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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ooohhh yes!
Although it wouldn't be a particularly useful quote for Nick Griffin though, given that it's essentially arguing that there's no divine right for a particular race or culture to lay exclusive claim to a bit of land by merit of the fact that they've lived there for a long time. It's a green light for imperialism, which apparently Nick Griffin is entirely against. But the fact that people have to look back 70 years to find a mainstream politician that says things as objectionable as Nick Griffin tells you everything you need to know though. Abraham Lincoln was racist too, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an example of a massively progressive liberal at the time.
Support for BNP rises after TV appearance- more than 1 in 5 might now vote for them
Well, I'm not one for usually saying 'I told you so' but...
I. Told. You. So.
Trebles all around.
And...? Does that invalidate the argument about freedom of speech?
I'd take the argument against them more seriously if I hadn't heard Ken Livingstone spouting against facism, given that he supported the fascist Sinn Fein (a party which still reveres a man who died on a Nazi U-boat and has links to a terrorist group which murdered people because of their religion)
The people have spoken (kinda) and you don't like it. Get over it.
Charles Moore in this morning's Torygraph has it spot on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6418583/Our-smug-leaders-have-done-nothing-to-see-off-the-BNP.html
There's another thing to consider: Griffin was ambushed and stitched up and the entire programme was centered about the BNP. That is a first in Question Time, and the format was changed on purpose to attack Griffin.
Now, I don't have a problem with that, but it's all very well to campaign for the 'right' of the BNP to appear in QT when it ends up being an orchestrated ambush job.
If Griffin was to be invited again to another edition, this time a normal one not tailor-made to destroy him, and they got to discuss normal topics in which race has little to do with anything, the BNP would undoubtedly gain massive new support.
As you yourself put it earlier on this thread:
So, how many of you lot would be prepare to continue to grant the BNP free publicity in top political programmes in which the main topics of discussion are the above? Are you prepared to accept the consequences?
In that case we need a better argument to defeat them than the BNP is bad...
To be honest that's probably the reason - it was so obvious a human form of bear baiting that he starts to pick up sympathy support.
still I look forward to Sinn Fein being given the same treatment... not that it'll ever happen. Some facist parties are acceptable after all :rolleyes:
Just because the BNP has a legitimacy to appear on Question Time, doesnt actually mean that they have to?
Bollocks, essentially. Statistics can prove anything, after all.
UK Polling
So they increased from 2% to 3%, which is statistically insignificant. There's no evidence of non-BNP voters turning to the BNP, merely existing BNP members becoming more vocal and more active. When it comes to the general elections, they'll be a non-entity as usual. The figure who would consider voting for the BNP before Question Time seems to mysteriously missing from the article you posted though.
I am asking because the audience's emotional responses were often based on pre-prepared quotes that were read out.
However,I do not understand your reply.
Are you saying that time is a great healer for some people's sensitivities ?
I'd say objectionable is subjective and not universal as your reply seems to imply.
You also appear to use the term racist as an insult and therefore, by implication again, anyone you deem a racist is (universally) objectionable.
Is your opinion emotionally based or rationally based ?
Do you always insist on telling people what their opinion is? Racism is something you can define objectively, and it is my opinion that racism is a bad thing. It happens to be most other people's opinion too.
Always ? I was not aware that I had told anyone what their opinion was.
Would you care to define racism objectively ?
So an oriental prefering orientals to others is a bad thing ?
Or hispanics showing preference to hispanics is bad thing?
Oh, and two thirds of respondents to that poll said they would not vote BNP "under any circumstances".
The problem is the BBC had a good opportunity to present a neutral argument and really dispel the 'myths' that the BNP just does good things. Because we know that the BNP will hide it's true colours and will not preach about getting rid of the darkies, but instead 'securing jobs and livelihoods for British workers'.
Instead, it was a pantomime as others have said. It was ridiculous, and that undermines completely the opportunity to really weigh what the BNP stand for and represent. In fact it could even have the opposite effect - the BNP says the media is biased against them and in bizarre fashion the BBC puts on a completely one sided single issue show which just confirms that opinion.
No, I'm saying attitudes change over time.