If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Nick Griffin on Question Time
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What is your opinion on the BBC's decision to allow the Fuhrer of the BNP to take a seat on it's flagship Question Time programme?
Lets just take a minute to reflect on some Nick Griffin quotes..
This is a copy and paste of The Guardian article reporting the BNP's acceptance to the offer of going on the programme.
This is an article from The Evening Standard about the BBC trying to avoid clashes between the fascists and anti-fascists
I think it is really cowardly to try to avoid clashes, it is good that people are angry with the BNP and want to disrupt their activities as much a possible, they shouldn't be protected out of the public purse :grump:
(in my opinion neither should radical clerics advocating sharia law to go to the flip side of the zeitgeist coin)
Lets just take a minute to reflect on some Nick Griffin quotes..
I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat… I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter-day witch-hysteria.
Without the White race, nothing matters. [Other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create ‘Black Britons’, while we affirm that non-Whites have no place here at all and will not rest until every last one has left our land.
When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate. We have to have a body of trained young men capable of defending our organisation. If people come to crack our heads we will break theirs.
The chapter I most enjoyed was the one on propaganda and organisation – there were some really useful ideas there.”
This is a copy and paste of The Guardian article reporting the BNP's acceptance to the offer of going on the programme.
The British National party has welcomed the BBC's decision to allow its leader, Nick Griffin, to appear on Question Time following the far-right party's success in the European elections.
Although the BBC has yet to issue a formal invitation, the corporation is preparing to ask Griffin to join the panel show and is already consulting other parties about appearing with him.
The party, which won two seats in the European parliament in June, has not appeared on the programme before. Some parties, including Labour, have previously refused to share a platform with the BNP because of its policies on race. A spokesman for the party said yesterday: "Obviously it's good news. Of late, a large proportion of Question Time has been devoted to assaults on the BNP, so it's rather welcome that we are allowed to defend ourselves."
He attacked the Labour party over its past refusal to share a stage with its members and accused the government of using its equality watchdog to attack the BNP.
Referring to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's decision to take the BNP to court over its constitution – which states that only "'indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that race" are allowed to join – he said: "If anybody has an excuse for not sharing a platform with a political party, it should be us and the Labour party, but we believe in the democratic process."
After years of discussions, the BBC is understood to have decided in February that the BNP would have to be allowed to appear on Question Time if it attracted significant support in the European elections. Other smaller parties elected to the European parliament, such as the Green party and Ukip, have been represented.
A BBC spokeswoman said it was obliged to treat all legal political parties registered with the Electoral Commission with due impartiality. "Our audiences – and the electorate – will make up their own minds about the different policies offered by elected politicians," she said.
A Labour party spokesman said the BBC's decision had forced it to review its position of never sharing a platform with the BNP, while the Conservatives said they would treat Griffin's appearance on Question Time like "any other programme" and would ensure a senior Tory was present to counter his arguments.
"We have seen the BNP do well in areas where people haven't been prepared to tackle them and now they are elected we have got to face up to that reality," said a Conservative spokesman.
A Liberal Democrat spokesman said: "If they're being given the opportunity to debate, then we will appear with them and do our best to argue against them vigorously and to shut out their support."
One anti-fascist group has already said it will stage a demonstration outside Broadcasting House this week to protest against the BBC's decision. Weyman Bennett from Unite Against Fascism accused the corporation of being "complacent and naive" by treating the BNP as a "normal political party". He said: "We will send the BBC a letter saying that it's not legitimate to give them a platform of respectability when they have a policy of discriminating against people on grounds of race."
This is an article from The Evening Standard about the BBC trying to avoid clashes between the fascists and anti-fascists
Audience members for the Question Time edition featuring BNP chief Nick Griffin are being rigorously' vetted by BBC producers to weed out likely anti-fascist demonstrators, it was confirmed today.
BBC bosses fear protesters could disrupt the recording of the programme, due to take place at the Wood Lane studios on 22 October.
As well as filling out the normal detailed questionnaire, applicants to become audience members will also be checked for membership or involvement in organisations such as United Against Facism. Many are likely to be questioned personally and be asked to prove their identities on the door.
United Against Facism, which is planning a mass blockade of the BBC studios on the day, has also urged its supporters to apply to join the audience, putting a link on its website to the audience application form.
The Corporation has confirmed that it is working closely with the Metropolitan Police and Hammersmith and Fulham council to keep a lid on the protests.
The council is concerned at the potential for disruption to local people and has asked the BBC to pay for extra policing, which the Corporation has rejected.
Today, the BBC said it would not discuss security issues ahead of the programme, which will also feature justice minister Jack Straw and black writer and academic Bonnie Greer.
But a Corporation insider said: "Question Time has been going for many years and they have very tried and tested procedures for weeding out potential troublemakers which for obvious reasons cannot be aired publicly.
"But it is a very rigorous process. Because it is a programme which has featured cabinet ministers and others for whom security is an important consideration, the people involved in producing the programme are extremely aware of what needs to be done to make sure there is no danger or disruption from the audience."
Before being accepted, audience applicants are asked what political party they support, whether they back the leader of that party and their views on issues such as the Iraq war and Europe.
Scotland Yard intelligence officers are also likely to be closely monitoring the demonstrators in order to head off any planned disruption.
Corporation sources have dismissed suggestions that the recording could be brought forward to avoid the protests, which are due to begin with a picket line at 9am on the day. Similar protests are planned at other BBC studios around the country.
Question Time is normally recorded live at 8.30 pm, two hours before transmission, which also allows any disruption or interruptions to be edited out.
The possibility of moving the recording to another location has been considered and although ruled out at the moment, BBC sources have stressed the security situation is being monitored on a daily basis.
The source added: "What would be the point of moving it elsewhere when the Metropolitan Police has extensive experience of dealing with protests in London generally and outside the BBC in particular, where there are demonstrations over something almost every week. At the same time, the studios as Wood Lane are themselves a fairly secure environment, which is one of the reasons why the programme is being recorded there in the first place."
Most editions of the programme are recorded in public or significant buildings around the country, which would be less secure.
It was also pointed out that given the large public involvement, shifting the programme to another studio at the last minute was a difficult proposition - and moving it sooner increased the likelyhood of the new location being leaked.
I think it is really cowardly to try to avoid clashes, it is good that people are angry with the BNP and want to disrupt their activities as much a possible, they shouldn't be protected out of the public purse :grump:
(in my opinion neither should radical clerics advocating sharia law to go to the flip side of the zeitgeist coin)
0
Comments
As to whether he should be protected from the public purse - he shouldn't need to be. But if people want to do him harm then of course he should be protected from violence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJy-bMOj3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQo5Vl02KTQ
btw the panel will consist of Nick Griffin, Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Sayeeda Warsi and Bonnie Greer.
What could do damage is the actual questions. Let's take an example. If he's asked about MPs expenses for example, Griffin is unlikely to reply that white MPs should be entitled to claim more in expenses than blacks, is he? You can't really attack the BNP's record on that issue, after all - they haven't got any MPs in Parliament yet. If he's asked about topics like immigration, his views on the Jan Moir article and so on, they could lay some punches into him.
But they won't. I can't see Jack Straw tearing him a new arsehole live on TV, can you?
To be honest that's just bollocks by Johnson in an attempt to censor views he doesn't like. Griffin is an elected MEP representing a percentage of the population. I don't like him, but free speech means having to put up with those we don't like or it means nothing at all (and don't get me into the stupidity of the court action by the Equalities Commission - it seems that there are people trying to do everything but the thing that has been most succesful at combatting ideas - arguing against them)
Yes. To be quite honest. Jack Straw's a pretty good debater, and Nick Griffin is an idiot in a suit. I'm confident that most politicians would tear him a new arsehole in a debate, but if I had to pick someone from Labour, Jack Straw would be near the top of the list.
I'm not Sayeeda Warsi's biggest fan, but the Tories have probably picked the person best placed to call him on any bullshit he comes out with regarding, shall we call it community cohesion? That combination of minority rights, women's rights and knowledge of Islam should prevent Nick Griffin coming out with any of his usual bullshit (and a one-on-one interview is far easier than something like Question Time).
I'm just disappointed there's not a real economic heavyweight on the panel, particularly since the question of Europe is bound to come up now the Lisbon treaty is as good as ratified.
At the end of last Thursdays Question Time when David Dimbleby announced that "on next weeks panel we will have Nick Griffin" some members of the audience predictably booed. I wonder what it’s gonna be like this Thursday.
One thing’s for sure. Whatever you think of Nick Griffin, you can’t deny that he is a clever articulate man (he went to Cambridge ffs). If Richard Barnbrook was on the panel then he’d come across as an uneducated thug with a constant chip on his shoulder, but not Nick Griffin. The BNP are definitely putting their 'best' member on the QT panel.
I think we should also accept the fact that we may well get through the whole episode without Nick Griffin saying anything that we particularly disagree with.
If the first question is about transport, the second question is about university education and the third question is about the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan then Nick Griffin may well answer along these lines…
1) We oppose any further airport expansions such as Heathrow and we should instead invest in the rail infrastructure.
2) The idea of 50% of our youth going to university is ridiculous. University should only be for bright people and we should invest more in apprenticeships.
3) We oppose these wars and we should pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
^ I’ve heard Nick Griffin say those things about transport, education and the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and many people will indeed agree with those views.
However, if the questions are about immigration, homosexuality, mixed-race relationships and whether we should reinstate corporal punishment in schools then he’d obviously express some rather unsavoury/unpopular views.
After a privilaged, private education, ending up with a 2:2 in history and law. Not bad, but it doesn't make him Einstein ffs.
Anyway, we know what the questions will be. It'll be about 45 minutes for MPs expenses and 10 minutes for the actual important issues, as usual.
In all seriousness, the questions are based on what is most asked by the public, and given the publicity surrounding this, you can guarantee a few Nick-baiting questions in there. The BNP membership question is guaranteed. Other than that, Afghanistan is a given, and the Post Office strikes are likely. Then it'll be whatever happens between now and Thursday. The BNP undoubtedly have some deliberately populist policies though, such as not taxing income until an pretty high level. But it's easy to have policies like that when you know you'll never have to impliment them. That's why I think it would've been better to have someone with a bit of economic nous on there to probe him on exactly how he'd pay for such things, especially given the apparent policy of international isolation.
I never had much time for Peter Hain but kudos to him on this issue.
Regarding all of you here who keep going on about "freedom of speech", you're missing the point entirely.
The BNP is allowed the same freedom of speech as the rest of us. They are allowed to exist, they are allowed to participate in elections, they are allowed to speak, to campain, to publish leaflets and manifestoes.
So there is no question about their freedom of speech being infringed.
BBC's Question Time is a respected political debate programme to which one has to be invited on at the discretion of the programme makers.
It is not linked in any way to election results; nor does winning a seat in an election, be national, local or European, gives anyone the right to appear. Those who make the panel do so entirely on the discretion and preferences of the editor of the programme.
It is therefore wrong to suggest the BNP has a 'right' be appear there. It doesn't.
The BBC should have never invited a bunch of fascist, racist thug cunts and peddlers of lies and hatred to the panel where respected politicians from normal political parties and other such public figures appear. Simple as that. End of.
I really agree with Flashman's Ghost's opinion here.
We need to remember that we live in a society that cherishes free speech. That should always be the perogative. If there is a marginalised view that the vast majority of us disagree with, then even that should be allowed a voice. Whether the BBC wants to host it is up to them, they are independent afterall, but I think it's part of their remit to be impartial politically. As an elected political representative, then, they should give him as much coverage as they would give any other representative.
I place my faith not in controls on the media we listen to, but on the people in our society to make the right decision based on being informed about what the different parties represent. Whether they do that is a different matter, and is probably why I class myself as a 'moderate' with no political alleigance (I just prefer to point out flaws with other people's views, but perhaps that's because I'm grumpy).
Let him talk, I say. He doesn't need to dominate the stage. It annoys me when fanatics from any side of the political spectrum get far more coverage than they are due. I actually had to complain to the BBC when one question time, the unpopular Geoff Hoon wasn't allowed to respond to complaints from the rest of the panel, giving basically a one sided argument. I think anyone who shouts down someone else on Question Time should be given a warning, and then if they continue to do it, should be asked to leave the stage until the next question.
The BBC journalism is fairly populist these days however, and will just go with whatever is the most entertaining i.e. ripping unpopular people / moaning about peadophiles / MPs expenses you name it. (Without mentioning how many times more they get paid than the prime minister)
This is just a verbose way of telling me what I'm allowed to hear, and where I'm allowed to hear it from. You don't like the BNP's opinions, so I'm not allowed to hear them.
I'm right behind Christopher Hitchens when he says: "To whom would you trust the job of telling you what you are and aren't allowed to hear?". Well not you Aladdin, that's for sure.
He also remarks: "Every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action". I couldn't agree more.
We've been through this before. If the local drunken conspiracy nut had got elected to public office, then sure, let him appear on QT.
The BNP is not a normal party. It's an abomination, and it has no place whatsoever amongst a panel of respected politicians, artists, campaigners or journalists. By inviting them we are legitimising their abhorrent stance.
Anyways, I think Peter Hein does have a point. The BNP is in breach of the law, and until it changes its consitution it will continue to be so. How on earth can a party in breach of the law be invited to QT?
However, much as you may despise everything about him, he is politician, democratically elected to public office by the electorate of this country. Comparing him to the local nut in the pub is as ludicrous as comparing elected Greens to the smelly workshy hippy types who tunnel under airports and live in bivouacs and deliberately goad the police and their dogs into reaction to claim police brutality, or the animal rights nutters who dig up the head of HLS' deceased mother.
By calling for the banning of the BNP, either from office or from something as banal as QT, you are doing exactly what they want to do. If you want to beat them, then the best way is to give them the platform upon which to speak and let them freely espouse their ideas and most people will be able to see for themselves how ludicrous some of their policies are.
If, however, you go down the route that I fear some of the QT audience will and boo and hiss like a fucking pantomime audience every time Griffin opens his gob, then only one group of people ends up looking sad, petty and ultimately, undemocratic, and it ain't old Nicky. I fear that if they do, the left will show themselves as fascist and as intolerant as the party they seek to decry.
I don't see why people are seeing this as such a massive deal. Granted, the BNP will be gaining prime-time coverage on BBC1, however, anyone with a brain and an internet connection can freely peruse the BNP's website and see for themselves how the party describe themselves and see their manifesto. QT is not the be-all and end-all of the political debate.
I'm not sure the silly costume brigade are in elected office anywhere at the moment, but if they were, and if QT invited them on, depending on what the topics talked about were, I might think that them being on QT was a bit silly. I certainly wouldn't demand that they be banned from QT because I thought it was silly.
However, the silly costume comparison is fallacious. Nick Griffin and the BNP are serious about what the believe in; they're elected members of the European Parliament based on what they believe. Their voice should be heard.
No-one is denying the BNP are bell-ends. You don't think they have a place on the platform, and I do. I'd rather not see that fuck-wit Chami Shakrabarti on QT as often as she is, but I don't call for her to be gagged - which, as I find her views often dangerously over-simplistic, under your criteria I'd be fine to do.
This just suits your bias.
Do you really think so? I find him cautious, fumbles for words and has had a few whippings in the House on a number of occasions. I think Hain is a prat but I think he would make QT far more uncomfortable for Griffin.
None should underestimate Nick Griffin just because one perceives him to be an 'idiot' because he is in the BNP. He won scholarships to attend prestigious schools while a boy and holds a degree from Cambridge in History and Law.
He is a clever, shrewd man and a capable debater. Send in a light-weight to deal with him at your peril.
Nobody is suggesting (at least not in the case of the BBC apperance) that the BNP should be 'banned' or 'gagged'. We are saying it is completely inappropriate for the BBC to invite them in, and that it should not happen.
The BNP are still at full liberty to express their views in a near infinite number of ways and media. They are not 'banned' or 'gagged' from doing so. But as a suppossedly respected and socially responsible broadcasting organisation, the BBC is doing the wrong thing by inviting the BNP to its flagship political programme.
Apparently broadcasting an emergency appeal for the people of Gaza would be inappropriate, lest it offends the other lot, but inviting race supremacist fascists is perfectly okay...
Ahem...
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=2270360&postcount=34
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=2270360&postcount=40 especially the phrase "We're supposed to be opposing an odious ideology by all legal means possible"
You don't like the BNP and wish to see them banned. No shame in admitting that. This is clear for anyone to see. And that's ok, believe me, I'm not judging you. We're all prejudiced and we all judge. However, don't say that you believe in freedom of speech and all that when you come up with the stuff above, as it's patently clear that you only believe in freedom of speech when you agree with what they're saying.
At this point in time we are arguing whether they should be given platform on a respected political TV programme produced by the BBC. That has nothing to do with banning them. They would not be any more 'banned' from anything that I would be from appearing on the same panel.
I've said it before and I'll have to say it again. Winning a seat at a European (or for that matter, any other) election does not give the BNP or anyone else automatic right to be invited to the panel of BBC's Question Time.
Unless there's something about that in the BBC Charter I am unaware of.
None should underestimate Nick Griffin just because one perceives him to be an 'idiot' because he is in the BNP. He won scholarships to attend prestigious schools while a boy and holds a degree from Cambridge in History and Law.[/QUOTE]
He won one scholarship to one college at the age of 16. The previous 11 years of private education where bankrolled by his wealthy family. He got a 2:2 at Cambridge, compared to David Cameron and Gordon Brown's first. Don't get me wrong, he's not thick. But we're not talking about anything special by MP's standards.
You're taking him way too seriously. Obviously you've got to prepare for any BS he might come out with, but in a debate, intellectual ability is always second to intellectual honesty. Nick Griffin's opinion is emotionally based, not rationally based. Every opinion he has on a series of issues is entirely the result of his racism, not an objective analysis of the facts. Now you can take that opinion and then intellectualize it, but ultimately, it just takes the right question to reveal your BS for what it is, because it will leave you unable to objectively assess the facts. And it doesn't matter how intelligent you are. I've seen Francis Collins, one of the greatest intellectuals of our lifetime, look like a bumbling baffoon when trying to justify his Christianity in objective scientific terms (rather than emotional terms, which would be fair enough). It's because doing so forces him to be intellectually dishonest, and Griffin's racism does exactly the same thing when discussing any issues where it might be slightly relevant.
The format of Question Time also doesn't play into his hands, like a one-on-one interview or debate, where you can simply saturate the discussion with so many points that inevitably your opponent will not be able to answer them all, and the fact that you've ignored questions isn't picked up on. I've seen plenty of people debate in this way, and it takes a skilled debater to pick people up on the key points and insist that they answer it. But because on Question Time, you're listening far more that you're talking, it is very difficult to dodge any questions without making it very obvious you're doing so.
Trust me, any intellectually honest person with a reasonably well-researched argument can beat Griffin in a debate on issues like immigration. It will depend on what questions come up though, because obviously there are plenty of issues that would allow him to go on the offensive instead. Because Nick obviously isn't the only politician who has agendas that affect their intellectual honesty. But something tells me that the most popular questions this week might reflect the fact that he's on the show.
You can phrase it differently if you like, but you are advocating that Nick Griffin and the BNP should not be allowed to appear on QT - you are in support of them being banned from appearing on QT. I don't see how that's a misleading representation of your stance. If you were saying that you think it inappropriate to have them on QT, but respect freedom of speech and the BBC's due impartiality, that'd be different.
You want to pick and choose when and where I'm allowed to hear NG speak. I'm saying that you shouldn't be afforded that privilege.
I'm not particularly well informed on the topic of Gaza and the BBC not broadcasting appeals for aid. It's a distraction to the debate in hand, though. The case for the BNP being allowed to appear on QT can be made on its own merits.
As it happens, nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps you think my freedom of speech is, for instance, unaceptably trampled on because I am not allowed to claim onto the pulpit at Westminster Abbey on Easter Sunday service and tell the congregation why their religion stinks.
And you would be wrong. Because I would be allowed to make such claims outside the church and just about everywhere I pleased.
Perhaps you think people's freedom of speech is restricted if they are not allowed to say what they please absolutely anywhere. That, I guess, might be your opinion, but in mine it's an extremely bizarre concept of what freedom of speech is.
The day the BNP is banned from speaking everywhere and there is a blanket boycott of them in the media, we can start talking about their freedom of speech being restricted.
Until then, pretending so because some of us object to them appearing on an edition of one political programme on one TV channel is, IMO, nothing short of ludicrous.
No-one has argued that QT is the only place for the BNP to have their say. In fact, I don't understand why QT has suddenly become hallowed ground, unable to be trespassed upon by people whose views you don't agree with. Would you ban the BNP from appearing on the BBC completely in an attempt to curb their popularity? Or maybe just have NG's voice replaced with that of an actor, perhaps?
Your comparisons are once again fallacious and disingenuous. Curtailment of free speech doesn't only happen when you've been banned from speaking everywhere. I think your objections are more akin to me inviting NG to speak at my local church meeting, and you telling me I'm not allowed to.
Had it been a private broadcaster I would certainly have a lot less of an issue with it. But it isn't. It is the BBC. Which is meant to have a duty of care towards this nation.
First of all- I hate BNP. They are a disgusting party, and anyone who defends them is just as bad as they are... and, seriously, how can you defend racisim?
And, to the quote I have there from Aladdin, I think it was in Nottinghamshire a dog was entered in a local election (forest fields I think). It got a lot more votes than other parties...
X
Still, I'm delighted to see that Labour are so scared of the BNP that they want to stop this debate going ahead at any rate - only a few weeks ago, Labour complained when the Shadow Culture Secretary told the BBC they should hire more Tories. This was interference in the Beeb, we were told. Yet now we see Labour is more than happy to interfere itself. The hypocritical bastards.
Perhaps Nick Griffin, when Jack Straw starts droning on endlessly about how the BNP are racist cunts - which they are, there is no doubt - Griffin would like to remind Labour of how they steal BNP policies when it suits them. Such as in this instance. Because it's obviously not fascism when New Labour does it, is it?
Defend them how? I'll defend the BNP's right to free speech as long as it's within the boundaries of the law. What's that famous quote? 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.