The In-Parts Impartial B B C

[threegee]

What a marvellous curate's egg of an organisation the BBC is. The senior layer bows to reason and allows the BNP representation on Question Time. But, its news reporting of its own program seems devoid of all balance.

Three times in an hour a "person of colour" is allowed to deliver exactly the same lengthy tirade in the guise of a question - this on prime time news! Yet, as soon as Nick Griffin is allowed to reply to this, the coverage is cut before his very first word. Following this a string of lefties are trotted out to give their rather wishful views of how the program went; not even a token attempt to air a contrary view.

Someone more senior in the Beeb must have picked up on this, as on the fourth screening the tirade was edited and the first words of Griffin's reply was included. And... guess what? The "questioner" now looks genuinely surprised at the reply and is stopped in his tracks! Nothing like the false impression of Griffin being embarrassed delivered by the earlier editing. At the same time the string of eager lefties are edited out.

You could *almost* believe what Griffin says about the BBC being a "ultra-leftist establishment". Except that's a gross oversimplification and there are obviously a lot of fair-minded and balanced people in the BBC ranks. What a pity they lose control so very obviously, and on so many occasions!

[Guest mrsvic]

I'm reet enjoying watching him made out to be a complete ***. This is the best TV all year!

It's been a long time since the majority of the country united for a decent cause. Even in the midst of a postal strike. I am actually quite moved. Even Ole Jacky Straw has gone up in our estimation tonight

[Guest mrsvic]

... and yes, even the BNP supporter in the audience had his say... some indecipherable shouting by an unwashed greasy man... even Dimbleby couldn't be bothered...

[threegee]

Even Ole Jacky Straw has gone up in our estimation tonight

...even if his father didn't! Once again proving that people who live in straw houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Guest mrsvic]

"!*!@# Griffin"

[Hamburger Pimp]

Griffin was thoroughly exposed as a simpering, grubby little turd with no more intellectual or political credibility than some drunken pub bore regurgitating half-remembered Littlejohn columns from The Mail.

Other than hardcore racists, bigots and fools, I'd imagine anybody who has voted for his party recently will be feeling slightly embarrassed about that right about now.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Fourgee
Removed personal attack.

[threegee]

Other than hardcore racists*, bigots* and fools*, I'd imagine anybody who has voted for his party recently will be feeling slightly embarrassed about that right about now.

Don't think so. It has simply confirmed people in their already strongly held views. Though I think a few people on-the-fence might come to the conclusion that he wasn't given a fair chance.

He's right in saying he was personally attacked on about 25 counts and only allowed to partly reply on about 4. He was also right in saying that the program should have been about the issues - as in a normal QT - and not about him. To that extent Straw was let off the hook, as the BNP had obviously done their homework on real issues. I for one would have liked to hear what the BNP policies actually were. Instead we were treated to what others thought they might be, indeed even wished them to be.

[Monsta®]

what a sham! 99% of the audience was either asian or anti bnp. the only good thing to come out of it was that jack straw couldn't answer straight and that baroness warsi was a homophobic.

there was no freedom of speech on show every time griffin opened his mouth the panel and the audience jumped on him calling him a racist etc!

[mercuryg]

I'm reet enjoying watching him made out to be a complete ***.

Before I go on, i'll just say that i'm in no way a BNP supporter, and in no shape or form do i 'rate' Nick Griffin; however, I have to disagree with you - Mrs Vic - that he was made to look a complete *** (insert chosen insult. I fully expected him to be so, and I was quite looking forward to a whitewash ( no pun intended) but faced with the simpering, pathetic Jack Straw and the complete no-hoper from the Lib-Dems, plus a token Black American historian and a very impressive Baroness Warsi (hope I got the name right) he was hardly exposed at all. There was nothing new bar the 'you're a Nazi' jibes that we always get, and that he always refutes, and it was quite clear that this, quite disgustingly, was set up to try and make the BNP look like a bunch of idiots. I think, quite franly, it backfired. I notice your reference to... "and yes, even the BNP supporter in the audience had his say... some indecipherable shouting by an unwashed greasy man... even Dimbleby couldn't be bothered..." and I found that, and one other instance, to be rather disconerting. If you are referring to the man I think you are, he simply put the question 'why are we allowing so many immigrants when we have a rising unemployment rate?' he didn't say he was a BNP supporter at all, and for Dimbleby to dismiss it with 'You've made your point' was, to be honest, disgusting; it was a fair question, a good one, and one that needs addressing, as subsequent discussion revealed. Griffin, quite rightly, later expressed his opinion that the BBC is a very biased organisation, and this merely proved that point. If Question Time is intended to give all participants a fair voice, this edition didn't.

The other point that had me cringing was an example of the ridiculous political correctness that pervades such discussions as this; Straw, in answering a question from a man with very dark coloured skin, actually said '.....I'm from immigrant stock, you may or may not be.....' and, I must say, that has to be the funniest line of the show. The man was clearly from immigrant stock, and there was no need to shy away from the fact, a fact which - as was clear - the questioner was not disputing.

All of thi smacks of sheer nonsense from the BBC, and I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with a lot of what Griffin has said since. Those who wish to denigrate him and his party, who think they should not be given a voice, should not be afforded what is referred to as the 'oxygen of publicity' should wathch their step, for without the right to speak, to say what one believes, we lose all other rights of freedom. I don't agree with much of the BNP's policies, so I don't vote for them. I don't agree with much of other parties policies either, so I don't vote for them. I do not, however, insist that they should not be heard, because I disagree with them.

Furthermore, the historical knowledge shown by the political sides of the panel last night was woeful: bar theh token Black American (a historian) all seemed to have no idea that Churchill was a noted racist, all continue to misinterpret the much quoted, always out of context, Rivers of Blood speech by Powell, and all seemed oblivious to the rights of others to express views.

My deepest concern, however, comes from the fact that despite the sensible and down to earth Baroness Warsi, Nick Griffin came across as less of a naughty schoolboy than the rest.

[Monsta®]

who's more fascist the bnp... a political party who have been attacked and demonised by the lefties and branded nazi's for wanting to prevent muslims from taking over britian.....or the UAF and other such organisations..who pretend to care about something they dont understand and strip people of there freedom of speech....

wonder if nick griffin wrote a book they would burn it?

[Guest mrsvic]

Before I go on, i'll just say that i'm in no way a BNP supporter, and in no shape or form do i 'rate' Nick Griffin; however, I have to disagree with you - Mrs Vic - that he was made to look a complete *** (insert chosen insult. I fully expected him to be so, and I was quite looking forward to a whitewash ( no pun intended) but faced with the simpering, pathetic Jack Straw and the complete no-hoper from the Lib-Dems, plus a token Black American historian and a very impressive Baroness Warsi (hope I got the name right) he was hardly exposed at all. There was nothing new bar the 'you're a Nazi' jibes that we always get, and that he always refutes, and it was quite clear that this, quite disgustingly, was set up to try and make the BNP look like a bunch of idiots. I think, quite franly, it backfired. I notice your reference to... "and yes, even the BNP supporter in the audience had his say... some indecipherable shouting by an unwashed greasy man... even Dimbleby couldn't be bothered..." and I found that, and one other instance, to be rather disconerting. If you are referring to the man I think you are, he simply put the question 'why are we allowing so many immigrants when we have a rising unemployment rate?' he didn't say he was a BNP supporter at all, and for Dimbleby to dismiss it with 'You've made your point' was, to be honest, disgusting; it was a fair question, a good one, and one that needs addressing, as subsequent discussion revealed. Griffin, quite rightly, later expressed his opinion that the BBC is a very biased organisation, and this merely proved that point. If Question Time is intended to give all participants a fair voice, this edition didn't.

The other point that had me cringing was an example of the ridiculous political correctness that pervades such discussions as this; Straw, in answering a question from a man with very dark coloured skin, actually said '.....I'm from immigrant stock, you may or may not be.....' and, I must say, that has to be the funniest line of the show. The man was clearly from immigrant stock, and there was no need to shy away from the fact, a fact which - as was clear - the questioner was not disputing.

All of thi smacks of sheer nonsense from the BBC, and I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with a lot of what Griffin has said since. Those who wish to denigrate him and his party, who think they should not be given a voice, should not be afforded what is referred to as the 'oxygen of publicity' should wathch their step, for without the right to speak, to say what one believes, we lose all other rights of freedom. I don't agree with much of the BNP's policies, so I don't vote for them. I don't agree with much of other parties policies either, so I don't vote for them. I do not, however, insist that they should not be heard, because I disagree with them.

Furthermore, the historical knowledge shown by the political sides of the panel last night was woeful: bar theh token Black American (a historian) all seemed to have no idea that Churchill was a noted racist, all continue to misinterpret the much quoted, always out of context, Rivers of Blood speech by Powell, and all seemed oblivious to the rights of others to express views.

My deepest concern, however, comes from the fact that despite the sensible and down to earth Baroness Warsi, Nick Griffin came across as less of a naughty schoolboy than the rest.

Surely if the audience was representitive of the party... in an audience of a few hundred, there was a handful of racists... that's about equal to the 1 million idiots out of a 60 million population. The racists got their say, in proportion to the number of non-racists, and if David Dimbleby patronises or ignores them? so what? why should a group of awful bigots have a say... would they give most of the audience a voice if they were in power?

At what point do you think we should carry on this notion of free speech? Is it fair to allow murderers, rapists and the like a say, just because it's popular with a small minority? There's a a couple of hundred thousand sex offenders out there wanting a say too... should we let them put their point over to the nation? It's only fair.

This disgusting man bases his party on illegal policies, he courts the favour of the KKK, treats any non-whites as idiots and has a blinkered and downright crap concept of history. There are always stupid people, with nowt better to do than blame someone else for their situation, people who would support Griffin.N, Shipman.H, Bush.G.W or even Glitter.G if they thought it would exclude them from blame for their lack of achievement... Nick Griffin, should be locked up, not allowed brainwash more stupid folk with his ideas.

Oh and MG... it sounds like you have a bit of a crush on the Baroness... was it the oversized poppy?

[mercuryg]

Now mrs vic, ill keep this short as I'm in the pub. To compare elected politicians ...no matter how disagreeable their views...with rapists is missing the point. Furthermore, the voice you brand a racist was merely asking a relevant question. If you advocate removing their voice you are no better than the people you berate who do precisely the same.

As for the baroness, I apprecviated her sensible responses, and her willingness to accept that many many people are concerned about levels of immigration in this country. If you wish to discuss I'm up for a pint!

Don't get me wrong I'm not supporting griffin or his party, but his right to be heard.

[Monsta®]

Surely if the audience was representitive of the party... in an audience of a few hundred, there was a handful of racists... that's about equal to the 1 million idiots out of a 60 million population. The racists got their say, in proportion to the number of non-racists, and if David Dimbleby patronises or ignores them? so what? why should a group of awful bigots have a say... would they give most of the audience a voice if they were in power?

At what point do you think we should carry on this notion of free speech? Is it fair to allow murderers, rapists and the like a say, just because it's popular with a small minority? There's a a couple of hundred thousand sex offenders out there wanting a say too... should we let them put their point over to the nation? It's only fair.

This disgusting man bases his party on illegal policies, he courts the favour of the KKK, treats any non-whites as idiots and has a blinkered and downright crap concept of history. There are always stupid people, with nowt better to do than blame someone else for their situation, people who would support Griffin.N, Shipman.H, Bush.G.W or even Glitter.G if they thought it would exclude them from blame for their lack of achievement... Nick Griffin, should be locked up, not allowed brainwash more stupid folk with his ideas

thats just what i would expect for a UAF supporter to say! or am all for free speech and fairness except when its the bnp! urgh racists or bigots divint disorve out.. makes you laugh! :lol::lol:

[Hamburger Pimp]

Twice you've referred to Bonnie Greer as the Token Black American.

Was Baroness Warsi the Token Asian?

Was Nick Griffin the Token Racist?

The other point that had me cringing was an example of the ridiculous political correctness that pervades such discussions as this; Straw, in answering a question from a man with very dark coloured skin, actually said '.....I'm from immigrant stock, you may or may not be.....' and, I must say, that has to be the funniest line of the show. The man was clearly from immigrant stock, and there was no need to shy away from the fact, a fact which - as was clear - the questioner was not disputing.

There have been black people in Britain since the 16th century. It would be crass and insensitive for Jack Straw to blithely assume that somebody who isn't white is automatically "from immigrant stock", just as it would be equally foolish to assume that somebody who is white and has an English accent is not "from immigrant stock".

The much-derided notion of "Political Correctness" is mainly just an attempt to avoid causing people offence by clumsy use of language or making unfounded assumptions based on cultural differences.

[mercuryg]

Hamburger, you simply back up my point. Whether the gentleman in question has his roots in thos 16th century immigrants makes no difference.

I sense, as usual, that as I have dared to state that I think the bnp should have a voice I'm somehow classed with the racists. You couldn't be more wrong.

[threegee]

Surely if the audience was representitive of the party... in an audience of a few hundred, there was a handful of racists... that's about equal to the 1 million idiots out of a 60 million population. The racists got their say, in proportion to the number of non-racists, and if David Dimbleby patronises or ignores them? so what? why should a group of awful bigots have a say... would they give most of the audience a voice if they were in power?

Do you honestly believe that audience was representative of the UK population? No way! It's all very well calling the BNP racist, and saying they would curb the right to free speech, but if you won't give them a fair hearing all you are doing is allowing them to accuse you of the same tactics. Shouting someone down and attempting to put words in NG's mouth (as he rightly accuses the left-wing press, and Islamists, of doing) simply illustrates how weak the extreme left's arguments actually are.

At what point do you think we should carry on this notion of free speech? Is it fair to allow murderers, rapists and the like a say, just because it's popular with a small minority? There's a a couple of hundred thousand sex offenders out there wanting a say too... should we let them put their point over to the nation? It's only fair.

A lot further than Straw and his cronies (particularly Hain) would like. If sex offenders have anything to say then why shouldn't we at least listen? I suspect few do, but at times we might actually learn something which would benefit society. Certainly the hysteria fuelled by the gutter press does nothing for society.

This disgusting man bases his party on illegal policies, he courts the favour of the KKK, treats any non-whites as idiots and has a blinkered and downright crap concept of history. There are always stupid people, with nowt better to do than blame someone else for their situation, people who would support Griffin.N, Shipman.H, Bush.G.W or even Glitter.G if they thought it would exclude them from blame for their lack of achievement... Nick Griffin, should be locked up, not allowed brainwash more stupid folk with his ideas.

There's always the suspicion that the only reason many from the left find him "disgusting" is that they have no answer to any of his arguments. I'd have thought that Socialism and Communism owe much of their influence to their strategy of blaming "someone else for their situation" - as indeed did the Nazis!

If you continue to shout him down, and advocate censorship, then ultimately you lose the battle for ideas and he wins by default!

[threegee]

Twice you've referred to Bonnie Greer as the Token Black American.

Was Baroness Warsi the Token Asian?

Was Nick Griffin the Token Racist?

I don't think you will find too many Bonnie Greers or Baroness Warsis on Northern streets. But you will find millions who will echo NG's ideas (on the rare occasions when he's permitted to express them). In that sense they are token whatevers.

You insist he's a "racist", but you persist in putting words into his mouth without listening to what he's actully saying. What does that make you? Intollerant - Facist - Stalinist - Nazi - chose your own (substitue for thought) label.

There have been black people in Britain since the 16th century. It would be crass and insensitive for Jack Straw to blithely assume that somebody who isn't white is automatically "from immigrant stock", just as it would be equally foolish to assume that somebody who is white and has an English accent is not "from immigrant stock".

The much-derided notion of "Political Correctness" is mainly just an attempt to avoid causing people offence by clumsy use of language or making unfounded assumptions based on cultural differences.

An alternative view is that its a "clumsy" attempt to impose a set of alien ideas on a society. It's insulting to that society because in general it doesn't have the sort of unreasoning prejudice that is implied by that alien idea-set. And, it has always worked through such differences without "external help", and being told what to think!

It's also counterproductive because it highlights differences which would never have been highighted before, and will be read by extremists as an attempt to subvert a culture. In the past attitudes have been allowed to evolve slowly. PC - like multiculturalism - is a recipe for unrest, and an unstable/unworkable society.

[Cympil]

Isn`t it ironic..Nick Griffin is being talked about?

While a lot of the stuff that the BNP stands for is totally wrong, a lot of the stuff is also true?

Maybe people are catching on to this?? Time will tell i suppose.

[Guest mrsvic]

Do you honestly believe that audience was representative of the UK population? No way!

I certainly think that the audience was representitive of the weekly audiences of the show: do you expect a show to suddenly invite a coach load of ignorant oiks and skinheads just because there's a certain panellist? I'm a Blur and Pulp fan and I was invited to neither of the shows Alex James nor Jarvis Cocker. How many people did vote BNP? And what does that represent in comparison to the national population? 1 in 60? Take it to 1 in 40 if you must count the minors? Would that not represent the demographics of the audience?

It's all very well calling the BNP racist, and saying they would curb the right to free speech, but if you won't give them a fair hearing all you are doing is allowing them to accuse you of the same tactics. Shouting someone down and attempting to put words in NG's mouth (as he rightly accuses the left-wing press, and Islamists, of doing) simply illustrates how weak the extreme left's arguments actually are.

Curbing the right to free speech is the last worry in concern to the BNP. I don't believe we have free speech now under the current system, I don't think we ever have had, nor do I think we will. To me free speech and free thought go hand in hand, should we not be able to think freely without being pressured or coerced into one belief or another then there is no point of free speech. Influences in the media are too clever for most of the followers, with many of them not even knowing that they've been had. Should the Sun, the Star or the local social club put up a campaign to rid the country of hedgehogs because they are taking our taxes, there would be followers. Before any of debate or influence can take place, you have to educate the audience, if they don't have a well balanced view then there is little point. This is not validating your point GGGG, as I don't agree that everyone should have a say, more that everyone should kno the facts.

It's very easy for someone to listen to a fool's promises and believe them if they are desperate for change... but if that change doesn't transpire and the promises are broken, what then? Say a party appears tomorrow, promising us all a job, a large house an acre of land and 30 days holidays a year... sounds good? Would you vote? Many would. Would the promises be fulfilled? No.

Many people too far removed from the system see the answer as a cut and dried case of getting rid of asylum seekers... how many are there stealing the jobs of the Bedlingtonians? 5? 10? Right, so give the BNP their way... is anything going to change significantly round here? So why make it an issue? Voters are being coerced into thinking the BNP will help their circumstances... well it's not. Why should they be lied to? Should there be the facility to put out such nonsense? Socialism is the same, Communism, the Liberals, Labour and Tories too, whomever it is manipulting voters with lies, they should be stopped.

If sex offenders have anything to say then why shouldn't we at least listen? I suspect few do, but at times we might actually learn something which would benefit society. Certainly the hysteria fuelled by the gutter press does nothing for society.

Sadly, we prove that popularity will attract followers, we live in a nation where Goody, Cole and Cowell can win the nations hearts... surely this shows the stupidity of many. We seem to have reached the point where we allow freedom of choice, freedom of speech and the like, however, what it boils down to is a society churning out ill-educated and maliable proles capable of voting for a man with the charisma and looks of a sausage roll. I find the attitude of listening to sex offenders disgusting, GGGG, look at the nursery cases in the news over the last few weeks... at some point one of those parties must have made the suggestion to the others to go along with; what about all the women who sit back knowing their children are being abused; people are easily manipulated, and so no, some groups in society should not have a say.

There's always the suspicion that the only reason many from the left find him "disgusting" is that they have no answer to any of his arguments. I'd have thought that Socialism and Communism owe much of their influence to their strategy of blaming "someone else for their situation" - as indeed did the Nazis!

I guess that you are assuming incorrectly that I belong to some kind of -ism or other. There are many answers to Griffins arguments, most of them beginning with setting the record straight that asylum seekers are not to blame for the problems in this country for unemployment, the welfare state, education or the NHS. Looking a bit closer to home perhaps we need to look at our lifestyles and the impact they have on the state much more than the impact of the small percentage of immigrants. I have worked with vast numbers of asylum seekers, every single one of which was keen to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy, generally be a valuable member of the community. The money I have seen spent has always gone on the problems of the 'natives' in crime, benefits, social services, ill health and the like... the ammount spent on some of 'our own' families can top £1million a year when you count up benefits, housing and mainly the cost of serivces 'to put them right'... 1 child alone, damaged by their parents can cost the system £20,000 a month to support them in education and/or medical support, multiply that by a family of 5... the kids of course, stay with their parents, it would be unfair not to... and the parents? well they will get more beer money if they add another to the nest. I do not consider myself to be a citizen of the UK, but more of one of the world, just because we live on an island don't not mean our boundaries are so clear. On one hand 'we' allegedly support wars on many fronts to support the victims of rotten regimes, but then we have no compassion when victims of the most vile crimes come to us for support. Imagine you have been raped, seen your family killed and managed to escape to a 'nicer' place, you want to help build a supportive, trusting and loyal society, you want to fit in... who are we to send someone back to near certain death, just on the basis of less of an increase in next year's benefits. Do the people who vote BNP have absolutely no compassion for their fellow man?

If you continue to shout him down, and advocate censorship, then ultimately you lose the battle for ideas and he wins by default!

The show last night was not the Nick Griffin show, such in the same way the usually hilariously funny Charlie Brooker didn't get much of a say on last week's Have I got News For You, life isn't perfect, perhaps we just need to make the most of it instead of complaining.

[Cympil]

Looking a bit closer to home perhaps we need to look at our lifestyles and the impact they have on the state much more than the impact of the small percentage of immigrants. I have worked with vast numbers of asylum seekers, every single one of which was keen to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy, generally be a valuable member of the community. The money I have seen spent has always gone on the problems of the 'natives' in crime, benefits, social services, ill health and the like... the ammount spent on some of 'our own' families can top £1million a year when you count up benefits, housing and mainly the cost of serivces 'to put them right'... 1 child alone, damaged by their parents can cost the system £20,000 a month to support them in education and/or medical support, multiply that by a family of 5... the kids of course, stay with their parents, it would be unfair not to... and the parents? well they will get more beer money if they add another to the nest.

So in a nutshell, all the immigrants (the small percentage )are here purely for to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy, generally be a valuable member of the community?) Whilst,`the natives` ie..English people, are nowt more than dole scrounging folk that think nowt of spending their benefits (all of £50 a week of it on booze, that`s if the !*!@# at the dole can be bothered to push a button for his minimum wage, hard work i know)

So i wonder how `the natives` as you call them, can even afford to buy bottles of plonk, let alone eat.

And do the `natives` not want to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy? Or are all `natives` alky good for nothings? It`s no wonder they`re in ill health really. Pity they couldn`t pull the `racism card` really.

[Cympil]

Oh, and how dare `the natives` have ill health. And by the way is `natives` a word the immigrants use? Is that their word for English people, or is it just the word you use? Either way, if i was easily upset (like some folk on here) i would call that racist.

[Monsta®]

Oh, and how dare `the natives` have ill health. And by the way is `natives` a word the immigrants use? Is that their word for English people, or is it just the word you use? Either way, if i was easily upset (like some folk on here) i would call that racist.

probably whitey or something along those lines!

[Guest mrsvic]

So in a nutshell, all the immigrants (the small percentage )are here purely for to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy, generally be a valuable member of the community?) Whilst,`the natives` ie..English people, are nowt more than dole scrounging folk that think nowt of spending their benefits (all of £50 a week of it on booze, that`s if the !*!@# at the dole can be bothered to push a button for his minimum wage, hard work i know)

So i wonder how `the natives` as you call them, can even afford to buy bottles of plonk, let alone eat.

And do the `natives` not want to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy? Or are all `natives` alky good for nothings? It`s no wonder they`re in ill health really. Pity they couldn`t pull the `racism card` really.

An interesting insight Cympil, and yes, in cases, I would agree.

In terms of immigrants, not all come here for the reasons you quote me on, however, all that I have met have been involved with one or more of the above once they are here. As I said, many immigrants come from awful backgrounds, more terrible than we could ever imagine, leaving a home, a community, friends and family (if any of these remain) is an awful thing to do, I don't feel that we should make it more difficult. Surely we should show some compassion?

As for your 'dole' comments, I am sure Cympil that you will have had first hand experience of knowing one or more people in a situation where they either cheat the system, or are happy to live indefinitley on benefits? In most cases, the money lost to the state isn't too much, it's a pathetic ammount to live on, however there are cases where costs for a single family can be phenomenal.

Take a family with a background of serious crime and substance issues, add a few kids, some social services intervention, specialist education, psychatrists... then consider the medical implications of, say, a couple with substance problems, the impact of constant operations and treatment on the NHS, oh and then the next kid to add to the nest... count up the costs. The price is a bit higher than the rent on a council house... perhaps the cost of benefits and rent for a whole street. These problems may not be directly from the streets of Bedlington, but take an inner city area and there could several families in this situation in one street. Does it seem fair?

Much as it pains me to quote Keith Allen, he mentioned on the news last week that the major issue for many families is the impact of cheap booze and tabs, an unhealthy lifesyle which bears a huge burden on the the NHS, much of it not even pulling in the revenue from taxes to scratch the surface of the costs. It seems that you think I consider all people on the dole like this? No, not all, but like I say, I am sure everyone knows someone who gets more than they deserve, and in some cases the costs are huge. Would you seriously prefer some immigrants to die needlessly or live in torturous conditions, so that some families can live carry on popping out an extra benefit every 9 month? It happens and it will have an impact on anyone claiming any benefit or waiting on an NHS list.

I am not saying that every family I cite as a burden on the taxpayers (and indeed the benefit claimants) is going to be from a white, British background. However, it appears that in the North East this is generally the case. Cympil, all I ask is that you count up the costs of some of the members of our society (and a small minority) and you will find that to support them will amass to the cost of the cost of all immigrants and many of the benefit seekers too. Can you not see that there is more than one group of people taking your money? My arguement, is that many people in one group, to my experience, are prepared to help themselves, where another is not. I have no more loyalties to chav from Newcastle than to a genocide victim in Zimbabwe... I would, however, be more keen to help the person who wants help and isn't going fritter it all away.

[Cympil]

An interesting insight Cympil, and yes, in cases, I would agree.

In terms of immigrants, not all come here for the reasons you quote me on, however, all that I have met have been involved with one or more of the above once they are here. As I said, many immigrants come from awful backgrounds, more terrible than we could ever imagine, leaving a home, a community, friends and family (if any of these remain) is an awful thing to do, I don't feel that we should make it more difficult. Surely we should show some compassion?

As for your 'dole' comments, I am sure Cympil that you will have had first hand experience of knowing one or more people in a situation where they either cheat the system, or are happy to live indefinitley on benefits? In most cases, the money lost to the state isn't too much, it's a pathetic ammount to live on, however there are cases where costs for a single family can be phenomenal.

Take a family with a background of serious crime and substance issues, add a few kids, some social services intervention, specialist education, psychatrists... then consider the medical implications of, say, a couple with substance problems, the impact of constant operations and treatment on the NHS, oh and then the next kid to add to the nest... count up the costs. The price is a bit higher than the rent on a council house... perhaps the cost of benefits and rent for a whole street. These problems may not be directly from the streets of Bedlington, but take an inner city area and there could several families in this situation in one street. Does it seem fair?

Much as it pains me to quote Keith Allen, he mentioned on the news last week that the major issue for many families is the impact of cheap booze and tabs, an unhealthy lifesyle which bears a huge burden on the the NHS, much of it not even pulling in the revenue from taxes to scratch the surface of the costs. It seems that you think I consider all people on the dole like this? No, not all, but like I say, I am sure everyone knows someone who gets more than they deserve, and in some cases the costs are huge. Would you seriously prefer some immigrants to die needlessly or live in torturous conditions, so that some families can live carry on popping out an extra benefit every 9 month? It happens and it will have an impact on anyone claiming any benefit or waiting on an NHS list.

I am not saying that every family I cite as a burden on the taxpayers (and indeed the benefit claimants) is going to be from a white, British background. However, it appears that in the North East this is generally the case. Cympil, all I ask is that you count up the costs of some of the members of our society (and a small minority) and you will find that to support them will amass to the cost of the cost of all immigrants and many of the benefit seekers too. Can you not see that there is more than one group of people taking your money? My arguement, is that many people in one group, to my experience, are prepared to help themselves, where another is not. I have no more loyalties to chav from Newcastle than to a genocide victim in Zimbabwe... I would, however, be more keen to help the person who wants help and isn't going fritter it all away.

Too much to reply too tonight, but going over your post it reads like it`s the immigrants that do all that stuff..having kid after kid what they can`t afford to look after, come to England claiming every benefit under the sun, getting priority housing with all their rent paid.

And to quote you `Would you seriously prefer some immigrants to die needlessly or live in torturous conditions, so that some families can live carry on popping out an extra benefit every 9 month?` when did i even mention prefering immigrants to die?

Don`t even try the guilt trip on me.

Maybe you should try a bit compassion and loyalty to the people of England, they go through just the same hardship as anyone else..if you can`t get your head around that then maybe it`s time you jumped on the boat and took HP with you..MrDarn if there`s room too.

[threegee]

Curbing the right to free speech is the last worry in concern to the BNP. I don't believe we have free speech now under the current system, I don't think we ever have had, nor do I think we will. To me free speech and free thought go hand in hand, should we not be able to think freely without being pressured or coerced into one belief or another then there is no point of free speech. Influences in the media are too clever for most of the followers, with many of them not even knowing that they've been had. Should the Sun, the Star or the local social club put up a campaign to rid the country of hedgehogs because they are taking our taxes, there would be followers. Before any of debate or influence can take place, you have to educate the audience, if they don't have a well balanced view then there is little point. This is not validating your point GGGG, as I don't agree that everyone should have a say, more that everyone should kno the facts.

Of course we don't have blanket free speech. But we do have a degree of tolerance to conflicting views. Apparently that tolerance should now only apply to alien cultures, and not to our fellow Britains!

Nope, you have to accept the audience as it is. No air of superiority, no Peter Hain I know what's really good for you. One person's "educate" is another person's indoctrinate. This is what democracy (and our enlightened capitalism) is about. People have to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them themselves. No central committee to dictate what's good and what's not. No party line. God knows we've made a big enough mistake with Gordon Brown and his profligacy! But the strength of our system is that we can, and will, learn from it.

It's very easy for someone to listen to a fool's promises and believe them if they are desperate for change... but if that change doesn't transpire and the promises are broken, what then? Say a party appears tomorrow, promising us all a job, a large house an acre of land and 30 days holidays a year... sounds good? Would you vote? Many would. Would the promises be fulfilled? No.

Ah - you are talking about Nu Labour then?

Many people too far removed from the system see the answer as a cut and dried case of getting rid of asylum seekers... how many are there stealing the jobs of the Bedlingtonians? 5? 10? Right, so give the BNP their way... is anything going to change significantly round here? So why make it an issue? Voters are being coerced into thinking the BNP will help their circumstances... well it's not. Why should they be lied to? Should there be the facility to put out such nonsense? Socialism is the same, Communism, the Liberals, Labour and Tories too, whomever it is manipulting voters with lies, they should be stopped.

I don't think there is any country in the world that is happy to accept penniless asylum seekers. Why should our small country take on this burden, especially now that it is financially challenged? Very easy to get an international junket together on a non-existent problem like "climate change" - so why not do it on this thorny problem. Surely sharing out the burden of GENUINE asylum seekers according to available resources shouldn't be too much of a challenge to our political elite? It won't take billions we haven't got to resolve either. Could I suggest is that the reason is that there's few votes, and even less sound bites, in so doing?

"they should be stopped" -- Great! So who is going to be the arbiter of who is lying and who is not? At this point in history we are all reasonably educated people who should be able to see through empty promises.

Sadly, we prove that popularity will attract followers, we live in a nation where Goody, Cole and Cowell can win the nations hearts... surely this shows the stupidity of many. We seem to have reached the point where we allow freedom of choice, freedom of speech and the like, however, what it boils down to is a society churning out ill-educated and maliable proles capable of voting for a man with the charisma and looks of a sausage roll. I find the attitude of listening to sex offenders disgusting, GGGG, look at the nursery cases in the news over the last few weeks... at some point one of those parties must have made the suggestion to the others to go along with; what about all the women who sit back knowing their children are being abused; people are easily manipulated, and so no, some groups in society should not have a say.

This is the very elitist argument that is at the core of Nazism. We are fit to rule and you are just poor serfs. And on the sex offender tack when does someone who is afflicted with a disease that's none of their fault, become a sex monster? The sad fact is sex offenders have a problem just like any other social misfits. Listening to what they have to say rather than organising a lynch mob is the only long term solution. It's also the most humane! Otherwise it's like one of those zombie films where the solution is to zap, zap, zap them, but they keep on popping up from formerly "normal" people with frightening regularity. Understanding the problem and how and where it arises is the only serious solution - unless you get a kick out of zapping them, and then you are another kind of pervert!

I guess that you are assuming incorrectly that I belong to some kind of -ism or other.

No I'm not! I think you are a very intelligent person and beyond all that; which is why I think it's such a shame that at times you get so hung up in this lynch mob mentality.

There are many answers to Griffins arguments, most of them beginning with setting the record straight that asylum seekers are not to blame for the problems in this country for unemployment, the welfare state, education or the NHS. Looking a bit closer to home perhaps we need to look at our lifestyles and the impact they have on the state much more than the impact of the small percentage of immigrants. I have worked with vast numbers of asylum seekers, every single one of which was keen to work, volunteer, educate themselves, stay healthy, generally be a valuable member of the community. The money I have seen spent has always gone on the problems of the 'natives' in crime, benefits, social services, ill health and the like... the ammount spent on some of 'our own' families can top £1million a year when you count up benefits, housing and mainly the cost of serivces 'to put them right'... 1 child alone, damaged by their parents can cost the system £20,000 a month to support them in education and/or medical support, multiply that by a family of 5... the kids of course, stay with their parents, it would be unfair not to... and the parents? well they will get more beer money if they add another to the nest. I do not consider myself to be a citizen of the UK, but more of one of the world, just because we live on an island don't not mean our boundaries are so clear. On one hand 'we' allegedly support wars on many fronts to support the victims of rotten regimes, but then we have no compassion when victims of the most vile crimes come to us for support. Imagine you have been raped, seen your family killed and managed to escape to a 'nicer' place, you want to help build a supportive, trusting and loyal society, you want to fit in... who are we to send someone back to near certain death, just on the basis of less of an increase in next year's benefits. Do the people who vote BNP have absolutely no compassion for their fellow man?

So, all this is true. But, so is a lot of what NG says. Your intolerance breeds intolerance. When you start treating someone who feels passionately about something as a fellow human being who should at least be listened to an amazing thing happens - they start treating you as someone who should be listened to. I'm sure that NG is a slimy politician like the rest of them, but he's not an island and derives his support from many many reasonable people. His base is growing because he's listening and adapting, by contrast the political dinosaurs like Peter Hain are doomed to extinction. Mammals or Dinosaurs - we all have a choice.

The show last night was not the Nick Griffin show, such in the same way the usually hilariously funny Charlie Brooker didn't get much of a say on last week's Have I got News For You, life isn't perfect, perhaps we just need to make the most of it instead of complaining.

Put another way, I'd say that in life we all need to make compromises, without compromising principals.