Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Some advice to all BNP members out there...

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And who's going to appearing with him? Ah yes, Jack "Man Of" Straw. I can't somehow see Griffin being torn a new arsehole live on air by Straw, can you?

    Shame, as someone needs to rip the racist cunt apart.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have absolutely no issue with the BNP being on QT. They are, last time I checked, a legal, democratically-elected party who are as entitled to a slot on QT as anyone else. Given the amount of nauseating, mud-hut-dwelling lefties that have been on recently, it's only fair to allow the far right on as well to hear what they've got to say for themselves.

    I for one am genuinely interested to hear what Griffin has to say. Not that I am a BNP supporter (I'm Tory through and through), but being completely alienated by the failed neo-socialist experiment that is New Labour, I fancy seeing something a bit different.

    Doubtlessly the left will kick up a huge stink about this, revealing themselves to be no more permissive or tolerant than those they seek to decry. "Racists, fascists, blah, blah ad nauseum" they shall holler. And the populus shall beat their breasts, and rent their clothes asunder, because everyone knows the hardcore left are no better than the hardcore right, no less militant in the imposition of their own views, and no more tolerant of those who diegn disagree with them, put their recycling in the wrong coloured bin, or not hang on George Monbiot's every word.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just a quick bump:

    Nick Griffin is to appear on QT

    Excellent news IMO.
    Well, now certainly this is (yet another) chance for the BNP "to be exposed for what they are" so everybody knows what they are about.

    So shall we do a little wager? If Griffin's arguments are comprehensively demolished and it is subsequently claimed the BNP has lost a significant part of its support, I will accept that it is okay to give the racist cunts exposure, and indeed allow them to exist.

    If however the lies and half truths the BNP peddles are not comprehensively and inequivocally smashed, and there are no reports of damage to its potential election prospects after this apperance, will all of you finally admit that the cunts simply must not be given a platform to speak at all in the first place, if not being banned altogether?

    Because I have to say I've been waiting for many years for this fabled opportunity to "expose the BNP" to the public, but somehow it just doesn't happen...

    Regardless of what good or bad it's going to do, I think it's nothing short of a motherfucking disgrace that such surplus cunts are given a platform in a respected political programme. Can we have paedophiles expressing their wishes that sex with children should be legal as well? Can we have a random pisshead off the street who claims the Jews control the world on some kind of conspiracy on the panel of QT as well? And if not, what difference is there between them and the little fascist cunt?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So shall we do a little wager? If Griffin's arguments are comprehensively demolished and it is subsequently claimed the BNP has lost a significant part of its support, I will accept that it is okay to give the racist cunts exposure, and indeed allow them to exist.

    If however the lies and half truths the BNP peddles are not comprehensively and inequivocally smashed, and there are no reports of damage to its potential election prospects after this apperance, will all of you finally admit that the cunts simply must not be given a platform to speak at all in the first place, if not being banned altogether?

    Because I have to say I've been waiting for many years for this fabled opportunity to "expose the BNP" to the public, but somehow it just doesn't happen...

    Come on, chap. You’ve selectively ignored the majority of arguments people have made for allowing the BNP public platform. Bearing that in mind, I also don’t accept your criteria for what should be considered a successful debate. I could stipulate that if we get to hear what NG has to say first-hand, without him being shouted down by audience members, then we’ll have had a successful debate; the importance of free-speech will have been observed. I shan’t though, because defining such a restrictive criteria for success is ... well ... a bit silly.
    Can we have paedophiles expressing their wishes that sex with children should be legal as well?

    I don’t think - if the format was right – that a having a convicted paedophile enter into debate over the age of consent would be something I’d necessarily be against.
    Can we have a random pisshead off the street who claims the Jews control the world on some kind of conspiracy on the panel of QT as well?

    If he’d been elected to a political position in the same way that NG has, then yeah, sure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

    The crux of the matter is having the right to say something, and being invited to share a platform with rational human beings and treated as an equal are two different things. Griffin and the BNP belong, at best, at Speaker's Corner, not on the panel of the UK's foremost political debate programme.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

    The crux of the matter is having the right to say something, and being invited to share a platform with rational human beings and treated as an equal are two different things. Griffin and the BNP belong, at best, at Speaker's Corner, not on the panel of the UK's foremost political debate programme.

    As much as we might not like it NG and the BNP are now democratically elected members of the European Parliament. They are representing the views of a section of our society and, in a democratic country, these people have a right to be heard. Proportionally the BNP will have had only a small sliver of air-time compared to the other parties - a ratio which is probably in line with the percentage of the vote they got.

    I would say that a lot of the guests who have appeared on QT have been far from rational. I also think a number of them hold pretty odious views. I wouldn't deny them their right to be heard though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes I agree that a few panellists have been just as loony or abhorrent.

    Still, both they and the BNP can still be heard- they just shouldn't be heard on a political programme of the calibre of QT. At the end of the day winning seats at elections does not give anyone the right to be invited to that programme. It is entirely an editorial decision for the BBC. And by inviting the likes of the BNP we're sending the message that they are a normal political party with legitimate views worthy of consideration, IMO at least.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

    The crux of the matter is having the right to say something, and being invited to share a platform with rational human beings and treated as an equal are two different things. Griffin and the BNP belong, at best, at Speaker's Corner, not on the panel of the UK's foremost political debate programme.

    The fact that someone dosen't agree with you does not take away their democratic rights. Clearly you're prepared to assume anyone who has ever voted for the BNP is in idiot who doesn't deserve the vote, the right to free speech or the right to be listened to. I'm not, I believe that people can make a mistake because they've been misinformed, especially when the "facts" on the BNP leaflets are never challenged because people prefer to ignore them. They at least deserve the chance to see the BNP in a debate before they're completely written off as idiots who are beyond help. We don't treat criminals or people who fail their exams at school like that, or even bankers who lost the country a fortune. The BNP have toned down their racist views recently, seemingly just to get through whatever debate their involved in, so even if the number of people who vote for them isn't reduced becuase it becomes clear how racist they are, they're inconsistant views aren't going to make them popular are they? From what I've seen they don't even agree among themselves,.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that someone dosen't agree with you does not take away their democratic rights.
    No it doesn't. But then again it has never been a democratic right to be invited to the panel of Question Time. We're supposed to be opposing an odious ideology by all legal means possible, not giving a gratitious platform on a respected political programme to people who don't merit or deserve it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    And who's going to appearing with him? Ah yes, Jack "Man Of" Straw. I can't somehow see Griffin being torn a new arsehole live on air by Straw, can you?

    Yes. I can see him being outwitted by a watermelon though, so that's not saying much. I think Nigel Farage should be on there with him tbh, so that he can't pull the usual, "We're not allowed to talk about X, Y and Z" BS.

    But be honest, does anyone see the type of person who's likely to be conned by the BNP's lies being the type of person who watches Question Time every week and is politically clued up? Anyone whose opposition to immigration is based on an objective analysis of the arguments, rather than good old-fashioned racism, would be supporting a party like UKIP, not the BNP.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But be honest, does anyone see the type of person who's likely to be conned by the BNP's lies being the type of person who watches Question Time every week and is politically clued up? Anyone whose opposition to immigration is based on an objective analysis of the arguments, rather than good old-fashioned racism, would be supporting a party like UKIP, not the BNP.
    And even if BNP sympathisers were to watch it, their closed bigoted minds will in all probability shut down to any oppossing views and dismiss any arguments put against the BNP bullshitting, however well comprehensive and well put, as a fabrication by white haters, Jews, blacks, Muslims etc in their effort to destroy white Britain and blah blah blah.

    You might be more successful in talking a wasp out of approaching your Sunday roast in the beer garden that you are of having a BNP voter and sympathiser watch the debate and say "Well I never! Didn't know that! I've been fooled all this time by the BNP about a great many things! I stand corrected now".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    You might be more successful in talking a wasp out of approaching your Sunday roast in the beer garden that you are of having a BNP voter and sympathiser watch the debate and say "Well I never! Didn't know that! I've been fooled all this time by the BNP about a great many things! I stand corrected now".
    It's because people are arguing against the BNP in the wrong way. We should feel free to remind people that Nick Griffin is a racist cunt, but it's worth attacking the BNP on their policies as well for added impact. One can argue that a BNP-led government would make you poorer. Example - the BNP believe in stopping immigration into this country and kicking out people who have immigrated here over the years. By being forced to employ British workers, companies would have to pay more, thus pushing up wage costs. This would, in turn, push up your taxes - imagine no more Phillipino (sic?) nurses working for the NHS. It would push up the cost of living as well.

    Although it's nice to see that Labour are resorting to the scoundrel's trick once more and stealing BNP policies. This time, it's a vindictive and destructive policy against single mums. And there are still people out there who idolise the one-eyed printer-smashing fat Scottish cunt? Beggars belief.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    It's because people are arguing against the BNP in the wrong way. We should feel free to remind people that Nick Griffin is a racist cunt, but it's worth attacking the BNP on their policies as well for added impact. One can argue that a BNP-led government would make you poorer. Example - the BNP believe in stopping immigration into this country and kicking out people who have immigrated here over the years. By being forced to employ British workers, companies would have to pay more, thus pushing up wage costs. This would, in turn, push up your taxes - imagine no more Phillipino (sic?) nurses working for the NHS. It would push up the cost of living as well.

    Although it's nice to see that Labour are resorting to the scoundrel's trick once more and stealing BNP policies. This time, it's a vindictive and destructive policy against single mums. And there are still people out there who idolise the one-eyed printer-smashing fat Scottish cunt? Beggars belief.

    I agree, many BNP supporters don't seem to understand what life would be like for them if the BNP were elected, because the consequences of their decisions aren't debated properly. The BNP also have a habit of denying that some of their most controversial statements were ever said, which wouldn't be possible if it was said on TV.
    I also think it's interesting how many people feel they are morally superior to BNP voters even though they might vote for labour and conservatives who don't exactly see immigrants as individuals who have every right to be here. Racism is, to an extent, part of British culture and, while I agree that is wrong, I don't think you can vote for a party that will do everything in it's power to send assylum seeker's back regardless of the consequences and say your better than people who vote for a party that doesn't seem to have a policy on immigration, other than complaining about it. Believe it or now, people do vote for the BNP for reasons other than they're racist, evil people. I actually knew someone who wasn't racist at all, but was sexist and likes the BNP's policy on women's roles. He didn't vote for the BNP, by the way, because he decided the conservatives represented that view better. It seems to me that the only real different between the opinions on immigration of the BNP and other political parties is that the BNP are attacking ethnic minorities that have been here more than ten years. Of course it's wrong, and people who vote for then are often misguided, but I don't think many people really have the right to feel that they are superior human beings or that whoever they vote for has some kind of moral high ground. The BNP's racism is victimising people for something they can't, and shouldn't have to, help, but didn't labour do the same thing by forcing thousands of disabled people to look for jobs when they're too ill to work? And what would it do to victims of domestic violence if the conservatives get elected and make it harder for women to get a divorce?
    If, for a second, you can ignore the BNP's racist policies you can focus on the fact that they would do the exact same thing. In every way I've seen the BNP have the worst, most destructive policies of all political parties and debating their views that aren't focused on racism will allow people to see that more clearly. Apart from that, when I've seen someone from the BNP on TV they have little to say and each sentence contradicts the last. Anyone can put together a well strutcured, perfectly worded leaflet that makes dramatic statements that can be taken back or further explained later but answering questions immediately and having your answers challenged is something they seem unable to cope with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Believe it or now, people do vote for the BNP for reasons other than they're racist, evil people. I actually knew someone who wasn't racist at all, but was sexist and likes the BNP's policy on women's roles. He didn't vote for the BNP, by the way, because he decided the conservatives represented that view better.
    Methinks Call Me Dave wouldn't exactly take that as an endorsement. Most people vote BNP because they've been failed by the main political parties. Labour has long stopped listening to anyone who doesn't have shitloads of money to give them - indeed, there is now talk that their financial situation is so precarious that they face bankruptcy after the next election. The Conservatives, under Cameron, are a party which is shallow and patently dishonest - they talk about cutting public spending, but constantly refuse to say where the axe will fall. The LibDems and Nick Clegg - let's not even get started on those losers. Nobody is representing the people, so the people have no choice but to turn to other parties.
    Apart from that, when I've seen someone from the BNP on TV they have little to say and each sentence contradicts the last. Anyone can put together a well strutcured, perfectly worded leaflet that makes dramatic statements that can be taken back or further explained later but answering questions immediately and having your answers challenged is something they seem unable to cope with.
    That should mean the Internet (specially the blogosphere, where instant rebuttal often takes place) should be a nightmare for a party like the BNP. Not so - their website is the most popular party political one in the UK.
Sign In or Register to comment.