BNP paves way to admit non-whites

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fateweaver**

Pineapples = Dole
Chaquita = Bananas though I've seen more Dole bananas around then Chaquita (at least in my area) so I'm led to believe that Chaquita bananas don't exist (unless someone can confirm they do).

**Frazzled**

Fateweaver wrote:Pineapples = Dole
Chaquita = Bananas though I've seen more Dole bananas around then Chaquita (at least in my area) so I'm led to believe that Chaquita bananas don't exist (unless someone can confirm they do).

Bob Dole says pineapples taste great. Easy...trigger...

**Kilkrazy**

jamessearle0 wrote:people keep going on about the bnp being nazi's and such, but lots of people have voted for them, which is in the end the problem with democracy, the majority vote is in control, if the majority vote to elect the bnp, this becomes the "right" choice...

edit:
oh and in the us i think they call being on the dole, being on welfare?? feel free to correct me if im wrong

According to Wikipedia, fewer than 200,000 people voted for the BNP at the last general election, in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

The turnout was about 27,000,000, (less than the number of registered voters, standing at a bit over 44,000,000) meaning BNP support was well under 1% of the votes cast and well under half a percent of all available votes.

**reds8n**

No, the actual amount of votes they actuall poll is still very low. For example when they claimed their 2 euro parliament seats the amount of votes they got overall increased slightly but in the elecotral regions were they won their seats their total number of votes had actually dropped from the previous election, the overall elecotral turnout was very low and it was a PR system so that's why they got the seats.

But if take the Barnsley St Helens ward by election last month the BNP votes dropped and they didn't win despite a huge furour and outcry saying that they would.

And that was with a poxy 31% electoral turnout.

They've done awfully in other recent elections --lost their deposit in Glasgow NE -- and after the TV appearence the BNP leadership has started fighting amongst themselves.

..hmm..maybe they are real politicians after all.

**Albatross**

Didn't around a million people vote for them at the last european elections? I'm not sure. They won two seats, at any rate.

EDIT:Too late - reds8n answered it.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

The Euro wins make sense in this country though, as lets be honest most folk don't really care enough to vote when its for a parliament seat, never mind if its Euro Parliament.

Once the normal elections come around again, these fellas won't get a sniff of a seat. Hell look at that scottish seat the other week, Labour after all its failings still retained when it actually mattered.

Voting to prove a point in a side show election is one thing, voting for someone to go into the House of Commons is another thing entirely.

**jamessearle0**

albatross and reds8n beat me to it kilkrazy

**Albatross**

I would hardly call the European Elections a 'sideshow' - the European Parliament has an increasing role in our everyday lives in terms of legislative power.

**mattyrm**

I wouldnt vote for the BNP, but i hate the attitude and staggering hypocrisy of our society.

Freedom of Speech.

If someone is making a statement that is wrong, you must still let them do it. Censorship is the enemy of all of us if we wish to keep fundamentalists from rising to power, but it must be preserved correctly and that means letting people speak if you do not agree with them.

In turn, if what you are saying is demonstrably crass and stupid, i shall be free to say so.

As for Question time, that was an absolute farce. People sitting here saying Griffin got "hammered" are simply lying to themselves.

The whole format of the show was changed, i was stunned that the BBC played right into Griffins hands by bullying him for the whole show. The MODERATOR was probably the worst out of all them!

If they had simply let the showplay out as normal, then people would have seen what a non entity that party actually is, but the public are not stupid. What they saw was an attempt at organised mind control so obvious that many people will now vote for them simply as a protest.

The last 3 GE i have voted for Labour, Conservative, Conservative. I am very middle of the road, and though i cannot in good conscience bring myself to vote for the BNP, I swear i am THIS close to doing so. Just to show the BBC that people do not like being taken for a fool. Honestly, anyone who watched the show will agree with me. It was pure tomfoolery on their part of the most base and hypocritical kind.

Anyway, yeah. Im voting tory, but if it was anyone other than the BNP, they would be getting my vote. So repulsed i was by the BBC's actions.

**Gwar!**

So you are saying the BBC should be nice to the self confessed racist and general scumbag that is Griffin?

**mattyrm**

Gwar! wrote:So you are saying the BBC should be nice to the self confessed racist and general scumbag that is Griffin?

Gwar, what you have just said was an obvious strawman, and purposely misleading.

At absolutely no point in that post did i mention them being "nice" to anyone at all. Least of all the google eyed bigot.

I said they should keep due impartiality. By definition that certainly does not imply being "nice" to anyone.

Please do not be so childish as to say things like "so what your saying is..(insert strawman)" when i never actually said it. We can all build strawmen in an argument, but on a forum they are rather easy to shred.

**Orkeosaurus**

You don't have to be nice, just fair.

If you're fair, you'll see his views for what they are, and from the description I've heard of him that should be a blow to his cause.

If it's unfair, people will perceive that, and think (correctly) the media is against him. This will cause them to question the truth behind what else the media says of him, and mask his deficiencies.

**mattyrm**

Orkeosaurus wrote:You don't have to be nice, just fair.

If you're fair, you'll see his views for what they are, and from the description I've heard of him that should be a blow to his cause.

If it's unfair, people will perceive that, and think (correctly) the media is against him. This will cause them to question the truth behind what else the media says of him, and mask his deficiencies.

Couldnt have said it better myself Orkeo, and essentially sums up my feelings on the matter far better than i did.

**dogma**

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, yeah. Im voting tory, but if it was anyone other than the BNP, they would be getting my vote. So repulsed i was by the BBC's actions.

Yeah, I like having my vote guided by media incompetence as well.

You claimed that the public isn't stupid, and yet also deprive them of agency by presupposing that the BBC's actions can effectively conceal Griffin's inequities. If the public truly is intelligent, then the presentation choices of the BBC should be irrelevant to the consideration of electoral merit.

True, intelligent people can be influenced in subtle ways, but generally anyone capable of self-reflection should be able to determine which sources of emotional impetus are founded on legitimate information.

**reds8n**

mattyrm wrote:
The MODERATOR was probably the worst out of all them!

Honestly, anyone who watched the show will agree with me.

I disagree, I thought he did a fine job. I thought it interesting that GRiffin couldn't actually answer any of the questions put to him, his only defence being "I'm not actually allowed to say what I think"..which isn't true and also reveals the essential void at the heart of the party.

I watched the show and I don't agree with you.

**Albatross**

I disagree, I thought he did a fine job.

So you're saying there wasn't a massive Anti-BNP bias by the presenter? And you say that you watched it?

He was hardly fair and balanced, even if I DO find most of the BNP's policies abhorrent.

**reds8n**

He allowed him to speak, he asked him for clarification on the few answers he gave..what more is he supposed to do ? His primary job or task on the show is to get questions from the audience ..which he did. What more is he supposed to do ?

**Albatross**

Well, almost every question was about BNP policy or statement he'd made in the past - that's not the normal format of 'Question Time'.

**reds8n**

..which is nothing to do with Dimbleby, he doesn't write the questions. If those are what people want to talk about or ask then what else is he supposed to do ? Ignore the audience. And frankly it made a nice change to go through an entire week without 1 person piping up with "..and of course non of this is truly relevant as we're engaged in an illegal war in Iraq !" to thunderous applause.

I'll grant you the format was altered from the norm, but I genuinely don't see any way it could have maintained its more usual format given the hullabaloo over the whole thing.

**Albatross**

Actually he could have curtailed some of the questions... the production team select the people with questions, so it's not a random selection. There were personal attacks made, to an extent which wouldn't have been tolerated by him normally - the things he let slide showed his bias, IMO.

**reds8n**

the production team select the people with questions

which isn't the BBC, it's done by Nentorn who have been trying to get him on the show for ages. He did curtail some of the questions and did his ebst to keep the whole thing roughly on track.

..as for the personal attacks...well....maybe....but that's a feature of the show pretty much every week and if you are going to stand up and say stupid hateful things then..well..what you reap etc etc.

**Albatross**

On track? Which track would that be? Balanced political debate? Do me a favour. He made a token attempt to steer the program away from the BNP and their policies in the last 5 mins of the program.
I found almost all of the other panellists just as odious as Nick Griffin.

**reds8n**

The track of answering the question asked and not allowing other people to throw in new questions that were, at best, only tangentially related to the one already asked.

Question Time has never been about "balanced political debate", I don't see why you think this one suddenly would be, it's always ( disclaimer: last decade or so anyway, I guess in some halcyon days it might have been more) it's always been about a good soundbite or quip or answer interrupted by some genuinely moving moments, usually caused by members of the public. The very format of the show precludes it from being some titanic clash of political heavyweights, it's not exactly Frost/Nixon on a normal week now is it ?

And that, more than anything, was Griffin's biggest failing. He didn't seem to understand what he was going to get into or if he did he was incapable of doing anything about it other than bluster and whine.

..and that's what they're proposing for our PM is it ? Really ?

**Albatross**

I dunno mate, if you put Gordon Brown and Nick Griffin in the same room, their nervous tics could provide enough energy to power a small country....

**reds8n**

...at least they'd (wait for it...)...both....

..see eye to eye !
http://www.instantrimshot.com/

Thank you. I'm here all week !

**The Dreadnote**

You are a bad man.

**jamessearle0**

**mattyrm**

Dimbleby did a fine job?

Sure he did. I dont really see what i can say to you to change your mind if thats your opinion. Did you actually watch the same show?

I can see why you may be predisposed to dislike Nick Griffin, but come on. A fine job?

If you think he did his job ie was impartial, then you have formally unplugged from reality.

I defy anyone who looked at that programme to say he did a fine job. Are you sure you are not letting your own personal opnion of the odious Mr Griffin affect your judgement in some way?

**Frazzled**

Modquisition on:

Gentlemen, lets maintain coolness. If I can keep from shooting coffee out of my nose at the name "Dimbleby" (lost character from Harry Potter? ) everyone can keep the conversation cool here.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I actually enjoyed the highlighting of the fact that despite all of Baroness Warsi's grandstanding and scoring easy shots off that fascist prick Griffon, it was pointed out that as a hardline muslim, she is just as bigoted as he is, just against homosexuals instead of immigrants...

Dimbleby did a reasonable job of holding the spotlight on her for a little while...but of course the crowd were baying for the head of Nick Griffon (and rightfully so, although the smug tosser who called him 'dick griffon' needs a swift kick to the gakker for being gak at humourz...).

I am still left with the feeling that they should have left Griffon come on and then used the standard format and covered a wide range of issues and questions on policy, that way the BNP could have been rightfully picked to pieces for having no real policies other than 'we're fascist!!1!' . Instead he was the subject (target) of all bar 1 or 2 questions and in being directly vilified like that, can go home to his nazi buddies and say 'told you the BBC was run by queers and jews'.

Jack Straw was useless in that show. The rest of the panel stunk. Only Bonnie Greer was ok and even she was grandstanding and as a curator of the British Museum she was entirely wrong when she said that the UK had been entirely covered by glacier during the last ice age. The South wasn't, Cornwall wasn't.