[Update] BNP on Question Time this week - Page 22

Flyboy · 23-10-2009, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

He also didn't answer why one of the senior figures in the BNP though Churchill was a traitor for fighting the Nazi's.

Actually it was asked, but as usual he tried the old, "leftist press lies" again.

**Damien** · 23-10-2009, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Actually it was asked, but as usual he tried the old, "leftist press lies" again.

Actually I thought he wasn't pressed on the issue?

Flyboy · 23-10-2009, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

And I did laugh about how after Straw went on about people fighting the Nazis Griffin said his dad fought against them in the RAF and Straw's dad went to jail for being a conscientious objector.

That was nothing more than a cheap and irrelevant shot. What has Jack Straw's father's personal political and ethical opinions have to do with Fuhrer Griffin's belief that Churchill would have been a member of the British Nazi Party?

On the subject of Jack Straw, I thought the gave an very account of himself. I could see in his face, the amount of restraint he was applying, when responding to the odious little man's rhetoric.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Is it really that hard to understand? If Griffin had openly admitted the racial basis of his party and not come out with such crap as the guy from the KKK being and "almost entirely non-violent man" then I'd least respect for his convictions of belief. But How many time was he asked if he was a holocaust denier? I counted 4 times and when finally pushed all he said was he's "changed his mind" because of apparently "intercepted radio signals" by the British army, never mind the mountains of other evidence having been available for years.

I thought he was saying that the intercepted signals were about the four hundred Jews massacred in Eastern Europe.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Actually I thought he wasn't pressed on the issue?

It was mentioned, but he appeared to deny the status of the author of the quote.

BBCi Player 09:05

Ramrod · 23-10-2009, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

That was nothing more than a cheap and irrelevant shot. What has Jack Straw's father's personal political and ethical opinions have to do with Fuhrer Griffin's belief that Churchill would have been a member of the British Nazi Party?

About as cheap and irrelevant as some of the name calling he had to endure

All in all a complete hash up by the BBC and the panel.
When they actually let Griffin answer a question he was either cut short during his answer or his answer was simply ignored. That is not the way to bring the man and his party down. His views have to be picked apart slowly.....
He came out of it looking restrained and dignified in the face of blatant vitriolic hatred and name calling

Mr Angry · 23-10-2009, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

That was nothing more than a cheap and irrelevant shot. What has Jack Straw's father's personal political and ethical opinions have to do with Fuhrer Griffin's belief that Churchill would have been a member of the British Nazi Party?

Because Jack Straw's father was busy being a conscientious objector and not fighting the Nazis whilst Winston Churchill had previously advocated practices which were adopted by the Nazis. He's quoted, verbatim, in the War Office minute of May 12th 1919 as saying "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes". In effect, on that premise alone, he'd have been over qualified to join the BNP.

Also, as I stated above, Griffin is obviously a choreographic debater. How many British people, up until 10:41pm last night didn't know that the man who has sent hundreds of their sons and daughters to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan was the son of a man who himself was imprisoned for refusing to fight a war?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

On the subject of Jack Straw, I thought the gave an very account of himself. I could see in his face, the amount of restraint he was applying, when responding to the odious little man's rhetoric.

I think you're confusing restraint with rage, frustration and indignation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I thought he was saying that the intercepted signals were about the four hundred Jews massacred in Eastern Europe.

You thought wrong.

punky · 23-10-2009, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

That was nothing more than a cheap and irrelevant shot. What has Jack Straw's father's personal political and ethical opinions have to do with Fuhrer Griffin's belief that Churchill would have been a member of the British Nazi Party

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Although its now appearing Griffin Snr's RAF stint during WW2 is underquestion somewhat.

**Damien** · 23-10-2009, 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

About as cheap and irrelevant as some of the name calling he had to endure

All in all a complete hash up by the BBC and the panel.
When they actually let Griffin answer a question he was either cut short during his answer or his answer was simply ignored. That is not the way to bring the man and his party down. His views have to be picked apart slowly.....
He came out of it looking restrained and dignified in the face of blatant vitriolic hatred and name calling

He was cut short because he never answered the questions. The Holocaust thing made him look awful, and while he said the quotes attributed to him were fabrications he never denied each one that was put to him. You say his views need to be picked apart slowly but that was not possible because he didn't seek to justify them. He would either laugh awkwardly or make stupid statements (like the stuff with the KKK).

There may be debate on if Question Time increased his votes but I have not seen a single interpreation that says he looked dignified. He couldn't defend his views, he squirmed out of his own quotations (incidentally I know a lot of people are angry he was asked on them. Poor BNP asked to explain their own statements) and laughed whenever he couldn't answer a question or was called a racist/holocaust denier.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------

Incidentally people's fathers actions or inactions are not the fault of their children. So neither Straw nor Griffin are responsible for it.

danielf · 23-10-2009, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You thought wrong.

What was he saying or attempting to say then? I was under the same impression as Flyboy.

Julian · 23-10-2009, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

On the subject of Jack Straw, I thought the gave an very account of himself. I could see in his face, the amount of restraint he was applying, when responding to the odious little man's rhetoric

You are joking right?

There was only one question asked that wasn't aimed at Griffin. It was aimed at Straw and he bumbled and fumbled his way to a non-answer.

I agree with Mr A's review of the evening.

It wasn't Question Time it was personal attack time and it backfired badly. The rest of the panel were largely superfluous and the audience were not representative of the population.

Osem · 23-10-2009, 11:53

I haven't seen all of it yet but from what I have seen, I tend to agree with Mr Angry's excellent appraisal above. I don't think it was handled at all well by Dimbleby. Rather than having the paucity of their policies fully exposed in proper debate it seemed more like a one sided pub argument at times.

Jack Straw certainly lived up to his surname but Bonnie Greer remained very coherent and dignified which is very great credit to her!

**Damien** · 23-10-2009, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Jack Straw certainly lived up to his surname but Bonnie Greer remained very coherent and dignified which is very great credit to her!

She did do well. Slaps down Griffin when he tried to minimise the whole KKK thing.

Nick Griffin has enough platforms to get throw easy questions and not have to answer his own statements. It was nice to watch him unable to justify it. Even if people think it was unfair. Did people really want him not to have to answer these and instead make populist statements and walk off as a man of the people.

Ramrod · 23-10-2009, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

He was cut short because he never answered the questions.

He was careful to answer them head on imo....

Mr Angry · 23-10-2009, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

What was he saying or attempting to say then? I was under the same impression as Flyboy.

Ask yourself this.

How long had these types of radio conversations and intercepts been going on?

Follow that line of questioning to its logical conclusion and you arrive at "Why were these radio conversations allowed to go on for so long"?

Once people grasp this then it's evident where Griffin is going with his particular "road to Damascus".

**Damien** · 23-10-2009, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

He was careful to answer them head on imo....

Which ones. He answers the Islam one and the Gay one. He dodged the KKK one, his Holocaust one was pathetic and only answered after many attempts to get him to answer it.

He didn't have a car crash of a evening but he didn't get to be populist and I wonder how many people knew about the KKK? That he is against Mixed Marriage? Wants a 99% White Britain?

---------- Post added at 11:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ask yourself this.

How long had these types of radio conversations and intercepts been going on?

Follow that line of questioning to its logical conclusion and you arrive at "Why were these radio conversations allowed to go on for so long"?

Once people grasp this then it's evident where Griffin is going with his particular "road to Damascus".

I don't think the culpability of the UK government in allowing the Holocaust to go on is a good enough answer to detract from why he denied it happened.

Mr Angry · 23-10-2009, 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think the culpability of the UK government in allowing the Holocaust to go on is a good enough answer to detract from why he denied it happened.

Sorry Damien, you appear to have missed the fact that he now acknowledges the fact that it did indeed happen.

So, setting that aside, we're back to "the culpability of the UK government in allowing the Holocaust to go on.."

Over to you. Are you starting to understand the context of political expediency yet?