protests, legal challenges, BBC defence's, and finally tonight at 2235GMT the show must go on, so what do people think? are the BBC right to let the BNP on? should we instead deny them legitamacy on such a platform? if there constitution is truly illegal, why are they even allowed to stand in elections? feel free to answer and raise any questions you like
BNP on Question Time
- Thread starter SciFiBoy!
- Start date
Yes. They should be allowed on.
In a democracy where everyone is given a fair chance, it wouldn't make sense to segregate the BNP just because they're right-wing.
I dont get people at the best of times. I'll be watching for sure. I just can't stand this "They shouldn't be allowed to speak". It's ridiculous. We'll just see what they have to say
In a democracy where everyone is given a fair chance, it wouldn't make sense to segregate the BNP just because they're right-wing.
I dont get people at the best of times. I'll be watching for sure. I just can't stand this "They shouldn't be allowed to speak". It's ridiculous. We'll just see what they have to say
Spyro201 said:Yes. They should be allowed on.
In a democracy where everyone is given a fair chance, it wouldn't make sense to segregate the BNP just because they're right-wing.
I dont get people at the best of times. I'll be watching for sure. I just can't stand this "They shouldn't be allowed to speak". It's ridiculous. We'll just see what they have to say
I think the issue is the supposed racism, not just there being right wing (far right would be more appropriate surely?)
I agree if they arent breaking the law, let them on, I hope there views get lambasted though, cant stand them and think there abhorent myself.
Oh my, oh my-my-my-my-my... (K-on reference).
It's one of these things where I say democracy is working in technical terms, however in the light of things, it's not going to go down well.
I can imagine some hateful preaches and answers coming from Mr Griffin in the interview and the presenter (whoever it is) asking some questions in a sarcastic manner, indicating the tension between their political views. The broadcasting may even fuel a new rise of violent protests against the BNP, giving more issues for the police to deal with (as if that hasn't happened already :roll.
As fair is indeed fair, I just this this is still a disaster waiting to happen. People's tempers have already past boiling point, so giving a person known for his racist views isn't going to please anyone but the MEP - Mr Griffin.
It's one of these things where I say democracy is working in technical terms, however in the light of things, it's not going to go down well.
I can imagine some hateful preaches and answers coming from Mr Griffin in the interview and the presenter (whoever it is) asking some questions in a sarcastic manner, indicating the tension between their political views. The broadcasting may even fuel a new rise of violent protests against the BNP, giving more issues for the police to deal with (as if that hasn't happened already :roll
.As fair is indeed fair, I just this this is still a disaster waiting to happen. People's tempers have already past boiling point, so giving a person known for his racist views isn't going to please anyone but the MEP - Mr Griffin.
ayase
State Alchemist
As Evelyn Beatrice Hall by way of Norbert Guterman misquoting Voltaire said:
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Exclude people with abhorrent beliefs and you just push them underground, where they become somewhat enigmatic and more dangerous. Ban things and they immediately become more appealing. Let people speak openly no matter what they have to say, then you are also free to publicly point out why they are wrong. The day we stop people from saying something because we don't like it is the day we no longer have freedom of speech.
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Exclude people with abhorrent beliefs and you just push them underground, where they become somewhat enigmatic and more dangerous. Ban things and they immediately become more appealing. Let people speak openly no matter what they have to say, then you are also free to publicly point out why they are wrong. The day we stop people from saying something because we don't like it is the day we no longer have freedom of speech.
mangaman74
Akatsuki
If the BNP is as bad as some people make out then the best thing would be to let them on TV and make a fool of themselves.
Judging from the clips on BBC News 24 prior to the show being on BBC 1 it seemed as if the majority of the audience was anti BNP.
Between that and the riots outside the BBC it seems like the BNP got plently of publicity.
Judging from the clips on BBC News 24 prior to the show being on BBC 1 it seemed as if the majority of the audience was anti BNP.
Between that and the riots outside the BBC it seems like the BNP got plently of publicity.
It was worth the watch i will say. Griffin was quite obviously the center of the entire show, and so obviously he took the brute of the questions, however it was quite interesting to see the other panelists reactions too. Griffin was fairly decent throughout it, he didn't seem to disgruntled by what was said, but he did have to defend a lot of what he has previously said. He did however say a few reasonable things though, one of which was "Why trust any politician" which, no matter what stance we take, is entirely true.
Jack Straw was alright at points, but he made himself look the fool as well. He avoided a lot of questions as far as possible, and only after being pushed would he give a straight answer. This being on how the immigration laws affected the BNP getting their seats. The conservative member stood her ground, and i take my hat off to her for that. She was probably the only political member on the panel who was able to stand her ground well. The Lib Dem was alright, making a couple of decent points, but that was about it.
The only thing i didn't really like was how they linked the daily mails article about Gately to Griffins views. He answered the question on that like everyone else, yet he was still attacked despite it not being focused on the BNP. Now as said before, i don't like them at all, but know when to comment on them and when not to.
Jack Straw was alright at points, but he made himself look the fool as well. He avoided a lot of questions as far as possible, and only after being pushed would he give a straight answer. This being on how the immigration laws affected the BNP getting their seats. The conservative member stood her ground, and i take my hat off to her for that. She was probably the only political member on the panel who was able to stand her ground well. The Lib Dem was alright, making a couple of decent points, but that was about it.
The only thing i didn't really like was how they linked the daily mails article about Gately to Griffins views. He answered the question on that like everyone else, yet he was still attacked despite it not being focused on the BNP. Now as said before, i don't like them at all, but know when to comment on them and when not to.
ayase
State Alchemist
I disliked the homophobia point as well, the way Griffin continued to be lambasted but they seemingly allowed the Tory to gloss over the fact that she was against civil partnerships. That isn't even handed, and I worry the general 'Bash the BNP Time' theme of the programme will play into their hands, at least with their target audience. Griffin was given hell constantly, not only from the mainstream political parties but from the audience.Arbalest said:
The programme did however show just how isolated, ridiculous and above all scared to air their actual beliefs the BNP are, especially in front of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Surprise surprise. Happy to insult people behind their backs but can't do it to their faces eh? Hitler would be disappointed at his lacking strength of will.
Bonnie Greer raised by far the best points in a calm and matter of fact manner. The politicians were typical politicians, failing to answer questions directed at them satisfactorily and preferring to link them to the BNP or direct them to Griffin so they could give him another kick. I think the end result is that anyone anti-BNP will go away from it with a "Ha! We sure showed them!" attitude, BNP supporters go away thinking "It was all just another anti-BNP smear" The staus quo is preserved, and no-one changes their beliefs.
ayase said:
I dunno- I can see at points where you're coming from but, on the whole i'd say he put across things well.
I did feel sorry for the guy- every opportunity there was it was "BNP BASH!". I feel the BNP will probably benefit quite a bit from this, to be honest. We all knew that already though.
Spyro201 said:
He did put things across well, and he did keep his ground for a fair bit of it, but he did say a lot of things in it which where either debatable or contradictory to what he had previously said. He was trying to dim what he had said before down a fair bit which made him look less like a devil than he actually was, and to a certain extent, he did well. However he was still proven to be rather useless at getting his more personal beliefs across. Asides from that, he did well. He took everything he had thrown at him, and went about it more calmly than anyone else, even if he was laughed at. "almost totally non-violent" was rather laughable though.
I'd have rather seen more comments at the start focusing on his stance now instead of years previous to now, but there we go. It was always to be expected that everyone would pick on his beliefs that he stated from previous statements of his.
Spyro201 said:
Yeah I agree with you there. I watched it and despite the show afterwards saying that Griffin came off really bad, I think he managed pretty well against all those attacks. He doesn't have anything to lose really.
The show and audience was very biased against Griffin because it was in London. Few to none of his supporters are in London, they are in the more run down cities further up north, stoke on trent where I am right now being one of them >.< .
These are the communities that have always voted labour but see labour not doing anything to help them in 12 years. They arn't going to vote conservative and BNP says the things they want to hear.
Heh I laughed when I watched the news before, about the protesters to this, using words like democracy and rights to claim BNP shouldn't be there when it is exactly those reasons that they are there.
On a plus side to them, Griffin is the only politician that I have heard indicate that usury is a bad thing. He did that on the show when he was talking about Islam
Spyro201 said:
Except the Bible say the same thing the Qu'ran states. And whilst we're on that subject, Islam give rights 1,500 years before England did to an extent.
I've watched it and all I can say is, it was just another dig at Griffin rather than an dissection of their policies. I didn't care what the tossers says, I wanted a discussion about the polciies and their stance on political matter. I wanted to hear an in-depth discussion on how they view Interracial Relationships, as that affected me the most as I was born from a interracial couple and I'm in a relationship with a woman who's ethically white.
It's been mentioned once and it hasn't been tackled or answered. But I'm guessing it was very personal to me that it's not worth getting them at. But so far, it was just exposing the BNP as racist thugs. We already knew that. But what I wanted... was a dissection of their policies and where they stand.
Chrono Mizaki said:
That is exactly what I wanted to see. After all they do have some political power with two seats and a lot of people voting for them. It would have been very interesting to see what their polices and there aims are.
It just turned into a the other parties continuously bashing the BNP to try and ensure they look better. Not quite as bad as American discussions yet though
ayase
State Alchemist
Hear hear. I did roll my eyes when the very first question was about the use of Churchill in BNP leaflets and Jack Straw immediately started ripping into them. It could have been a much more interesting and enlightening discussion than it was. I have to disagree with Spyro and Asdrubael that the BNP will benefit from this though, Griffin did a good job of staying calm but he looked like an idiot. He didn't dare express his beliefs which, as was demonstrated by David Dimbleby, are a lot more outspoken (and a lot more reprehensible) when he's in private or surrounded by his supporters. The guy's a coward, frankly. He was given a national platform, but he daren't use it to stand up and say what he really thinks. There's no political threat from someone like that.Chrono Mizaki said:
And it's laughable that he attacks Islam for not giving equal rights to women when his party didn't want to grant equal membership rights to non-whites. Sexism: Worse than Racism. You heard it here first folks. Jack Straw was spot on when he said that the far right just aims for the easiest 'foreign' target at the time - the Jews in the 30s, the Blacks in the 60s & 70s and the Muslims today.
ayase said:
oh, okay, my bad, I misunderstood
it will be interestsing to see how the media react to this now.
also, this daily fail thing, im curious, if this bitch had a go at Gately and he was black and she said his being black was like she said his being gay was, no-one would tolerate it, yet we tolerate blatant hatred towards homosexuals, hypocracy rears its head once again.