-
Some comments from Bob Bailey
"Yeah because every second house is an African, I'm not racist, I've got loads of coloured friends but when every second house is African, they're moving in, got two cars, bought houses, what can you say? We got nothing."
"The indigenous people have been stripped of their freedoms and rights, like a right to a job,"
What we have got here isn't a community. It's this group and that group. People move in, they're transient with their five passports. Nigerians. Congolese, Polish, Lithuanian, lots of Russians."
"They can be civically British, with a passport, but they're not ethnically British. Let's face it, it's the look-test,"
BBC website
What a gimp. I think he is missing the point, that if the work ethic that many immigrants display was adopted by the feckless, arrogant native workers in this country, a lot of this country's problems would be eased.
Griffo is far from stupid though. I can't imagine he will be overly forthcoming and let slip fragile comments like those above. The publicity from this debacle has served the BNP well enough already, and he may want to preserve that by softening the sharp bile covered edges of his policies. I just hope that the other panellists remain calm and do themselves justice.
-
If you ever wanted a better example of The Daily Mail and the BNP feeding off of one another, look at the most recommended comments in this pathetic attempt by the Heil to distance itself from the far right.
Just a tiny taster
If the extreme left, ex communists in government, the establishment, and the major political parties are against Griffin and his realistic views, then sense tell you to support him. These individuals have ruined my children's future. What is wrong with a political party that represents me, the major parties do not REPRESENT me.
- K. MARTIN, Calais France., 22/10/2009 9:12
Click to rate Rating 700
Report abuse
The whole of the establishment are throwing their toys out of their gilt edged prams.
The BNP must be doing something right.
With Cameron adopting the same policies such as womens shortlists and hugging hoodies and chasing the ethnic votes as Labour do, one of the most unpopular governments in living history, is it any wonder the BNP is becoming a real alternative?.- Jerry Owen, Hook Hants, 22/10/2009 9:02
- K. MARTIN, Calais France., 22/10/2009 9:12
-
I worry that he is sharp and slimy enough to avoid any obvious pitfalls and will come across to his audience as a reasonable option. There's been so much publicity the viewing figures will be far greater than normal, alot of whom will be tuning in to see waht he has to say for himself. He's unlikely to be frothing at the mouth like a gibbering lunatic, mores the pity.
-
An interesting perspective here: http://sarahditum.com/2009/10/22/guest-post-having-my-say-griffin-on-qt/
-
***This is a guest post by Nelson of spEak You’re bRanes.*
[INDENT]Do you think I don’t understand what my friend, the Professor, long ago called The Hydrostatic Paradox of Controversy?
Don’t know what that means? – Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would
stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way, – And the fools know it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
[/INDENT]**Like any thoughtful person, I think the BBC’s “Have Your Say” (HYS) is fucking rubbish. It’s not entirely down to the inherent futility of arguing on the internet, and it’s not just because the BNP appear to be actively targeting it, creating the perception that public opinion is skewed towards hate and stupidity. It’s down to the concept of “balance” which, in BBC world at least, appears to involve treating every opinion equally, no matter how idiotic or dangerous it might be.Unlike the Guardian site or the Daily Mail site, the BBC don’t often allow all comments (with occasional moderation, of course) but rather tend to hold everything in a moderation queue before making editorial decisions about which to publish. This is apparently done in an effort to keep things “balanced”. Frankly, it does my nut that, somewhere at the Beeb, there are otherwise intelligent people who subscribe to the idea that choosing what to publish and what to suppress is somehow going to make things more representative of public opinion. Presumably these people are so ludicrously impartial, so supremely capable of stepping outside their own frame of reference that they are able to divine the mood of the nation better than the nation itself.
As a result of this highly-educated lunacy, HYS is worse than “Comment is Free” at the Guardian and it’s worse than the Daily Mail, where everything gets published but people can at least vote comments down as well as up.
Everyone knows HYS is shit. It’s why I created the Speak You’re Branes blog and it’s why people read it. We all share this bemusement and a kind of grumbling baseline level of anger that the BBC are wasting our money nurturing the awfulness. But this is not why I’m having my say now. I’m always a bit angry about the BBC (BBC news specifically) whether it’s their refusal to broadcast a charity appeal when Palestinians are being murdered or the remarkable deference and credulity they extend to powers who’ve been caught lying and cheating over and over again. Today, however, I’m very angry at the BBC. Angry enough that I finally have to say something serious about their craven behaviour.
Tonight the BBC will host an episode of Question Time on which they have invited the ex-National Front, holocaust-denying, criminal, racist Nick Griffin to appear. You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not bang up to date with the fucking news but as I understand it Peter Hain tried to mount a legal challenge to this and has sadly failed. I’m very much behind the idea that, as a criminal “whites only” organisation, the BNP shouldn’t be accorded the same status as other political parties but what if, as seems likely, they change their rules to fit within the law? Much as I’d love to see every last brown-skinned person in this country join the BNP and destroy it from within, I doubt that will happen. We cannot oppose the BNP on legal grounds alone.
I think the BBC is presenting two, equally facile, arguments here. Firstly, let’s get the free speech thing out the way. The issue is not free speech. Free speech is what I’m doing right now. It doesn’t entitle me to get on Question Time. In fact, the kind of language I use would be deemed too offensive. Unlike that revolting wanksock Nick fucking Griffin. By preventing Griffin from appearing on Question Time they would be making the same class of decision as when they decide not to invite Gok Wan on. It’s an editorial decision. The BBC trust are mostly fairly clear on this themselves, but when the point is pressed, Mark Thompson starts to talk about democracy, censorship and free speech. Free speech does not mean providing a platform, on Question Time, for anyone that would like one.The second problem is the idea that, just because the BNP exist and are a political party, they are somehow entitled to be listened to. This is all down to the BBC’s retarded idea of “balance”, only now it’s not funny. It’s moved from creating a comically stupid comments board to legitimising a bunch of far-right racists and, almost certainly, contributing to their future electoral success. As Wikipedia puts it:
[INDENT]Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system:- Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media’s assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
[...] - If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting – a completely different system – where the first round is held in the court of public opinion.
[/INDENT]You may even be agreeing with everything here but think that the BNP should still be allowed to appear, in which case I’d ask you to have a think about where you would draw a line. Would you allow a platform to a party that wanted to bring back slavery? A party that wanted to take away the right of women to vote? A party that wanted to lower the age of consent to 14? What about 10? 5? 2? I’m hoping we’d all draw the line somewhere. My point is simply that we can’t pretend there’s some kind of universal accepted threshold, written on a stone tablet by an omniscient moral arbiter. We have to decide, as a society, what is and isn’t acceptable and draw the line at that point. Everyone I know would agree that all humans, regardless of nationality or skin colour, are equal. Yet the BBC, by allowing the BNP a platform on Question Time, have drawn that line in such a way as to make racism appear acceptable. It’s not a forced move, they’ve made a disgusting, cowardly choice. Fuck everyone involved.
7 Responses leave one →
2009 October 22
liquidindian permalink
“We have to decide, as a society, what is and isn’t acceptable and draw the line at that point.”
We had that chance. We had it back at the European elections. Everyone knew that the BNP had the chance to make ground. ” Two thirds of us decided to idly sit by and let one-third decide who should represent us. This is the consequence, and we get what we deserve.
Reply
2009 October 22
Nelson permalink
Right. And if the white majority voted to expel the black minority, that’d be what “we” deserve.
Fight it or shut up.
Reply
2009 October 22
Jesus Chris permalink
It’s a craven and cowardly move because the current mood has them fearing for their own funding model, and there’s nothing more apologetic and sorry-looking than an organisation at risk of losing its funding, be that PSB models or advertising models.
Even if it’s only a very vocal minority – and the silent majority are currently contributing £3bn in revenue via the TV Licence every year, quite happily – as the saying goes, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”. And there are some very squeaky wheels hanging around on the internet astroturfing for Nick Griffin – if only because in real life, as we saw when the BNP membership list was published, they’re proven to be wholly unacceptable views to hold. They get you fired and they get you ostracised. If they’re such a great party to be associated with then those people on that list wouldn’t give a fuck about their details being public. No-one is interested in the Green Party list, are they?
The problem is that the BBC is, like a few other previously decent outlets, increasingly run by dipshits with agendas they’re trying to be proud of and credentials they’re trying to stand up for. With the BBC it’s impartiality; with the Grauniad it’s their liberal credentials; the Telegraph tries to cram as much of itself as it can up David Cameron’s arsehole.
At least they didn’t pull that stupid shit that the Mail’s chief mouthpieces, Littlejohn and Phillips did – bitch about Islam and the tide of immigration one second, tell their readers it’s not worth voting and then complain that the BNP got a foothold in the godawful version of proportional representation the EU use. The Greens pulled in more votes than the BNP in that voting system on issues just as critical to their core – but they’re not slapped all over every fucking paper every single day.
Fuck the BBC, completely – impartiality should be weighted by a party’s popularity, not the objectionable characteristics of its leaders and not by how loud a couple of thousand of scaremongering gobshites can be. If it was, then Griffin and Brons would be hosting Blue Peter.
Reply
2009 October 22
Fin permalink
It’s not about providing a “platform on question time for anyone who wants one” e.g. Gok Wan it’s about providing a platform for politicians or party leaders who enough of the country has spoken in favour of, regardless of your opinion of them. You don’t deserve to be on QT not because of your language but because you have no political power.
I think you over estimate the power of QT the morons and racists who supported BNP before this will still support them, and it will just embolden everyone else who wants to see the back of them.
The electorate need to wake up and vote against them, this might do it. I don’t think the BNP or Question Time are strong enough to change anyone’s mind. Nick Griffin will be crushed tonight.
Reply
2009 October 22
Nelson permalink
I think YOU overestimate the power of Question Time to seriously examine anything. It’s not about changing people’s minds. It’s about the platform.
I think you also underestimate Griffin. He’s a convicted racist criminal who’s on record with his racism and holocaust denial. Yet he’s gathering votes from people who wouldn’t want to admit to being racist. And you think he’s going to be BAD at manipulating the media? That this Cambridge graduate is going to come across as a fool? God, I hope so but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Reply
2009 October 22
Nelson permalink
Curse you people. Distracting me. There’s a moral issue here.
I’m saying that it’s immoral to allow him on. It’s disgraceful.
As far as I can see, there are two arguments against it:
1) No, it’s fine, it’s only racism. Not something important like council tax or wheelie bins.
Nobody, except racists, hold that view.
2) Sure, he’s disgusting, but we have to let him on anyway. Besides, he’ll destroy himself.
I’m wary of any variety of pragmatism that involves compromising a fundamental moral principle. We have to decide where to draw the line. Then we have to stick with it. I draw the line so that we ALL have to accept that human beings are all equal. I’m happy to argue with anyone about taxation, education, health, finance, whatever. But anyone who doesn’t accept the basic equality of all humans can fuck right off. I think that puts me in a massive majority, along with everyone likely to be reading this.
Oh, also, how the fuck can a racist party represent the people of this country, when we’re NOT all “indigenous” or whatever the current euphemism for “white” is.
- Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media’s assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
-
from speak you're branes[/I]]
The second problem is the idea that, just because the BNP exist and are a political party, they are somehow entitled to be listened to.
Well, more accurately 'debated' (rather than simply listened to). And simply being a political party does not grant you entrance to the QT panel - it is that they now have (post European elections) the political mandate.
from speak you're branes[/I]]
You may even be agreeing with everything here but think that the BNP should still be allowed to appear, in which case I’d ask you to have a think about where you would draw a line.
Regardless of your politics, you would need a political mandate, that's the line.
from speak you're branes[/I]]
Would you allow a platform to a party that wanted to bring back slavery? A party that wanted to take away the right of women to vote? A party that wanted to lower the age of consent to 14?
What is this, the Muslim Council of Britain ?
:P
braker
mongrel
villa-ru
rpm
Magic_Torch
Dammit
somebody
|³|MA3K
wibble
hael
-
Post a reply
About
Official Nicky G on QT thread...
Posted by
@tynan
EVERYONE HOPING GRIFFIN SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT JEWS
MILLIONS of people across Britain were today hoping BNP leader Nick Griffin will say something stunningly offensive about Jewish people.
**
**
Will Mr Griffin accuse all Jews of wanting to eat your baby?
As the fascist pin-up prepared for his first appearance on Question Time, TV viewers said that if Mr Griffin really believes all wars are caused by Jews and that white people are more intelligent than black people, he should just come right out and say it.
Bill McKay, from Hatfield, said: "Oh please let him say that Auschwitz was a chocolate biscuit factory and six million Jews hid themselves in a volcano or changed their name to McPherson."
Emma Bradford, from Doncaster, added: "Question Time clashes with both *Crime Scene: Navy Crime *and America's Fattest Bitch, but Sky+ can only record two things at once. So if I am going to watch Question Time he better say something about murdering foreigners."
And she warned: "I'm telling you now, if this lunatic bastard is not the most evil son of a bitch ever to disgrace a British television studio, I will be writing to the BBC in the strongest possible terms."
In London, a group of campaigners has gathered outside the BBC television centre carrying placards urging Griffin to say something unbelievably entertaining.
Stephen Malley, who travelled overnight from Darlington, said: "Imagine if he claimed that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the real leader of Al Qaeda and that he performs weddings between gay, middle-aged gypsies and four year-old white boys. Wouldn't that be brilliant?"
He added: "I sometimes think that if it wasn't for people like Nick Griffin and Jan Moir I would have to find something else to do."
Meanwhile Roy Hobbs, from Grantham, who has staged a lone vigil since last Monday, was sat cross-legged and huddled over a candle chanting: "Please say Paki, please say Paki, please say Paki."
Mr Griffin has been leader of the BNP since 1999 and was recently voted Britain's fourth most dangerous human after Prince Philip, Noel Edmonds and Cheryl Cole.