Dispute over BNP leader Nick Griffin appearing on "Question Time".

Television Centre briefly "invaded".


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Dispute over BNP leader Nick Griffin appearing on "Question Time".
>
> Television Centre briefly "invaded".

It will be interesting to see how the BNP presents itself with regards to 
British troops, the war in Afghanistan, the principles of interference in 
foreign lands, and the wider so-called war on terror, if that comes up.

Frankly, I expect it to be more in line with what Joe Public believes / 
wants to hear than what any of the three main parties say - all support the 
war in Afghanistan, though Lib Dems seem to be manoeuvring for a pull-out 
strategy.

This is the danger of allowing any 'extremist party' a political platform; 
some of their policies will have popular support and they can pass 
themselves off as reasonable, rational and fair, a credible alternative 
worthy of the vote. The idea of giving a platform to 'reveal the sick truth 
underneath' sounds fine in principle but usually fails to deliver, often 
benefiting those it was intending to expose.

Griffin is well versed in being careful with what he says on public 
platforms and if it turns into a slanging match - or worse still violence - 
he will likely sit there and calmly take it, and he'll probably walk away 
with a propaganda coup and some more supporters.

BBC1, 22:35 - 23:35.

Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question 
Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally 
elected MP to be treated like that.  The BBC were in effect attempting to 
crush and ridicule a whole segment of the population through him by proxy. 
This man's party, even if you disagree with everything that party stands 
stands for, was voted for by people who all the major parties also had a 
chance to court and persuade and failed to do so.  Persuasion didn't work, 
so lets get out the rotten tomatoes, eh?

Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one questioner 
saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick Griffin".   Most of the 
the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done in the past. 
Irrelevant.  It's his party's policies and how he intends to lead his party 
that matter.  When he did answer he was frequently cut off so we couldn't 
understand his reply.  It'll all have just made his supporters even more 
angry.

Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone else's past 
at Westminster?  That no-one else has embarrasing associations or said 
anything they now regret?  Only over the summer there were thefts revealed 
from the public purse that would have seen the rest of us in prison.  We 
would never have known but for the fact that someone leaked the un-redacted 
versions to the newspapers.  MPs as a group wanted to destroy evidence, but 
they were too late. Aught to be a conspiracy charge in there somewhere. 
Some here on this very newsgroup believe that Tony Blair is a war criminal 
with the deaths of thousands on his hands.  There are far worse out there 
than Nick Griffin who are actually in real power, not just in charge of a 
council, or realistically stand to gain real power.  The BNP will always be 
a fringe party, and their support would go straight down if people thought 
that their concerns were taken seriously by the major parties, particularly 
relating to immigration.

I'm uncomfortable defending someone from the BNP, but wrong is wrong, and 
this was wrong.
The BBC was obviously pushing an agenda and they have a duty as seriously as 
our duty to pay our licence fee to avoid doing so.  If the BBC want power 
that badly maybe they should stand at the next election.  I won't be 
watching again.  I've got my choice of sources from across the world if all 
I want is propaganda.  The BBC's kind is too obvious for me.



TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question 
> Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally 
> elected MP to be treated like that.

MEP, but I didn't think he was treated that badly. He rather showed himself 
up when refusing to say why he's had his mind changed hiding behind alleged 
'European law prevents him saying'.

A few weeks ago when Dimbleby announced Nick Griffin was to appear there was 
loud booing, but more so, for Harriet Harmen :-)

> Most of the the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done 
> in the past. Irrelevant.  It's his party's policies and how he intends to 
> lead his party that matter.

But that is important in how he runs his party, in interpreting what 
policies actually mean. You don't think Harold Shipman's past would have any 
bearing if applying for Head of Geriatric Care somewhere, that what he wrote 
as 'policy' were the be all and end all of it ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:Q_oEm.932$5w5.193@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question 
>> Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally 
>> elected MP to be treated like that.
>
> MEP, but I didn't think he was treated that badly. He rather showed 
> himself up when refusing to say why he's had his mind changed hiding 
> behind alleged 'European law prevents him saying'.
>
> A few weeks ago when Dimbleby announced Nick Griffin was to appear there 
> was loud booing, but more so, for Harriet Harmen :-)
>
>> Most of the the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or 
>> done in the past. Irrelevant.  It's his party's policies and how he 
>> intends to lead his party that matter.
>
> But that is important in how he runs his party, in interpreting what 
> policies actually mean. You don't think Harold Shipman's past would have 
> any bearing if applying for Head of Geriatric Care somewhere, that what he 
> wrote as 'policy' were the be all and end all of it ?
>

I wasn't talking about a criminal past, I'm talking about a past of opinions 
and unpleasant but private associations.  Broadly speaking, I'm not even 
talking about Griffin.  What I object to is the lack of respect.  Griffin 
wasn't there because he snuck in through BBC Television Centre's cat flap. 
He was there because he represented voters in a democracy.  It wasn't the 
BBC's place to lock him in the stocks while the audience threw rotten 
tomatoes.

They'd do better wondering why his party got so many votes.  Most people 
vote for parties that they think reflects their beliefs OR will protect 
them.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question
>Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
>elected MP to be treated like that.

Not at all.... Whilst I agree that the questioning was a bit lopsided
his treatment was par for the course. I expect Jack Straw was a happy
man as recently he and his party have been the target of questioning
like that. Especially with the expenses fiasco

>Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one questioner
>saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick Griffin".   Most of the
>the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done in the past.

Yes it was a bit biased. However He will probably get a second go at
it.

>Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone else's past
>at Westminster?  That no-one else has embarrasing associations or said
>anything they now regret?

They have hammered other politicians at other times. What Nick had was
mild compared to some.

>I'm uncomfortable defending someone from the BNP, but wrong is wrong, and
>this was wrong.

I agree... BTW it was, if you noticed, Jack Straw who repeatedly bought
race into it. Also as Nick Griffin pointed out his father fought in WW2
whilst Jack Straw's father refused to fight... a bit embarrassing for a
former home/foreign Secretary and current Justice minister)

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote in
news:hdSdnS8fWrrXj3_XnZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: 

> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights
> "Question Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to
> allow a legally elected MP to be treated like that. 

I cannot say that I share your concern to keep elected representatives 
safe from the terrible ordeal of being asked to answer questions.

Nor, for that matter, do I share your apparent delusion that Griffin is 
an MP.  He is an MEP.  That, I take it, was the reason why he apparently 
considered himself bound by French and German law when he refused to 
offer a clear explanation of his beliefs on the Shoah.

> The BBC were in
> effect attempting to crush and ridicule a whole segment of the
> population through him by proxy. 

What do you find objectionable in having ridiculous views exposed to 
ridicule?  Griffin made a superb job of making a horse's arse of himself, 
and needed very little assistance from either the audience or the panel 
members.  He received vastly more courtesy and consideration than his 
mendacity and snickering arrogance deserved, or than I would have 
afforded him.  It's no surprise that the gutless wonder is indulging 
himself in an outburst of self-pitying whining after his dire 
performance, as we all know he is quite incapable of taking 
responsibility for his own actions; he is far too obsessed with claiming 
the status of a victim.  No need to encourage him, though.   

> This man's party, even if you
> disagree with everything that party stands stands for, was voted for
> by people who all the major parties also had a chance to court and
> persuade and failed to do so.  Persuasion didn't work, so lets get out
> the rotten tomatoes, eh? 

When I watched the programme, I thought Griffin's interlocutors were 
deploying precisely the tools of persuasion.  What "rotten tomatoes" do 
you have in mind?  Are you suggesting, for example, that was unfair of 
the presented to expose Griffin in his bare-faced lie about previous 
statements of his?  Griffin lied ostentatiously on national TV, and was 
challenged on the lie.  How is this anybody else's fault?  

> Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one
> questioner saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick
> Griffin".   Most of the the questions seemed to be about what Griffin
> had said or done in the past. Irrelevant. 

Of course it's not irrelevant, what a relentlessly fatuous claim to make.  
The whole of our experience consists of recollections of things said, 
done and thought in the past, and absolutely nothing else.  I don't 
imagine for a moment that you would claim that all other politicians 
should be given a free pass for all their previous speech and actions; so 
why afford this astonishing privilege to Griffin?   

> It's his party's policies
> and how he intends to lead his party that matter.  When he did answer
> he was frequently cut off so we couldn't understand his reply. 

Nonsense.  He was allowed plenty of time.  That he could not present 
honest and coherent answers because his own thinking was too muddled is 
hardly the fault of the BBC.  I appreciate that being in front of the 
cameras can be stressful, but nobody asked him to become a politician, 
and if he can't stand up, speak up and shut up in the way the job 
requires, then he shouldn't resort to slope-shouldered persecution 
fantasies about a vast hard-left conspiracy.

> It'll all have just made his supporters even more angry.

Who gives a shit?  "Angry" is the only thing people like that do well.  
Those who are just voting BNP as a protest I hope grow up and vote more 
responsibly in future; the irremediable bigots can expire from high blood 
pressure for all I care.

> Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone
> else's past at Westminster? 

I don't know; I must have missed the bit that a literate adult could have 
interpreted as making such a suggestion.  Where did you see it, please?

[Snips]
> newsgroup believe that Tony Blair is a war criminal with the deaths of
> thousands on his hands.  There are far worse out there than Nick
> Griffin who are actually in real power, not just in charge of a 
> council, or realistically stand to gain real power.  

There are certainly people other than Griffin who have a much greater 
capacity for damaging the UK, and a much more extensive record of doing 
actual damage.  But this isn't a reason for laying off scum like Griffin, 
nor even for saying that they are "worse" than him; he has merely, 
through the relatively good sense of the electorate, not yet been 
afforded the opportunities to show just how bad he really is.  Of course, 
one can't resist the thought that it suits New Labour's book quite well 
for a there to be a public kerfuffle about the BNP, from which compariosn 
NuLab can hardly lose.  On "Question Time", Griffin achieved something I 
would never have thought possible -- in comparison, he actually made Jack 
Straw look good.

All the best,

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CAE6C1344118BaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:hdSdnS8fWrrXj3_XnZ2dnUVZ8iWdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
>> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights
>> "Question Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to
>> allow a legally elected MP to be treated like that.
>
> I cannot say that I share your concern to keep elected representatives
> safe from the terrible ordeal of being asked to answer questions.
>
> Nor, for that matter, do I share your apparent delusion that Griffin is
> an MP.  He is an MEP.

OK, He's an MEP representing British voters.  They do have a local council 
seat, they're not just represented in the European Parliament.

First county council seat for BNP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8085392.stm



>
>> The BBC were in
>> effect attempting to crush and ridicule a whole segment of the
>> population through him by proxy.
>
> What do you find objectionable in having ridiculous views exposed to
> ridicule?

Because he was singled out for that treatment, in particular personal 
attacks, and the BBC presided over it and let it happen.  Ridicule doesn't 
educate or persuade, it's just one group attacking another and it doesn't 
prove anyone is right.  It was just a fist fight with words (unlike 
outside!).  Questions based on his party's manifesto would have been valid. 
Questions regarding what he would push for if his party were in power would 
have been valid.  Even the guy who asked "Where would you send me if you 
were in power?" was valid.  Instead we get personal attacks allowed 
unopposed, Dimbleby chiding Griffin for smiling like he was being told off 
by a headmaster.  It was all designed to intimidate and humiliate the person 
rather than the policies.  There was more, but I think you understand.

What it all turned into just seemed a bit squalid for the BBC and a veteran 
commentator.  I haven't been a viewer of "Question Time" for a while, so 
maybe that's how they do things these days since Robin Day expired.



Griffin made a superb job of making a horse's arse of himself,

I don't think he came off well either, but at times he barely got to answer.



> and needed very little assistance from either the audience or the panel
> members.  He received vastly more courtesy and consideration than his
> mendacity and snickering arrogance deserved,

He deserved to be treated the same as anyone else.  He represents a box on a 
piece of paper that many others were free to cross or not cross.  Others who 
disagreed with his views ran against his party and lost.  It's not for 
someone else to then decide what the representative of those voters 
deserves.  That's contempt for the electoral process.  Part of a democratic 
system is having to put up with the other guy's pick when your side loses. 
Or you can get out your burning torch and pitchfork and invalidate the 
electoral result.




> When I watched the programme, I thought Griffin's interlocutors were
> deploying precisely the tools of persuasion.  What "rotten tomatoes" do
> you have in mind?

Being called "Dick" without challenge, yells that he was disgusting without 
challenge, chiding for smiling like he was a kid by the hopeless 
moderator....  the general tone was hostility to the one person when in 
reality he's the tip of the iceberg.  That level of hostility shouldn't 
really have been entertained by Dimblebly as moderator, but he ended up 
joining in from what I could see.



  Are you suggesting, for example, that was unfair of
> the presented to expose Griffin in his bare-faced lie about previous
> statements of his?

No, I'm saying the way it was done was wrong.



  Griffin lied ostentatiously on national TV, and was
> challenged on the lie.  How is this anybody else's fault?

Because the BBC set up a situation they knew was going to be charged and 
allowed the situation to degrade until even their own moderator felt free to 
join in.  The BBC is there to serve both the people who like and hate the 
BNP.  It's not their job to pick sides - in fact it's their duty not to.


TWP

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question
>>Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
>>elected MP to be treated like that.
>
> Not at all.... Whilst I agree that the questioning was a bit lopsided
> his treatment was par for the course.

I recall Pickles ( I think ) recently being slaughtered by the audience when 
trying to defend his claiming a two home allowance and living just thirty or 
so miles away. The audience almost to a man adopted the "we have to get to 
work on time as well, we don't have two homes" argument. Of course that's 
comparing apples and oranges; different when you have a 9-5 job and a 9-10 
job.

I had a good deal of sympathy for Pickles, but that he failed to explain the 
situation properly and failed to defend himself coherently is his own fault. 
It's not the job of the BBC and its presenters to rescue those who dig 
themselves into a hole.

Also, Griffin's claim of audience "bias" doesn't really stack up. He seems 
to be saying the audience should have been split 50-50 pro and anti-BNP. 
There's no justification for it being so.

"TWP"  wrote in
news:bfKdnQeMi4Csc3_XnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: 

[Snips]
>> What do you find objectionable in having ridiculous views exposed to
>> ridicule?
> 
> Because he was singled out for that treatment,

Because his views are singularly ridiculous.  Had anyone else trotted out 
such mendacious and hypocritical tommyrot, I'm sure they would have been 
treated in much the same way.  

> in particular personal 
> attacks, and the BBC presided over it and let it happen.  

You seem to have watched a different broadcast from the one I saw on the 
internet replay.  All the points I recall being made where about his 
statements and his policies.  What "personal attacks" are you talking 
about?  And it's not as if Griffin is in any position to complain about 
descending to personalities, having taken a pop at Jack Straw's Dad right 
at the start.

> Ridicule doesn't educate or persuade,

Ridicule doesn't persuade?  Why then do you think Charlie Chaplin 
bothered to make "The Great Dictator"?

I don't see how you can claim that there is no educational value in 
exposing positions that are ridiculous, whether on account of their 
disregard of the facts or their own internal inconsistency.  You seem to 
be raising objections without bothering to think them through, like your 
earlier pronouncement about how the past was somehow irrelevant.  Had 
Griffin been subject to mere vulgar abuse, you might have had a point.  
As he wasn't, with the exception of a couple of isolated examples from 
the audience which weren't ecouraged, you don't.  

>  it's just one group attacking another and
> it doesn't prove anyone is right.  It was just a fist fight with words
> (unlike outside!). 

Argumentation is naturally a matter of contesting opposed positions. I 
think the arguments clearly showed, on several occasions during the 
debate, that Griffin's position was completely and utterly wrong.  The 
only form of politics to be conducted without arguments is 
totalitarianism.

> Questions based on his party's manifesto would
> have been valid. Questions regarding what he would push for if his
> party were in power would have been valid.  Even the guy who asked
> "Where would you send me if you were in power?" was valid. 

Can I see the receipt that says you've bought the rights to "Question 
Time"?  Or do you get the right to determine what are or are not "valid" 
questions from somewhere else?

> Instead we
> get personal attacks allowed unopposed, Dimbleby chiding Griffin for
> smiling like he was being told off by a headmaster.  

I found Griffin's snickering obnoxious in the extreme, and I would have 
told the little twat to stop it in much less courteous terms.  I am 
astonished that you think Griffin's behaviour tolerable; but then you 
seem to be arguing for special dispensations for him in many other 
respects, so perhaps you think he should be let off good manners, as well 
as basic honesty and logical consistency.     

> It was all
> designed to intimidate and humiliate the person rather than the
> policies.  There was more, but I think you understand. 

I understand nothing of the kind.  Nobody forced Griffin to appear on the 
programme,.  Nobody forced him to behave the way he did.  I have seen 
much stronger lines taken by BBC interviewers with, for example, 
representatives of Israel, or Tony Benn, or Geroge Galloway, and none of 
them ever reacted with the whining self-pity Griffin has (although 
Galloway has a strange line in conmspiracy theories).  The only 
politician who springs immediately to mind as having such a persecution 
complex about the BBC is Robert Mugabe, who probably has much in common 
with Griffin in terms of political method.  Griffin cherishes victimhood, 
because he understands how being able to claim the status of victim makes 
irresponsible dimwits feel better about themselves -- and an 
irresponsible dimwit's vote is worth just as much as a sensible grown-
up's.  Unfortunately, you seem to have fallen for his ploy. 

> What it all turned into just seemed a bit squalid for the BBC and a
> veteran commentator.  

I was impressed by the extraordinary self-control shown by everyone else 
on the panel.  Any squalor was brought by Griffin himself.  It must have 
been difficult for  serious broadcasters and politicians to share a 
platform with this vile little man -- they must have stronger stomachs 
than I -- but I'm glad they did.  The usual neo-Nazi approach to public 
debate is to whine about not being allowed to aprticipate in it, which is 
exactly the whine he would have come out with had Peter Hain had his way.  
Once they start to participate in public debate, they have to find a 
different whine -- in this case, that there is a conspiracy against them, 
whether of communists, gays, socialists or Jews doesn't much matter.    

> He deserved to be treated the same as anyone else.  He represents a
> box on a piece of paper that many others were free to cross or not
> cross.  Others who disagreed with his views ran against his party and
> lost.  It's not for someone else to then decide what the
> representative of those voters deserves.  That's contempt for the
> electoral process.  Part of a democratic system is having to put up
> with the other guy's pick when your side loses. Or you can get out
> your burning torch and pitchfork and invalidate the electoral result.

Once again, you seem to be making wild claims without bothering to spend 
a couple of minutes thinking them through.  I don't know where you get 
these eccentric politician-worshipping ideas from, but I'm not aware of 
any principle of political debate that says we have to treat 
representatives of ideologies we detest from those of ideologies we 
follow.  I suspect that you've just made it up on the spur of the moment; 
if not, do please say where you got it from.

In any case, I don't think he was treated differently, or at least, far 
from unfavourably.  Of course, it's hard to tell; we simply don't know 
how the chairman would have reacted if, say, Bonnie Greer has started 
making fatuous and insulting remarks about Islam, or Chris Huhne had been 
caught persistently lying about previous statements he had made, or 
Baroness Warsi had been snickering to herself like an imbecile, or Jack 
Straw had started spouting historical drivel based on long-discredited 
racialist theory.  As none of them did, we don't know what reaction they 
would have provoked.  Griffin did all of these, received what I think 
were remarkably mild reproofs in return, and now has the brass neck to 
whine about his treatment.     

>> When I watched the programme, I thought Griffin's interlocutors were
>> deploying precisely the tools of persuasion.  What "rotten tomatoes"
>> do you have in mind?
> 
> Being called "Dick" without challenge, 

One of the questioners could not remember Baroness Warsi's name, either. 

> yells that he was disgusting without challenge, 

It's seldom profitable to get into a shouting match with the audience.  
But I've heard more disorderly shouting in local parish community 
meeting.  You must have a very, very thin skin indeed.

> chiding for smiling like he was a kid by the
> hopeless moderator.... 

Quite right, too.  You obviously feel that Griffin is entitled to be 
insolent and rude on national TV without being picked up on it.  I 
disagree.

> the general tone was hostility to the one
> person when in reality he's the tip of the iceberg.  That level of
> hostility shouldn't really have been entertained by Dimblebly as
> moderator, but he ended up joining in from what I could see.

I don't think you're going to be able to do much about "hostility" when 
it comes to bigoted filth like the BNP.  In my opinion, hostility is a 
very healthy reaction to neo-Nazi bully-boys.  Why do you disagree?

>   Are you suggesting, for example, that was unfair of
>> the presented to expose Griffin in his bare-faced lie about previous
>> statements of his?
> 
> No, I'm saying the way it was done was wrong.

How should it have been done, then?  The little shit wasn't even forced 
to admit that he had been lying, which is what I would have insisted on 
if I'd been in the chair.  An apology would have been too much to expect, 
but Griffin rather clearly failed to achieve the most minimal standards 
of decent behaviour.

>   Griffin lied ostentatiously on national TV, and was
>> challenged on the lie.  How is this anybody else's fault?
> 
> Because the BBC set up a situation they knew was going to be charged
> and allowed the situation to degrade until even their own moderator
> felt free to join in. 

It is not the job of a chairman to give one of the participants a free 
ride telling outrageous lies.

> The BBC is there to serve both the people who
> like and hate the BNP.  It's not their job to pick sides - in fact
> it's their duty not to. 

They have a duty to be impartial as regards party politics, a duty which 
I think on the night they fulfilled admirably.  They do not have any 
particular duty to give mendacity, racialism and ill-mannered bluster 
equally favourable treatment with truthfulness, fairness and reasoned 
argument, though.

Griffin desperately needs to grow up, and stop whining.  Please don't let 
your natural good-heartedness lead you to believe that there is any 
substance to his whining, nor that the piggy-eyed bully-boy deserves to 
be treated with kid gloves in case we upset him.

All the best,

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

On 2009-10-24 11:38:13 +0200, Chris H  said:

> In message , TWP
>  writes
>> 
>> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question
>> Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
>> elected MP to be treated like that.
> 
> Not at all.... Whilst I agree that the questioning was a bit lopsided
> his treatment was par for the course. I expect Jack Straw was a happy
> man as recently he and his party have been the target of questioning
> like that. Especially with the expenses fiasco
> 
>> Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one questioner
>> saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick Griffin".   Most of the
>> the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done in the past.
> 
> Yes it was a bit biased. However He will probably get a second go at
> it.
> 
>> Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone else's past
>> at Westminster?  That no-one else has embarrasing associations or said
>> anything they now regret?
> 
> They have hammered other politicians at other times. What Nick had was
> mild compared to some.
> 
>> I'm uncomfortable defending someone from the BNP, but wrong is wrong, and
>> this was wrong.
> 
> I agree... BTW it was, if you noticed, Jack Straw who repeatedly bought
> race into it. Also as Nick Griffin pointed out his father fought in WW2
> whilst Jack Straw's father refused to fight... a bit embarrassing for a
> former home/foreign Secretary and current Justice minister)


Eh? What has the father got to do with it? Nick Griffin is a nasty bit 
of shit, nothing his father did can make him any worse. But I can feel 
good about this because the grandfather of a man down the road from me 
got a medal at Mafeking. So listen up, okay!

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CAE9E1655F34BaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:bfKdnQeMi4Csc3_XnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
> [Snips]
>>> What do you find objectionable in having ridiculous views exposed to
>>> ridicule?
>>
>> Because he was singled out for that treatment,
>
> Because his views are singularly ridiculous.  Had anyone else trotted out
> such mendacious and hypocritical tommyrot, I'm sure they would have been
> treated in much the same way.

His views were singularly ridiculous in your opinion.  That's part of the 
point here.  Our system of politics requires tolerance.  Differing points of 
view have to be able to co-exist.  It's not for the majority to persecute 
any minority, whatever they believe.  In that respect "Question Time" et al 
became the BNP and Griffin became the "ethnic minority".  I know which I 
thought looked like they were enjoying it more.


>
>> in particular personal
>> attacks, and the BBC presided over it and let it happen.
>
> You seem to have watched a different broadcast from the one I saw on the
> internet replay.  All the points I recall being made where about his
> statements and his policies.  What "personal attacks" are you talking
> about?  And it's not as if Griffin is in any position to complain about
> descending to personalities, having taken a pop at Jack Straw's Dad right
> at the start.

I already described the personal attacks.  Jack Straw's dad was brought up 
by Griffin in an obvious attempt to defend himself by attacking.  It got him 
nowhere.


>
>> Ridicule doesn't educate or persuade,
>
> Ridicule doesn't persuade?  Why then do you think Charlie Chaplin
> bothered to make "The Great Dictator"?

Chaplin was preaching to the converted.


>
> I don't see how you can claim that there is no educational value in
> exposing positions that are ridiculous, whether on account of their
> disregard of the facts or their own internal inconsistency.  You seem to
> be raising objections without bothering to think them through, like your
> earlier pronouncement about how the past was somehow irrelevant.  Had
> Griffin been subject to mere vulgar abuse, you might have had a point.
> As he wasn't, with the exception of a couple of isolated examples from
> the audience which weren't ecouraged, you don't.

I'm not defending his point of view, I'm defending his right to have one - 
even an unpopular one - without being thrown to the mob by the BBC because 
it wasn't one that the BBC respected.  It might be your point of view that's 
squashed by the BBC next time.



TWP





>
>>  it's just one group attacking another and
>> it doesn't prove anyone is right.  It was just a fist fight with words
>> (unlike outside!).
>
> Argumentation is naturally a matter of contesting opposed positions. I
> think the arguments clearly showed, on several occasions during the
> debate, that Griffin's position was completely and utterly wrong.  The
> only form of politics to be conducted without arguments is
> totalitarianism.
>
>> Questions based on his party's manifesto would
>> have been valid. Questions regarding what he would push for if his
>> party were in power would have been valid.  Even the guy who asked
>> "Where would you send me if you were in power?" was valid.
>
> Can I see the receipt that says you've bought the rights to "Question
> Time"?  Or do you get the right to determine what are or are not "valid"
> questions from somewhere else?
>
>> Instead we
>> get personal attacks allowed unopposed, Dimbleby chiding Griffin for
>> smiling like he was being told off by a headmaster.
>
> I found Griffin's snickering obnoxious in the extreme, and I would have
> told the little twat to stop it in much less courteous terms.  I am
> astonished that you think Griffin's behaviour tolerable; but then you
> seem to be arguing for special dispensations for him in many other
> respects, so perhaps you think he should be let off good manners, as well
> as basic honesty and logical consistency.
>
>> It was all
>> designed to intimidate and humiliate the person rather than the
>> policies.  There was more, but I think you understand.
>
> I understand nothing of the kind.  Nobody forced Griffin to appear on the
> programme,.  Nobody forced him to behave the way he did.  I have seen
> much stronger lines taken by BBC interviewers with, for example,
> representatives of Israel, or Tony Benn, or Geroge Galloway, and none of
> them ever reacted with the whining self-pity Griffin has (although
> Galloway has a strange line in conmspiracy theories).  The only
> politician who springs immediately to mind as having such a persecution
> complex about the BBC is Robert Mugabe, who probably has much in common
> with Griffin in terms of political method.  Griffin cherishes victimhood,
> because he understands how being able to claim the status of victim makes
> irresponsible dimwits feel better about themselves -- and an
> irresponsible dimwit's vote is worth just as much as a sensible grown-
> up's.  Unfortunately, you seem to have fallen for his ploy.
>
>> What it all turned into just seemed a bit squalid for the BBC and a
>> veteran commentator.
>
> I was impressed by the extraordinary self-control shown by everyone else
> on the panel.  Any squalor was brought by Griffin himself.  It must have
> been difficult for  serious broadcasters and politicians to share a
> platform with this vile little man -- they must have stronger stomachs
> than I -- but I'm glad they did.  The usual neo-Nazi approach to public
> debate is to whine about not being allowed to aprticipate in it, which is
> exactly the whine he would have come out with had Peter Hain had his way.
> Once they start to participate in public debate, they have to find a
> different whine -- in this case, that there is a conspiracy against them,
> whether of communists, gays, socialists or Jews doesn't much matter.
>
>> He deserved to be treated the same as anyone else.  He represents a
>> box on a piece of paper that many others were free to cross or not
>> cross.  Others who disagreed with his views ran against his party and
>> lost.  It's not for someone else to then decide what the
>> representative of those voters deserves.  That's contempt for the
>> electoral process.  Part of a democratic system is having to put up
>> with the other guy's pick when your side loses. Or you can get out
>> your burning torch and pitchfork and invalidate the electoral result.
>
> Once again, you seem to be making wild claims without bothering to spend
> a couple of minutes thinking them through.  I don't know where you get
> these eccentric politician-worshipping ideas from, but I'm not aware of
> any principle of political debate that says we have to treat
> representatives of ideologies we detest from those of ideologies we
> follow.  I suspect that you've just made it up on the spur of the moment;
> if not, do please say where you got it from.
>
> In any case, I don't think he was treated differently, or at least, far
> from unfavourably.  Of course, it's hard to tell; we simply don't know
> how the chairman would have reacted if, say, Bonnie Greer has started
> making fatuous and insulting remarks about Islam, or Chris Huhne had been
> caught persistently lying about previous statements he had made, or
> Baroness Warsi had been snickering to herself like an imbecile, or Jack
> Straw had started spouting historical drivel based on long-discredited
> racialist theory.  As none of them did, we don't know what reaction they
> would have provoked.  Griffin did all of these, received what I think
> were remarkably mild reproofs in return, and now has the brass neck to
> whine about his treatment.
>
>>> When I watched the programme, I thought Griffin's interlocutors were
>>> deploying precisely the tools of persuasion.  What "rotten tomatoes"
>>> do you have in mind?
>>
>> Being called "Dick" without challenge,
>
> One of the questioners could not remember Baroness Warsi's name, either.
>
>> yells that he was disgusting without challenge,
>
> It's seldom profitable to get into a shouting match with the audience.
> But I've heard more disorderly shouting in local parish community
> meeting.  You must have a very, very thin skin indeed.
>
>> chiding for smiling like he was a kid by the
>> hopeless moderator....
>
> Quite right, too.  You obviously feel that Griffin is entitled to be
> insolent and rude on national TV without being picked up on it.  I
> disagree.
>
>> the general tone was hostility to the one
>> person when in reality he's the tip of the iceberg.  That level of
>> hostility shouldn't really have been entertained by Dimblebly as
>> moderator, but he ended up joining in from what I could see.
>
> I don't think you're going to be able to do much about "hostility" when
> it comes to bigoted filth like the BNP.  In my opinion, hostility is a
> very healthy reaction to neo-Nazi bully-boys.  Why do you disagree?
>
>>   Are you suggesting, for example, that was unfair of
>>> the presented to expose Griffin in his bare-faced lie about previous
>>> statements of his?
>>
>> No, I'm saying the way it was done was wrong.
>
> How should it have been done, then?  The little shit wasn't even forced
> to admit that he had been lying, which is what I would have insisted on
> if I'd been in the chair.  An apology would have been too much to expect,
> but Griffin rather clearly failed to achieve the most minimal standards
> of decent behaviour.
>
>>   Griffin lied ostentatiously on national TV, and was
>>> challenged on the lie.  How is this anybody else's fault?
>>
>> Because the BBC set up a situation they knew was going to be charged
>> and allowed the situation to degrade until even their own moderator
>> felt free to join in.
>
> It is not the job of a chairman to give one of the participants a free
> ride telling outrageous lies.
>
>> The BBC is there to serve both the people who
>> like and hate the BNP.  It's not their job to pick sides - in fact
>> it's their duty not to.
>
> They have a duty to be impartial as regards party politics, a duty which
> I think on the night they fulfilled admirably.  They do not have any
> particular duty to give mendacity, racialism and ill-mannered bluster
> equally favourable treatment with truthfulness, fairness and reasoned
> argument, though.
>
> Griffin desperately needs to grow up, and stop whining.  Please don't let
> your natural good-heartedness lead you to believe that there is any
> substance to his whining, nor that the piggy-eyed bully-boy deserves to
> be treated with kid gloves in case we upset him.
>
> All the best,
>
> John.
> -- 
> In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display
> picnic?
> -- Bill Bailey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Happy Hippy" 
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Sky News covering BNP/Anti-BNP clash outside of Television
Centre


>
> "Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question
>>>Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
>>>elected MP to be treated like that.
>>
>> Not at all.... Whilst I agree that the questioning was a bit lopsided
>> his treatment was par for the course.
>
> I recall Pickles ( I think ) recently being slaughtered by the audience 
> when trying to defend his claiming a two home allowance and living just 
> thirty or so miles away. The audience almost to a man adopted the "we have 
> to get to work on time as well, we don't have two homes" argument. Of 
> course that's comparing apples and oranges; different when you have a 9-5 
> job and a 9-10 job.
>
> I had a good deal of sympathy for Pickles, but that he failed to explain 
> the situation properly and failed to defend himself coherently is his own 
> fault. It's not the job of the BBC and its presenters to rescue those who 
> dig themselves into a hole.
>
> Also, Griffin's claim of audience "bias" doesn't really stack up. He seems 
> to be saying the audience should have been split 50-50 pro and anti-BNP. 
> There's no justification for it being so.


There was bias in Griffin's case.  He was chided like a child, insults were
permitted against him and he was frequently interrupted when he did try to
answer.  Griffin was in the stocks, and the BBC knew it'd be a good show.
When Griffin tried to give a slimy answer the crowd set about him, and the
panel were allowed to join in, when Jack Straw tried to give a slimy answer
to the tacit accusation that it was his party's fault that Griffin was even
there because Labour had pushed the public to the brink of its tolerance by
permitting large-scale immigration he was allowed to speak.  All he got was
a few cat calls and "I don't think you're being honest" from Sayeeda Warsi -
who I felt came out of the whole event better than anyone, but I suppose she
was kind of in the middle.

Griffin will represent a lot of people's fears and prejudices.  Some of
those fears won't be groundless either, such as having whole new groups of
people to compete with for work.  The sight of someone who agrees with their
point of view and represents them in their fears being treated in this way
will only enforce the idea that the regular English person is being thrown
under the bus for the benefit of immigrants, and that the BBC is OK with
that - that if you speak up and complain because you're livlihood is being
threatened, then the whole power of the establishment will come down to
crush you and no-one will save you because you're not an immigrant or a
minority...  plus a good way to get sympathy is to be the underdog,
especially if you're the underdog going down waving the flag for the regular
British guy.

I think the BBC made a terrible mistake.  If they hadn't tried to turn the
event into a circus Griffin would have come and gone and it would have all
been over.



TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>I think the BBC made a terrible mistake.  If they hadn't tried to turn the
>event into a circus Griffin would have come and gone and it would have all
>been over.

I have to agree.  Had it been a bit less BNP bashing and more on current
affairs  then he would not be getting any sympathy.

As it is Jack Straw was the one making racist remarks and Nick Griffin
came across as more balanced.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote in
news:Eaudna3oFYEC2H7XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: 

[Snips]
> His views were singularly ridiculous in your opinion.

Not just in my opinion, and not merely as a matter of opinion.  All opinions 
are not created equal, and the idea that "everyone has a right to their 
opinion" does not equate to anyone being entitled to spout whatever crapulent 
tommyrot they happen to believe without criticism.  If you haven't read it, I 
suggest Jamie Whyte's "Bad Thoughts" as both a good read and an excellent 
corrective to the brain-dead idea that "everyone's entitled to their opinion". 

> That's part of the point here.  Our system of politics requires 
> tolerance. 

Logically speaking, how does one require (qua require) tolerance?

Our political system, and the great traditions of British culture and common 
law (for all of which scum like Griffin show breathtaking contempt) are, 
indeed, based on tolerance.  But it does not therefore follow that all views 
and all arguments must, automatically, regardless of merit, be afforded the 
same degree of tolerance.

> Differing points of view have to be able to co-exist. 

Clearly, if argument is to be the method of resolving conflict, and if two 
positions are antithetic one to another, then it is not possible for both 
points to continue to exist if the argument is to be resolved.  

Nobody was denying Griffin's right to believe, in the privacy of his own tiny 
mind, whatever deluded drivel he desires to believe.  You seem to have made 
the error of assuming that this right magically extends to his right to 
express this drivel without objection, and, indeed, to impose it upon people 
who find it obnoxious in the extreme.  

> It's not for the majority
> to persecute any minority, whatever they believe. 

Oh, so the wicked British Imperialist majority who outlawed suttee in India 
were, by your argument, behaving wrongly.

I imagine that you mist also, on precisely the same grounds, favour of female 
genital mutilation in places like Somalia.

Really, does it never occur to you to think just for a moment of the logical 
consequences of the alarmingly silly priciples you enunciate?

> In that respect
> "Question Time" et al became the BNP and Griffin became the "ethnic
> minority".  I know which I thought looked like they were enjoying it
> more. 

Yeah, Griffin lapped it up.  No wonder he was snickering to himself; he's 
cheeked the establishment, and got a whole bunch more victim cred for himself 
and his tragically inadequate followers.

[Snips] 
> I already described the personal attacks.

And it was pretty piss-weak stuff, wasn't it?  The odd shouit of "disgusting" 
from the audience (a very mild epithet, to my mind), and one weak willy joke. 

No mention of the little shitbag's criminal conviction, you'll notice.

> Jack Straw's dad was
> brought up by Griffin in an obvious attempt to defend himself by
> attacking.  It got him nowhere.

And, like all good playground bullies, he got his retaliation in first.  The 
reasion it got him nowhere was that it was obvious he was behaving like a 
total dickhead, trying and failing to insult Jack Straw's family for no good 
reason.  You really cannot blame shitbag Griffin's behaviour on anyone else 
but shitbag Griffin.

[Snips]
>> Ridicule doesn't persuade?  Why then do you think Charlie Chaplin
>> bothered to make "The Great Dictator"?
> 
> Chaplin was preaching to the converted.

Oh, right.  Not a single mind swayed there, you reckon.  And in all other 
cases, I expect you will claim, the use of ridicule has never had any 
persuasive power whatever.  Doubtless that explains why we still have the 
Cones Hotline.    

[Snips]
> I'm not defending his point of view, I'm defending his right to have
> one - even an unpopular one - without being thrown to the mob by the
> BBC because it wasn't one that the BBC respected. 

Nobody has ever attacked the little shit's right to have a point of view.  
With the same nauseating hypocrisy as many fascists, Griffin relies on the 
liberal principle of freedom of thought to attempt to propagate his own 
doctrines that would eventually prohibit such freedom.  This is not a problem, 
just so long as the electorate retain some vestigial power of critical 
thinking.

This is not the same as the right not to have your opinion criticised, or 
"thrown to the mob" as you picturesquely put it.  It is surely the essence of 
democracy that political ideas be "thrtown to the mob" early and often (I 
leave it the classical sensibilities of those who care to draw such 
distinctions as they wish between "demos" and "mobile vulgus", but those are 
the etymological roots of "democracy" and "mob" respectively).

Griffin has a right to think what he likes, and express his thoughts.  
Everybody else has the same rights (at least until the likes of Griffin get 
into power).  He has no right for his thoughts to be heard without objection, 
nor to be treated as if they are right when they are demonstrably wrong.  
Nobody has those rights, so Griffin has no right to whine about his imagined 
persecution.      

> It might be your
> point of view that's squashed by the BBC next time.

I invariably welcome criticism of my ideas, and critical thinking in general, 
so I regard this improbable eventuality with the most sublime equanimity.  And 
it's not as if I am altogether a stanger to holding unpopular ideas.

Of course, one is always more likely to welcome free debate if one is not 
going to be made to look an utter twat by engaging in it, which explains why 
Griffin finds it so indigestible,
 
All the best,

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

In message <hbvdkr$1ov$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Krak 
writes
>On 2009-10-24 11:38:13 +0200, Chris H  said:
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>  Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights
>>>"Question
>>> Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
>>> elected MP to be treated like that.
>>  Not at all.... Whilst I agree that the questioning was a bit
>>lopsided
>> his treatment was par for the course. I expect Jack Straw was a happy
>> man as recently he and his party have been the target of questioning
>> like that. Especially with the expenses fiasco
>>
>>> Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one
>>>questioner
>>> saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick Griffin".   Most of the
>>> the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done in the past.
>>  Yes it was a bit biased. However He will probably get a second go at
>> it.
>>
>>> Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone
>>>else's past
>>> at Westminster?  That no-one else has embarrasing associations or said
>>> anything they now regret?
>>  They have hammered other politicians at other times. What Nick had
>>was
>> mild compared to some.
>>
>>> I'm uncomfortable defending someone from the BNP, but wrong is
>>>wrong, and
>>> this was wrong.
>>  I agree... BTW it was, if you noticed, Jack Straw who repeatedly
>>bought
>> race into it. Also as Nick Griffin pointed out his father fought in WW2
>> whilst Jack Straw's father refused to fight... a bit embarrassing for a
>> former home/foreign Secretary and current Justice minister)
>
>
>Eh? What has the father got to do with it? Nick Griffin is a nasty bit
>of shit, nothing his father did can make him any worse.

The point was about the BNP use of the WW2 imagery. Not that Labour
would stoop to that sort of thing.... :-)  I found that many of the
comments against Nick Griffin were generally full of hatred, unbalanced
and  the very sort of thing most of them were accusing Griffin of. Quite
amusing really. It will do nothing but fuel support for him.   The same
sort of thing helped Hitler, Msr. Penn and others.

Nick Griffin is a legally elected politician and no more a "nasty bit of
shit" than Jack straw (and many other politicians) and your comments
don't do you any credit. The only way to fight the BNP is to rise above
them and not stoop to their sort of tactics and language. The problem is
that the BNP has managed to up its game a bit at the time when
politicians of the main parties have just trashed their reputations for
honesty, morality and any sort of trust....

The BNP (and similar hard right of centre parties) will always gain
popularity  in times of recession and difficulties for the "working
class" who at this point are usually out of work and disillusioned.
(Just look when the far right movements gained ground in Germany, Italy,
USA, UK etc.

It is interesting that it is only a short step from Socialist to Fascist
as politics is a circle and if you go far enough left you become right
and vice-versa.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CAED13F429EBaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:Eaudna3oFYEC2H7XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
> [Snips]
>> His views were singularly ridiculous in your opinion.
>
> Not just in my opinion, and not merely as a matter of opinion.  All 
> opinions
> are not created equal, and the idea that "everyone has a right to their
> opinion" does not equate to anyone being entitled to spout whatever 
> crapulent
> tommyrot they happen to believe without criticism.

No it doesn't.  I didn't say he couldn't be criticised, I'm saying that it's 
wrong for him to be abused.  It's wrong for the BBC, which is supported for 
everyone, to only give voice to his opposition and allow him to be 
pilloried.  That wasn't on no matter what his beliefs.

And yes, as a free man he does have a right to say what he wants within 
certain legal boundaries.


  If you haven't read it, I
> suggest Jamie Whyte's "Bad Thoughts" as both a good read and an excellent
> corrective to the brain-dead idea that "everyone's entitled to their 
> opinion".

No-one is going to talk me into the idea that a person loses his right to 
free speech because they might use it to say something I don't like.  The 
only limits should be when someone is trying to directly encourage violence 
or murder.


>
>> That's part of the point here.  Our system of politics requires
>> tolerance.
>
> Logically speaking, how does one require (qua require) tolerance?
>
> Our political system, and the great traditions of British culture and 
> common
> law (for all of which scum like Griffin show breathtaking contempt) are,
> indeed, based on tolerance.  But it does not therefore follow that all 
> views
> and all arguments must, automatically, regardless of merit, be afforded 
> the
> same degree of tolerance.

I completely disagree there.  With the exception of those wishing to incite 
violence or murder I think that's exactly what is required for a people to 
have a free political system.

>
>> Differing points of view have to be able to co-exist.
>
> Clearly, if argument is to be the method of resolving conflict, and if two
> positions are antithetic one to another, then it is not possible for both
> points to continue to exist if the argument is to be resolved.

No, because in our system the losing side concedes defeat and allows itself 
to be dominated by the other.  That way we don't have to actually kill each 
other to settle the argument.  Sometimes of course, such as in war, it comes 
to that.

My argument relates to normal life in our democratic system.



>
> Nobody was denying Griffin's right to believe, in the privacy of his own 
> tiny
> mind, whatever deluded drivel he desires to believe.

He wasn't there as a private citizen, he was there as an elected MEP.  He 
represented a political party that had been elected in a legal democratic 
manner.  It wasn't his place to just sit there with his thoughts in his own 
head.


  You seem to have made
> the error of assuming that this right magically extends to his right to
> express this drivel without objection, and, indeed, to impose it upon 
> people
> who find it obnoxious in the extreme.

He had every right to express his opinion - in fact he was there 
specifically to state his opinion with respect to current events.  That was 
what the show was about.

And he does have the right to express drivel, within certain legal 
boundaries, just as I or you or anyone does.  You also have the right not to 
listen.

>
>> It's not for the majority
>> to persecute any minority, whatever they believe.
>
> Oh, so the wicked British Imperialist majority who outlawed suttee in 
> India
> were, by your argument, behaving wrongly.

No, that was an enforcement of law.  If the majority in the UK voted to 
bring back hanging it still could not be brought back because it would 
violate laws we now live by.  That's not persecution.  What I'm talking 
about is more along the lines of what the US constitution called the 
"Tyranny of the Majority".



>
> I imagine that you mist also, on precisely the same grounds, favour of 
> female
> genital mutilation in places like Somalia.

I'm not sure how you're making that stretch.  That also sounds like 
something for the law to worry about.


>
> Really, does it never occur to you to think just for a moment of the 
> logical
> consequences of the alarmingly silly priciples you enunciate?

The consequences are that everyone's political beliefs have to be respected 
if not agreed with.  It only gets nasty when beliefs are backed up with 
violence.




>
>> In that respect
>> "Question Time" et al became the BNP and Griffin became the "ethnic
>> minority".  I know which I thought looked like they were enjoying it
>> more.
>
> Yeah, Griffin lapped it up.

He didn't look like he was to me.


  No wonder he was snickering to himself; he's
> cheeked the establishment, and got a whole bunch more victim cred for 
> himself
> and his tragically inadequate followers.

Blame the BBC for that.



>
> [Snips]
>> I already described the personal attacks.
>
> And it was pretty piss-weak stuff, wasn't it?  The odd shouit of 
> "disgusting"
> from the audience (a very mild epithet, to my mind), and one weak willy 
> joke.

I was trying to describe to you the unusually hosite tone.  Whatever I 
described you would rubbish anyway, so what's the point?  We already have 
established that I believe everyone's opinions should be respected and 
you've established that you dou't buy that.  My trying to convince you of 
bias isn't going to cut any ice if you don't believe his point of view 
should have been heard in the first place.

>
> No mention of the little shitbag's criminal conviction, you'll notice.
>
I don't know anything about that.  I've not really taken a lot of interest 
in Griffin or the BNP.  I wouldn't have watched that night if I hadn't seen 
the riot on Sky News.  I suppose I was one of the Romans the BBC was trying 
to appeal to.  I turned up at the arena just like the other 8 million people 
did.



>> Jack Straw's dad was
>> brought up by Griffin in an obvious attempt to defend himself by
>> attacking.  It got him nowhere.
>
> And, like all good playground bullies, he got his retaliation in first. 
> The
> reasion it got him nowhere was that it was obvious he was behaving like a
> total dickhead, trying and failing to insult Jack Straw's family for no 
> good
> reason.  You really cannot blame shitbag Griffin's behaviour on anyone 
> else
> but shitbag Griffin.
>
> [Snips]
>>> Ridicule doesn't persuade?  Why then do you think Charlie Chaplin
>>> bothered to make "The Great Dictator"?
>>
>> Chaplin was preaching to the converted.
>
> Oh, right.  Not a single mind swayed there, you reckon.

No, I don't realistically think anyone who thought the Nazis were a good 
thing changed their mind because of "The Great Dictator", but who knows. 
Ridicule is more a social punishment than persuasion.  I'm sure it can be 
used to make people act against their wishes or beliefs to avoid being 
punished, but that's not the same thing as persuasion.

Your posts contain a component of ridicule for my beliefs.  My beliefs 
haven't changed, but I know if I repeat them you'll probably ridicule them 
again.  Eventually I might reach a point where I think 'you know what - I 
can do without this shit... etc' and I'll leave the subject alone.  You win, 
but I still believe what I did before.



  And in all other
> cases, I expect you will claim, the use of ridicule has never had any
> persuasive power whatever.  Doubtless that explains why we still have the
> Cones Hotline.
>
> [Snips]
>> I'm not defending his point of view, I'm defending his right to have
>> one - even an unpopular one - without being thrown to the mob by the
>> BBC because it wasn't one that the BBC respected.
>
> Nobody has ever attacked the little shit's right to have a point of view.

I don't agree, I think I saw an ambush that isn't normal for political 
parties to receive.  Once you start treating one party differently to the 
others - even if you think you're doing it for the right reasons - you're 
heading towards some kind of fascism or at least diet fascism.  Griffin 
wasn't singled out becuse he'd made an illegal cleaning expense or because 
he'd betrayed an election promise, he was singled out because he represented 
the BNP.  That's very dodgy stuff for a democracy to be thinking allowable. 
Angels should definately fear to tread on that ground.


> With the same nauseating hypocrisy as many fascists, Griffin relies on the
> liberal principle of freedom of thought to attempt to propagate his own
> doctrines that would eventually prohibit such freedom.

Just don't vote for him then.


  This is not a problem,
> just so long as the electorate retain some vestigial power of critical
> thinking.

Exactly.  He only has the power people give him, but he still has the right 
to make his case.



> Griffin has a right to think what he likes, and express his thoughts.
> Everybody else has the same rights (at least until the likes of Griffin 
> get
> into power).  He has no right for his thoughts to be heard without 
> objection,
> nor to be treated as if they are right when they are demonstrably wrong.
> Nobody has those rights, so Griffin has no right to whine about his 
> imagined
> persecution.

Then you're heading for cars and letterboxes exploding.  Back to police 
receiving coded warnings.  If you start thinking it's OK to silence voices 
of protest against the status quo don't be surprised if they shout a lot 
louder next time.

In the long run you're far better off disagreeing with someone with some 
degree of respect.

It's just as I see it.


TWP

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>I think the BBC made a terrible mistake.  If they hadn't tried to turn the
>>event into a circus Griffin would have come and gone and it would have all
>>been over.
>
> I have to agree.  Had it been a bit less BNP bashing and more on current
> affairs  then he would not be getting any sympathy.
>
> As it is Jack Straw was the one making racist remarks and Nick Griffin
> came across as more balanced.

I believe Panorama is repeated this evening on BBC Parliament or News 24 and 
I'll try and watch it again with an eye towards all the issues discussed and 
see if my judgement changes.

I think the primary issue is 'human nature'. Panorama and its panel are not 
required to accept lies and BS claims, to let them go unchallenged, and its 
that 'human nature' which causes people to respond with ridicule and be 
disparaging. Panorama is a middleweight political affairs programme with a 
degree of entertainment value in seeing 'panellists we don't like' have 
their policies and views torn to pieces by other panellists.. That Griffin 
was so disengenuous brought ridicule down upon himself.

Perhaps some feel his being savaged and ridiculed because he lied, couldn't 
give credible answers, ducked and squirmed, as unfair, but it's exactly what 
I'd have expected were I to have gone on the show and done the same. 
Griffin's problem stems from trying to maintain the pretence of being a 
modern party which has shrugged off its past when it's really a party which 
has the same ideology but has simply rebranded itself and tries to hide its 
ideology - as noted by the panellists, Griffin is right there on film 
explaining the deceptive nature of the rebranding and I believe it was 
Tyndall who put the same into print some years ago.

Let's be honest, the 8 million who watched Panorama probably did so 
primarily to see if the BNP is a new party which has shrugged off its past 
or still a party with racist ideology at its core. If Panorama helped answer 
that question then that's good enough for me.

Of more interest than Panorama was Griffin's outbursts in its wake; that he 
no longer sees 'London as being part of Britain' in particular. I suppose 
that when the BNP revolution comes 'London' will the first against the wall 
/ put on boats / going for re-education ? Griffin couldn't have revealed a 
better, "you're either with us, or against us and an enemy', viewpoint if 
he'd tried. Seems Panorama has done its job, revealed the underlying nature 
of Griffin and the BNP.

On 2009-10-25 02:53:30 +0200, "TWP"  said:

> 
> "John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CAED13F429EBaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
>> "TWP"  wrote in
>> news:Eaudna3oFYEC2H7XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>> 
>> [Snips]
>>> His views were singularly ridiculous in your opinion.
>> 
>> Not just in my opinion, and not merely as a matter of opinion.  All
>> opinions
>> are not created equal, and the idea that "everyone has a right to their
>> opinion" does not equate to anyone being entitled to spout whatever
>> crapulent
>> tommyrot they happen to believe without criticism.

snips

> 
>> 
>> [Snips]
>>> I already described the personal attacks.
>> 
>> And it was pretty piss-weak stuff, wasn't it?  The odd shouit of
>> "disgusting"
>> from the audience (a very mild epithet, to my mind), and one weak willy
>> joke.
> 
> I was trying to describe to you the unusually hosite tone.  Whatever I
> described you would rubbish anyway, so what's the point?  We already have
> established that I believe everyone's opinions should be respected and
> you've established that you dou't buy that.  My trying to convince you of
> bias isn't going to cut any ice if you don't believe his point of view
> should have been heard in the first place.
> 
>> 
>> No mention of the little shitbag's criminal conviction, you'll notice.
>> 
> I don't know anything about that.  I've not really taken a lot of interest
> in Griffin or the BNP.  I wouldn't have watched that night if I hadn't seen
> the riot on Sky News.  I suppose I was one of the Romans the BBC was trying
> to appeal to.  I turned up at the arena just like the other 8 million people
> did.
> 
> 

snip

"I have not really taken a lot of interest in Griffin or the BNP". Wow! 
You are some kind of wunderkind! If you haven't so far been brought up 
to date then let me help you out - Nick Griffin is an offensive little 
Nazi shit. His party, the BNP, should be shut down now and all the 
little Nazis with it. Would you instead like to see this shit reach a 
position where he could be elected? By people who had "not really taken 
a lot of interest"? If so then you do not have to look far to discover 
what would then happen.

Hitler, who Griffin thinks wasn't such a bad chap after all, used the 
democratic system to get elected to a position of power. Many of his 
voters no doubt thought, "I have not really taken a lot of interest in 
him but look, he has such a neat uniform, lets give him a go". 
Thousands of others supported him becasue they were of a like mind. 
They were the middle sized business owners and others who felt they had 
a had bad deal and persuaded others that it was the Jews who were 
responsible. And the Gypsies. And the Homosexuals. And the Handicapped. 
And all the other groups that they felt were a drain on society.

I have seen nothing whatsoever that would lead me to believe that Nick 
Griffin and his thugs would do any different once they got into power. 
In which case I suspect that you, TWP, would belong to one of these 
groups and be dealt with as necessary. My christ, how often is it that 
the oppressed vote for their own oppression!

If you were to seek for an honorable alternative to this blind support 
then you could do no better than begin by checking out the expression 
"White Rose". And then respect them, and think what, in your igorance, 
you are doing.

On Oct 25, 12:53 am, "TWP"  wrote:
> "John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:Xns9CAED13F429EBaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
>
> > "TWP"  wrote in
> >news:Eaudna3oFYEC2H7XnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
> > [Snips]
> >> His views were singularly ridiculous in your opinion.
>
> > Not just in my opinion, and not merely as a matter of opinion.  All
> > opinions
> > are not created equal, and the idea that "everyone has a right to their
> > opinion" does not equate to anyone being entitled to spout whatever
> > crapulent
> > tommyrot they happen to believe without criticism.
>
> No it doesn't.  I didn't say he couldn't be criticised, I'm saying that it's
> wrong for him to be abused.  It's wrong for the BBC, which is supported for
> everyone, to only give voice to his opposition and allow him to be
> pilloried.  That wasn't on no matter what his beliefs.
>
> And yes, as a free man he does have a right to say what he wants within
> certain legal boundaries.
>
>   If you haven't read it, I
>
> > suggest Jamie Whyte's "Bad Thoughts" as both a good read and an excellent
> > corrective to the brain-dead idea that "everyone's entitled to their
> > opinion".
>
> No-one is going to talk me into the idea that a person loses his right to
> free speech because they might use it to say something I don't like.  The
> only limits should be when someone is trying to directly encourage violence
> or murder.
>
>
>
> >> That's part of the point here.  Our system of politics requires
> >> tolerance.
>
> > Logically speaking, how does one require (qua require) tolerance?
>
> > Our political system, and the great traditions of British culture and
> > common
> > law (for all of which scum like Griffin show breathtaking contempt) are> > indeed, based on tolerance.  But it does not therefore follow that all
> > views
> > and all arguments must, automatically, regardless of merit, be afforded
> > the
> > same degree of tolerance.
>
> I completely disagree there.  With the exception of those wishing to incite
> violence or murder I think that's exactly what is required for a people to
> have a free political system.
>
>
>
> >> Differing points of view have to be able to co-exist.
>
> > Clearly, if argument is to be the method of resolving conflict, and if two
> > positions are antithetic one to another, then it is not possible for both
> > points to continue to exist if the argument is to be resolved.
>
> No, because in our system the losing side concedes defeat and allows itself
> to be dominated by the other.  That way we don't have to actually kill each
> other to settle the argument.  Sometimes of course, such as in war, it comes
> to that.
>
> My argument relates to normal life in our democratic system.
>
>
>
> > Nobody was denying Griffin's right to believe, in the privacy of his own
> > tiny
> > mind, whatever deluded drivel he desires to believe.
>
> He wasn't there as a private citizen, he was there as an elected MEP.  He
> represented a political party that had been elected in a legal democratic
> manner.  It wasn't his place to just sit there with his thoughts in his own
> head.
>
>   You seem to have made
>
> > the error of assuming that this right magically extends to his right to
> > express this drivel without objection, and, indeed, to impose it upon
> > people
> > who find it obnoxious in the extreme.
>
> He had every right to express his opinion - in fact he was there
> specifically to state his opinion with respect to current events.  That was
> what the show was about.
>
> And he does have the right to express drivel, within certain legal
> boundaries, just as I or you or anyone does.  You also have the right not to
> listen.
>
>
>
> >> It's not for the majority
> >> to persecute any minority, whatever they believe.
>
> > Oh, so the wicked British Imperialist majority who outlawed suttee in
> > India
> > were, by your argument, behaving wrongly.
>
> No, that was an enforcement of law.  If the majority in the UK voted to
> bring back hanging it still could not be brought back because it would
> violate laws we now live by.  That's not persecution.  What I'm talking
> about is more along the lines of what the US constitution called the
> "Tyranny of the Majority".
>
>
>
> > I imagine that you mist also, on precisely the same grounds, favour of
> > female
> > genital mutilation in places like Somalia.
>
> I'm not sure how you're making that stretch.  That also sounds like
> something for the law to worry about.
>
>
>
> > Really, does it never occur to you to think just for a moment of the
> > logical
> > consequences of the alarmingly silly priciples you enunciate?
>
> The consequences are that everyone's political beliefs have to be respected
> if not agreed with.  It only gets nasty when beliefs are backed up with
> violence.
>
>
>
> >> In that respect
> >> "Question Time" et al became the BNP and Griffin became the "ethnic
> >> minority".  I know which I thought looked like they were enjoying it
> >> more.
>
> > Yeah, Griffin lapped it up.
>
> He didn't look like he was to me.
>
>   No wonder he was snickering to himself; he's
>
> > cheeked the establishment, and got a whole bunch more victim cred for
> > himself
> > and his tragically inadequate followers.
>
> Blame the BBC for that.
>
>
>
> > [Snips]
> >> I already described the personal attacks.
>
> > And it was pretty piss-weak stuff, wasn't it?  The odd shouit of
> > "disgusting"
> > from the audience (a very mild epithet, to my mind), and one weak willy
> > joke.
>
> I was trying to describe to you the unusually hosite tone.  Whatever I
> described you would rubbish anyway, so what's the point?  We already have
> established that I believe everyone's opinions should be respected and
> you've established that you dou't buy that.  My trying to convince you of
> bias isn't going to cut any ice if you don't believe his point of view
> should have been heard in the first place.
>
>
>
> > No mention of the little shitbag's criminal conviction, you'll notice.
>
> I don't know anything about that.  I've not really taken a lot of interest
> in Griffin or the BNP.  I wouldn't have watched that night if I hadn't seen
> the riot on Sky News.  I suppose I was one of the Romans the BBC was trying
> to appeal to.  I turned up at the arena just like the other 8 million people
> did.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Jack Straw's dad was
> >> brought up by Griffin in an obvious attempt to defend himself by
> >> attacking.  It got him nowhere.
>
> > And, like all good playground bullies, he got his retaliation in first.
> > The
> > reasion it got him nowhere was that it was obvious he was behaving like a
> > total dickhead, trying and failing to insult Jack Straw's family for no
> > good
> > reason.  You really cannot blame shitbag Griffin's behaviour on anyone
> > else
> > but shitbag Griffin.
>
> > [Snips]
> >>> Ridicule doesn't persuade?  Why then do you think Charlie Chaplin
> >>> bothered to make "The Great Dictator"?
>
> >> Chaplin was preaching to the converted.
>
> > Oh, right.  Not a single mind swayed there, you reckon.
>
> No, I don't realistically think anyone who thought the Nazis were a good
> thing changed their mind because of "The Great Dictator", but who knows.
> Ridicule is more a social punishment than persuasion.  I'm sure it can be
> used to make people act against their wishes or beliefs to avoid being
> punished, but that's not the same thing as persuasion.
>
> Your posts contain a component of ridicule for my beliefs.  My beliefs
> haven't changed, but I know if I repeat them you'll probably ridicule them
> again.  Eventually I might reach a point where I think 'you know what - I
> can do without this shit... etc' and I'll leave the subject alone.  You win,
> but I still believe what I did before.
>
>   And in all other
>
> > cases, I expect you will claim, the use of ridicule has never had any
> > persuasive power whatever.  Doubtless that explains why we still have the
> > Cones Hotline.
>
> > [Snips]
> >> I'm not defending his point of view, I'm defending his right to have
> >> one - even an unpopular one - without being thrown to the mob by the
> >> BBC because it wasn't one that the BBC respected.
>
> > Nobody has ever attacked the little shit's right to have a point of view.
>
> I don't agree, I think I saw an ambush that isn't normal for political
> parties to receive.  Once you start treating one party differently to the
> others - even if you think you're doing it for the right reasons - you're
> heading towards some kind of fascism or at least diet fascism.  Griffin
> wasn't singled out becuse he'd made an illegal cleaning expense or because
> he'd betrayed an election promise, he was singled out because he represented
> the BNP.  That's very dodgy stuff for a democracy to be thinking allowable.
> Angels should definately fear to tread on that ground.
>
> > With the same nauseating hypocrisy as many fascists, Griffin relies on the
> > liberal principle of freedom of thought to attempt to propagate his own
> > doctrines that would eventually prohibit such freedom.
>
> Just don't vote for him then.
>
>   This is not a problem,
>
> > just so long as the electorate retain some vestigial power of critical
> > thinking.
>
> Exactly.  He only has the power people give him, but he still has the right
> to make his case.
>
> > Griffin has a right to think what he likes, and express his thoughts.
> > Everybody else has the same rights (at least until the likes of Griffin
> > get
> > into power).  He has no right for his thoughts to be heard without
> > objection,
> > nor to be treated as if they are right when they are demonstrably wrong> > Nobody has those rights, so Griffin has no right to whine about his
> > imagined
> > persecution.
>
> Then you're heading for cars and letterboxes exploding.  Back to police
> receiving coded warnings.  If you start thinking it's OK to silence voices
> of protest against the status quo don't be surprised if they shout a lot
> louder next time.
>
> In the long run you're far better off disagreeing with someone with some
> degree of respect.
>
> It's just as I see it.
>
> TWP

Don't you get it yet TWP? Posters like John Salt and Krak are really
secret BNP supporters.
They write such irrational anti BNP bullshit that any reasonable
person reading could not help but have
some sympathy for the BNP. I'm also pretty certain that the BNP has
plenty of plants in the "so called" anti-fascist
groups who demonstrated outside the Beeb studio. They would of been
the most vocal and displayed the most irrational behaviour. These are
the BNP's recruitment sergeants, agents provocateur. Remember that egg
attack of Griffin? That was really a publicity stunt organised by the
BNP's UAF members.

In message <e0WEm.1409$5w5.1012@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>
>>>I think the BBC made a terrible mistake.  If they hadn't tried to turn the
>>>event into a circus Griffin would have come and gone and it would have all
>>>been over.
>>
>> I have to agree.  Had it been a bit less BNP bashing and more on current
>> affairs  then he would not be getting any sympathy.
>>
>> As it is Jack Straw was the one making racist remarks and Nick Griffin
>> came across as more balanced.
>
>I believe Panorama
Question time?

>I think the primary issue is 'human nature'. Panorama and its panel are not
>required to accept lies and BS claims, to let them go unchallenged, and its
>that 'human nature' which causes people to respond with ridicule and be
>disparaging.

Agreed but the questions were all about the BNP. Not a normal range of
questions re the current political events.

>Perhaps some feel his being savaged and ridiculed because he lied, couldn't
>give credible answers, ducked and squirmed, as unfair, but it's exactly what
>I'd have expected were I to have gone on the show and done the same.

I agree and all the politicians have to face that and have done that.
However none of them have to face direct attack as he did for just being
there. Normally the questions are on the current events for example the
post office strike, the MP's expenses, Tony Blair as potential EU
President. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not all focused on the fact
that a legitimate party was there.

>Griffin's problem stems from trying to maintain the pretence of being a
>modern party which has shrugged off its past when it's really a party which
>has the same ideology but has simply rebranded itself and tries to hide its
>ideology - as noted by the panellists,

From "NEW" Labour?  The Rebranded Tories who are for the people not the
upper classes and the SDLP/Social-Democrat/Liberal/Liberal-Democrat
party?

Show me a party that has not re-branded, sued spin, blatantly lied,
misquoted, equivocated and in many cases done illegal things..... Quite
apart from the expenses scandal  we have yet to see if the (NEW) Labour
party did take the country to war illegally. If so do the PM and Foreign
sec and the Home Sec sine 2001 have to stand trial for murder (or
manslaughter at the very least) of several hundred servicemen?

Then we have the UDP and Sien Fienn.

The BNP politicians whilst having views you don't agree with have
actually done very little compared to most of the other political
parties.

I would remind you than a large number of Old Labour actually fought as
Mercenaries.

> Griffin is right there on film
>explaining the deceptive nature of the rebranding and I believe it was
>Tyndall who put the same into print some years ago.

SO you are saying he is honest?  A rare thing in politics.

>Let's be honest, the 8 million who watched Panorama probably did so
>primarily to see if the BNP is a new party which has shrugged off its past
>or still a party with racist ideology at its core.

They did not see that.... It was Jack Straw the Justice minister. Who
played the race card every time in that debate.

>Of more interest than Panorama was Griffin's outbursts in its wake; that he
>no longer sees 'London as being part of Britain' in particular.

Well it does have a high non British (and non ethnically British)
population.  However so do the areas where the BNP gets many of its
votes.  I dare say had the got a representative sample from the East End
ie Milwall you might have seen the sort of support for the BNP he would
not have wanted televised. Skinheads with tattoos sounding like Jesse.

>I suppose
>that when the BNP revolution comes 'London' will the first against the wall
>/ put on boats / going for re-education ? Griffin couldn't have revealed a
>better, "you're either with us, or against us and an enemy', viewpoint if
>he'd tried.

He did not do that. He was actually quite reasonable in the face of the
whole audience and panel set against him

>Seems Panorama has done its job, revealed the underlying nature
>of Griffin and the BNP.

No it did not. It helped the BNP.  They should have had better control
on the program and more East End BNP supporters. They he would not have
been a victim and the questions from his supporters and their demeanour
would have done the damage.

As it is I think he has more converts to his cause than away from it.
This is how Hitler started. (Godwins Law does not apply here)

Mosley also started the same way but he did not have the aid of
television.  The Right always do well when the working classes are
having a tough time. They are easily lead by propaganda and the promise
of a utopia if only we can get the foreigners out(taking our jobs and
women etc :-) you know all the crap Jesse spouts.

As with terrorist warfare you have to remain detached an not get
emotionally involved so you can assess the reality and the motives and
hidden agendas.

The anti fox hunting bill was not about wild life but a direct attach on
the upper classes by Labour. Several of them actually said that at
"private" meetings and were horrified when it got out.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <hc1ahj$dqc$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Krak 
writes
>
>to date then let me help you out - Nick Griffin is an offensive little
>Nazi shit.

No more than many other politicians are nasty little shits... see the
expenses scandal and Blair taking us to war illegally.

>His party, the BNP, should be shut down now and all the little Nazis
>with it. Would you instead like to see this shit reach a position where
>he could be elected?

Ditto Communist party, CND, Green Peace nutters, Labour either because
they contained Russian spys or they took us to war illegally...

Where do you want to stop?

You can't make any political party illegal just because you don't like
them.

>Hitler, who Griffin thinks wasn't such a bad chap after all, used the
>democratic system to get elected to a position of power. Many of his
>voters no doubt thought, "I have not really taken a lot of interest in
>him but look, he has such a neat uniform, lets give him a go".
>Thousands of others supported him becasue they were of a like mind.

And Blair who too the UK to War, Twice, and we have yet to discover it
that was illegal.

> They were the middle sized business owners and others who felt they
>had a had bad deal and persuaded others that it was the Jews who were
>responsible. And the Gypsies. And the Homosexuals. And the Handicapped.
>And all the other groups that they felt were a drain on society.

Yep.. Sounds like the US Republican party :-)

>I have seen nothing whatsoever that would lead me to believe that Nick
>Griffin and his thugs would do any different once they got into power.


Neither have I.  Nor the bunch that took us into the EU without a vote
or took us to war against the wishes of the vast majority of the country
All politicians are as bad as each other.

However in a democracy you can't ban a party because you don't like it.
Look at the votes any party get in an election. Including the winning
party . Never have anywhere near 50% of the population So if you voted
on which parties to ban none would survive.

That is the wonder of democracy. The problem is many people are worried
about immigration and the BNP will pander to that where the main
political parties have failed.  The BNP will work on peoples fear this
is why most BNP supporters tend to be of low intelligence and poor
education  People like Jesse.

>In which case I suspect that you, TWP, would belong to one of these
>groups and be dealt with as necessary. My christ, how often is it that
>the oppressed vote for their own oppression!

Everyone involved in Open Source SW :-)))


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"jonah"  wrote ...

Don't you get it yet TWP? Posters like John Salt and Krak are really
secret BNP supporters.
They write such irrational anti BNP bullshit that any reasonable
person reading could not help but have
some sympathy for the BNP. I'm also pretty certain that the BNP has
plenty of plants in the "so called" anti-fascist
groups who demonstrated outside the Beeb studio. They would of been
the most vocal and displayed the most irrational behaviour. These are
the BNP's recruitment sergeants, agents provocateur. Remember that egg
attack of Griffin? That was really a publicity stunt organised by the
BNP's UAF members.

======

It's an interesting theory but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The BNP would gain far more mileage in convincing the public that they have 
credible policy and getting the public to turn a blind eye to the racist 
undertones. Simply planting agent provocateurs to gain sympathy is going to 
have little effect if most don't think the BNP are being 'hard done by', 
that would only help towards retaining support from those it's already 
convinced.

Also, when talking of "irrational anti BNP bullshit" you have to show it is 
so to be anywhere near convincing.

The truth is the BNP do present in public some policy issues which have 
considerable public support ( for right or wrong ) which the mainstream 
parties are not addressing. An electorate which focuses only on those 
policies and put aside all else related to the BNP may be inclined to agree 
with them and elect them. The BNP, quite sensibly, want to keep debate on 
their popular policy and keep hidden the more offensive side of their 
policies and ideology, or appeal to the 'I'll be alright, sod you Jack' side 
of human nature.

It's not so much that the BNP are gaining ground but that mainstream parties 
are losing it; Jack Straw publicly maintains New Labour's immigration 
policies are working perfectly even while millions disagree with him. The 
BNP have also realised it pays to play the same game as the mainstream 
parties; present the good they'll bring while hiding the bad. They cannot 
fail to realise that once they get elected into Governent they, like New 
Labour, can do whatever they damn well like.

The real failing is 'democracy' and the British political system. With the 
system and most politicians held in contempt by the public a 'protest vote' 
looks appealing.

Though it's with great disgust and a tough moral decision, I'm seriously 
leaning towards voting Tory to guarantee preventing New Labour's removal of 
fundamental liberties. That's an issue for me which trumps all else. I know 
that will bring with it much that I oppose yet the Tories will claim I have 
given them a mandate for doing what I did not vote for.

I can well see people voting likewise for the BNP because of policy they 
support and living with the consequences of what else that brings with it. 
Every elector has to make that very same decision no matter who they vote 
for. On the 'hidden agenda' front, I don't think the BNP are alone, some of 
the environmentalist groups need close scrutiny IMO.

If our laughingly-called democracy and system of politics weren't so corrupt 
and badly broken the BNP and other extremists would not be a threat. The 
biggest fear for the mainstream parties is that they will lose the power 
they seek for themselves to others they collectively disagree with ( and for 
good reason ), but they will not fix what is fundamentally broken. Once 
again it's 'the system' coming together to protect itself, maintaining the 
status quo of their power-base, not to ensure public protection. Eventually 
some extremist group will play the system for what it is and belatedly make 
us realise the politicians and those who support them brought it down upon 
us all. We will eventually face a political collapse in the same way we've 
seen a banking collapse, IMO.

I agree with those who say 'we need a revolution in politics and democracy', 
I expect some will see supporting the BNP as a way of bringing that about. I 
cannot argue against their sentiments nor their claims that the BNP 
represents some policy for them better than any other party, but I cannot 
agree with what else that lets through the door. But then, I voted Blair 
into power so am not without blood on my own hands.

'Fighting facists' is a worthy goal, but really a distraction from the real 
issue; fixing British democracy.

"Chris H"  wrote ...

[snips]

>> Griffin is right there on film
>>explaining the deceptive nature of the rebranding and I believe it was
>>Tyndall who put the same into print some years ago.
>
> SO you are saying he is honest?  A rare thing in politics.

No, I'm saying he's not. He denied that the plans to 'spin the policy to 
gain favourable electorability', as he can be heard saying on film, as 
Tyndal wrote, wasn't what it appeared to be.


>>I suppose
>>that when the BNP revolution comes 'London' will the first against the 
>>wall
>>/ put on boats / going for re-education ? Griffin couldn't have revealed a
>>better, "you're either with us, or against us and an enemy', viewpoint if
>>he'd tried.
>
> He did not do that. He was actually quite reasonable in the face of the
> whole audience and panel set against him

Exactly - It's typically representative of what he says on a public platform 
differing to what he says elsewhere. That gets to the whole heart of what 
the BNP issue is; are they wolves in sheep's clothing, are they presenting 
themselves as something they are not ?


>>Seems Panorama has done its job, revealed the underlying nature
>>of Griffin and the BNP.
>
> No it did not. It helped the BNP.  They should have had better control
> on the program and more East End BNP supporters. They he would not have
> been a victim and the questions from his supporters and their demeanour
> would have done the damage.

This was really the first 'public airing of the BNP' and it was bound to be 
a bit messy. I actually think we need more heavyweight political analysis 
into and questioning of the BNP than we've had.

In message <0PYEm.1477$5w5.112@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>Exactly - It's typically representative of what he says on a public platform
>differing to what he says elsewhere. That gets to the whole heart of what
>the BNP issue is; are they wolves in sheep's clothing, are they presenting
>themselves as something they are not ?

And how is this different from Labour and the Torys?



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

TWP wrote:

> 
> Nick Griffin is to complain about his treatment on last nights "Question
> Time".  I can't say I blame him.  The BBC had no right to allow a legally
> elected MP to be treated like that.  The BBC were in effect attempting to
> crush and ridicule a whole segment of the population through him by proxy.
> This man's party, even if you disagree with everything that party stands
> stands for, was voted for by people who all the major parties also had a
> chance to court and persuade and failed to do so.  Persuasion didn't work,
> so lets get out the rotten tomatoes, eh?
> 
> Even though the programme is pre-recorded they still showed one questioner
> saying "this is a question for Dick.... I mean Nick Griffin".   Most of
> the the questions seemed to be about what Griffin had said or done in the
> past.
> Irrelevant.  It's his party's policies and how he intends to lead his
> party
> that matter.  When he did answer he was frequently cut off so we couldn't
> understand his reply.  It'll all have just made his supporters even more
> angry.
> 
> Does the BBC mean to suggest that there's nothing dark in anyone else's
> past
> at Westminster?  That no-one else has embarrasing associations or said
> anything they now regret?  Only over the summer there were thefts revealed
> from the public purse that would have seen the rest of us in prison.  We
> would never have known but for the fact that someone leaked the
> un-redacted
> versions to the newspapers.  MPs as a group wanted to destroy evidence,
> but they were too late. Aught to be a conspiracy charge in there
> somewhere. Some here on this very newsgroup believe that Tony Blair is a
> war criminal
> with the deaths of thousands on his hands.  There are far worse out there
> than Nick Griffin who are actually in real power, not just in charge of a
> council, or realistically stand to gain real power.  The BNP will always
> be a fringe party, and their support would go straight down if people
> thought that their concerns were taken seriously by the major parties,
> particularly relating to immigration.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable defending someone from the BNP, but wrong is wrong, and
> this was wrong.
> The BBC was obviously pushing an agenda and they have a duty as seriously
> as
> our duty to pay our licence fee to avoid doing so.  If the BBC want power
> that badly maybe they should stand at the next election.  I won't be
> watching again.  I've got my choice of sources from across the world if
> all
> I want is propaganda.  The BBC's kind is too obvious for me.
> 
> 
> 
> TWP

I'm afraid I have to say the much of the outrage being expressed by the 
mainstream media, as well as by the three Westminster parties (whose 
solidarity on most things these days we take for granted), seems pretty 
synthetic. After all, the press seems to have had a down on immigrants and 
in particular Muslims for ages now. See:

http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/hmm-remember-this.html

And Jack Straw and his colleagues have been demonising both Muslims (by 
their persecution of so-called 'extremists', and terrorism suspects) as well 
as immigrants (by new legislation to exclude non-EU immigrants and severe 
treatment for people seeking asylum) with the support of the two other 
Westminster parties.

It's also disingenuous of the Westminster parties to address the BNP's 
racism whilst refusing to address the strangulation of English nationalism 
that has gone on for years in the name of Unionism, supported ultimately by 
the Northern Irish Unionists. England alone has had its Parliament hijacked 
by the Unionists in the name of a so-called United Kingdom, whose only 
justification seems to be to underpin the continuance of Tweedledum and 
Tweedledee in political office come what may. England has no devolved 
administration either, so that political accountability goes by the board.

This is why Griffin is fairly relaxed about changing the BNP constitution on 
race, but when he is pressed as to who he thinks he is representing he shows 
that his main concern is for the indigenous English, increasing numbers of 
whom feel that they lack a voice, and that their views are ignored. Instead 
Westminster parties continue to harp on about so-called 'Britishness' which, 
conveniently, turns out to mean whatever values they themselves claim to 
support.

The danger from English nationalism to the Unionist project is pretty 
obvious, and that's why Griffin is perceived as being so dangerous to the 
Westminster establishment.

This danger, if not addressed, is merely bound to grow as time goes on. As 
Oscar Wilde remarked, there is only one thing worse than being talked about, 
and that is not being talked about. Which is why Griffin is quite happy to 
play the martyr.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message <0PYEm.1477$5w5.112@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>>Exactly - It's typically representative of what he says on a public 
>>platform
>>differing to what he says elsewhere. That gets to the whole heart of what
>>the BNP issue is; are they wolves in sheep's clothing, are they presenting
>>themselves as something they are not ?
>
> And how is this different from Labour and the Torys?

In essence, not a lot, but it's the degree of the hidden agenda which has 
people rightly concerned about the BNP.

In my, and I expect most people's eyes, there's a considerable difference 
between a party promising something and 'neglecting' to tell us we'll see 
our taxes rise or services fall to pay for it, and a party which promises 
something while 'neglecting' to tell us it will be achieved through racial 
discrimination and the removal of fundamental human rights from particular 
groups of people.

As far as I am aware, no other party today comes from a backgound of racial 
hatred and violence against ethinic and religious groups, has associates of 
the party imprisoned for serious physical attacks on ethnic and religious 
groups and has a leader with a conviction for distributing material likely 
to incite racial hatred. The founding father of the BNP, Tyndall has six 
convictions, including creating a paramilitary organisattion and inciting 
racial hatred. Lecomber ( Group Development Officer ) has a string of 
convictions including for possession of homemade hand-grenades and an attack 
upon a female Jewish schoolteacher.

Griffin's ex-bodyguard, Owens, reported that Lecomber suggested plans for 
assassinating leading British politicians and senior figures deemed enemies 
of the far right. Lecomber admitted the conversation but says it wasn't to 
be taken seriously.

It's true that all parties have members, associates and followers who have 
been convicted as criminals, and quite severely so, but it seems the BNP has 
a disproportionate number who have been convicted of 'race hate' and similar 
crimes than others.

All parties have their 'hidden agendas', their downsides which may detract 
from the policy they present up-front, things they'd perhaps rather not 
discuss and which the public may find unpalatable, but some things may be 
more deeply hidden and unpalatable than others. There's also a definite 
distinction between down-playing unpalatables and outright lying about 
plans.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...

> I believe Panorama is repeated this evening on BBC Parliament or News 24 
> and I'll try and watch it again with an eye towards all the issues 
> discussed and see if my judgement changes.

18:00 - 19:00 BBC Parliament - Sky 504

20:30 - 21:00 (abridged) BBC News 24 - Sky 503

Probably also on BBC iPlayer

"TWP"  wrote in
news:3uedncVCfv8OPH7XnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk: 

[Snips]
> No it doesn't.  I didn't say he couldn't be criticised, I'm saying
> that it's wrong for him to be abused. 

And, apparently, you count ridicule as a form of abuse.  You must really 
let me have a copy of the etiquette manual you believe should be followed 
in public debates. 

> It's wrong for the BBC, which
> is supported for everyone, to only give voice to his opposition and
> allow him to be pilloried. 

So how would you have had the BBC ensure "balance" by inserting a 
selection of pro-BNP questioners in the audience, and how would you have 
had the audience screened to prevent "pillorying"?  I would be very 
interested to see how you intend to achieve such a thing.

>   If you haven't read it, I
>> suggest Jamie Whyte's "Bad Thoughts" as both a good read and an
>> excellent corrective to the brain-dead idea that "everyone's entitled
>> to their opinion".
> 
> No-one is going to talk me into the idea that a person loses his right
> to free speech because they might use it to say something I don't
> like. 

That's not what Whyte says at all.  I really, really strongly suggest 
that you read the book in preference to dismissing it solely on the basis 
of a silly counterfactual supposition you have just made up.

> The only limits should be when someone is trying to directly
> encourage violence or murder.

So, no official secrets, no commercial confidence, no NDRs, no protection 
of legal evidence, and laws on defamation?  Is that really what you want,  
or did you just not stop to think things through again?  

>>> That's part of the point here.  Our system of politics requires
>>> tolerance.
>>
>> Logically speaking, how does one require (qua require) tolerance?
>>
>> Our political system, and the great traditions of British culture and
>> common
>> law (for all of which scum like Griffin show breathtaking contempt)
>> are, indeed, based on tolerance.  But it does not therefore follow
>> that all views
>> and all arguments must, automatically, regardless of merit, be
>> afforded the
>> same degree of tolerance.
> 
> I completely disagree there.  With the exception of those wishing to
> incite violence or murder I think that's exactly what is required for
> a people to have a free political system.

So you think that freedom depends on suspending one's judgement, and 
refusing to exercise the powers of reason.  I suspect that this is quite 
a popular opinion, as it saves anyone from ever having to commit the 
terrible act of critical thinking. 

>>> Differing points of view have to be able to co-exist.
>>
>> Clearly, if argument is to be the method of resolving conflict, and
>> if two positions are antithetic one to another, then it is not
>> possible for both points to continue to exist if the argument is to
>> be resolved. 
> 
> No, because in our system the losing side concedes defeat and allows
> itself to be dominated by the other. 

And how is this defeat determined?  By argument.  Unless, of course, you 
believe in moving straight to the vote without hearing any of the 
discussion (a distressing trend in Westminster politics, and an indicator 
of the sickness in our political system that Hap has touched on 
elsewhere).  

[Snips]
>   You seem to have made
>> the error of assuming that this right magically extends to his right
>> to express this drivel without objection, and, indeed, to impose it
>> upon people
>> who find it obnoxious in the extreme.
> 
> He had every right to express his opinion - in fact he was there 
> specifically to state his opinion with respect to current events. 
> That was what the show was about.
> 
> And he does have the right to express drivel, within certain legal 
> boundaries, just as I or you or anyone does.  You also have the right
> not to listen.

But the right he does not have, and the right you seem to be claiming for 
him, is the right to escape without criticism (and, yes, ridicule) for 
his expression of the aforesaid drivel.  According to your let's-not-be-
beastly-to-the-fascists book of etiquette, we should politely receive 
Griffin's racialist witterings about the "indigenous peoples" of the 
British Isles with the same degree of respect as, say, a speech by WSC or 
MLK.  I call bullshit.  Nobody has the right not to be offended, not not 
to have their arguments subject to counter-arguments.

[Big snips]
> I was trying to describe to you the unusually hosite tone.

If you thought that was a hostile tone, I venture to suggest that you 
have never particiapted in any public political debate on any subject 
whatever.

>  Whatever I
> described you would rubbish anyway, so what's the point? 

It may have no point for you, if you are going to dismiss all my counter-
arguments as "rubbishing", but it is just possible that there may be 
other people reading the thread.  

>  We already
> have established that I believe everyone's opinions should be
> respected and you've established that you dou't buy that.  My trying
> to convince you of bias isn't going to cut any ice if you don't
> believe his point of view should have been heard in the first place.

Whoah back, neddy -- where did you get the idea that I don't think 
Griffin should have been heard?  I have no objection to his being heard 
-- provided it is not under the rather strange conditions that you are 
insisting on.  If Griffin is to be heard, then let us by all means hear 
the response to Griffin, too.  Freedom of speech is much too important a 
thing to be watered down into the mimsy and etiolated thing you seem to 
think it to be, and consists of a good deal more than politely refraining 
from criticising fascist bigots because the poor dears might be upset.

>> No mention of the little shitbag's criminal conviction, you'll
>> notice. 
>>
> I don't know anything about that.  I've not really taken a lot of
> interest in Griffin or the BNP. 

I can understand that.  For myself, I have long found political extremism 
to be one of the more surprising and amusing areas in the study of human 
stupidity.  I would be interested to see how long you could maintain your 
"equal respect" policy once confronted with the views of, say, the 
International Communist Current, the Spatacists, or the dear old Thule 
Society.  

[Big snips]
>> Nobody has ever attacked the little shit's right to have a point of
>> view. 
> 
> I don't agree, I think I saw an ambush that isn't normal for political
> parties to receive. 

OK, now please support your point with some evidence of who, at any time, 
has ever attacked Griffin's right to have a point of view.

>  Once you start treating one party differently to
> the others - even if you think you're doing it for the right reasons -
> you're heading towards some kind of fascism or at least diet fascism. 

I'm not in favour of treating the BNP differently.  If people talk shit, 
I tell them they're talking shit.  If the BNP are talking more shit than 
anyone else, they are going to get disagreed with more.

I tend to think that the recipe for a future of fascism in this country 
is much more likely to be having well-intentioned people, who are polite 
and respectful of others opinions and don't like to be "judgemental", not 
taking much of an interest in the BNP, and imagining that they must be 
basically decent chaps just like everyone else.  I recall a sketch from 
"The Daily Harpoon" -- "Exciting news from our chums in Italy about a new 
kind of scouting, called Fascism!  It's like ordinary scouting, but wioth 
more black leather."

> Griffin wasn't singled out becuse he'd made an illegal cleaning
> expense or because he'd betrayed an election promise, he was singled
> out because he represented the BNP.  That's very dodgy stuff for a
> democracy to be thinking allowable. Angels should definately fear to
> tread on that ground. 

So you think it wrong to "single out" a party because of its racialist 
views, but OK if it's about fiddling cleaning expenses?

>> With the same nauseating hypocrisy as many fascists, Griffin relies
>> on the liberal principle of freedom of thought to attempt to
>> propagate his own doctrines that would eventually prohibit such
>> freedom. 
> 
> Just don't vote for him then.

No, sorry, I am not prepared to limit my political activity to just 
voting.  It is not possible to have a healthy democracy if you think it's 
something that only happens every few years, when you put a cross in a 
box like doing the Lotto.

>   This is not a problem,
>> just so long as the electorate retain some vestigial power of
>> critical thinking.
> 
> Exactly.  He only has the power people give him, but he still has the
> right to make his case.

Nobody ever stopped him making his case.  He made his case, he made a 
hash of his case, and he whined like a spoiled child when other people 
were so rude as to exercise their freedom of speech telling him what a 
crock of shit his case was. 

>> Griffin has a right to think what he likes, and express his thoughts.
>> Everybody else has the same rights (at least until the likes of
>> Griffin get
>> into power).  He has no right for his thoughts to be heard without 
>> objection,
>> nor to be treated as if they are right when they are demonstrably
>> wrong. Nobody has those rights, so Griffin has no right to whine
>> about his imagined
>> persecution.
> 
> Then you're heading for cars and letterboxes exploding.

So, let us be absolutely clear about this, you claim that people will 
become violent if they are not granted the right to be as wrong as they 
like, without ever suffering the indignity of a correction or a counter-
argument?

I beg leave to doubt it.  But even if it were so, it would be worth it; 
lack of critical thinking is so much more dangerous than mere high 
explosive.   

> police receiving coded warnings.  If you start thinking it's OK to
> silence voices of protest against the status quo don't be surprised if
> they shout a lot louder next time.

I have never been in favour of silencing voices of protest, so I'm glad 
that you partially agree with me on this point.  I'm a little confused as 
to why you think it is OK to silence the voices of those arguing against 
Griffin, but presumably those don't count because they represent the 
"status quo".  What are you, some kind of Change Management Consultant?

All the best,   

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

In message <OB_Em.1510$5w5.239@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>> In message <0PYEm.1477$5w5.112@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>> Hippy  writes
>>>Exactly - It's typically representative of what he says on a public
>>>platform
>>>differing to what he says elsewhere. That gets to the whole heart of what
>>>the BNP issue is; are they wolves in sheep's clothing, are they presenting
>>>themselves as something they are not ?
>>
>> And how is this different from Labour and the Torys?
>
>In essence, not a lot, but it's the degree of the hidden agenda which has
>people rightly concerned about the BNP.

Compared to Blair lying and taking the country to war?

>In my, and I expect most people's eyes, there's a considerable difference
>between a party promising something and 'neglecting' to tell us we'll see
>our taxes rise or services fall to pay for it, and a party which promises
>something while 'neglecting' to tell us it will be achieved through racial
>discrimination and the removal of fundamental human rights from particular
>groups of people.

But a lot of people support Griffins views on immigration. Most of late
thanks to the governments fear and paranoia over Islamic terrorists ==
Moslems == Brown people == FOREIGNERS..... panic, scream, shout and make
like Jesse.

The BNP will have a Lot of sympathy. Especially as is common for right
wing groups the working class who are all socialist until they find they
have no work [and it is al the fault of the foreigners taking our jobs
and women] You only have to see what Jesse says on the subject.

When the UK lifts out of recession the support for the BNP will fade.
The problem we have is that there will be a general election before that
happens and to make matters worse nearly a third of the MP's are
standing down due to the expense account fiasco so they can get their
retirement bung before they are thrown out without it.

SO we stand a good chance of getting several BNP MP's in parliament
thanks to the appalling behaviour of the current MP's They have no one
to blame but them selves.

Hopefully as things improve any that to get elected will loose their
seats or in order to keep them become politicians.... that is change the
face of their party so it is more acceptable. Then they will be little
different to any of the others...
Who have taken us in to Europe, disarmed the population (except the
criminals), taken us illegally to war, will implement compulsory DNA
databases and bring out ID cards.

Are you telling me that the BNP is in reality any worse than that lot?

>As far as I am aware, no other party today comes from a backgound of racial
>hatred and violence against ethinic and religious groups,

The Tories and the Labour party....   The Labour party were fighting a
class war which amounts to the same sort of bigotry

> has associates of
>the party imprisoned for serious physical attacks on ethnic and religious
>groups and has a leader with a conviction for distributing material likely
>to incite racial hatred.

I bet you could find it going back only 100 years.

> The founding father of the BNP, Tyndall has six
>convictions, including creating a paramilitary organisattion and inciting
>racial hatred. Lecomber ( Group Development Officer ) has a string of
>convictions including for possession of homemade hand-grenades and an attack
>upon a female Jewish schoolteacher.

And most of Old Labour were Mercenaries.

>Griffin's ex-bodyguard, Owens, reported that Lecomber suggested plans for
>assassinating leading British politicians and senior figures deemed enemies
>of the far right. Lecomber admitted the conversation but says it wasn't to
>be taken seriously.

He is not the first. Email me off list.


>It's true that all parties have members, associates and followers who have
>been convicted as criminals, and quite severely so, but it seems the BNP has
>a disproportionate number who have been convicted of 'race hate' and similar
>crimes than others.

Now that I would agree with. However I expect that they will have a
change of personnel to make the more executable. Just like any other
party


>All parties have their 'hidden agendas', their downsides which may detract
>from the policy they present up-front, things they'd perhaps rather not
>discuss and which the public may find unpalatable, but some things may be
>more deeply hidden and unpalatable than others. There's also a definite
>distinction between down-playing unpalatables and outright lying about
>plans.

I agree which is why Blair should stand trial. Along with Jack Straw and
others. :-)


The way to fight the BNP is dispassionately. Calm down they are all a
bunch of lying bastards.   Also Returning Britain to the British will be
a very strong call to many suffering hardship in the recession...

The problem is the yobs that will sign up will not take many of the jobs
the immigrants are doing anyway.

Also as Jesse fails to realise colour is not an indication of
nationality... as Jack Straw pointed out (and he is white) he is an
immigrant family and as Nick Griffin pointed out refused to fight for
Britain.  Just like the white Governor of California is a European but
the black President is an American.

There have been non white people in the UK since before the Romans
invaded some 2000+ years ago.  The UK always has been multi-racial from
about 500 BC as far as we can tell.

The other point is the BNP wants to throw out the not UK religions IE
Islam as it is a middle eastern Religion. Good Idea I say.  Though he
does not state it these days he wants to though out [the Jews and]
Judaism as it is a middle Eastern religion. Good Idea I say!

However he want to support the Christians....  HANG ON A MINUTE!!!!

Christianity IS a middle eastern religion that sits right between
Judaism and Islam...... :-)  Now how will he get out of that when the
"indigenous" British Druids start knocking on his door? :-))))

Besides when do you think was the last time any member of the BNP set
foot inside a Church? For a service that is not to nick the lead of the
roof.


Most of the usual crowd who can discuss terrorism here dispassionately
and objectively are now starting to sound like Jesse discussing the
Democrats. All emotive and flustered.

Calm down.

It's only a political party it is not intending to take the country in
to a couple of illegal wars that have killed about a quarter of a
million people and damned near bankrupted the country in the process
like the current lot... .



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

jonah  wrote in
news:cae764fa-99ee-4567-bacb-89ba276eb2d7@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com: 

[Snips]
> Don't you get it yet TWP? Posters like John Salt and Krak are really
> secret BNP supporters.
> They write such irrational anti BNP bullshit that any reasonable
> person reading could not help but have
> some sympathy for the BNP. 

"Irrational anti-BNP bullshit", eh? 

Care to back that up, jonah?

Or is this just a drive-by flaming, and you'll now run away and hide?

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message <OB_Em.1510$5w5.239@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>>
>>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>>
>>> In message <0PYEm.1477$5w5.112@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>>> Hippy  writes
>>>>Exactly - It's typically representative of what he says on a public
>>>>platform
>>>>differing to what he says elsewhere. That gets to the whole heart of 
>>>>what
>>>>the BNP issue is; are they wolves in sheep's clothing, are they 
>>>>presenting
>>>>themselves as something they are not ?
>>>
>>> And how is this different from Labour and the Torys?
>>
>>In essence, not a lot, but it's the degree of the hidden agenda which has
>>people rightly concerned about the BNP.
>
> Compared to Blair lying and taking the country to war?
>
>>In my, and I expect most people's eyes, there's a considerable difference
>>between a party promising something and 'neglecting' to tell us we'll see
>>our taxes rise or services fall to pay for it, and a party which promises
>>something while 'neglecting' to tell us it will be achieved through racial
>>discrimination and the removal of fundamental human rights from particular
>>groups of people.
>
> But a lot of people support Griffins views on immigration. Most of late
> thanks to the governments fear and paranoia over Islamic terrorists ==
> Moslems == Brown people == FOREIGNERS..... panic, scream, shout and make
> like Jesse.
>
> The BNP will have a Lot of sympathy. Especially as is common for right
> wing groups the working class who are all socialist until they find they
> have no work [and it is al the fault of the foreigners taking our jobs
> and women] You only have to see what Jesse says on the subject.
>
> When the UK lifts out of recession the support for the BNP will fade.
> The problem we have is that there will be a general election before that
> happens and to make matters worse nearly a third of the MP's are
> standing down due to the expense account fiasco so they can get their
> retirement bung before they are thrown out without it.
>
> SO we stand a good chance of getting several BNP MP's in parliament
> thanks to the appalling behaviour of the current MP's They have no one
> to blame but them selves.
>
> Hopefully as things improve any that to get elected will loose their
> seats or in order to keep them become politicians.... that is change the
> face of their party so it is more acceptable. Then they will be little
> different to any of the others...
> Who have taken us in to Europe, disarmed the population (except the
> criminals), taken us illegally to war, will implement compulsory DNA
> databases and bring out ID cards.
>
> Are you telling me that the BNP is in reality any worse than that lot?
>
>>As far as I am aware, no other party today comes from a backgound of 
>>racial
>>hatred and violence against ethinic and religious groups,
>
> The Tories and the Labour party....   The Labour party were fighting a
> class war which amounts to the same sort of bigotry
>
>> has associates of
>>the party imprisoned for serious physical attacks on ethnic and religious
>>groups and has a leader with a conviction for distributing material likely
>>to incite racial hatred.
>
> I bet you could find it going back only 100 years.
>
>> The founding father of the BNP, Tyndall has six
>>convictions, including creating a paramilitary organisattion and inciting
>>racial hatred. Lecomber ( Group Development Officer ) has a string of
>>convictions including for possession of homemade hand-grenades and an 
>>attack
>>upon a female Jewish schoolteacher.
>
> And most of Old Labour were Mercenaries.
>
>>Griffin's ex-bodyguard, Owens, reported that Lecomber suggested plans for
>>assassinating leading British politicians and senior figures deemed 
>>enemies
>>of the far right. Lecomber admitted the conversation but says it wasn't to
>>be taken seriously.
>
> He is not the first. Email me off list.
>
>
>>It's true that all parties have members, associates and followers who have
>>been convicted as criminals, and quite severely so, but it seems the BNP 
>>has
>>a disproportionate number who have been convicted of 'race hate' and 
>>similar
>>crimes than others.
>
> Now that I would agree with. However I expect that they will have a
> change of personnel to make the more executable. Just like any other
> party
>
>
>>All parties have their 'hidden agendas', their downsides which may detract
>>from the policy they present up-front, things they'd perhaps rather not
>>discuss and which the public may find unpalatable, but some things may be
>>more deeply hidden and unpalatable than others. There's also a definite
>>distinction between down-playing unpalatables and outright lying about
>>plans.
>
> I agree which is why Blair should stand trial. Along with Jack Straw and
> others. :-)
>
>
> The way to fight the BNP is dispassionately. Calm down they are all a
> bunch of lying bastards.   Also Returning Britain to the British will be
> a very strong call to many suffering hardship in the recession...
>
> The problem is the yobs that will sign up will not take many of the jobs
> the immigrants are doing anyway.
>
> Also as Jesse fails to realise colour is not an indication of
> nationality... as Jack Straw pointed out (and he is white) he is an
> immigrant family and as Nick Griffin pointed out refused to fight for
> Britain.  Just like the white Governor of California is a European but
> the black President is an American.
>
> There have been non white people in the UK since before the Romans
> invaded some 2000+ years ago.  The UK always has been multi-racial from
> about 500 BC as far as we can tell.
>
> The other point is the BNP wants to throw out the not UK religions IE
> Islam as it is a middle eastern Religion. Good Idea I say.  Though he
> does not state it these days he wants to though out [the Jews and]
> Judaism as it is a middle Eastern religion. Good Idea I say!
>
> However he want to support the Christians....  HANG ON A MINUTE!!!!
>
> Christianity IS a middle eastern religion that sits right between
> Judaism and Islam...... :-)  Now how will he get out of that when the
> "indigenous" British Druids start knocking on his door? :-))))
>
> Besides when do you think was the last time any member of the BNP set
> foot inside a Church? For a service that is not to nick the lead of the
> roof.

I agree with a fair bit of what you say, but would those who did vote for 
Blair do so knowing he would take us into two wars hanging on the back of 
GWB's shirt tails ?

I cant really categorise Blair / New Labour as liars in that sense, more 
something I didn't see coming. Maybe I should have.


> Most of the usual crowd who can discuss terrorism here dispassionately
> and objectively are now starting to sound like Jesse discussing the
> Democrats. All emotive and flustered.
>
> Calm down.

I don't quite see any excitability. In fact it won't surprise me one bit if 
the BNP do secure a seat in Parliament next election or some time soon. If 
they've got the headline policies which appeal and people ignore or put 
aside things which may otherwise stop them voting BNP, or the negatives 
won't affect them, then they'll vote BNP.

After all, I've always maintained that people don't vote so much for the 
best, but what they consider the least worst.


> It's only a political party it is not intending to take the country in
> to a couple of illegal wars that have killed about a quarter of a
> million people and damned near bankrupted the country in the process
> like the current lot... .

I think it is, if they put racist policy into action, and what's more that's 
a civil war in our own country.

In message <c_%Em.1539$5w5.61@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>After all, I've always maintained that people don't vote so much for the
>best, but what they consider the least worst.

Agreed and those who can whip up the crowd

>> It's only a political party it is not intending to take the country in
>> to a couple of illegal wars that have killed about a quarter of a
>> million people and damned near bankrupted the country in the process
>> like the current lot... .
>
>I think it is, if they put racist policy into action,

Racism seems to work in other countries.... eg the USA :-)

Recession, lack of jobs, education, hope and money are the problems that
breeds the problems that generate racism. The BNP just "directs" it for
it's own aims.

> and what's more that's
>a civil war in our own country.

Well it wouldn't be as it would be Brits against Foreigners...

The problem is the UK does have a VERY high population density and a lot
if illegal immigrants (not that many of the indigenous population would
take the jobs many of them do).  We need to lower the size of the
population. The trouble is much of the population is the ageing (mainly
white) group over 60. There are not enough young people...

Solutions are raising the retirement age  (they are doing that)
Culling the old people..... Did any one mention Swine flue (hard on the
heals of Avian flue yet the airports were never closed down.)
Importing some younger people..... Hmmmm

You could really get into X-Files/Bilderberg  territory here.
:-)

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 25 Oct, 13:42, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:
> "jonah"  wrote ...
>
> Don't you get it yet TWP? Posters like John Salt and Krak are really
> secret BNP supporters.
> They write such irrational anti BNP bullshit that any reasonable
> person reading could not help but have
> some sympathy for the BNP. I'm also pretty certain that the BNP has
> plenty of plants in the "so called" anti-fascist
> groups who demonstrated outside the Beeb studio. They would of been
> the most vocal and displayed the most irrational behaviour. These are
> the BNP's recruitment sergeants, agents provocateur. Remember that egg
> attack of Griffin? That was really a publicity stunt organised by the
> BNP's UAF members.
>
> ======
>
> It's an interesting theory but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
>
> The BNP would gain far more mileage in convincing the public that they have
> credible policy and getting the public to turn a blind eye to the racist
> undertones. Simply planting agent provocateurs to gain sympathy is going to
> have little effect if most don't think the BNP are being 'hard done by',
> that would only help towards retaining support from those it's already
> convinced.
>
> Also, when talking of "irrational anti BNP bullshit" you have to show it is
> so to be anywhere near convincing.
>
> The truth is the BNP do present in public some policy issues which have
> considerable public support ( for right or wrong ) which the mainstream
> parties are not addressing. An electorate which focuses only on those
> policies and put aside all else related to the BNP may be inclined to agree
> with them and elect them. The BNP, quite sensibly, want to keep debate on
> their popular policy and keep hidden the more offensive side of their
> policies and ideology, or appeal to the 'I'll be alright, sod you Jack' side
> of human nature.
>
> It's not so much that the BNP are gaining ground but that mainstream parties
> are losing it; Jack Straw publicly maintains New Labour's immigration
> policies are working perfectly even while millions disagree with him. The
> BNP have also realised it pays to play the same game as the mainstream
> parties; present the good they'll bring while hiding the bad. They cannot
> fail to realise that once they get elected into Governent they, like New
> Labour, can do whatever they damn well like.
>
> The real failing is 'democracy' and the British political system. With the
> system and most politicians held in contempt by the public a 'protest vote'
> looks appealing.
>
> Though it's with great disgust and a tough moral decision, I'm seriously
> leaning towards voting Tory to guarantee preventing New Labour's removal of
> fundamental liberties. That's an issue for me which trumps all else. I know
> that will bring with it much that I oppose yet the Tories will claim I have
> given them a mandate for doing what I did not vote for.
>
> I can well see people voting likewise for the BNP because of policy they
> support and living with the consequences of what else that brings with it.
> Every elector has to make that very same decision no matter who they vote
> for. On the 'hidden agenda' front, I don't think the BNP are alone, some of
> the environmentalist groups need close scrutiny IMO.
>
> If our laughingly-called democracy and system of politics weren't so corrupt
> and badly broken the BNP and other extremists would not be a threat. The
> biggest fear for the mainstream parties is that they will lose the power
> they seek for themselves to others they collectively disagree with ( and for
> good reason ), but they will not fix what is fundamentally broken. Once
> again it's 'the system' coming together to protect itself, maintaining the
> status quo of their power-base, not to ensure public protection. Eventually
> some extremist group will play the system for what it is and belatedly make
> us realise the politicians and those who support them brought it down upon
> us all. We will eventually face a political collapse in the same way we've
> seen a banking collapse, IMO.
>
> I agree with those who say 'we need a revolution in politics and democracy',
> I expect some will see supporting the BNP as a way of bringing that about. I
> cannot argue against their sentiments nor their claims that the BNP
> represents some policy for them better than any other party, but I cannot
> agree with what else that lets through the door. But then, I voted Blair
> into power so am not without blood on my own hands.
>
> 'Fighting facists' is a worthy goal, but really a distraction from the real
> issue; fixing British democracy.

The BNP are just the bogeyman created by the establishment through
it's mass media.
A tiny party who would be lucky to get 5% in a GE. They are just used
a as a distraction
from the real fascists, which are the government. (Lab or Con).
Unfortunetly most anti-fascists,
(although many are well meaning) are too stupid to see this. And also
see the fact that most anti fascist groups are a controlled by the
establishment parties.

Like these anti-fascists, most BNP supporters are also just as stupid.
They are also taken in by
this emotion type politics. Both groups are being played off by
establishment and, of course, it's business as usual.

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message <c_%Em.1539$5w5.61@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>>After all, I've always maintained that people don't vote so much for the
>>best, but what they consider the least worst.
>
> Agreed and those who can whip up the crowd
>
>>> It's only a political party it is not intending to take the country in
>>> to a couple of illegal wars that have killed about a quarter of a
>>> million people and damned near bankrupted the country in the process
>>> like the current lot... .
>>
>>I think it is, if they put racist policy into action,
>
> Racism seems to work in other countries.... eg the USA :-)
>
> Recession, lack of jobs, education, hope and money are the problems that
> breeds the problems that generate racism. The BNP just "directs" it for
> it's own aims.
>
>> and what's more that's
>>a civil war in our own country.
>
> Well it wouldn't be as it would be Brits against Foreigners...

Well, that depends on who the BNP would see as enemies; it's not just 
foreigners who are not "indiginous Britons" as per the BNP's ludicrous 
definition, and not just those they see as enemies.


> The problem is the UK does have a VERY high population density and a lot
> if illegal immigrants (not that many of the indigenous population would
> take the jobs many of them do).  We need to lower the size of the
> population. The trouble is much of the population is the ageing (mainly
> white) group over 60. There are not enough young people...
>
> Solutions are raising the retirement age  (they are doing that)
> Culling the old people..... Did any one mention Swine flue (hard on the
> heals of Avian flue yet the airports were never closed down.)
> Importing some younger people..... Hmmmm
>
> You could really get into X-Files/Bilderberg  territory here.
> :-)

On 2009-10-25 17:37:09 +0100, John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> said:

> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:3uedncVCfv8OPH7XnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
> 
> [Snips]
>> No it doesn't.  I didn't say he couldn't be criticised, I'm saying
>> that it's wrong for him to be abused.


big snip



>> 
>> Then you're heading for cars and letterboxes exploding.
> 
> So, let us be absolutely clear about this, you claim that people will
> become violent if they are not granted the right to be as wrong as they
> like, without ever suffering the indignity of a correction or a counter-
> argument?
> 
> I beg leave to doubt it.  But even if it were so, it would be worth it;
> lack of critical thinking is so much more dangerous than mere high
> explosive.
> 
>> police receiving coded warnings.  If you start thinking it's OK to
>> silence voices of protest against the status quo don't be surprised if
>> they shout a lot louder next time.
> 
> I have never been in favour of silencing voices of protest, so I'm glad
> that you partially agree with me on this point.  I'm a little confused as
> to why you think it is OK to silence the voices of those arguing against
> Griffin, but presumably those don't count because they represent the
> "status quo".  What are you, some kind of Change Management Consultant?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> John.

John, (in particular) I enjoy your argument very much. And the 
intricate and erudite manner in which you expound it. I am uncertain as 
to whether TWP is merely naive or is instead sensible but bending over 
backwards in a vain effort to maintain what he sees as political 
equilibrium. Chris, on the other hand, although in the main a sound 
chap, and an interesting analyist of many somewhat complex situations, 
does seem to me to be a bit wobbly when it comes to the BNP. Personally 
I would be perfectly happy to see the BNP banned and their ranting made 
not merely tiresome but also illegal.

I thrust these few thoughts into what may be an innapropriate slot as I 
have to travel tomorrow, possibly for a while, in places that do not 
have an Internet connection.

Krak

In message <gH2Fm.1577$5w5.606@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>
>> In message <c_%Em.1539$5w5.61@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>> Hippy  writes
>>
>> Recession, lack of jobs, education, hope and money are the problems that
>> breeds the problems that generate racism. The BNP just "directs" it for
>> it's own aims.
>>
>>> and what's more that's
>>>a civil war in our own country.
>>
>> Well it wouldn't be as it would be Brits against Foreigners...
>
>Well, that depends on who the BNP would see as enemies; it's not just
>foreigners who are not "indiginous Britons" as per the BNP's ludicrous
>definition, and not just those they see as enemies.


Do you have their current definition of that is British and what is not?
(I am not sure what it is myself)  Also Has this changed recently?

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Krak"  wrote...

[snips]

> I would be perfectly happy to see the BNP banned and their ranting made 
> not merely tiresome but also illegal.

I could't go that far, and it's just playing into their hands. If nothing 
else there's the near impossibility of defining what makes for a banned 
political party, though we do that for some organisations deemed to be 
terrorists or supporting terrorism -- some may consequently ask why we don't 
therefore ban New Labour ;-)

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:a3UwbMBgIV5KFA6M@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gH2Fm.1577$5w5.606@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
> Hippy  writes
>>
>>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>>
>>> In message <c_%Em.1539$5w5.61@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>>> Hippy  writes
>>>
>>> Recession, lack of jobs, education, hope and money are the problems that
>>> breeds the problems that generate racism. The BNP just "directs" it for
>>> it's own aims.
>>>
>>>> and what's more that's
>>>>a civil war in our own country.
>>>
>>> Well it wouldn't be as it would be Brits against Foreigners...
>>
>>Well, that depends on who the BNP would see as enemies; it's not just
>>foreigners who are not "indiginous Britons" as per the BNP's ludicrous
>>definition, and not just those they see as enemies.
>
>
> Do you have their current definition of that is British and what is not?
> (I am not sure what it is myself)  Also Has this changed recently?

I don't think it's ever been 'nailed down' as definitive. Current language 
is in terms of, "The policy of the British National Party remains wholly 
committed to protecting the interests of the indigenous people of the 
British Isles and will never change".

"Indiginous" seems to be the latest buzzword, though not particularly easy 
to define in respect of the majority of people who live in Britain today. If 
that's defined as directly and only descended from the people who occupied 
these lands 17,000 years ago ( as Griffin appears to define it ), it would 
exclude any Anglo-Saxons and others plus  their descendants.

By BNP definition, HMQ and the rest of the Royal Family clearly aren't 
British. Churchill certainly isn't. I suspect many of the BNP would find 
themselves to be non-British.

It's going to be quite entertaining to see the BNP try to come up with a 
means of determining if anyone is "indiginous" or not, beyond judging on 
colour of skin. A more scientific, DNA or similar, measure is going to be 
laughable; as the original "indiginous" people arrived from somewhere else, 
not only were they immigrants, but there will be many present day potential 
immigrants who could call themselves indiginous on that basis.

"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in
> news:mPBFm.2102$5w5.436@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>
> [Snips]
>> It's going to be quite entertaining to see the BNP try to come up with
>> a means of determining if anyone is "indiginous" or not, beyond
>> judging on colour of skin. A more scientific, DNA or similar, measure
>> is going to be laughable;
>
> So, now seems to be the right time for me to fake up a bunch of 
> impressive-
> looking qualification certificates on the deskjet and offer my services, 
> at
> an eye-wateringly extravagant hourly fee, to the BNP as a consultant in
> quantum ethnometric phrenology.
>
> The Nazis went for the Universal Ice Theory, and Stalin went for
> Lysenkoism, so I'm guessing that there's something about the rotating-
> eyeball extremist mentality that makes them suckers for ludicrous
> pseudoscience.

I say go for it. I'm sure a number would go for 'Certified White' 
certificates; Union Flag in one corner and St George's in the other should 
set it off a treat. You don't even have to worry about running it through a 
spell checker and I doubt most would notice if the Union Flag is upside down 
...

https://excalibur.bnp.org.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Flags_2.html ( sixth 
down )

I'd be careful of sounding too scientific though and using fancy-sounding 
terms as even paediatricians can attract the wrong sort of interest from the 
none-too-bright.

In message <mPBFm.2102$5w5.436@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:a3UwbMBgIV5KFA6M@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gH2Fm.1577$5w5.606@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>> Hippy  writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> In message <c_%Em.1539$5w5.61@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
>>>> Hippy  writes
>>>>
>>>> Recession, lack of jobs, education, hope and money are the problems that
>>>> breeds the problems that generate racism. The BNP just "directs" it for
>>>> it's own aims.
>>>>
>>>>> and what's more that's
>>>>>a civil war in our own country.
>>>>
>>>> Well it wouldn't be as it would be Brits against Foreigners...
>>>
>>>Well, that depends on who the BNP would see as enemies; it's not just
>>>foreigners who are not "indiginous Britons" as per the BNP's ludicrous
>>>definition, and not just those they see as enemies.
>>
>>
>> Do you have their current definition of that is British and what is not?
>> (I am not sure what it is myself)  Also Has this changed recently?
>
>I don't think it's ever been 'nailed down' as definitive. Current language
>is in terms of, "The policy of the British National Party remains wholly
>committed to protecting the interests of the indigenous people of the
>British Isles and will never change".
>
>"Indiginous" seems to be the latest buzzword, though not particularly easy
>to define in respect of the majority of people who live in Britain today. If
>that's defined as directly and only descended from the people who occupied
>these lands 17,000 years ago ( as Griffin appears to define it ), it would
>exclude any Anglo-Saxons and others plus  their descendants.
>
>By BNP definition, HMQ and the rest of the Royal Family clearly aren't
>British. Churchill certainly isn't. I suspect many of the BNP would find
>themselves to be non-British.

Quite so... difficult isn't it...   Also as Jesse will discover there
are many that do not have a pale completion are more indigenous that
some who do...

For example there are  many blacks in the USA who are fat more American
than Jesse is....

>It's going to be quite entertaining to see the BNP try to come up with a
>means of determining if anyone is "indiginous" or not, beyond judging on
>colour of skin.

And not even that is a good guide.  We have had non white immigrants
since about 500 BC.

> A more scientific, DNA or similar, measure is going to be
>laughable; as the original "indiginous" people arrived from somewhere else,
>not only were they immigrants, but there will be many present day potential
>immigrants who could call themselves indiginous on that basis.

:-) As with the USA there are no indigenous people bar a very small
minority who don't seem to be clamouring for racial purification.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/