The Media, Nick Griffin, and the BNP.

Handsome Bob

I have to say that I'm dismayed at the amount of air time that Nick Griffin is currently getting in the British media. In the last weeks I've noticed that Sky news have been increasingly covering stories in regards to Griffin and his party and in the last week it has all kind of snowballed. He's had interviews on ITV and C4 news, and now the BBC are gearing themselves up to give him air time.

I don't want to hear from this parasite, someone who is opportunistically taking advantage of the current economic climate in order to win over more and more supporters who are unhappy with the current regime, and because the main alternative are the Tories. Griffin realises this too, when I was watching ITV news a few days ago he attempted to discredit his rival in the eyes of the working class public by referring to him as a "toff conservative".

I find this man quite dangerous, especially because of the current climate in which he can mould to work in his favour. I find it really disappointing that the media are giving him so much attention. I know what you will all say, that we need to have him on screen so the public can see him be discredited. Let him discredit himself if you will but I reckon that is putting too much faith in an angry public who are furious with how they have been treated by the current regime. I fear that as long as Griffin plays clever politics, such as demanding that British troops are brought home, that he will gain more followers.

mike65

The BNP have two MEPs and a scattering of local councilers why shouldn't the party leader get a berth when George Galloway, leader of a 'one man' party "Respect" has got an invite in the past?

Handsome Bob

mike65 wrote: »

The BNP have two MEPs and a scattering of local councilers why shouldn't the party leader get a berth when George Galloway, leader of a 'one man' party "Respect" has got an invite in the past?

Because he's a racist?

AARRRGH

I don't agree with most of the things he says, however I have no problem with him being allowed on TV debates, etc.

I think dissenting, alternative voices are good for society, as they force us to think about issues we are uncomfortable with, or may not even think about in the first place.

Handsome Bob

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't agree with most of the things he says, however I have no problem with him being allowed on TV debates, etc.

I think dissenting, alternative voices are good for society, as they force us to think about issues we are uncomfortable with, or may not even think about in the first place.

But what if those opinions don't have any merit, and have the potential to influence other people into adapting dangerous ideologies? What if it leads to increasing party support?

mike65

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because he's a racist?

Plenty of racists in the media I imagine, they just are not obviously racist, (or nationalist). If he were "surpressed" the hoo-har would be good for the BNP. I'll not be watching as I never do but it could be interesting to see of it goes off without a righteous riot from the hard left who are camped outside.

AARRRGH

LZ5by5 wrote: »

But what if those opinions don't have any merit, and have the potential to influence other people into adapting dangerous ideologies? What if it leads to increasing party support?

I'm still ok with it. For example, the recent Lisbon debate - all the extremist organisations forced a debate on the topic.

I just know personally I'd rather have a society with all sort of opinions and voices, rather than just the "safe" voices we agree with.

Handsome Bob

mike65 wrote: »

Plenty of racists in the media I imagine, they just are not obviously racist, (or nationalist).

That's it though, this man is quite clearly racist. It's the cornerstone of his party, his party manifestoes are riddled with segregation. It's there to see in plain view.

If he were "supressed" the hoo-har would be good for the BNP.

How so?

I'll not be watching as I never do but it could be interesting to see of it goes off without a righteous riot from the hard left who are camped outside.

He had to literally go in the back door. Good enough for him.

paperorplastic

"The BBC's chief political adviser, Ric Bailey, said the decision to have Mr Griffin on Question Time was based on the party's success in June's European elections, at which it won more than 940,000 votes and two seats, he said."

But they refuse to broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza?

F*ck the BBC and F*ck the BNP.

AARRRGH

paperorplastic wrote: »

"The BBC's chief political adviser, Ric Bailey, said the decision to have Mr Griffin on Question Time was based on the party's success in June's European elections, at which it won more than 940,000 votes and two seats, he said."

But they refuse to broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza?

F*ck the BBC and F*ck the BNP.

Palestinians are not UK citizens, whereas 940,000 voters are.

g5fd6ow0hseima

LZ5by5 wrote: »

But what if those opinions don't have any merit, and have the potential to influence other people into adapting dangerous ideologies? What if it leads to increasing party support?

Well, if this is what your worried bout, you are probing at the possibility that this society is not very well educated. Therefore, if this is the case, those in power will be have to strive to improve education levels in order to neutralise groups like the BNP. Having him on air is a good thing. All he will appeal to are the uneducated and marginalised - so itll take something like a rise in BNP support for the government to reach out.

Handsome Bob

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm still ok with it. For example, the recent Lisbon debate - all the extremist organisations forced a debate on the topic.

I just know personally I'd rather have a society with all sort of opinions and voices, rather than just the "safe" voices we agree with.

Aye but, while I was happy with the yes vote, I believe more than most voted out of fear. It everything was still rosey I reckon we would have had at the least a much tighter race. Same applies to the BNP, their recent popularity would not be there if everything was still rosey in the UK.

I agree, I don't want just "safe" opinions to be voiced, but I would expect at the least that "dissenting" voices would be reasonably argued.

As for Ric Bailey, he's giving the BNP airtime because of their European success in June? Which was, say, four months ago?

paperorplastic

Do you not find it disturbing that the BBC won't broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza, because of impartiality. But will give a platform to the BNP because 940,000 UK citizens voted for them?

mike65

Two quite seperate matters, linking them is pernicious.

dsmythy

Shine a spotlight on the crazies and they will be seen in all their glory. This is what is happening tonight. Expect him to be ripped to shreds by pretty much everybody. How this isn't a bad thing is beyond me.

Handsome Bob

dsmythy wrote: »

Shine a spotlight on the crazies and they will be seen in all their glory. This is what is happening tonight. Expect him to be ripped to shreds by pretty much everybody. How this isn't a bad thing is beyond me.

But the spotlight has already been shone on him by the Sky News, ITV and Channel. He was ripped to shreds in all of those spots. At this stage the man should be more than discredited, so really this is all about ratings for the BBC while giving this cretinous human being yet another platform to spew his ignorant rhetoric.

irish_bob

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because he's a racist?

richard boyd barrett shared a platform with members of hammass in the past year , a party who believe in the destruction of an entire state , seems some forms of racism are ok

the recent electoral success of the BNP is a result of labour,s failure to consider the concerns and views of a significant section of its traditional core vote , the white northern working class , large increases in emmigration have resulted in theese communities feeling marginalised and thier traditional employment prospects being threatended , it may not be a sophisticated or even a realtistic view but its a real and widely held one none the less , labour need to start listening to the ordinary northern working class a whole lot more and less to the london based pc liberal multiculturalist chattering class or the likes of the BNP will further increase its support , vacums are always filled by someone

paperorplastic

mike65 wrote: »

Two quite seperate matters, linking them is pernicious.

It's a great example of how the BBC and others like to do business. And when it's the norm to have the myth of "impartiallity" placed above compassion, I think it should be called out.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the BNP been given a platform. Hopefully the event will cause infinite wisdom, only to be captured and beemed out from the Beeb. Or... griffin catches a br*ck in the face.

Handsome Bob

Well, he's getting a hiding, I hope it rings through to all aspects of British society.

ironingbored

I watched the debate last. I was delighted that Griffin was shown up as the fascist bigot and entirely disagreeable person that he is. Having said that i was extremely disappointed with the calibre of the panel and certain comments by the audience. The bumbling Jack Straw, anodyne Chris Huhne and incomprehensible Sayeeda Warsi showed what's wrong with mainstream politics.

I can't really see the BNP picking up that many converts from Griffin's smirking, smarmy, fidgety display.

There are two serious but separate issues that needed to be tackled; one is immigration and the other is integration and relations between Britain's ethnic groups.

Griffin's ridiculous reference to Britain's indigenous population could be used to tell him to **** off back to Saxony and Angeln. There is no doubt that there are northern white working class who are disaffected and need to be brought in from the political cold. The way to do this is through education and representation, two things at which New Labour have failed miserably.

mike65

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Well, he's getting a hiding, I hope it rings through to all aspects of British society.

So you were wrong then?

Handsome Bob

mike65 wrote: »

So you were wrong then?

Maybe I was, but we won't truly know until the next election the BNP are up for will we?

mike65

Well possibly (other factors will no doubt influence the vote). I always thought he'd get "served", when I have seen him in debate he is always just on the edge of loosing his composure. He is easily rattled and is essentially unstable. That was shown last night I think.

Handsome Bob

mike65 wrote: »

Well possibly (other factors will no doubt influence the vote). I always thought he'd get "served", when I have seen him in debate he is always just on the edge of loosing his composure. He is easily rattled and is essentially unstable. That was shown last night I think.

That's true, when put under pressure he can buckle. However the voting public are fickle, and all Griffin needs is another political controversy to opportunistically take advantage of and people will forget about his bumbling displays on the likes of Question Time.

Morlar

mike65 wrote: »

I always thought he'd get "served", when I have seen him in debate he is always just on the edge of loosing his composure. He is easily rattled and is essentially unstable. That was shown last night I think.

I would agree that he doesn't have the composure under interview pressure of a more accomplished, polished politician like say Declan Ganley.

However from my perspective they were the winners last night all thing considered. Though it was not an outright victory, they lost points in some areas and had their thunder stolen by the conservatives quite effectively.

The only credible opposition was the conservative muslim woman who'se name I can't recall (**Sayeeda Warsi ), who towards the end made some valid points on the lack of control of immigration into britain while savaging the dead sheep that was Jack straw.

The liberal party person, who went the route of 'mock moral outrage rhetoric!!', came across as essentially hollow and pointless. Trying to ride the wave of moral outrage in a not very convincing or relevant manner. He did not strike a chord with the audience and made no relevant contribution by my estimation.

The Greer woman came across as infantile, trying to be amusing and erudite which had the effect of patronising Griffin and actually if anything endearing him further to his target audience and possibly beyond that. I am sorry but a black american woman lecturing british people on the ice age and the romans and how 'there is no such thing as an indigenous british people' was not a good idea in that context. It plays into the 'cultural genocide' ramblings of the BNP, it sounded almost israeli in a 'there never was such thing as a palestinian' kind of way.

The biggest loser of the discussion was Jack Straw, he made the mistake of going the route of World War Rhetoric in his opening attacks on Griffin, spent approx 5-6 minutes outlining how 'we' (britain and her colonies) fought together (multiculturally) in wwi, and then how in WWII 'we' fought together against people like the BNP.

When Griffin pointed out that Jack Straw's grandfather was a conscientous objector who spent the war in prison and that in fact he (Griffin's) grandfather served in the RAF throughout the war Straw had completely undermined himself and lost the argument in that initial 5 minutes of the programme. Griffin did not take as full advantage of this as he should have but even still Dimbleby could not rescue Straw in my view. Going on later to mention his jewish heritage seemed to be an attempt at re-ingratiating himself among islamic or black minorities. It appeared more condescending and patronising than anything as by that point he had not as much credibility as he had had at the beginning.

I think the BBC should either not have the BNP on at all and revert to a Sinn Fein 1970's/1980's style approach of poilitical censorship as we had here under Section 31, or, if they are going to place themselves as a media organisation with principles beyond the fashionable trends then they should treat them EXACTLY as they would any other political party with that level of mandate (I would imagine the BNP are in the -2% range which would put them at the approx equivalent of the Green party in Ireland).

orourkeda

Maybe someday we'll all live in a liberal utopia where racism does not exist. in the mean time the people that want the views of Nick Griffin and his party members suppressed need to understand that he speaks for a relatively sizable portion of the British population that hold racist views. However, he isnt going to be Prime Minister anytime soon. Racism exists and will continue to exist forever. Burying ones head in the sand isnt going to change this fact.