It was a case of 5 against one. The other panellists and Dimbleby were bullying Griffin and a disgrace. Total set-up by the BBC.

 

The other panellists were preaching to the already converted; Griffin pitched his responses at a much lower level, to connect with the vote he is after.

If this is the kind of garbage you are going to spout please go back to your Perspectives boycott -_-

 

Well actually, Chris does have a point.

Listen to Radio 5 live now and you'll hear many anti-BNP people saying he was bullied on there!!

 

I'd like to have seen a normal programme with say a question about the postal strike this week as it's current news. All questions were about the BNP's views!!

He was not bullied well if he was it was because they were trying to get straight answers out of him

 

Remember how he answered about the holocaust spending ages refusing to talk it incase he was arrested, taking about 5 mins of grilling to say the word white, spending ages denying You Tube videos and proven quotes, he bought it on himself if the show went on and on, another 2 questions could have been fitted in in the time it took to get straight answers out of him

Well actually, Chris does have a point.

 

I thought Griffin got off quite lightly tbh, it was a very lacklustre tame panel apart from that feisty American black woman, I would have loved to see the Tories send out William Hague or Ken Clarke, I would have loved to have seen someone like Clive Anderson on the panel with his barrister experience, I would loved to seen Labour send in Diane Abbott, bit we got 3 wet drips on there and the American

It was a case of 5 against one. The other panellists and Dimbleby were bullying Griffin and a disgrace. Total set-up by the BBC.

 

What utter bollox.

 

The other panellists were trying to get a straight answer out of the man after he tried to slime his way out of question after question. he showed himself up to be an ignorant and stupid individual who quite frankly looked embarrassed to be there at times. He really couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. He was obsequious to the point of nausea towards the director of the British Museum for some reason and just reminded me of a toad all the way through the broadcast. He really was completely out of his depth.

 

It was only a case of 5 against 1 because none of the other panellists could, quite rightly, stand his repugnant views.

 

 

 

 

 

What utter bollox.

 

The other panellists were trying to get a straight answer out of the man after he tried to slime his way out of question after question. he showed himself up to be an ignorant and stupid individual who quite frankly looked embarrassed to be there at times. He really couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. He was obsequious to the point of nausea towards the director of the British Museum for some reason and just reminded me of a toad all the way through the broadcast. He really was completely out of his depth.

 

It was only a case of 5 against 1 because none of the other panellists could, quite rightly, stand his repugnant views.

 

'repugnant views'... ?.... i only saw the last ten minutes but he does have a point 'im against teaching sex to primary school children'.. (not only gay sex), im not so sure that view is wrong!

 

i dont KNOW what all of his views are, but i do get the impression that the mere mention of his name or the bnp switches every pc body into 'hate' mode before they have actually listend to what he says.

 

i dont doubt that the bnp are likely to be pretty repugnant to many, but they have also tapped onto a real feeling amongst ordinary brits. we need a better, more reasonable party to champion SOME of the points the bnp stand for.

 

 

He made a f***ing fool of himself, he obviously cant defend himself properly when really getting questioned, I wouldnt say he was bullied, or maybe he was, but there was a reason for that, he had his chances to speak and when he did it wasnt very constructive, even with video footage he said he was misquoted, when evidently not. I dont think the show will effect the numbers of the BNP, I doubt he'd lose anyone from that, but he probaly gained a few, but all in all he came across a twat.

 

I think the rest of the panel done really well to show Griffin like he truely is, it may of seemed a weak panel on paper, but they all did pretty good imo.

'repugnant views'... ?.... i only saw the last ten minutes but he does have a point 'im against teaching sex to primary school children'.. (not only gay sex), im not so sure that view is wrong!

 

i dont KNOW what all of his views are, but i do get the impression that the mere mention of his name or the bnp switches every pc body into 'hate' mode before they have actually listend to what he says.

 

i dont doubt that the bnp are likely to be pretty repugnant to many, but they have also tapped onto a real feeling amongst ordinary brits. we need a better, more reasonable party to champion SOME of the points the bnp stand for.

 

I agree with a significant number of the BNP's manifesto opinions a fair number strike a chord with me but that manifesto is their attempt to look respectable with watered down policies and masks their real feeling which is one of race hate and race violence, give them a sniff of power and they will bring in ethnic cleansing without a doubt either deporting anyone with a non white face or unleashing intimidation and violence on them

 

I would seriously consider voting for a party that had the BNP manifesto but were totally non committed to violence, totally non committed to race hate and were not run by a load of fascist thugs with convictions as long as my arm

As many people have said, Griffin DID make a complete twat of himself.

 

Perhaps he was being bullied by the other panelists, but for good reason... what was trying to be achieve, the BNP outed to those who vote for a none-mainstream party simply because they are fed up of Labour without really realising what they are voting for, was in my eyes achieved. He came across as the nazi, racist, homophobic twat that he is, and if the BNP lost just 10 voters i'll be happy.

'repugnant views'... ?.... i only saw the last ten minutes but he does have a point 'im against teaching sex to primary school children'.. (not only gay sex), im not so sure that view is wrong!

 

i dont KNOW what all of his views are, but i do get the impression that the mere mention of his name or the bnp switches every pc body into 'hate' mode before they have actually listend to what he says.

 

i dont doubt that the bnp are likely to be pretty repugnant to many, but they have also tapped onto a real feeling amongst ordinary brits. we need a better, more reasonable party to champion SOME of the points the bnp stand for.

 

Er, even I got taught a mild form of sex education when I was in Primary, and this was in the 80s... In a CATHOLIC Primary School no less... So, sorry, but where's the controversy, exactly.....? :huh:

 

He defended the actions of the KKK, he said he found two consenting adult males kissing "creepy" and objected to Gay Marriages... He also pretty much attempted to worm out of a question concerning his Holocaust Denial views, he had the nerve to claim that Winston Churchill would be a BNP supporter (absolute bloody POPPYCOCK, he likely would have had people like Griffin rounded up and put in prison as suspected Fifth Columnists. Churchill didn't support Oswald bloody Mosely did he??? :rolleyes: ).... And you wonder why anyone with any decent set of moral values finds the man completely repellant...... <_<

 

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND THIS MAN AND HIS PARTY ROB..... You claim to "not support" the BNP, and yet you still make claims that they are a legitimate political party instead of the re-branded National Front bootboys that they clearly are.... I'm sorry, but I'm with Mr Self Destruct, if Anti Fascist protestors want to give this vicious, evil c/unt a good kicking, I say LET THEM. It's obvious to me that the legitimate areas of the law wont deal with him as it should have done in the court case that was brought against him concerning his defamatory remarks against Muslims which would be likely to incite violence against Muslims and Asians generally, we BOTH know he would never have gotten away with making the same comments about the Jews or Afro Caribbeans, and would be put where he belongs - in a cell with Abu Hamza (another hate monger, him and Griffin are just two peas in a pod).... <_<

 

And here's the facts about the BNP - their constitution does not allow for Ethnic Minority membership.... This is a technical BREACH OF THE LAW.... The BNP are, technically, an UNLAWFUL organisation, and in fact they have admitted as much... They claim that they are going to change their constitution, but in the meantime until they actually do this, they are an unlawful organisation, and as such should never have been allowed onto "Question Time" in the first place....

 

A couple of "good points" here or there hardly make up for Griffin's overall fascism... Hitler got the trains running on time, improved the German economy and developed the Volkswagen, the "Peoples' Car", the first affordable small car ever developed, a great idea, but it doesn't exactly excuse the 6 million dead people in Concentration Camps does it.....?

 

The only good thing to come out of last night's broadcast was the fact that Griffin was exposed as the idiot he is...

 

In the 80s, the Tory Govt basically banned Sinn Fein as an unlawful organisation, but really, I find their views far less repellant than the BNP, even during the height of the "Troubles", they may have incited violence against British soldiers, but it was actually for a very good reason (ie, the fact that British soldiers were in Northern Ireland as an Occupying Force)...

 

He was humiliated, and he couldn't back himself up in most cases without completely avoiding the question, or back tracking on previous things that he'd said.

 

That said, however, QT could have been far more effective, and quite possibly ruined him, but it didn't. It pretty much pandered around just shouting at him, instead of letting him argue his viewpoint and letting the panelists tear him up. It all seemed a bit too much of a stage show to really be effective IMO. Plus I found Dimbleby to be completely bias.

 

It felt a bit of a disgrace to QT in general, and i think it could have really hurt the BNP. but he won't have lost any fans, even if he won't have gained any either.

That said, however, QT could have been far more effective, and quite possibly ruined him, but it didn't. It pretty much pandered around just shouting at him, instead of letting him argue his viewpoint and letting the panelists tear him up. It all seemed a bit too much of a stage show to really be effective IMO. Plus I found Dimbleby to be completely bias.

 

Wrong... Dimbleby was wanting an answer to a question that he was deliberately avoiding... Then he made the ultimate mistake of trying to laugh it off... Which, rightly, angered Dimbleby... Griffin is a fatuous, arrogant turd and he got everything he deserved from the audience and from Dimbleby... Dimbleby pursuing him was no different from Jeremy Paxman once very famously pursuing the then Home Secretary Michael Howard to answer a specific question that HE tried to wriggle out of.... I actually applaud Dimbleby for his tenacity and his unwillingness to put up with any of Griffin's bullsh!t.....

 

I'm sorry, but I'm with Mr Self Destruct, if Anti Fascist protestors want to give this vicious, evil c/unt a good kicking, I say LET THEM.

 

HYP - O - FCUKIN - CRIT

 

THIS is what gets me.... how those claiming the moral high ground stoop (and LOSE their argument) to the actions they accuse the bnp membership of!

 

ASTOUNDED!

 

VIOLENCE IS WRONG period.

 

there is NO justification whatsoever for violence, YOUD be the first one to shout 'foul' if the bnp members DID attack a 'non white'.. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

Er, even I got taught a mild form of sex education when I was in Primary, and this was in the 80s... In a CATHOLIC Primary School no less... So, sorry, but where's the controversy, exactly.....? :huh:

 

He defended the actions of the KKK, he said he found two consenting adult males kissing "creepy" and objected to Gay Marriages... He also pretty much attempted to worm out of a question concerning his Holocaust Denial views, he had the nerve to claim that Winston Churchill would be a BNP supporter (absolute bloody POPPYCOCK, he likely would have had people like Griffin rounded up and put in prison as suspected Fifth Columnists. Churchill didn't support Oswald bloody Mosely did he??? :rolleyes: ).... And you wonder why anyone with any decent set of moral values finds the man completely repellant...... <_<

 

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND THIS MAN AND HIS PARTY ROB..... You claim to "not support" the BNP, and yet you still make claims that they are a legitimate political party instead of the re-branded National Front bootboys that they clearly are.... I'm sorry, but I'm with Mr Self Destruct, if Anti Fascist protestors want to give this vicious, evil c/unt a good kicking, I say LET THEM. It's obvious to me that the legitimate areas of the law wont deal with him as it should have done in the court case that was brought against him concerning his defamatory remarks against Muslims which would be likely to incite violence against Muslims and Asians generally, we BOTH know he would never have gotten away with making the same comments about the Jews or Afro Caribbeans, and would be put where he belongs - in a cell with Abu Hamza (another hate monger, him and Griffin are just two peas in a pod).... <_<

 

And here's the facts about the BNP - their constitution does not allow for Ethnic Minority membership.... This is a technical BREACH OF THE LAW.... The BNP are, technically, an UNLAWFUL organisation, and in fact they have admitted as much... They claim that they are going to change their constitution, but in the meantime until they actually do this, they are an unlawful organisation, and as such should never have been allowed onto "Question Time" in the first place....

 

A couple of "good points" here or there hardly make up for Griffin's overall fascism... Hitler got the trains running on time, improved the German economy and developed the Volkswagen, the "Peoples' Car", the first affordable small car ever developed, a great idea, but it doesn't exactly excuse the 6 million dead people in Concentration Camps does it.....?

 

The only good thing to come out of last night's broadcast was the fact that Griffin was exposed as the idiot he is...

 

In the 80s, the Tory Govt basically banned Sinn Fein as an unlawful organisation, but really, I find their views far less repellant than the BNP, even during the height of the "Troubles", they may have incited violence against British soldiers, but it was actually for a very good reason (ie, the fact that British soldiers were in Northern Ireland as an Occupying Force)...

 

again... <_< ... im NOT defending his policies, im defending his right to hold them which if legal he/they are fully entitled to do so.

 

i think the existance of the bnp is a good thing, its provoking thought and tackling issues that ARE resounding amongst the silent majority... people darent say anything pro-british unless they get called 'racist' or are made to feel like being patriotic to our country is a fcukin CRIME!

 

i see nowt wrong with being english, to continue to uphold ideals, values, a way of life that has passed down through the centuaries ever since the norman invasion. whats wrong with 'jam and jerusalem'? 'greensleves'? edward elgar? why must we change lyrics to inoccuous nursery rhymes? theres NOTHING WRONG with 'baa baa black sheep', it was a very successful sheep!

 

THIS is the sensible sort of issue that many brits are concerned about losing to the leftie pc brigade and which fuels the extremist right bnp... i know quite a few normal, intelligent people who will consider voting for the bnp purely as a protest vote in order to get good old fashioned english/british values heard. the bnp are shrewd enough to realise this and are trying to tap into it, if the main parties got their act together they could destroy the bnp and reduce it to what it was... the national front, home for thugs and morons.

again... <_< ... im NOT defending his policies, im defending his right to hold them which if legal he/they are fully entitled to do so.

 

Yes, he's entitled to hold them, but other people are also entitled to tell him their opinions on them. I don't exactly get what the problem is here? Griffin was allowed to appear, he was allowed to put forward his views, he was challenged on them. The fact he wasn't able to justify his "policies" is because the party's veneer of respectability was exposed as unadulterated racism, not because the panel or David Dimbleby was bullying him. Seriously, on David Dimbleby in particular, he grilled some of the MPs at the time of the MPs expenses scandal just as much as he grilled Griffin last night.

 

I really thought last night was the best possible thing for the country. It upheld democracy (allowing the BNP - who ARE technically a legitimate party - to use standard political platforms) while also utterly exposing the party for what it is.

 

And btw, who is seriously proposing we change the lyrics to Baa Baa Black Sheep?

Edited October 23, 200915 yr by Danny

HYP - O - FCUKIN - CRIT

 

THIS is what gets me.... how those claiming the moral high ground stoop (and LOSE their argument) to the actions they accuse the bnp membership of!

 

ASTOUNDED!

 

VIOLENCE IS WRONG period.

 

there is NO justification whatsoever for violence, YOUD be the first one to shout 'foul' if the bnp members DID attack a 'non white'.. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

 

Well said Rob. Giving Nick Griffin "a good kicking" would be no more than the police brutality in demonstrations which Scott was so angry about when it happened. :rolleyes: Sometimes I have to PMSL at Scott's posts and I'm sure others do too. They've really to be read to be believed. Think most of the time he's on another planet to the rest of us. :naughty: Still they're a really good laugh on a dull dark afternoon!! :D

'repugnant views'... ?.... i only saw the last ten minutes but he does have a point 'im against teaching sex to primary school children'.. (not only gay sex), im not so sure that view is wrong!

By the age of 12 12% of students have engaged in sexual activity...sexual education is CLEARLY necessary at some point in primary school.

By the age of 12 12% of students have engaged in sexual activity...sexual education is CLEARLY necessary at some point in primary school.

 

Homosexuality shouldn't be taught in schools IMHO be it male or female, I believe in tolerance of homosexuality and have a live and let live attitude to it but I don't believe that it should be taught in schools, I am not being hypocritical as I am well into the BDSM scene over the decades and do I think that BDSM should be taught in schools ? hell no, nor should any other niche sexual activity and homosexuality to me fits into that catergory, while homosexuality should be tolerated kids should be taught in sex education classes sex between a man and a woman, niche things like homosexuality, BDSM, swinging and so on shouldn't

Homosexuality cannot be TAUGHT in schools (i.e. in the 'they're more likely to be gay if you get them at the right age' model) - it's no different to RS for example, it's all about teaching tolerance...I don't think you'll find many people arguing for the compulsory teaching of anal or oral sex in primary school, but teaching primary school children that gays exist and there's nothing wrong with them is an entirely different matter. If the students then wish to know what they do then I don't see why they shouldn't be told...

Homosexuality shouldn't be taught in schools IMHO be it male or female, I believe in tolerance of homosexuality and have a live and let live attitude to it but I don't believe that it should be taught in schools, I am not being hypocritical as I am well into the BDSM scene over the decades and do I think that BDSM should be taught in schools ? hell no, nor should any other niche sexual activity and homosexuality to me fits into that catergory, while homosexuality should be tolerated kids should be taught in sex education classes sex between a man and a woman, niche things like homosexuality, BDSM, swinging and so on shouldn't

No-one's claiming teachers should be putting on simulations of gay sex to a class of 7-year-olds. What people are saying is that tolerance of homosexuality SHOULD be taught from a very early age, and that there's nothing "creepy" about seeing two men kissing, like Griffin thinks.

 

How is gay sex any more of a "niche sexual activity" than sex between a man and a woman?