Absoutley, the guy is a tool a smug arogant to$$er

Hello Oracle. I thought it wouldn't take long for you to out yourself.

Well said.

He came across as a political lightweight and a grinning fool on top of his disgusting political views.

Quote ="SiBDJ"I've not got time to read the full thread, so I apologise if this has already been covered. I am by no means a BNP sympathiser, AT ALL, but I feel the BBC couldn't have handled last night any worse than they did!! A fair "debate" (which everyone is entitled to in the UK) is NOT given when you have the following: 1) One guy on his own surrounded by 5 panellists that blatantly don't like Griffin (personal opinions should stay at the door), its Question Time we want someone to sort out the "sh*t state of affairs" the country is in, not to argue about the guy in a (borderline) personal manner! 2) The the audience had just one or two BNP sympathisers (I'm not saying they have loads), but they again weren't at the front, or dotted around everywhere in the audience, they were all at the back. He may not have allot of support, but it seemed strange that they all got put out of view? When you look at it, Griffin's only real election styled pledge to anyone in the UK is based on immigration, if he had more realistic views surely we'd have heard them by now and at the very least people would have discussed them in public arena and far more than they have currently? Last nights one sided debate basically made a martyr of Griffin to his current supporters and possibly strengthened the resolve of previous hanging voters to join the cause. I feel last night did more damage, in convincing [isome[/i people to join him and his obnoxious campaign. What should have happened is a fair debate with stringent "one at a time" questions for both arguments, who is right and who is wrong is no issue in this discussion as, as we live in a free speech society and debate is the life blood of a democracy FFS. If Abu Hamza gets free speech, then so does Griffin (unfortunately true, but he's allowed his say, even if it does make him look like a numpty). They should have avoided the obvious race argument or got it over and done with and then pushed him on real issues, such as the post office dispute, the NHS, schools, our armed forces being places they shouldn't be; not just something to get his usual reply of "my granddad was in WWII argument", to that statement someone should have said "Mr Griffin, if I remember correctly, it was called World War 2, not UK War 2, everyone was there and not just your flaming granddad or just the UK." He's already using last nights staged witch hunt as an "oh, woe is me" campaign!! news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm Well done BBC, you thought that through well didn't you?! (Just my opinion)'" well said. I am glad I wasnt the only one who thought that, like them or loathe them the whole point of our society is to give an unbiased view from all sides of all parties which was certainly not the case last night , to be honest it made a mockery of the whole thing. but so does black policemans associations etc so i guess its simply the country we live in thats immoral not the BNP alone

Quote ="SiBDJ"I've not got time to read the full thread, so I apologise if this has already been covered. I am by no means a BNP sympathiser, AT ALL, but I feel the BBC couldn't have handled last night any worse than they did!! A fair "debate" (which everyone is entitled to in the UK) is NOT given when you have the following: 1) One guy on his own surrounded by 5 panellists that blatantly don't like Griffin (personal opinions should stay at the door), its Question Time we want someone to sort out the "sh*t state of affairs" the country is in, not to argue about the guy in a (borderline) personal manner! 2) The the audience had just one or two BNP sympathisers (I'm not saying they have loads), but they again weren't at the front, or dotted around everywhere in the audience, they were all at the back. He may not have allot of support, but it seemed strange that they all got put out of view? When you look at it, Griffin's only real election styled pledge to anyone in the UK is based on immigration, if he had more realistic views surely we'd have heard them by now and at the very least people would have discussed them in public arena and far more than they have currently? Last nights one sided debate basically made a martyr of Griffin to his current supporters and possibly strengthened the resolve of previous hanging voters to join the cause. I feel last night did more damage, in convincing [isome[/i people to join him and his obnoxious campaign. What should have happened is a fair debate with stringent "one at a time" questions for both arguments, who is right and who is wrong is no issue in this discussion as, as we live in a free speech society and debate is the life blood of a democracy FFS. If Abu Hamza gets free speech, then so does Griffin (unfortunately true, but he's allowed his say, even if it does make him look like a numpty). They should have avoided the obvious race argument or got it over and done with and then pushed him on real issues, such as the post office dispute, the NHS, schools, our armed forces being places they shouldn't be; not just something to get his usual reply of "my granddad was in WWII argument", to that statement someone should have said "Mr Griffin, if I remember correctly, it was called World War 2, not UK War 2, everyone was there and not just your flaming granddad or just the UK." He's already using last nights staged witch hunt as an "oh, woe is me" campaign!! news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm Well done BBC, you thought that through well didn't you?! (Just my opinion)'" well said. I am glad I wasnt the only one who thought that, like them or loathe them the whole point of our society is to give an unbiased view from all sides of all parties which was certainly not the case last night , to be honest it made a mockery of the whole thing. but so does black policemans associations etc so i guess its simply the country we live in thats immoral not the BNP alone

I don't deny he made himself look awful last night, but I think the "posse" wasn't needed, he could have hung himself on his own.

My point is they've taken the spotlight off the fact the guys a numpty and given him ammunition for the "oh woe is me" argument or the "well I tried to be professional and it was they who...." etc, etc.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I don't deny that the (allegedly) slimy, self obsessed, patronising, over hyped pratt is an apparent tool, but the BBC could have handled that soooo much better than they did.

There is no such thing as bad publicity and today the BNP's name is EVERYWHERE; which is not good, not good at all.

Exactly, when we stop free unedited speech (within reason), we then become something other than a democracy.

If you honestly think that the BBC would go to all the effort and grief of getting Griffin onto QT only to stitch him up like a kipper then you're way off track.

The biggest mistake they made was NOT directing proceedings. They left thing up to the panel as they usually do and it all went a bit Pete Tong. Nothing deliberate in it IMO.

What part of last night's programme was edited?

With all due respect, you missed my point and then at the same time got it in its entirety all in one reply matey, exactly, they...



With such an emotive issue, and such high feeling should that have even been allowed? Where are the producers and the directors, didn't Dimbleby have an ear piece?!

To make an apparent monster, into all but a martyr for his followers is not by any means clever.

He wasn't made into a martyr, although he would probably claim that.

He was given a rough ride because the vast majority of the country think his beliefs are abhorent.

It wasn't, but if Jeremy Kyle is likened to "Bear Baiting" by the UK LAW COURTS, then last night was not a millions miles from the same, it was "The Jeremy Kyle Show" with posh people and suits. The BBC knew what they were inviting to the show and did not prepare for it sufficiently.

A debate is listed in the dictionary as "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers." whether anyone is wrong is the decision of we the public.

I just don't feel this was done last night.



Exactly, give the "alleged" scumbag an angle and he'll use it!!

Your posts implied that it was somehow deliberate, referring to a 'posse' and questioning why the BNP supporters were all sat at the back. If you didn't mean that then you might need to be a bit clearer and use less emotive language.

The BBC were, TBF, on a hiding to nothing. Having already been castigated by inviting him on they would have really got it in the neck had they been seen to interfere with proceedings in his favour. I think they quite deliberately chose to take a hands-off approach but unfortunately it didn't work as well as it might have.

The panelists and Dimbleby should have been more than capable of containing the situation. They chose not to, for whatever reasons. Although Dimbleby did get control of things towards the end. I wouldn't make too much of it though.

I'd have preferred a wider debate to further humiliate the lying fascist pig, but TBH I have no sympathy whatsoever with him over his treatment. I also don't believe that it will turn him into a martyr. If anything his snivelling protest today just makes him look weak and stupid.

This is the point. Those who say he was 'bullied' or 'lynched' are way, way off the mark. A man with abhorent views was taken to task by an audience and panel who think that such views have no place in our society.

Did anyone seriously expect the panel/audience to be saying,

"Well, that's an interesting point you make, Mr Griffin, although I can't say I agree with you. Have you perhaps considered the possibility that brown people are not the cause of all our woes? You haven't? Ok, then, fair enough. Your hair looks great, by the way."

He's a vile racist, and the reaction of the audience was the only correct one, IMO.

I think we're both "singing from the same hymn sheet" within reason, just have our own opinions on the debate.

I really do think that you're making way too much of this. It wasn't perfect, and was a bit cringeworthy in places, but it was hardly an infringement of the fascist pig's freedom of speech. If you're that interested in what he has to say there will be ample opportunity to sample his pearls of wisdom in the future.

Sorry if I've come across in an incorrect manner, I don't honestly care what he says, but if people treat him as they did last night, they give him rather emotive "Oh woe as me" ammunition.

That is my only point.

The sad fact though Kosh is that today the BNP are everywhere you look, the BBC and particularly QT have done nothing more than sensationalise them.
It will galvanise their party.
Why didn't anyone question him on other issues like education or the NHS or the mockery that is our postal service? we all know what he was going to say last night, so why not pull him apart politically and not morally?

That's fair enough, but I think you're overestimating that side of what happened last night. If you take a look at his attempt to do exactly that with his formal complaint to the BBC today, you'll see that he's just opened himself up to even more ridicule.

Alright, so you may get a handful of people who might use his 'mistreatment' as an excuse to say that they now support him (like that dim bint from Oldham on the news today). But TBH anyone that stupid was probably a lost cause anyway.

There's lots of them though! these are exactly the kind of people we need to be educating to help them realize.

The alternative was to deny them their freedom of speech, or to deny the audience members their freedom of speech.

Democracy is sometimes messy like that, and frequently less than perfect. It's all about human beings after all.


Good. If it makes them overconfident they're more likely to slip up and reveal their true selves.


As I've already said, this is the one part of last night that disappointed me. The quite understandable moral outrage got a little out of hand and could have been directed better. I primarily blame the other panelists and Dimbleby TBH.

I hardly think it was the PR disaster that some are making out, however.

Good luck with that. People that far gone are simply not capable of being shown the truth in my experience. If they've managed to avoid being educated about the BNP despite the constant opprobrium directed at them by every major media outlet then one edition of QT is going to make precisely zero difference one way or the other.

The alternative is to not recognize them as a political party as they are illegal. The BNP has more exposure now than it ever did, that's worrying to me.

I just think it became an off current topic or current affairs witch hunt , not that I agree with the BNP but it was without doubt a very biased and seems pre planned "lets make him look a tit " orgy!! what they should have done is led him into current affairs, education and health etc and he would have naturally flaoundered however I believe he may also have had a view or two.. we shall now never know

unfortunately they are a democratically elected party with regional seats i am afraid so thats an impossibility, and to be fair if we are the grand daddy culture of democracy then they should be allowed their moment on the goggle box, however National geographic and the history channel teaches us nightly that the Nazi party came from much smaller seedlings than the BNP and without the national media platforms they use in todays society to get their issues across...
Rekmember there are high flying senior military and police in their ranks so beware

"Rekmember there are high flying senior military and police in their ranks so beware"

So beware of what,what sort of a statement is that to make.



It was supposed to be a political debate covering a variety of issues which seem to have been lost in translation



" freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests" taken from the definition of democracy make of it what you will