Jump to content

Poll: BNP on Question Time

JJonas

By JJonas
in General Chat

 Share

Are you going to watch?  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you going to watch?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      24

Recommended Posts

LeMarchand

LeMarchand

Posted
Posted

Don't normally watch, semi-tempted to but probably won't. May PVR it/catch it later.

 

Can't see what the fuss is: I don't support the BNP at all (I wouldn't be let in even if I did - part Burmese) but (unfortunately) they are still a legal party with a following. The publicity is only giving them more attention and it's not as if NG is going to leave the show having convinced the other panellists that they have been mistaken all these years and should immediately sign on the dotted BNP line.

 

Who are the other guests? Hopefully some people whose very appearance won't sit well with the BNP.

Zoom7000

Zoom7000

Posted
Posted

The BBC should be brave and put him on alongside someone who isn't afraid to rip him apart. I vote for Jeremy Clarkson! :p

 

And if you want fisticuffs, maybe George Galloway! :D

maniac

maniac

Posted
Posted

Like any other party, they are entitled to their point of view and opinion, it doesn't mean anyone has to take notice or even listen in the first place.

 

I won't be watching because I don't have any receiving equipment in my house, not even an arial on the roof, and that's how I like it!

SpuffMonkey

SpuffMonkey

Posted
Posted
The BBC should be brave and put him on alongside someone who isn't afraid to rip him apart. I vote for Jeremy Clarkson! :p

 

And if you want fisticuffs, maybe George Galloway! :D

 

Jeremy Clarkson probably agrees with him...:mad:

mattx

mattx

Posted
Posted

Simon Darby, Deputy Chairman of the BNP makes a mushroom of himself on Radio 2.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5jzs28qVYY]YouTube - Simon Darby - BNP Membership Policy Interview (16-10-09) (Radio 2)[/ame]

cookie_monster

cookie_monster

Posted
Posted
The BBC should be brave and put him on alongside someone who isn't afraid to rip him apart. I vote for Jeremy Clarkson!

 

And if you want fisticuffs, maybe George Galloway!

 

I was thinking Paxman.

 

 

As a voted for political party unfortunately they are allowed to be heard and should be heard that’s how our political process works.

 

I think them being allowed on QT is a good thing as long as they aren’t allowed to hide behind their blatant lies (BBC NEWS | Politics | BNP to consider non-white members) and are shown to be the racist fascists that they are. By exposing their dark nasty side it will soon remind people why they didn’t vote for them before.

 

If that doesn’t get through make them watch Romper Stomper or Good http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436364/.

Techie101

Techie101

Posted
Posted

I cant understand why people dont want NG on the show, i personally think its a good thing, coz if he is questioned on his policies for the health service, education, the war, the credit crunch, he wont have any answers, the bnp has only one policy as far as i am aware and thats get rid of all non whites from england. it'll be fun to watch, i can picture it now,

 

david dimbleby - "how would you deal with the current issuses faced by the nhs",

 

NG - "errrmm well to start with i'd get rid of the muslims, its thier fault"

 

david dimbleby - "ok, but what about the education system",

 

NG - "errrmm well to start with i'd get rid of the muslims, its thier fault"

 

david dimbleby - "ok, but what about the war in iraq",

 

NG - "errrmm well to start with i'd get rid of the muslims, coz thats definitely thier fault"

 

david dimbleby - "ok, i think we'll move on",

 

NG is a joke and so is the BNP.

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted
Like any other party, they are entitled to their point of view and opinion, it doesn't mean anyone has to take notice or even listen in the first place.

 

Except for the little issue whereby they are currently an 'illegal organisation'... ie. they are breaking the law via their membership policies. Illegal entities should not be allowed to partake in a show paid for by taxpayers. They should be prosecuted!

 

Also, when their views are blatantly racist, or bigoted, should they simply be allowed to go spouting them? What if they say something like 'my personal opinion is that gay people should not be allowed to live'. That isn't technically against the law - but those idiot people who follow such people would (and history shows us do) act on such comments...

 

That is the concept of 'No Platform'.

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted
How is the BNP an ilegal organisation ?

 

Because they do not allow coloured people into their membership. The BBC news link earlier covers the reasons, and who made such a judgement...

 

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK's equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to "indigenous Caucasian" people.

The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use "all reasonable endeavours" to revise its constitution.

Midget

Midget

Posted
Posted

They do allow coloureds (is that even PC anymore?) in, they just don't want to I'd expect.

 

Banning parties that you oppose is what is done by a dictatorship. I don't like what they say but I will demand their right to say it so that they can provide their own rope to hang themselves.

 

also banning them will actually HELP them because they can say that the labour party (who most people want out) are against them because they are afraid etc etc. It would be a PR win for the BNP.

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted
They do allow coloureds (is that even PC anymore?) in, they just don't want to I'd expect.

 

"The case centred around a section in the BNP constitution which said membership was restricted to "indigenous British ethnic groups" including the "Anglo-Saxon folk community" and the "Celtic Scottish folk community"."

 

Banning parties that you oppose is what is done by a dictatorship. I don't like what they say but I will demand their right to say it so that they can provide their own rope to hang themselves.

 

also banning them will actually HELP them because they can say that the labour party (who most people want out) are against them because they are afraid etc etc. It would be a PR win for the BNP.

 

Enforcing the law is not a dictatorship. If a party wishes to partake in elections, they must be a legal party with legal membership policies. This is UK law and EU law.

mossj

mossj

Posted
Posted

Not going to watch, don't have TV License....

 

Jeremy Clarkson probably agrees with him...:mad:

 

Do you not think he says a majority of his stuff for comedic effect.... It's the same as someone telling a sexist/racist joke, they don't believe the joke it's just for effect. JC is the only person with the koh ho nas to do it on TV.

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted

Also, when their views are blatantly racist, or bigoted, should they simply be allowed to go spouting them? What if they say something like 'my personal opinion is that gay people should not be allowed to live'. That isn't technically against the law - but those idiot people who follow such people would (and history shows us do) act on such comments...

 

That is the concept of 'No Platform'.

 

If you believe in the ideals of democracy and free speech then you must accept that rats like NG exist and as much right to air their personal opinions as you do - however distasteful those opinions may be.

 

Under a democracy you have the right to hear his opinions and decide for yourself wether you personally agree with them. If you don't, as I don't, then don't vote for him.

 

That is the concept of 'Freedom'.

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted

Well, considering their current rules fly directly in the face of the law as it stands - and they're changing them because of this, yes as they stand at this moment in time, they are an illegal organisation. Just because they've not got a judgement against them does not mean they are legal. If I stab someone, I've done something illegal whether a judge has said I have or not.

 

And yes, the ideals of a democracy are good - but those ideals do not stretch to cover speech and behaviour which enters into bigotry, which seeks to break the human rights of others etc... With rights come responsibility. The right to freedom of speech is not without its limits. That is what laws cover.

DrCheese

DrCheese

Posted
Posted (edited)
Enforcing the law is not a dictatorship. If a party wishes to partake in elections, they must be a legal party with legal membership policies. This is UK law and EU law.

...and they are changing their rules to make them legal, so that point is null

 

You can not ban parties in a democracy and the day any party is banned is the day the UK is really just a dictatorship in all but name. You can not claim to support democracy and then find ways to ban parties that disagree with your viewpoint.

I don't understand why people have the view that simply ignoring their views/banning them will just make them go away. It won't, if anything it just makes the problem worse as people feel ignored which breeds even more resentment.

i.e If the main parties won't even discuss subjects like immigration out of fear of being labelled "racists" or "non pc", people will turn to the only party that they think will listen to them, even if they are ultra extreme.

 

Thatcher (shudder) realised this about the National front in the 80's and said...

 

""...we do not talk about it [immigration] perhaps as much as we should. In my view, that is one thing that is driving some people to the National Front. They do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems...If we do not want people to go to extremes...we must show that we are prepared to deal with it."

That speech alone resulted in a dramatic loss of support for the NF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Front#Late_1970s:_Riot_and_downfall

 

Bring them to the public stage and then totally take apart any of the arguments they have. Challenge them, make them look as stupid as they really are. That's the way to get rid of the BNP, not pretending they don't exist.

 

and for the record, I'm not a BNP supporter in any shape or form but I'm strong believer in democracy, even if I don't agree with the choices made.

Edited by DrCheese
localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry but until they have changed their policies, and aren't just saying they will, they are still breaking the law.

 

Do you think people have an unrestricted right to freedom of speech then? ie. they can say whatever they want whenever they want? Or do you think that with the right to freedom of speech comes with responsibility and control - ie. you can't do things like say 'BOMB!' in a theatre etc...?

 

Sure, the BNP can talk about whatever they want, whenever they want - so long as it is within the confines of the law, which was set in place via democratically elected governments. If they operate outside of those laws, which, if the current case and the previous cases involving NG have shown they do constantly, then they should not be allowed to partake in publicly funded debates etc... They can pay for airtime themselves.

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted

Do you think people have an unrestricted right to freedom of speech then? ie. they can say whatever they want whenever they want? Or do you think that with the right to freedom of speech comes with responsibility and control - ie. you can't do things like say 'BOMB!' in a theatre etc...?

 

I think you maybe confusing what the freedom of speech is. And yes I currently believe I have an unrestricted freedom of speech in this country. Any restrictions imposed by law would by definition take away the freedom of speech.

 

The freedom of speech is not about being able to say 'BOMB' in a theatre - or worse still on an aeroplane. It is about being able to voice an opinion on any subject with fear of reprisal from the state. If I want to stand on the street corner and say "I believe all gays should be hanged" I have the right to do that. (BTW - I don't believe all gays should be hanged, just following the examples previously raised).

 

I can't stand on the street corner and say "lets hang the gay guy, comon whose with me" as that's incitment to riot. And if I shout "BOMB" pretty much anywhere I can expect some intense questioning from the police and my be prosecuted for wasting police time, again nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

If I genuinly believed I do not have true freedom of speech in this country then I'd be looking at emmigrating to a country where I feel safe I have that freedom.

 

The problem with any freedom's is they apply universally to all. If I have the freedom of speech, then so does Nick Griffin. The beuty is I also have the freedom of choice and I choose not to listen to his retoric.

  • Thanks 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...