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about London anyway).

    I said on here a few weeks ago about driving through Harlesden near Wembley one sunday evening after a rugby league match had just been played there, and there were hundreds of fans from Warrington all stood outside some Harlesden pubs after the match, and I wondered what they thought of seeing this hugely multi cultural neighbourhood close up.

    Harlesden and Wembley are in the London Borough of Brent, and I just looked up some facts and figures about the borough and came up with this report from the council.
    http://www.brent.gov.uk/evidencebase.nsf/Files/LBBA-49/$FILE/0908%20-Borough%20Profile%20Part%201.doc

    It’s things like that that I’d imagine Nick Griffin would have liked to have talked about if he could have.
    And I guess that’s why he has to be prevented from talking about it. Because of the horrible BNP spin that would be put on figures such as: Brent having a population that was 71% non white British, and that 48% of the population were born outside of the UK.

    In the table about deprivation it says ”…. the majority of our neighbourhoods have become more deprived”.

    Immigration from poor countries leads to deprivation in British cities??
    That’s something that the BNP could say, so best to just shout them down as being Nazi’s. Though I do wonder if the ‘Anti-nazi’ tactic might be loosing its effect, as those studenty UAF demonstrations, and metropolitain revulsion at ‘fascim’ don’t have a universal appeal.

    I’m sure that Griffin would have loved to have been given the time to put his spin on this story about a turf war in north London between rival Turkish heroin gangs.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755260-armed-met-checkpoints-to-tackle-turk-turf-war.do
    He could say that that part of London ”was no longer recognisably British” …. and I think that many people who knew the area might know what he was talking about and agree with him.
    The comments section under that article are typical of regular people, and some of them sound just like the BNP.
    So I guess that’s why you have to try to get between them and the BNP, otherwise they might end up voting for them.

  101. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:41 am  

    flipside @ 90,

    I think the word you are searching for is exploitation rather than colonisation.

  102. damon — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:43 am  

    The BNP’s press spokesman Simon Walker was on radio 5 last night, complaining about Griffin’s treatment on Question Time. It wasn’t fair he says and that they all ganged up on him and it wasn’t a normal programme (which is true, but so what?)
    Personally I prefer the approach of the BBC radio guy Stephen Nolan, who will take on someone like that, but still allow them to speak and say what they’ve got to say.
    You can listen to it (in the next seven days) by clicking on Stephen Nolan’s show on this link.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/programmes/schedules/2009/10/23

    It does make it easier that Griffin has these dreadful things like holocaust denial and hanging out with the KKK in his past, as it’s so much easier to demonise him. If they could get away from their ”Nazi” past (and get rid of Griffin to and find some leader who was less gaffe prone), I think they could do quite well.
    The message that ”that audience in London was not typical of Britain” and that London is no longer a recognisably English city, might chime well with some northeners (who had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about London anyway).
    I said on here a few weeks ago about driving through Harlesden near Wembley one sunday evening after a rugby league match had just been played there, and there were hundreds of fans from Warrington all stood outside some Harlesden pubs after the match, and I wondered what they thought of seeing this hugely multi cultural neighbourhood close up.
    Harlesden and Wembley are in the London Borough of Brent, and I just looked up some facts and figures about the borough and came up with this report from the council.
    http://www.brent.gov.uk/evidencebase.nsf/Files/LBBA-49/$FILE/0908%20-Borough%20Profile%20Part%201.doc

    It’s things like that that I’d imagine Nick Griffin would have liked to have talked about if he could have.
    And I guess that’s why he has to be prevented from talking about it. Because of the horrible BNP spin that would be put on figures such as: Brent having a population that was 71% non white British, and that 48% of the population were born outside of the UK.
    In the table about deprivation it says ”…. the majority of our neighbourhoods have become more deprived”.
    Immigration from poor countries leads to deprivation in British cities??
    That’s something that the BNP could say, so best to just shout them down as being Nazi’s. Though I do wonder if the ‘Anti-nazi’ tactic might be loosing its effect, as those studenty UAF demonstrations, and metropolitain revulsion at ‘fascim’ don’t have a universal appeal.
    I’m sure that Griffin would have loved to have been given the time to put his spin on this story about a turf war in north London between rival Turkish heroin gangs.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755260-armed-met-checkpoints-to-tackle-turk-turf-war.do
    He could say that that part of London ”was no longer recognisably British” …. and I think that many people who knew the area might know what he was talking about and agree with him.
    The comments section under that article are typical of regular people, and some of them sound just like the BNP.
    So I guess that’s why you have to demonise the BNP so harshly otherwise more people might vote for them.

  103. damon — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:48 am  

    The BNP’s press spokesman Simon Walker was on radio 5 last night, complaining about Griffin’s treatment on Question Time. It wasn’t fair he says and that they all ganged up on him and it wasn’t a normal programme (which is true, but so what?)
    Personally I prefer the approach of the BBC radio guy Stephen Nolan, who will take on someone like that, but still allow them to speak and say what they’ve got to say.
    You can listen to it (in the next seven days) by clicking on Stephen Nolan’s show on this link.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/programmes/schedules/2009/10/23
    It does make it easier that Griffin has these dreadful things like holocaust denial and hanging out with the KKK in his past, as it’s so much easier to demonise him. If they could get away from their ”Nazi” past (and get rid of Griffin to and find some leader who was less gaffe prone), I think they could do quite well.
    The message that ”that audience in London was not typical of Britain” and that London is no longer a recognisably English city, might chime well with some northeners (who had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about London anyway).
    I said on here a few weeks ago about driving through Harlesden near Wembley one sunday evening after a rugby league match had just been played there, and there were hundreds of fans from Warrington all stood outside some Harlesden pubs after the match, and I wondered what they thought of seeing this hugely multi cultural neighbourhood close up.
    Harlesden and Wembley are in the London Borough of Brent, and I just looked up some facts and figures about the borough and came up with this report from the council.
    http://www.brent.gov.uk/evidencebase.nsf/Files/LBBA-49/$FILE/0908%20-Borough%20Profile%20Part%201.doc
    It’s things like that that I’d imagine Nick Griffin would have liked to have talked about if he could have.
    And I guess that’s why he has to be prevented from talking about it. Because of the horrible BNP spin that would be put on figures such as: Brent having a population that was 71% non white British, and that 48% of the population were born outside of the UK.
    In the table about deprivation it says ”…. the majority of our neighbourhoods have become more deprived”.
    Immigration from poor countries leads to deprivation in British cities??
    That’s something that the BNP could say, so best to just shout them down as being Nazi’s. Though I do wonder if the ‘Anti-nazi’ tactic might be loosing its effect, as those studenty UAF demonstrations, and metropolitain revulsion at ‘fascim’ don’t have a universal appeal.
    I’m sure that Griffin would have loved to have been given the time to put his spin on this story about a turf war in north London between rival Turkish heroin gangs.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755260-armed-met-checkpoints-to-tackle-turk-turf-war.do
    He could say that that part of London ”was no longer recognisably British” …. and I think that many people who knew the area might know what he was talking about and agree with him.
    The comments section under that article are typical of regular people, and some of them sound just like the BNP.
    So I guess that’s why you have to try to demonise them so much. Otherwise more people might drift towards them.

  104. Parvinder — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:00 pm  

    Back to the original article.

    Rumbold: ‘Nick Griffin came out of this evening diminished’
    Ravi #32: ‘Is he going to pick up more support after yesterday’s performance? I doubt it.’

    I totally agree with your analysis regarding each panellists and agree Griffin lost the argument in front of a largely multi-ethnic audience and liberal panel however, I still have my doubts that QT was the appropriate programme. Surely a Newsnight or Dispatches programme outlining the BNP’s policies and its Nazi /KKK links and allowing Griffin time to reply could have been more appropriate without the storm and publicity of the last few days?

    Griffin is now crying foul play and is playing the victim. So whether he’s given a platform or not, he still maintains this. This may be a political coup for his party, despite being exposed as a liar and blatant racist.

    Don’t you think he has a longer game plan?
    I caught the Wright Stuff this morning, and the majority of callers were saying they sympathise with Griffin in the way he was treated. Most were not from cosmopolitan London.
    I hope I am wrong, but there is a possibility that BNP support in mainly white working class areas could rise in the run up to next years’ General Election. The depth of alienation in these deprived areas is such that even a few percentage swings could land them more councillors and even an MP.
    Griffin is no Le Pen, but the tactic is exactly the same when it comes to courting public platforms.
    In Denmark, the Danish Freedom Party dressed respectably, got on to media platforms to stir up their poison. Within a decade they have become the third party and racism has become respectable in the country.

  105. Binky — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:03 pm  

    -93- Yes, I do recall the mass influx of Asians from East Africa – not just from Uganda – once the delights of black majority rule, confiscation, currency controls, nationalization [and so on] became reality. Those victims of Amin’s confiscations were far from eager to try settling in India or Pakistan; some managed to get to North America and the Antipodes, but Leicester was the goal of many of them.

    V.S. Naipaul is a good published source on the remnant Asians in East Africa and the American commentator P.J. O’Rourke came across a Tanzanian schoolbook which stated, inter alia, “… the monopoly position of Asian traders was ended.” [i.e. there was bugger all to buy in Glorious Socialist Tanzania except Chinese underwear and White Elephant torch batteries and Red Flag sanitary towels, as and when any of these non-too-desirable commodities were in stock. Which wasn't terribly often.]

    But what has any of this to do with Blair and Co. desiring [return to #80 here] “a wonderful new and dependably Labour-voting multiculti nation, so long as any knowledge of how this is/was being created can be concealed from Labour-voting thickies in Working Mens’ Clubs in Sunderland and Sheffield because the poor dim low-IQ sods simply wouldn’t be able to grasp the immense boon which the likes of Blair, Straw, Mandelson, Hodge et al. are/were conferring on them” [I am paraphrasing somewhat here, you understand.]

    Come across this, I wonder?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/judge-orders-apostate-rifqa-bary-returned-to-ohio.html

    An interesting case from the USA.

  106. Gibbs — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    This episode of QT demonstrated yet again the BBC’s wonderful ability to cock things up.

    EITHER they should not have invited Nick Griffin in the first place – OR if the were going to invite him, they should have packed the hall with typical BNP supporters.

    Think about it – a hall full of loud mouthed, drunken, inarticulate chavs – simultaneously making fools of themselves AND providing laughter and free entertainment for the TV audience !!!!!

    Instead – they packed the hall full of BNP opponents, helping Griffin to “play the victim”. This was the worst of all outcomes.

  107. Jack — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

    Stevie Wonder, at the end of his saliva dribling rant, says:

    Im ashamed to be British….. and should have left years ago

    Hmmmm…..you mean, become an immigrant? LoL

  108. Refresh — on 24th October, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    Bonnie Greer in The Times, says it all for me:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6888062.ece

    Note the point she makes about pre-1948 Britain and of course lays the blame for the injection of poison, that is the BNP, squarely at the mainstream politicians.

    ‘By exposing the two-bit rhetoric of his position, Question Time has shown that the emperor has no clothes. Now the long debate can begin. This long debate was never meant to be held on Question Time.’

    …..

    ‘I’ve travelled up and down the country doing Question Time and have been in front of all kinds of audiences, but frankly, the ludicrous non-sequiturs and outright nonsense that Griffin was spouting would not have worked anywhere in this country. The British people simply have too much sense.

    But if this is true, why does the BNP exist? Partly the reason for this lies at the feet of the three main political parties. They are largely responsible for the political vacuum that allows an absurd outfit such as the BNP to get anywhere.

    I have lived here for more than two decades and have had the privilege of voting in two general elections since becoming a citizen. But this election leaves me with a feeling of complete ennui. This is not only because of the MPs’ expenses scandal, which is an outrage, but the general insular nature of the Westminster village. There is a lack of the “will to live” right along the entire political spectrum.

    The problems in the economy have opened the door to racism. Out-of-work people, people who have lost their homes, their pensions, their sense of self-respect, blame The Other.’

    Excellent contribution on Question Time and an excellent article in The Times.

  109. marvin — on 24th October, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    Labour ministers are aghast at the new BNP poll, that says if we went to vote tomorrow 3% would vote BNP, up from 2%.

    If only they could have somehow gagged Griffin and the BBC for presenting him to us on the box… Less freedom of speech, when do we want it, now!

  110. Reza — on 24th October, 2009 at 4:17 pm  

    @flipside

    “The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.”

    If the Telegraph article has any truth behind it the it the revelation is dynamite. I hope it grows in momentum. Most of the other papers are covering it today.

    To deliberately socially engineer massive demographic change for ideological reasons is nothing short of criminal. One day I can envisage the perpetrators being put on trail for this.

    @douglas

    How strong must be your faith. The religion of ‘diversity celebrationism’ is surely as powerful as any cult.

    When newspaper revelation and opinion polls are routinely dismissed, as “shit” or “nonsense” it’s hardly surprising that you’ll just as readily dismiss what appears before your own eyes. Such is the power of your faith. Remarkable.

    Do you ever ask yourself, who are these dark and powerful forces deliberately trying to discredit your religion with “shit” and “nonsense”?

    Tell me, I’d love to know.

    In the meantime, keep your eyes firmly closed, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the multiculturalist prayers, the manta; “Diversity is our strength. Diversity enriches us”. That soothing feeling is the release endorphins to reward your competitive altruism and blind faith.

    Finally, this should worry everyone (except you Douglas, just ignore it as lies and keep repeating the mantra):

    “One in five ‘would consider voting BNP’ after Nick Griffin Question Time appearance”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html

    Imagine if the far right had a powerful and charismatic leader instead of a repulsive and obsequious toad. We’d really be in the shit.

    Frightening times.

  111. RezaV — on 24th October, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    flipside

    “The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.”

    If the Telegraph article has any truth behind it then the revelation is dynamite. I hope it grows in momentum. Most of the other papers are covering it today.

    To deliberately socially engineer massive demographic change for ideological reasons is nothing short of criminal. One day I can envisage the perpetrators being put on trail for this.

    douglas

    How strong must be your faith. The religion of ‘diversity celebrationism’ is surely as powerful as any cult.

    When newspaper revelations, statistics and opinion polls are routinely dismissed, as “shit” or “nonsense” it’s hardly surprising that you’ll just as readily dismiss what appears before your own eyes. Such is the power of your faith. Remarkable.

    Do you ever ask yourself, who are these dark and powerful forces are who deliberately seek to discredit your religion with “shit” and “nonsense”?

    Tell me, I’d love to know.

    In the meantime, keep your eyes firmly closed, stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating the multiculturalist prayers, the manta; “Diversity is our strength. Diversity enriches us”. That soothing feeling is the release endorphins to reward your competitive altruism and blind faith.

    Finally, this should worry everyone (except you Douglas, just ignore it as lies and keep repeating that mantra):

    “One in five ‘would consider voting BNP’ after Nick Griffin Question Time appearance”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html

    Imagine if the far right had a powerful and charismatic leader instead of a repulsive and obsequious toad. We’d really be in the shit.

    Frightening times.

  112. andy — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:28 pm  
  113. douglas clark — on 24th October, 2009 at 11:50 pm  

    Reza and/or RezaV,

    I tend to believe my own eyes rather than what I read in newspapers. End of.

  114. El Cid — on 25th October, 2009 at 12:07 am  

    Stevie Wonder, I don’t imagine you will visit this site again and read this, but still, this is for you.
    Of all the comments here, yours was the only one that piqued my interest. We have an aging population and we ignore/ridicule your views at our peril.
    I feel your pain. Growing old is no fun. I don’t need to be senior to appreciate that.
    I take issue with a lot of what you said but I am empathetic enough to know that your conditioning is different to most commentators here. I think if people here, regardless of their ethnicity, thought of their parents, and how they think, they might be a little bit more sympathetic.
    Firstly and foremost, you are wrong to think that the Indians and Pakistanis who fought for the Empire were conscripted. People who join armies do so for a number of reasons. It was a career move, principally. Is that any different to the modern British Army? You should show a bit more respect for the biggest volunteer army ever raised. The same goes for the Africans — hundreds of thousands — who fought for Britain in Asia (just think about that for a sec).
    And there are the obvious contributions that their children and their peers’ childrens have contributed to modern British society.
    You are pissed off. I think you have good reason to be pissed off. You are proud man and yes, your culture should be respected.
    And yes, there is a casual racism against your people that so-called progressive politics tolerates, which is dumb and disgusting.
    But hang in there; don’t give in to hate.
    The BNP is wrong — so very wrong. Let’s not go there.

  115. Binky — on 25th October, 2009 at 5:27 am  

    Just a wee bit off-topic, but I assume you all saw this:

    http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_news:c3498bd1eb327d346d9c6e7e11c0d29d/Saudi-female-TV-journalist-gets-60-lashes-Reuters;_ylt=AtoS660RcmeU5xrTyEczLaB0fNdF

    Not that one is necessarily opposed to female journalists being whipped, of course.

    Some we’d like to see whipped on TV, wouldn’t we?

  116. Ravi Naik — on 25th October, 2009 at 9:55 am  

    The concept of indigenous has two purposes. The first is to reinforce the “one-drop blood” racial rule, and the second is to create a social hierarchy – or a caste system – where one ethnic group is favoured over others on the grounds of appearance. I would have said on the grounds of how many of your ancestors lived in these Isles, except that the BNP doesn’t care about doing genetics tests to establish that. It is all about how you look. This is exactly what Nick Griffin said.

    Note that Reza in #73 is unwilling to call his children “indigenous” even though they have an English mother, and therefore genes that have been part of this country for a long time. Why? Because they are mixed, and thus do not belong to the “pure” ethic stock. Back in Nazi Germany, they also introduced the concept of indigenous German, where they counted the number of Jewish ancestors and if you pass a certain threshold, you would be excluded.

    Indigenous is an euphemism for white entitlement, which goes against the idea that every British citizen has equal rights and duties regardless of ethnic background. It has nothing to do with celebrating your cultural heritage, or even preserve it if they are inclined to do so.

  117. Kulvinder — on 25th October, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    I realise that 106 responces in noone reads any of this; its a bit like the question time audience or those nutters outside broadcasting house, a wall of noise.

    Still i agree – as i often do – with everything this man says

  118. marvin — on 25th October, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

    “One in five ‘would consider voting BNP’ after Nick Griffin Question Time appearance”

    Only 3% would vote BNP if there was an election from tommorow, up from 2%.

    It’s an odd question really. I’ve “considered” voting Green, Lib Dems, Labour, Libertarian etc etc. But there’s next to no chance of me putting a tick next to those boxes at the next election. It’s the Conservatives all the way now.

    So, back in the real world, a temporal increase of 1% for the BNP in real terms.

  119. Rumbold — on 25th October, 2009 at 2:22 pm  

    I agree with Marvin. Many people consider voting for parties. Given that polls and suchlike allow for an error margin of a few percent (or they should), this 2-3% number is pretty meaningless.

  120. Binky — on 25th October, 2009 at 2:59 pm  

    By the time we pass the #100 mark, nobody but a monomaniacal nutcase can be bothered to go back to #1 and read every point made, no matter how incisive and well-considered it was.

    In #106 Ravi Naik mention the issue of purity of blood.

    Let me assure him, and others, that the issue of racial purity is a real political issue and a real hot potato in Hawaii [Hawai'i to purists!] where the Polynesians [who insist on the capital letters in Native Hawai'ians] are yelling stentoriously and incessantly for their supposed rights like drunken Glaswegians misbehaving on Hogmanay.

    The glaring snag about their situations is that they are a minority, and a poorish minority at that. While they have the same educational opportunities as anyone else in Hawaii, somehow it is the East Asians and the whites who grab almost all the University places and the jobs which require professional qualifications.

  121. dave bones — on 25th October, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

    I have been speaking to quite a few people over the weekend, mainly white protester types who thought that it was a really good idea for blacks and asians to flood the BNP membership and take over, clearing the way for the rest of us to join too. People were all saying that it would be novel, refreshing and getting involved in something called “The british national party” which represented positive britains who wanted a fairer society would be really good.

  122. Ravi Naik — on 25th October, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

    I realise that 106 responces in noone reads any of this; its a bit like the question time audience or those nutters outside broadcasting house, a wall of noise.

    What constitutes a wall of noise to you? Anything you disagree?

  123. Binky — on 25th October, 2009 at 5:19 pm  
  124. S — on 25th October, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    http://sddramas.blogspot.com/2009/10/nick-griffin-on-question-time.html

    Please read and comment on my take on Griffin on Question Time

  125. Don — on 25th October, 2009 at 8:15 pm  

    …the majority of true, proud, Brits are thrilled to be living in a multi-cultural, pluralistic democracy in which equal rights are respected.

    Really? That’s what we have and everyone is thrilled with it? I guess if they are not thrilled they are not true and proud.

  126. Refresh — on 25th October, 2009 at 9:36 pm  

    I heard the Queen doesn’t seem to care too much for someone who wants to hang her generals and usurp her role as Defender of the Faith.

    Her Church is adamant it will not let the blubbing buffoon go anywhere near one of the world’s great religions. Who can blame them?

    Griffin (and Duke) is now news in New York too, according to Five Live. He’s becoming a bit embarrassing.

  127. Refresh — on 25th October, 2009 at 9:56 pm  

    And to think Barnbrook was going to take Griffin to the Garden Party.

    ERII could easily have been tempted to give him an impromptu knighthood, and in her advancing years I am sure she would have been excused for a messy slip in the ceremonials.

  128. douglas clark — on 25th October, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

    Refresh,

    Semi serious point.

    Y’know the thing that irritated me most about Griffin on Question Time?

    He kept saying “this is a Christian Country”.

    There is quite a constituency of atheists, and agnostics and Odinists who probably said to themselves, much as I did:

    “No it isn’t!”

    It used to be said that the last resort of a scoundrel was to wrap themselves in the flag, nowadays it seems to be to wrap yourself in a religion.

  129. Don — on 25th October, 2009 at 10:51 pm  

    First resort, Douglas. Always has been.

  130. Refresh — on 25th October, 2009 at 11:45 pm  

    Douglas, you raise a very good point.

    Scoundrels come in all forms, just add tradition to the following:

    Patriotic
    Secular
    Religious
    Democratic

    Its shorthand.

    And invariably scoundrels hope the audience they address don’t appreciate or understand the real value of each.

  131. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:02 am  

    Don and Refresh,

    Group hug!

  132. Refresh — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:12 am  

    Douglas,

    That could look creepy. I heard.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.