Nick Griffin goes live, makes cock of himself
 

Man, what a dick.

EDIT: For all you lazy Americans/Europeans out there http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321157.stm

He is a real dickprick. Have you seen the BNP leaflets with the British military and Winston Churchill images? Do the BNP forget what we were fighting against, which, ironically, is what the BNP are trying to promote? Fucking hate them, bunch of fascists. You know, if they find out the names of anyone who opposes them, they publish their name and address up on Redwatch and more or less tell their supporters to go around and beat them up.

EDIT: I see that the people on the programme have already made my point.

Did you watch the show? The man has absolutely no composition at all, he was backed into a corner in less than five minutes which is probably a record on Question Time and he tried to appeal to the audience by saying that we all find homosexuals icky. I know many straight men who do find homosexuals snogging icky, I personally find anyone snogging in public a little bit facepalmworthy, but for a politician to say that on live tv?

This night has ruined any credibility he might have still held as even a menace to the British people, the man is a joke.

I didn't see it on television, but I have watched it now. I thought Jack Straw was inept, Griffin's fucking worse.
That black man with the glasses was fucking brilliant.

I iPlayed it live. It got dull when they ploughed into politicians not answering questions about immigration, but they obviously saw that was going nowhere and got back to the point. Which is debasing Nick Griffin and the BNP.

For anyone on the forum who doesn't know who Nick Griffin is I think this interview nicely sums the man up.

Lol douche bag.


Loved the two questioners.

Yeah, Nick Griffin is a shite political figure. but i didn't like that particullar question time, I want to see a REAL discussion on political issues, not a "let's fuck with Nick Griffin fest".

True, but it did show the whole nation (and a lot of the world) just how much of a dickhead he is.

Yeah, he is a dickhead, i'd take his party far more seriously if he stood down.

he isn't a party leader, he's a bloody mobster. you cant take Griffin seriously, but his 'party' are dangerous in the sense that, like Oddjob said, they'd send thugs around to kick your head in. i laugh at their leaflets, seeing as many of the pictures they use are of people who don't even support BNP and have no knowledge of their 'contribution'. eg: a photographer and his family were featured in one leaflet, and he hadn't even met the BNP.

I know a few BNP members, all of whom are nothing like Nick Griffin. I despise Griffin and think that the party would be a lot better off without him. The BNP definitely does have an element of racist idiots in its midst, and he's one of them. He's tarring every single member of that party with the same brush every time he opens his mouth, and like I said, the few members I know are all thoroughly decent people who aren't racist.

But 1 other point. When that far-right Dutch guy came over here recently and there were the Islamic protesters against him, 1 of them held up a sign that read "Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell". It was quoted in an article about the protest. Yet that flies under the radar. Why isn't there the same level of opposition to statements like that? Just asking, because both Griffin's views and that banner are extremist views.

EDIT:

Because Griffin is an MEP, to any other politician that interview would have been constant political suicide.

I still don't get why that excuses statements that freedom should go to hell and Sharia law should be mandatory.

Also, I watched that clip and I actually suspect what he said about Churchill was right. Not neccessarily nice, but accurate. The 2nd World War wasn't fought to fight the Nazis-the Nazi oppression had begun years before. The war was fought partly because Poland were our allies, but mostly to protect Britain- if he hadn't invaded Poland we wouldn't have acted so soon, since we were sitting back and negotiating only to stand aisde every other time. Griffin's point got ignored though and turned into an attack. I don't like the man but for as much as he dodged stuff in that clip, the others dodged that.

I'll watch the full program sometime, I taped it. Just interested to see what else Griffin said, and whether he was allowed to speak, whether he was shouted down, and whether he presented what, in my experience, are the general BNP views, which aren't racist if you actually listen, or presented his & some other BNP members' views, which do seem racist.

Jack Straw was fine.

It doesn't, but everyone has a right to free speech, therefore anyone is able to say stuff like that. It's not pretty and it's usually not intelligent, but that's freedom.

Nick Griffin is a politician, he has responsibilities, he has people who look up to him, a party to control and elections that he's presumably trying to win. A man in that position of power inciting that sort of racial hatred is outrageous.

I agree that it's outrageous some of Griffin's comments. However, I think the problem is, he is so out there that any arguments that remotely touch on anything like immigration having a downside, or on Islamic extremism, get branded as racist- such as some of the level-headed BNP views.

Actually I think you'll find that the only one in the panel who claimed that Immigration had no downside was Jack Straw. And he was playing party politics.

I've not seen the full video yet, only that clip. And in that clip I didn't see anybody besides Griffin hint that immigration has any downside. And I don't like any politician who plays party politics, as you put it. Either be honest or sod off.

Like I said, I'll be watching the full program either tonight or tomorrow, so I'll have to see then.

That's almost exactly what David Dimbleby said to him.

I know and that's part of why I don't like Nick Griffin, amongst other reasons. It's part of why I dislike a lot of politicians, and why although I'm applying for a university course featuring politics, I'd never consider becoming a position as most are untrustworthy and the rest nobody trusts anyway.

EDIT: Becoming a politician, even. Fuck knows what becoming a position means.

Seeing Nick get grilled was probably the best highlight this week. It has brought into light how unlikeable the BNP actually are.

Also, does anyone else think that Nick Griffin is basically an adult Cartman, what with the Jew hate and all?

But Cartman is funny.

Well, I've just watched the entirety of the program. I have a few points to make.

1: Nick Griffin & Jack Staw both came across as completely untrustworthy liars. Jack Straw dodged answering questions or used careful political verbiage to say 1 thing while meaning another. Griffin backpeddled a hell of a lot, particularly on the comments about the KKK and the Holocaust denial.

2: Sayeeda and the lib dem fella (think his name's Chris) carefully twisted some of Nick Griffin's few valid points. His comments on Churchill may well be true, we don't know. His comments on Islam have SOME factual basis- there is a large amount of teaching in the Koran/Qur'an that women are 2nd class citizens, and while the text about killing unbelievers figures in other texts such as Christian text too, there's more extreme Islamic terorrists nowadays than extreme Christian terrorists. We (my immediate family personally) have, in the past, been invited to 2 Muslim weddings but didn't attend as my mother would have had to go into a separate room for the service and eat the leftovers after the men had finished. That's 2nd class treatment of women. Also his comments on the immigration issue being focused on resources, and only being interested in deporting criminals, illegal asylum seekers, etc. are a reasonable argument. The problem is, it's coming from Nick Griffin. There's a lot of video quotes propagating much more extreme and visceral views, and a lot of printed quotes which, misappropriated or not, do little to help his image. If it had been anyone else making such comments they would have been far more well recieved. The trouble with Nick Griffin is you've no idea if he actually means what he says, or if the more rational views he presented on the program have no bearing on what he actually thinks. Which is why I would never trust or vote for him. If somebody led the BNP and actually did believe this things, I'd be more open to them. And the thing is, a large amount of the BNP-voters or members do think those things- but with Nick Griffin there's no way of telling and a lot of evidence to the contrary.

3: What he said about there being a modern motion to exterminate the idea of an English nationality or indigenous people is also true. Nobody would say an Aboriginee isn't an indigenous Australian. Nobody would say an American Indian isn't an indigenous American. Yet nobody can be indigenous English anymore. MY interpretation of indigenous is nothing to do with colour. Nick Griffin claims his isn't-whether that's true I don't know. But there's an active denial of indigenous British/English/Scottish/Welsh/irish nationality. If you trace ANYBODY from any country back far enough, their ancestors will come from somwhere else- including aforementioned groups such as aboriginees or native American Indians. Yet this is more actively campaigned about with Birtish nationality than most others. I can't pick English as my nationality, can't pick England as my country of residence. My university form had a section asking about national identity- I was openly advised not to put down English or British. Indigenous-ness and nationality don't have anything to do with colour, so why is there a campaign against there being indigenous British?


I wouldn't trust Nick Griffin on these issues. If a politician I did trust (short list) raised such issues, I'd be inclined to vote for them.

It's just been announced he could be invited on again.

Excellent, I wonder how visibly disgusted Dimbleby will be this time.

EDIT: Also because I'm running economically on time but I don't want Munches to feel like I ignored his argument.

This is a flawed and loaded analogy, you're a smart guy, you tell me why
Clue: They didn't invade and they're not stealing our babies, whatever the Daily Mail might say to the contrary).

One does not need to be invaded to be overrun. Events since Labour got into power have made that abundantly clear.

There is a problem with being invaded, ask yourself if there really is a problem with being 'overrun' (In a cultural sense, without economical implications as that isn't the point of this argument Griffin was making). Personally speaking some of the most attractive people I know are mixed race, I wouldn't mind if my children were not white, if they knew more than one language, or if they associated with or married people of other races.

What's the big deal about national identity? Shouldn't we all be moving forward and upwards?

In reality and indeed in nature an area can only support a certain number of people, since we are overpopulated as it is we do. not. need. anymore. people. here, It is unfair and it is unwelcome. Culture is not an issue with me.

As for national identity i would be delighted to raise a family, i don't care about the ethnicity of my parter or if my children are white. I think that having different cultures here is very helpful in the growth of this country and indeed as human beings. But only within reason, i do not agree with the displacement of our culture for another. Which even if not deliberate, is still occuring.

And what on earth are you basing this claim of overpopulation on?


People may find this interesting; an opinion piece that was printed in Melbourne's foremost newspaper today. It uses its starting point the booklet given to immigrants who apply for citizenship and how it has changed between the previous Liberal (conservative) party and the current Labour party. It goes on to discuss the best approach for a culture to welcome and integrate newcomers and how to establish a cohesive society with common social rules.

Get off it. You don't have a culture to be displaced.

The difference is, Native Americans and Australian aborigines are indigenous in a way we are not. Their ancestors have been there for tens of thousands of years without cultural or genetic contamination from the outside. Britain, however, has played host to invasion after invasion after invasion, each one bringing their own cultures and ethnicities into the British peoples. Whereas many other indigenous peoples are defined by their historical separation, we are defined by being this melting pot as far back as archaeological evidence can show us.

It's evolution. Cultures and nations change. The world you know is the direct result of ceaseless change for billions of years. Do not expect it to stop now that you have grown attached to the form it took in one brief and insignificant moment that you happened to be alive for.

Try shouting that in a Northen pub.

Next time I'm there I'll give it a shot.

I agree with this. We quite rightly celebrate differences but that requires there to be differences to celebrate. We are approaching a country with no culture or identity of its own anymore that is indistinguishable from anywhere else on the world. I am not against other cultures. I am not against other races. I merely wish for Britain to preserve an identity of its own in the process.

I don't see why to be indigenous it has to date back thousands of years. My family, as far as I can trace it back, is from the British Isles- mostly England, some from Northern Ireland, some the Republic of Ireland. I consider myself indigenous British. I'm not the only one in that situation. What more is required to be indigenous? How far back does the "melting pot" have to go before you can be called indigenous?

Self-hate and self-denial does appear to have become ingrained into a large portion of the British psyche- I can think of few other countries in the world that actively try to deny the exitence of any indigenous or national people, and openly seek to get rid of any pride in one's own country and heritage. Patriotism in the UK is a dying thing. There's a difference between patriotism and jingoism, and it appears the quest to exterminate the nasty latter has led to a reduction in the perfectly acceptable former.

Putting aside how offensive i find this, Why don't i have a culture? I think mine is as valid as anyone's.


So what? you expect me to sit there like a plant pot and watch my culture vanish? Just because change has occured before, doesn't mean i don't have any right to feel conservative of my own culture.

You're a smart guy, but that comment is like saying " people have been waging wars since the birth of humanity, don't even bother trying to preserve peace".

Here we reach an impass between Conservatism and Liberalism, there really isn't much more to say.

Except that we're right.

Yeah, there really is very little common ground here is there.

EDIT: I'm guessing that when you say "We're right" You mean the .... *shudders* liberals

Correct.

Even if there was no immigration, our culture would still be changing at a rate of knots. The culture you love was born of the foreign influences it had already experienced, particularly since colonialism, which is both considered the height of British culture from which we are descending, and the days which brought out the worst in us.

With increased travel and communication, cultural contamination is now entirely unstoppable. Cultures are spreading around the world and being deliberately exported, the distinct cultures within our country are also blending and becoming homogenised. But at the same time, cultures do remain ingrained in our minds to be associated with different regions, and new cultures are emerging, of blends of distant cultures and born of common experiences. People aren't just losing their cultural identity, they are also forging their own. This process is only going to speed up, and as much as you may love what has past, new generations will decide they like it the way was now, and later ones how it will be after this, and so on. That will be considered the best, and that any deviation in any direction is degradation. They too will try and fail to prevent change, not realising that change is the only source of cultural vitality.

There has never been a "British culture" to preserve. It has always been varied and different throughout the country, and no particular state of it has ever lasted more than a few years. You're fighting a futile battle to protect an imaginary past.