BBC – Questiontime

on a lighter note, Nick Griffin's face is too small for his head

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, for those people that need one, 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.

And to think the postal strike wasn't mentioned once on QT.

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? (EDIT: presumably not gay, but of mixed-race!)

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.

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 **** 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.

If government were "run by blacks and gays" would that be a bad thing anyway?

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

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

It was "unrestricted". And Britain did not have to accept EU citizens from the new EU member countries at the time of enlargement. Britain did so, because the New Labour government chose to do so.

.

by mixing the entirely seperate issues of Asylum Seekers, Economic Migrants from non EU countires

You can't simply make wild allegations like that – copy and paste where I have done that.

.

BTW : "places you firmly into the BNP/UKIP/Tory Boy school of politics"

Why ? Because I am prepared to talk about "immigration" ?

……and people are mystified as to why the BNP are doing so well 😕

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.

With respect, I think you're collapsing two propositions into one.

1 – can you identify some sort of indigenous population in a geographical area?

2 – If yes, should those people always enjoy a privileged position in whatever state now exists in that area?

Griffin thinks the answer is "yes" to both, but saying "yes" to the first proposition does not commit you to saying "yes" to the second.

With respect, I think you're collapsing two propositions into one.

Too right I am. I was listening to what Nick griffin was saying. And his argument concerning Maoris in New Zealand was a "wholly silly" one.

how could the government have restricted the EU accession state immigrants?

In exactly the way they did for the Bulgarians (and other EU governments did for the Poles), by imposing transitional controls on visitors from new accession states. They may have been legally dubious under the treaty, but they prevented the sudden influx that we saw after Poland's accession.

Go on then, what did he actually say about maoris. I must have had my ears screwed on wrong. 🙂

EDIT: actually don't worry. You're doing that thing where you get side-tracked making very low value points against someone who doesn't actually disgaree with you on the larger issue. I'll do some work and let you crack on. 🙂

not that i support him, let me make that very clear, but i thought that griffin came over like a normal politician last night.
evasive, snidey, shifty, and very untrustworthy.
as was mr straw.

BD you can do this with isolated communties farily easily. To do this on this island with this mongrel race is not easy/realistic.The reality is Grifin just means white when he says it and is being media savvy inhis own eyes and bloody stupid in my eyes. Just admit you are a racist your opponents and supportes know this to be the case as your parties routes demonstrate so clearly. In Britain it has nothing of any real value we are not a distinct race like Maoris, Red Indians etc. We have always been genetically mixed so the question reverts back to him meaning if you are not white f@ck off.
EDIT: Bombadillo Most politicians dont deny the holocaust, refuse to accept their own quotes as real, hang out with the KKK and calls gays creepy do they?

Personally I think NG is a weasly little racist nobody with ridiculous extreme views he tries to cover up but is too thick to do so.

What would really worry me is if someone with brains and charisma takes over the outfit.

As a talking point such views of separatism are not the exclusive preserve of whites as often gets portrayed. Does anyone remember Luois Theroux with the Nation of Islam, being told that it 'wouldn't matter if they killed him because he was white and therefore less important than a dog'.

I found that one line really chilling – that any person could think that of others, and that's irrespective of whether thet're black, white, pink, yellow or blue.

what did he actually say about maoris

He gave the Maoris as an example of an indigenous people whilst arguing that only indigenous people had rights – a wholly silly point.

What's wrong with your ears ?

I found that one line really chilling – that any person could think that of others, and that's irrespective of whether thet're black, white, pink, yellow or blue.

I don't think that anybody is disputing that. Bigotry by any group is unpleasant.

Fair-minded people believe in equal opportunity -by definition, that means for everybody!

I will come in a defend Ernie on immigration – I believe he is wrong but he clearly is no racist and clearly does not follow the usual racist anti immigration line.

Clearly there is a debate to be had about immigration and clearly controls are needed when you are a heavily populated island. that is why we have some of the toughest immigration controls in the world and why we take so few asylum seekers. Both true – not that the Daily Wail would have you believe this.

junkyard, he will not be the 1st of last politician to be a lying fecker then will he.
the most famous one being mrs thatcher.

Aristotle – what I was trying to get over was the shock I found, as a white person, that others could think that of me. Daft as it sounds I had never considered that other groups could believe that about me.

Probably the first time I had ever really had an inkling of how minotities can be made to feel, perhaps all the time.

And of course there's no grading of bigots, all are equally evil.

At last a coffee break and a chance to read this thread.

Watched QT last night and have to agree with Coyote – a ridiculous spectacle of the mob picking on the class idiot.

+1 for Goan – Jack Straw was embarrassing, and the others not far behind – needed someone with a sharper mind to lever open the debate about other policies to show Griffin up as a one trick pony. Showing him up as a racist bigot is like shooting fish in a barrel, the panel and audience went for the easy option – lazy politics. Ian Hislop would have been a good choice, although Bonnie Greer was amusing.

Ernie-Lynch – 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.

I think you may be incorrect here Ernie, as an MEP he will have to travel within Europe to countries where Holocaust denial is an offence and which, if I understand correctly, would then leave him open to prosecution.

it is correct that the 'anglo-saxon-celtic-norman race' , whites, are indigenous griffen is right on that – i agree with him.

where we differ is the conclusions, ideology and policies he draws from that. My line is toleration, his is abhorrent.