[Update] BNP on Question Time this week

[Stuart]

From b3ta..

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

That's only because they hate Muslims more. Replacing one form of hatred with another.

True. This is also how the BNP do have links with Sikhs because as I understand it there is a long deep-seated animosity between Sikhs and Muslims.

I don't think misrepresenting the BNP is going to do anyone any good. After the debarcle that was Question Time even staunch anti-BNP supporters are coming out saying how it was rigged against the BNP.

The BNP have done very well playing the martyr and slowly gaining support. Its high time they started receiving the same scrutiny as the main 3 parties get. That IMHO will be what stops the BNP.

Punky - totally agree with you.

Originally Posted by punky

True. This is also how the BNP do have links with Sikhs because as I understand it there is a long deep-seated animosity between Sikhs and Muslims.

I don't think misrepresenting the BNP is going to do anyone any good. After the debarcle that was Question Time even staunch anti-BNP supporters are coming out saying how it was rigged against the BNP.

Well. Alleged anti-BNP supporters. There is a trend of BNP supporters and sympathisers claiming to be non-BNP supporters and being 'turned' by Question Time. In fact the same stuff happened after the Guardian did a hidden reporter story, and the same when the BBC did it.

Whenever the BNP has negative press there is a groundswell of 'support' from 'independent' voters. I think at least some of this is existing BNP voters trying to get a boot in.

I honestly do not know what people are complaining about. Did they really want the BNP not to be questions on the aspects of racism rife in the party and Nick Griffin's own history? Instead being asked questions as if it were any other Question Time?

I didn't see people complaining at the editions of QT where the expenses scandel dominated the agenda. Labour got pretty much the same treatment as Nick Griffin did! Jeering, Booing, People shouting things out. Even though it was not limited to Labour.

Incidentally I do not see where they were misrepresented? All the quotes were from Nick Griffin's own mouth. He refused to deny any individual quote apart from "Hitler went a bit too far". It seems he was presented with his own words, his own past, and his own policies and think it was bullying to be confronted with them.

[LondonRoad]

From the diary in today's Herald:

A READER watching bloated BNP tumshie Nick Griffin on Question Time ponders: “For someone who dislikes foreign cultures so much, he sure looks like someone who has had more than his fair share of curries and kebabs.�

Courtesy of the Super Soaraway Sun.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

I honestly do not know what people are complaining about. Did they really want the BNP not to be questions on the aspects of racism rife in the party and Nick Griffin's own history? Instead being asked questions as if it were any other Question Time?

I didn't see people complaining at the editions of QT where the expenses scandel dominated the agenda. Labour got pretty much the same treatment as Nick Griffin did! Jeering, Booing, People shouting things out. Even though it was not limited to Labour.

They should have just have run Question Time as normal. Instead it was focused solely on the BNP. All but one question was BNP related. Sure during the expenses scandal it was justified, but just because the BNP was on? Sure may be one question about should the BNP be on there but tearing apart their manifesto? Then there was Dimbleby. He didn't seem all that impartial allowing Straw to give off his scripted rant at the BNP. There there was the audience. I don't buy that it was overly multi-cultural but it was predominantly young and disn't seem to reflect the balance of politics or the guests on Question Time. And that's without going into the more paranoid/conspiracy theories like Nick Griffin being twice on the audience sheet and the fact all the quotes from other guests are solely from a mutlicultural perspective.

It accomplishes nothing. The BNP aren't held to the scrutiny that the other parties are. Furthermore the boosts you talk about is because being martyred like that often do it just reenforces what people believe - that they are unfairly persecuted. Even people like Alan Davies on This Week afterwards said the same thing.

Incidentally I do not see where they were misrepresented? All the quotes were from Nick Griffin's own mouth. He refused to deny any individual quote apart from "Hitler went a bit too far". It seems he was presented with his own words, his own past, and his own policies and think it was bullying to be confronted with them.

The misrepresented part is Foreverwar's post which is why I pulled him up on it. It is counter-productive, or even dangerous to take quotes out of context in order to address them IMO. The BNP need to be confronted on a level platform. Not only is there a moral right but ultimately that's what will sway the large bulk of impressionable voters away from them.

btw, I didn't pick you up on changing Gaza Strip to Palestine when you picked me up.....

Originally Posted by punky

They should have just have run Question Time as normal. Instead it was focused solely on the BNP. All but one question was BNP related. Sure during the expenses scandal it was justified, but just because the BNP was on? Sure may be one question about should the BNP be on there but tearing apart their manifesto? Then there was Dimbleby. He didn't seem all that impartial allowing Straw to give off his scripted rant at the BNP. There there was the audience. I don't buy that it was overly multi-cultural but it was predominantly young and disn't seem to reflect the balance of politics or the guests on Question Time. And that's without going into the more paranoid/conspiracy theories like Nick Griffin being twice on the audience sheet and the fact all the quotes from other guests are solely from a mutlicultural perspective.

Running as Question Time as normal was unlikely given the panel. After all one of the major news stories of the week was that he was on the panel.

I think it's just as justified to have a QT focused on the BNP as the expenses scandal. It was basically an show themed on the rise of the far right in British politics. It was Nick Griffin's first exposure to this kind of platform, so to avoid confronting him on these issues would have been amiss. You think if Jack Straw had said half the things Griffin has said he wouldn't be treated the same?

As you say about the audience sheet, it's paranoid. The Daily Mail photoshopped it. Heres the real one.

It accomplishes nothing. The BNP aren't held to the scrutiny that the other parties are. Furthermore the boosts you talk about is because being martyred like that often do it just reenforces what people believe - that they are unfairly persecuted. Even people like Alan Davies on This Week afterwards said the same thing.

They do not have the size or justification to be held to the same scrutiny. We focus on them in a way that is far disapproante to their eletorical success because of the vile and worrying nature of their party. UKIP and the Greens have move success nationally than the BNP. The election this year, the best for the BNP, still places them behind the greens and well behind UKIP.

It's difficult because we don't want them to go unchallenged but really they don't deserve special treatment.

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

btw, I didn't pick you up on changing Gaza Strip to Palestine when you picked me up.....

But the Gaza Strip is under the control of the Palestinian National Authority as is the whole of Palestine. The quote from Griffin was adressing governments and countries so I don't see the issue?

Certainly if i'm inaccurate its not deliberate.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

It's difficult because we don't want them to go unchallenged but really they don't deserve special treatment.

Exactly. Not special but equal and fair treatment. Something that a lot of anti-BNP people said they didn't get.

BNP being on Question Time shouldn't be news but it was. So maybe it justified 1 question but not almost every one. They wouldn't allow a QT to focus solely on the Tories and question their manifeso repetitively.

[downquark1]

I was half expecting them to go the opposite route and ask questions that the BNP had no policy on. That would have been entertaining to watch him sit there ignored.

Originally Posted by punky

But the Gaza Strip is under the control of the Palestinian National Authority as is the whole of Palestine. The quote from Griffin was adressing governments and countries so I don't see the issue?

Certainly if i'm inaccurate its not deliberate.

My original point was the fact that Nick Griffin was being

a) contradictory ("stand behind Israel's right to deal with terrorists" and "reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be") - if you believe that the Gaza Strip is part of the Palestinian National Authority, and the PNA is an Interim Administrative Body (a de facto government), and Hamas won a majority at the last PNA elections, surely he is interfering?

b) empty - at the time both statements above were made, the BNP had about 50 or so councillors out of 22000 (the Green Party have twice as many); not really in a position to make "accords". Also, reach an accord with the Muslim world - not even the "Muslim world", if such a thing exists, can do that; do we really believe that the diplomatic powers of the BNP can get Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc etc, to agree to something.

Originally Posted by downquark1

I was half expecting them to go the opposite route and ask questions that the BNP had no policy on. That would have been entertaining to watch him sit there ignored.

Then people would have said it was unfair and a missed chance that they didn't ask Nick Griffin anything he could comment on and for making look stupid.

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

My original point was the fact that Nick Griffin was being

a) contradictory ("stand behind Israel's right to deal with terrorists" and "reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be") - if you believe that the Gaza Strip is part of the Palestinian National Authority, and the PNA is an Interim Administrative Body (a de facto government), and Hamas won a majority at the last PNA elections, surely he is interfering?

But as I said - the accord to not interfere only comes into being after they "take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country"

b) empty - at the time both statements above were made, the BNP had about 50 or so councillors out of 22000 (the Green Party have twice as many); not really in a position to make "accords". Also, reach an accord with the Muslim world - not even the "Muslim world", if such a thing exists, can do that; do we really believe that the diplomatic powers of the BNP can get Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc etc, to agree to something.

That is a point but I thought it went without saying. However all parties that aren't in power produce manifestos as if they were. I wouldn't expect the BNP to be any different.

My point whoever was that the comment was really about Judaism not Islam. I believe you quoted it and addressed it out of context which should have been pointed out. I'm not being pedantic here and i'm not trying to attack you but it served as a pretty good example of what I have been saying continually through this thread.

There was never going to be anyway to do that program that wouldn't have had the bnp shouting foul because thats what they went on there to do he wasn't interested in proper debate he never is because he can't and quickly goes out of his depth. Had they run it as normal he would have been sitting there looking more stupid then he did (hard to believe i know) and the same reaction would have happened. Bbc was on a hiding to nothing having him on the show and i think they knew it there was never any chance of it running as per normal for QT as it was his first appearence and the public wanted him to account for past actions\words which he couldn't.

Had they tried to keep it normal it would have allowed him to drag it off topic every five minutes and they would have got slaughtered for allowing that. Fact is he went on the program of his own choice and he must have known what he was getting into and if he didn't then can someone who has sympathy for him tell me they really want him leading more then the bnp if he can't even figure out he was going to be called to account.

This is all staged hurt feelings by the bnp and it's all they were after another chance to play the victim for the gullible in this country. Bnp are not victims they never were and never will be though they have made an awful lot of people into that for no more then having a skin colour other then white.