NG is one of the few QT panellists ive ever seen who is not afraid to say what he thinks
To me, he seemed absolutely terrified of saying what he thought.
That is [i][u]precisely[/u][/i] why Richard Dimbleby had to read out Griffin's previous quotes.......because there was no way that Griffin was prepared to repeat them in front of a live audience.
For example, he squirmed and did everything he possibly could, to avoid explaining why he had denied that the Holocaust had ever occurred.
So I have conclude SOOBalias, that your claim that he wasn't afraid to say what he thinks, is a wind-up......right ?
sorry ernie, your narrow mindedly wrong and not for the first time on this issue.
yes he was made to squirm
no he does not change his views, try to avoid expressing the illegal ones - yes, try to avoid the more popularly described 'disgusting' ones - but then i saw all others excepting the pointless, non political yank do the same. Come to think of it thats the exact same standpoint held by the voted party.
perhaps to provide political balance next week QT will gang **** the green party?
I don't see that the government had much option.
Yes they did. And that point was covered on QT.
you might have thought it was a housing boom, but if it was.....
Well, what?
sorry can you not re-read the remainder of your own sentence?
heres a clue love. its the clash between 'boom' and 'cheap'
I suppose i shouldnt be surprised that two such shrewd political comentators havnt got a single bike related post in the front page of their historys.
sorry ernie, your narrow mindedly wrong and not for the first time on this issue.
No, I am being very broad-minded, I saw the programme and I'm basing what I am saying on what I (and millions of others) saw. And this issue has never been raised before btw.
Griffin refused to repeat in front of a live audience what he had previously said, [i]several[/i] people had to remind him of what he had said. He was clearly scared.
And he wasn't 'trying to avoid expressing the illegal ones' as you claim. It was made very clear to him that he could deny that the Holocaust had occurred, if he so wished - he was told that it was not illegal to do so in Britain. But he obviously realised that it would be a PR disaster to do so.
Did you actually watch the programme ? 😕
heres a clue love. its the clash between 'boom' and 'cheap'
So there was a boom in housing construction and it required cheap labour to build it, that was my point. Anytime you get near your point, make it.
Have you been checking up on me you naughty Internet stalker you.
I'm quite happy with the outcome of last night - it proves 100% the point that sunlight is the best disinfectant!
Hopefully all the people outside the building, violently protesting and singing songs about burning him (incitement?...) complaining against the BBC allowing him the freedom of speech (that to me is still sacrosant, a la [i]voltaitre[/i]) are now hopefully eating humble pie, as he made himself like like a complete and utter cock in front of millions and millions of people.
The only drawback, is that most of the people likely to vote for him are unlikely to have watched the program, they'll be far more interested in the X factor....[i]now, theres an idea[/i] 😀
[i]The only drawback, is that most of the people likely to vote for him are unlikely to have watched the program, they'll be far more interested in the X factor....now, theres an idea [/i]
It would appear not, an individual with some degree of ethnicticity (have I invented a new word there?) has won for the last three years. Leona Lewis (who would get it), Leon Jackson (who wouldn't), and Alexandra Burke (who would also get it - seen her legs on that new video of hers? Like two well cooked sausages!)
I'm glad they ripped into him!
[img] 
[/img]
Ernie, re this one;
Flashheart - I've just received an email from RB.
Do send my regards to the grubby little urchin! I'll collect my pint at a London beer sometime!
That joke of a programme last night had as much to do with political debate as my last shite. If that, Straw et al, is the pinnacle of our political talent then no wonder the country is ****ed.
I put it to you all that the only reason that these parties are emerging is down to the disastrous efforts of our current mainstream politicians.
Goan
What I keep saying +1
Political vacuums (like Jack Straw and the Labia Party) lead to nonces like the BNP filling the 'void' We need strong charismatic, spirited leaders. Not the wheezing buffoons we currently have!
They really are worse than Thatchers lot - and guess what instead of destroying the NUM they wish to destroy the Post Office Union instead. In my eyes they are worse than Thatcher ever was, you knew she was a cow (said as much on the tin) but the labour party masquerading as some sort of saviour of the common working man = tosh!!!! Nasty, nasty people the lot of them.
Great to see that little racist git Griffin squirm - no place in a free and fair society. Agree with the above we need immigrants as we also need proper controls in place.
[i]Immigration - my main gripe is the tosh that the right wing press say about it[/i]
There's just as much left wing tosh written surely. I think it's generally agreed that too much immigration would be just as bad as too little. The question (apart from extremists on both sides ie "let everyone come" and "ban them all") is more to do with what is the correct level.
If our health service is benefiting from doctors and nurses trained abroad, them other countries are losing out.
Well it's not exactly a small subject which can be simply piggybacked into another thread ........ but let's just say that New Labour's 'open-door policy' of allowing an uncontrolled numbers of East Europeans to flood into Britain was probably not a very good idea.
That wasn't the thinking behind New Labour's open door policy. For a start, if immigrants are allowed in "to do all the jobs the incumbent population don't want to" why would you not want to control the numbers ? Saying that 50,000 or 1 million can come in, suggests that you are not really bothered about whether there are jobs for them.
Ernie, can you stop talking about 'Labour's open door policy', people will start to believe you. It's the same tactic that Nick Griffin uses - keep talking b*ll*cks and eventually some people who can't be bothered to think for themselves will start to think it's true.
We've had lots of Eastern European immigrants coming here because their countries joined the EU - You might think that we shouldn't be in the EU (different argument), but that's not an idea that has been advanced by Labour or Tory (which between them do represent the vast majority of voters) over the last several Governments.
But incidentally, now that we have an economic downturn, lots of eastern Europeans are going home again.
And also BTW, it's the same rule that lets lots of Brits go and live and work abroad in Europe.
I only saw a bit of it and I must admit I was a little disappointed but not wholly surprised. I thnk everyone knows that the BNP is a nasty small minded organisation so why did the panel and audience just concentrate on this? Lazy I suppose. I would have preferred their other policies, or lack of them, to be concentrated on showing them to be the single issue party that they are. As for saying Jack Straw played a blinder, it's pretty easy to kick the fat kid when the entire school is cheering you on. Having said that, I don't think that Griffin came out of it well at all. He came across as a bit of a slimy question dodging turd to me.
I thought Jack Straw was shockingly poor at debating most of the issues, he'd ramble on for 5 minutes then say a couple of rabble-rousing words at the end to get the audience to clap.
I think the whole program was a waste of time (or at least an opportunity), Griffin got let off far too lightly on some issues raised and contradictions he made. A lot of good questions got passed over to 'wait until later' and never happened and the whole thing was just too unstructured (I rarely watch QT but it's never normally that poorly formatted!).
on a lighter note, Nick Griffin's face is too small for his head. Probably the results of sustained interbreeding.
Coyote sums up my views pretty well. Plus I was pretty disappointed how much the BBC milked the program beforehand.
on a lighter note, Nick Griffin's face is too small for his head
[img] 
[/img]
Did anybody else start to feel sorry for him? - Crazy, I know, regarding the fact that he's a nazi t*ssbag, but in the end, it all turned into a bit of a spit roast. Jack Straw was appalling, and in my opinion was no better than Griffin for avoiding questions - just a little more skilled at doing so. It speaks volumes that out of all the panel, the conservative MP for Dewsbury made the most sense - Somebody shoot me now, please.
Plus I was pretty disappointed how much the BBC milked the program beforehand.
Nail on the head. The entire thing was just one elaborate ratings boosting exercise by the BBC, and the politicians, television news, newspapers, protesters and everyone who watched it (myself included), fell for it hook line and sinker.
I bet the BBC bosses were p*ssing themselves at the fact that Sky news devoted the entire evening's coverage to the BBC!
And to think the postal strike wasn't mentioned once on QT.
I'm late to the debate, but...
My impressions were:
Nick Griffin is not a good public speaker and looked a little frightened of the mob -as if he expected the polite, well-spoken, mixed-ethnicity audience to storm the stage and kill him?
(-I'm ashamed to say that I felt a sort of hatred towards the disgusting man, despite me being a fair-haired, blue-eyed 'anglo-saxon' as far back as anybody has found so far)
I was expecting all kinds of rabble-rousing, carefully chosen statistics from BNP man, but he hid behind vague notions and looked like a fool. I'd have felt embarrassed if I was a BNP sympathiser.
His claims of being mis-quoted made me chuckle. He would deny the innocuous wording of the quote, but not the nasty, odious sentiment...
They should have asked for his policies on issues that are relevant to the day-to-day running of the country, and not just the fairly vacuous ones involving people with dark skin being 'sent home'
Baroness Warsi is a likeable woman and a good example, [u]for those people that need one[/u], of a muslim who is not a fundamentalist nutter. (incidentally, I don't like religion, but I don't hate religious followers)
Jack Straw started reasonably but got bogged down and tangled in his party line. I prefer him when he says what he thinks, but does so less these days.
Bonnie Greer made some good points and managed to undermine and patronise BNP man with gentle charm.
Unfortunately, although I think that educated, thoughtful people would laugh at his simplistic, baseless party, BNP 'followers' would probably not have been swayed in their views.
Somebody said to me yesterday,
"Some of what the BNP say is right. If you're white, you don't get anything in this country anymore"
I replied by asking when was the last time that this gainfully employed, home-owning in a nice area, white bloke last felt discriminated against.
"er...... well, not me personally" was the reply.
Exactly.
[i]And to think the postal strike wasn't mentioned once on QT. [/i]
Maybe everyone agrees that the posties have shot themselves in the foot?
Maybe everyone agrees that the posties have shot themselves in the foot?
I don't.
Aristotle, are you actually the real Aristotle? 🙂
Now Nick Griffin has been on QT, I'm hoping he is asked back by the BBC to go on 'Who do you think you are' then find all his great grand parents are jewish, Huguenots, and that should shut him up about being from some 17,000 year old master-race
C
Aristotle, are you actually the real Aristotle?
shhhhh, I'm masquerading as an Anglo-saxon!
He is NOT the master race he is a member of the indigenous aboriginal race of this here Island Englandshire...this should quite clearly NOT be confused with the word WHITE you lefty fool.
I wonder if you could get a sneaky DNA sample like they do in CSI and test it.
Trouble is, the point he makes is not a wholly silly one. He said you wouldn't go to New Zealand and tell maoris that there were no indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand. He's right. Likewise, if you asked around in Zimbabwe you'd find a consensus on who the "indigenous inhabitants" were pretty quickly. In both places (certainly in Zim) who was really indigenous, how old their claim was, how pure their identity was and how accurate their sense of who they are was would all be ticklish issues, but you wouldn't simply assert that there was no sense in which Cecil Rhodes was not ethnically Zimbabwean.
The same is true of Britain. The proposition that someone who is born here to black parents is not "ethnically British" is not a fundamentally silly one, it is obviously possible to devise sane definitions of ethnic britishness which exclude such people. The issue is whether defining someone as not ethnically Britisht has any bearing whatever on anything important (like being allowed to live here and marry who they want to). Griffin thinks it does, but he then goes on to suggest that the indigenous British are suffering "genocide" in their own land. He has no serious basis for that claim. None whatever.
To my mind, shouting him down when he tries to create (slightly loopy) categories of ethnic Britishness is not really all that helpful. Pointing out that actually the grip of the white British on Britain is immensely strong and challenging the myths that white people are systematically discriminated against and the government is run by blacks and gays is more to the point.
They'd just do like Hitler did (eg conforming to the Aryan 'ideal') though and claim that he was an ideal example of anglo-saxon despite whatever a DNA test showed up.
Ernie, can you stop talking about 'Labour's open door policy', people will start to believe you.
No I won't stop talking about 'Labour's open door policy'. It's true, and everybody knows it's true. New Labour freely decided at the time of EU enlargement, to leave the door wide open to allow unrestricted immigration from the new EU member states. There were absolutely no controls and no quotas.
It's the same tactic that Nick Griffin uses - keep talking b*ll*cks and eventually some people who can't be bothered to think for themselves will start to think it's true.
I would suggest that pretending something which is patently true, is not true, plays right into the hands of the BNP. I am not scared of talking about immigration, and I am certainly not prepared to sit back and let the issue be hijacked by racists.
Jack Straw was appalling
I'm surprised that so many people appear to be surprised, by how bad Jack Straw preformed. He has never been an impressive politician and he has himself, done a fair amount of trawling the gutter for cheap votes amongst the bigots and the ill-informed, so it was never going to be necessarily easy for him to challenge the BNP.
In 2006 he proudly announced that he always refuses to speak Muslim women, amongst his own constituents, if they wear veils over their faces. Putting the rights and wrongs of the argument to one side, Jack Straw was fully aware that going public on the issue would strike a cord with tabloid-reading bigots. He could have just carried on requesting that Muslim women removed their veils whilst talking to him without causing a song and dance about it, but there would have been no mileage in that, and more importantly, no extra votes. He played the bigot card wisely.
Indeed it was after a speech by Jack Straw in 1995 which after years of supporting and tirelessly working for the Labour Party, that I realised I could no longer support New Labour - in the 1997 general election I canvassed for the LibDems. In his speech Jack Straw carried out an appalling attack on the weakest and most destitute in society - the "winos" as he called the rough-sleepers and beggars. I'm sure that it won him support from many Daily Mail readers, and there was no need to worry about the "wino" vote - his victims after all were powerless, but it lost my support as I realised that, like Straw's claim last night that the BNP doesn't share his values, I don't share his. Jack straw is a gutter politician.
Pointing out that actually the grip of the white British on Britain is immensely strong and challenging the myths that white people are systematically discriminated against and the government is run by blacks and gays is more to the point.
Indeed. As I said above, I do enjoy asking people when they were actually last discriminated against.
I take slight issue with what you say a the end though. If government were "run by blacks and gays" would that be a bad thing anyway? -Barak Obama anyone? [b](EDIT: presumably not gay, but of mixed-race!)[/b]
[b]I am pleased to live in a tolerant country and believe that people should have equal opportunities. I would prefer that the UK was a totally secular country with all religion given fewer concessions, although this doesn't concern me too much in the overall scheme of things. I do not feel that I am superior because my family happened to be peasants in Lancashire for many generations rather than peasants in Nigeria. There are limits on the number of people that can live in a land, but the UK is not the soft-touch for immigrants that people seem to think it is. [/b]
Trouble is, the point he makes is not a wholly silly one. He said you wouldn't go to New Zealand and tell maoris that there were no indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand. He's right.
But presumably he is arguing that only Maoris have legitimate rights in New Zealand - all other New Zealanders have no right whatsoever to be there.
Sounds "wholly silly" to me.
BigDummy... isn't the point though with places like the Americas, Australia and New Zealand that the indigenous people there remained relatively isolated from the 'known' world for many thousands of years, and so developed distinct ethnic types... and then us whiteys turned up and invaded their countries and gave them a pretty raw deal all round, and now they are minorities in their countries and still not getting that great a deal mostly...
Whereas in the UK, we've been part of the 'known' world for thousands of years, and over that time there have been countless invasions and various waves of immigration to the extent that if there ever had been a seperate indigenous people here, who were somehow different to those who chose to settle on the other side of the channel, they have been mingled with other peoples during our history to such an extent that it is not possible to define who those indigenous are.
The only possible defining characteristic that one could say with any form of certainty would be the colour of their skin.
I take slight issue with what you say a the end though. If government were "run by blacks and gays" would that be a bad thing anyway? -Barak Obama anyone?
Barak Obama's gay?! 😯
I was waiting for that, after I pressed post.
🙂
He's presumably not gay, but has skin of a darker tone than the typical anglo-saxon, being of mixed-race.
New Labour freely decided at the time of EU enlargement, to leave the door wide open to allow unrestricted immigration from the new EU member states. There were absolutely no controls and no quotas.
Isn't that the "unrestricted immigration" which is the fundamental right of EU citizens to the right to travel and work anywhere within the EU, and exactly the same privilige that we and the numerous British ex-pats enjoy throughout the Union, and which allows British enclaves in places such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Crotia and France to name but a few?
To talk of unrestricted immigration in this way is utter arse, and places you firmly into the BNP/UKIP/Tory Boy school of politics, by mixing the entirely seperate issues of Asylum Seekers, Economic Migrants from non EU countires, (both often from regions where we have been or still are ****ing about and creating this exact problem incidentally), with the right of EU citizens to work and travel freely is disingenuous.
Sorry but there it is.
[i]If government were "run by blacks and gays" would that be a bad thing anyway?[/i]
Please do not get hung up on this line. My point is simply that in a country where the government is over-whelmingly dominated by white men the concerns of white men that they are a victimised minority are a trifle loopy. 🙂
The only possible defining characteristic that one could say with any form of certainty would be the colour of their skin.
So, for example, if a recently-arrived Swede who looks like a British person, has adopted a convincing British accent and a British name lives in the UK, do the "send them all home" crowd accept this immigrant and allow them to stay or send them back to Stockholm?
Please do not get hung up on this line. My point is simply that in a country where the government is over-whelmingly dominated by white men the concerns of white men that they are a victimised minority are a trifle loopy.
I realised what you meant, but it could be taken both ways and could almost excuse the white supremacists.
I agree about the loopiness!
Aristotle.. the point I was trying to make is that while superficially the argument about indigenous peoples might look reasonable to some people, ultimately it's just way for the BNP to try and cover over their racist policies.
Ernie - how could the government have restricted the EU accession state immigrants?
The rest of your post about straw is spot on BTW. Fairly Odious man who has lost sight of his principles. I think he was bang on right about the veil philosophically and I am in favour of the French approach - but to say so in the way he did was at best politically stupid.
Gary Younge has an interesting piece on Straw in todays Guardian - available on line - ripping into Straw for public statements that feed racism
