BNP on question time

[Horza2002]

I congratulte the BBC for allowing the BNP onto the debate program. And while I don't support the BBC, we live in a country that is based on free speech! They have the same right as everyone for their views to be heard!

 

I wonder how many of the protesters campgaining saying that the BNP is against free speech realise that by protesting they are attempting to remove the BNP's right to free speech!

[Klaynos]

It is my opinion that the BBC did the right thing, it is not their job to say who should and should not be allowed onto the panel, they have a set of criteria and as sad as it might be the BNP met these, they are to do with national election results.

 

I am also glad to see that this has caused such a large outcry from people, and protesting against the BNP.

[DrP]

I agree. Personally my own politics are quite right of centre. I would like to see a party somewhere between the Tory and the BNP.. i.e. the BNP without their abhorent racism. Or a stricter conservative party.

 

I would have like them to have had a more ballanced discussion though. (It seems such topics as imigration and national security can't be discussed without one side branding the other as racist). The program started with Jack Straw ranting on for 5 mins as to why he thought Nick Griffin and his BNP were wrong. I kind of agreed in the most part, but then they kept asking him loaded questions and quoting out of context with things he said years ago and has already retracted - then didn't really give him proper time to respond. As for NG's constant refusal to be able to answer a direct question - well - all the polaticians do that anyway. lol.

[ajb]

I am upset with the BBC about it. Not because they let Nick Griffin on Question Time, but because the whole thing seemed like a set up. The audience appeared to be assembled to be actively hostile to the BNP. My question is what was the point? It was just an exercise in attacking the BNP rather than trying to address the issues they raise.

 

It is clear that Nick Griffin is not well-versed in the way politicians divert and avoid questions. I think he was not ready for such a debate. If the BNP is going to grow into a "mainstream party" public debating and questioning skills must be addressed. Otherwise they will never get away from the image as thugs.

[Severian]

And while I don't support the BBC, we live in a country that is based on free speech!

 

I suspect you meant to say you don't support the BNP.

 

I agree with the sentiment though (and I also don't support the BBC, but that is another thread).

[bascule]

For us yanks across the pond, what's the dilly?

[jimmydasaint]

The BNP were a party of virulent racists and anti-Semites, partly drawn from the ranks of football hooligans. They were forced, by European Union decree, to back off from their position as outright racists and Nazis and are now hiding behind a friendly 'velvety' facade with the iron fist ready to be pushed into the face of anybody with a permanent suntan or a Jewish name. This is not democracy - this is virulent hatred preached by respectable looking men in suits. The problem is, they actually have a large fan base amongst white people in Britain and this will lead them to more success in the future.

 

For the BBC to put the BNP on in times of recession when blame for the country's problems is going to be passed on to immigrants show poor judgement at best and horrific timing at worst. I am pretty sure Adolf Hitler also started off with a similar platform and history opened the way to Fascism. This is my greatest fear for this country.

[ajb]

The problem is, they actually have a large fan base amongst white people in Britain and this will lead them to more success in the future.

 

Until "mainstream parties" address the issues and fears that the BNP raise, they will continue to gather support.

 

I cannot say that I agree with all the policies that the BNP have placed on their manifesto, but I am very pleased that someone is talking about some pretty uncomfortable issues that we must face.

 

I say to the other parties "Come on. Don't just demonise the BNP, beat them by addressing the issues and fears they highlight ".

[Sisyphus]

Until "mainstream parties" address the issues and fears that the BNP raise, they will continue to gather support.

 

I cannot say that I agree with all the policies that the BNP have placed on their manifesto, but I am very pleased that someone is talking about some pretty uncomfortable issues that we must face.

 

I say to the other parties "Come on. Don't just demonise the BNP, beat them by addressing the issues and fears they highlight ".

 

What issues?

[ajb]

The number of immigrants, the segregation of our society and our handing over of power to Brussels all spring to mind.

 

These issues do worry people. Unfortunately, one runs the risk of being branded racist when talking about such things.

[Horza2002]

I suspect you meant to say you don't support the BNP.

 

I agree with the sentiment though (and I also don't support the BBC, but that is another thread).

 

Yes sorry I did mean to say I dont support the BNP but think they still have the right to say what they did. Seems that most people seem to agree that they have the right to their views but that they are extremely racist (mainly because they are!)

[DrP]

I say to the other parties "Come on. Don't just demonise the BNP, beat them by addressing the issues and fears they highlight ".

 

Here, here.

 

I've just glimpsed at their website. They are still racist and have some really insensitive ways of stating things. Alot of people do follow them so I agree, they should be debated with and edjucated. We also need to listen to why they have their concerns and address them. Surely it is the job of ALL political parties to listen to the people and then address their problems - not deny they exist and demonise people for even raising the issues.

[Sisyphus]

What specific issues are we talking about, here?

[DrP]

What specific issues are we talking about, here?

Immigration and Euopean policy. Crime and Punishment.

[insane_alien]

even if you take all the bigotry out of the BNP they're still kind of crap as they don't actually have policies about anything other than "chuck em out and string em up"

[ajb]

even if you take all the bigotry out of the BNP they're still kind of crap as they don't actually have policies about anything other than "chuck em out and string em up"

 

Indeed. If your have a look at their manifesto via their website you will quickly see they have no real ideas or plans for many of the important things a government has to deal with.

 

I think that the BNP's role in our political system is to force "mainstream parties" in to dealing with some ugly issues rather than just ignore them.

 

I am sure that plenty of votes for them were simply a protest over the way mainstream parties do not listen to the concerns and worries of the average man about immigration and related issues.

 

That is not to say that the worries are well-founded or not. That is not the point. Unless we do talk about this, parities like the BNP will simply gain strength.

 

The BBC has now shown itself to be politically motivated by the setting up of the slaughter of Nick Griffin. This could add support to the BNP.

[Horza2002]

Indeed. I am sure that plenty of votes for them were simply a protest over the way mainstream parties do not listen to the concerns and worries of the average man about immigration and related issues.

 

That is not to say that the worries are well-founded or not. That is not the point. Unless we do talk about this, parities like the BNP will simply gain strength.

 

 

I agree, if the larger parties listened to what the voting public wanted and their views on matters (like their supposed too!), parties like the BNP which have gone too far over the top gain support simply because they appear to listen.

 

Although as is becoming an often occurance in this country, Nick Griffin was quote mined by the media. In yesterdays papers headlines read "BNP find gays disturbing". But of you watched the actual debate what he actual said was "I don't care what people get upto behind closed doors, but some people find the sight of two guys kissing disturbing". Once again taken all of of proportion

[jimmydasaint]

The matter of immigration can be solved. Why don't Western nations share their wealth with the poorest nations and raise their standards of living to the point that two thirds of the world can actually go to bed with a square meal and a roof over their heads. Once that is accomplished, very few would wish to flock to the wealthy and more developed countries. This is a problem of our own making. You cannot blame people for trying to improve their lot. If I saw my children starving, I would do ANYTHING to keep them alive - even if it meant moving to a hostile nation.

[insane_alien]

The big problem people in the UK have with immigration(and what i expect has lead to the BNP having as much support as they do) is that the illegal immigrants have had to travel through quite a number of countries with very high standards of living. higher than the UK's in some cases (using this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index for instance, france is eighth, UK is 21st).

 

so obviously they are not in it to just get their families to safety or even to give them the best chance in life.

 

personally, i don't really have much of a problem with immigration. but i do feel it should go through official channels.

[DrP]

Thing is Jimmy, we have measures in place where people in danger can seek asylum from their danger and can migtate to western countries. However, most of them keep moving through the whole of Europe and and most head for England. Some British people (who wouldn't in their right minds begrudge anyone asylum) were concerned that instead of being equally distributed across western nations, most seemed to come here - why? Is the UK doing something different to welcome them that others don't? Do they get better treatment here than in France,say or Germany? The real worry (which may or may not be a real threat - which is why it needs discussion) is whether the one that come from countries that we are at war with have alternate agendas. It seems dumb to allow thousands of citizens in from a country in which we are waging a war. We wouldn't have let the Germans in during WWII in case of spy's or terrorists. So why have we taking thousands of Afgans and Iraqis since the wars started? Surely for security reasons we should have insisted that refugees from those areas stopped in mainland Europe (which they are suppose to do anyway - they are ment to stop in countries they are safe - not ALL flock to the UK).

 

Ask these questions at all and you get misjudged as racist rather than having a natuarl concern for national security. The answers maybe straight forward and innocent and there may be no threats at all. If so - why are we not allowed to talk about it?

[insane_alien]

DrP, these issues are actually discussed without racism being brought up at all. its only when the BNP come into it is racism brought up. usually by them saying something racist and then the whole arguement spirals round that. leave out the BNP and you actually get a lot of potential solutions that are actually in some way feasible.

[DrP]

So - is there any terrorist threat from the thousands of Afgan and Iraqi asylum seekers that have come here or not? Politically left people seem to think not. The right of centre people might not be so quick to be sure. The BNP (because they are racist idiots) don't care and wouldn't let them in in the first place for any reason. Also - why do they come here over the rest of Europe?

[insane_alien]

how should i know, i have not conducted any studies, i haven't even had an indepth conversation about it. this sort of stuff doesn't hold my interest for very long, i leave it to the politicians to sort it out.

 

besides, this is in risk of going offtopic and turning into a discussion about immigration rather than the BNP's appearence on question time.

[DrP]

how should i know, i have not conducted any studies, i haven't even had an indepth conversation about it. this sort of stuff doesn't hold my interest for very long, i leave it to the politicians to sort it out.

 

besides, this is in risk of going offtopic and turning into a discussion about immigration rather than the BNP's appearence on question time.

 

I don't know either, but it isn't politically correct to talk about it and rightly or wrongly people feel very strongly about such issues. The BNP are prepared to talk about such things, were other parties have been too scared to approach such issues publically because groups have split opinions and bringing them up can lead to being branded as racist by the misled(others then get behind them out of fear of being labeled racist themselves). Thankfully (recently) the Tory party have come out into the open and started to discuss this. The current govnt seems blind to any any other opinion than to it's own. I thought Jack Straw and Nick Griffen BOTH came accross as being representitive of parties unvotable for next term. (In case you hadn't realised, I'm voting Conservative again - lol).

[insane_alien]

The fact that they talk about immigration policy is not what makes them racist. it is the blatant racism that makes them racist.

 

If it were only the fact they talked about immigration policy that made them look racist then they wouldn't actually be so bad. its the fact that they have hate campaigns against anyone who they don't see as being 'british' that makes the look like racist morons.

 

also, you seem to imply that no other political parties talk about immigration. they ALL do. it's a big issue with to voting populace. the only difference is that with the rest of them there isn't as much thinly veiled racist xenophobia.