The In-Parts Impartial B B C

[mercuryg]

Pleased to see this is getting some healthy debate, for it is what is needed. Rather than removing the right for these people to speak, we must give them the opportunity to put their point across, and then oppose it rationally and sensibly. This is what, I thought, Question Time was meant to allow for - Thursday's show did not.

Mrs Vic wrote:

"...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?...."

Quite the opposite, as it happens. For one, the gentleman who raised the question early on about Griffin's comments on the holocaust tells us now he applied a year or more ago, and was contacted just 24hours to come on this show. I wonder why? Furthermore, it now transpires that audience members were instructed to pose questions other than those they had originally intended, and were also instructed to be deliberately provocative. I wonder why?

Far from being racist i'm a very, very tolerant man, one interested in others culture and history, creed and religion, but I cannot join in the frenzy of calling for Nick Griffin's head. He doesn't deserve it, but he is entitled to have his say.

[Monsta®]

have we gone back in time? nick griffin came on telly and it was like one of them witch hunts. "he's a nazi burn him". suppose he'll have to been thrown in a lake to see if he floats or thrown off a cliff to see if he can fly.

if this was another country it would be fine to keep the country as ones own and prevent outsiders from taking over, such as tribal indians and the mauri do. but no this is blighty were we open are borders to every one with no questions asked.

i am not a racist, i am not a bigot, i dont mind muslims as long as they dont shove it in me face. the only thing that conserns me is the rate of immigration and the way muslims seem to have a mind set of over taking the country. i watched the protest against geert wilders and the chants the muslims came out with is proof. "geert wilders go to hell, muslims rise up!" its on you tube!

[Guest mrsvic]

have we gone back in time? nick griffin came on telly and it was like one of them witch hunts. "he's a nazi burn him". suppose he'll have to been thrown in a lake to see if he floats or thrown off a cliff to see if he can fly.

if this was another country it would be fine to keep the country as ones own and prevent outsiders from taking over, such as tribal indians and the mauri do. but no this is blighty were we open are borders to every one with no questions asked.

i am not a racist, i am not a bigot, i dont mind muslims as long as they dont shove it in me face. the only thing that conserns me is the rate of immigration and the way muslims seem to have a mind set of over taking the country. i watched the protest against geert wilders and the chants the muslims came out with is proof. "geert wilders go to hell, muslims rise up!" its on you tube!

Although it's quite funny to watch the guy get chased down the street, I have no need to see him burn or thrown off a cliff just yet. My personal belief is to let everyone have their basic human rights (and no that doesn't include any of that European Court rubbish), shouldn't everyone be entitled to food, shelter, warmth and safety? Should I be granted one wish, that would be it (if I could have 4 parts to my one wish!) We often get hung up on the issues of what is our basic rights, is it a mobile phone? a playstation? a new bathroom every 10 years? If so, my rights aren't being met either.

Just because one person has a bit of a different lifestyle - and at the end of the day, it's not so different, we all eat sleep, have a system of right and wrong, live in some kind of family unit - I wouldn't deny them what is our basic rights. What gives me the right to? I feel the same towards Nick Griffin: what gives him (or anyone) the right to take away those basic rights from another? Should it be someone committing a crime againt you, anti-social behaviour or even insult you on a website, you would complain and expect it to be stopped, you would expect the right to get on without being hurt by others. I can't see why everyone shouldn't have that right, and Griffin is trying to stop it for some. If any religion, group of people or individual aims to take away the rights of others, surely this should be stopped, whether that person be a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist.

The treatment of immigrants, at times, has so much disregard for them as human beings that they are treated worse than animals. Should we not treat others as we expect to be treated ourselves? How would some of our members feel if they were expelled from their current homes and sent back to Bedlington? How would we feel if these people all came back and wanted 'our' jobs?

I'm not claiming the situation is perfect. There are many many improvements to be made to the immigration situation, but also to many other policies too. I feel that I can make more informed judgements on areas where I have expereince, but I am sure if you disected the costs to the military, public services, banking etc you would find so many more drains on our system than from immigrants.

[Malcolm Robinson]

There seems to be several parts to this discussion, GGG's topic heading would seem to ask if the BBC were as unbiased as they proffer to be. Cleary not in this case but as for the question should Griffin have been invited, of course it is in their own rules. Once a political party gets enough votes to be elected into a governmental position the BBC have to include them into programmes such as this.

This is really black and white, sorry no pun intended, what comes next is right into the grey area of personal beliefs and creeds. The pathetic part of the whole issue is that Griffin whilst being elected into a position of authority and influence clearly represents a one issue party and as such should have been dismissed by the whole electorate. Instead of being asked about a whole raft of policies put forward by the BNP to tackle today's economic and social problems we almost denigrate ourselves by taking a position on this one single topic. It has to be discussed of course and these radical parties exposed for what they are and how they stir up the darker sides of our nature's to gain votes. It might not be pleasant but it should be cathartic.

The main problem here seems to be that people are arguing using heresy and supposition, maybe because the BNP have never had their constitution and manifestos widely publicised. It might be easier to just say they represent a faction of society you don't want to have anything to do with but to win the hearts and minds of the people who vote for them reasoned and balanced counter arguments have to be forthcoming or we risk ignoring them at our own peril, as history clearly shows.

[threegee]

Just because one person has a bit of a different lifestyle - and at the end of the day, it's not so different, we all eat sleep, have a system of right and wrong, live in some kind of family unit - I wouldn't deny them what is our basic rights. What gives me the right to? I feel the same towards Nick Griffin: what gives him (or anyone) the right to take away those basic rights from another?

...The treatment of immigrants, at times, has so much disregard for them as human beings that they are treated worse than animals. Should we not treat others as we expect to be treated ourselves? How would some of our members feel if they were expelled from their current homes and sent back to Bedlington? How would we feel if these people all came back and wanted 'our' jobs?

...I am sure if you disected the costs to the military, public services, banking etc you would find so many more drains on our system than from immigrants.

Actually he's saying what just about every other party is saying - immigration should be severely limited or stopped. He's not now advocating repatriation. The treatment of immigrants has a great deal to do with how many there are, and how they act. The vast majority of people agree that there are now simply too many (economic) migrants, and many people don't like the cultural changes that are being imposed.

To take one example: I for one think the mosques that now scream out in our major cities are hideous. If I'd applied to build anything so way out of character with our existing landscape and historical framework I'd rightly expect to be - indeed would be - turned down flat. But our planning rules have been subverted on the grounds of multiculturalism. Note that no one is saying that there shouldn't be mosques, but they should make an effort to erect buildings that are in character with the culture. When we had a wave of Jewish immigrants they at least had the good sense to build their synagogues in a way which didn't challenge or be seen to subvert the culture they had chosen to settle in. The current wave of immigrants have no such common sense! They appear to very many people to be out to subvert our culture and replace it with theirs. Then there's the frightening demographic bombshell that will result from the huge difference in birth rates.

"How would some of our members feel if they were expelled from their current homes and sent back to Bedlington?" I'd hope we'd extend them the charity and welcome they deserve! In fact we've done it several times when Brits were expelled for various countries for no other reason than their origins.

Oh, and I'm sure Nick Griffin would like to bounce this one off Jack Straw too: http://www.newstates...om/199901220021 I can remember it, but it seems many in Nu Labour would rather it was swept under the carpet.

I can only agree with you about other drains on resources, but that's beside the point. Whether they know it or not, what I think most people are exercised about is The Great British Multiculturalism Experiment, imposed on us by an unaccountable liberal elite. These are the same people who shouted down Enoch Powell. Now that the whole thing is going TU these people are keeping their heads down.

There seems to be several parts to this discussion, GGG's topic heading would seem to ask if the BBC were as unbiased as they proffer to be.

...The pathetic part of the whole issue is that Griffin whilst being elected into a position of authority and influence clearly represents a one issue party and as such should have been dismissed by the whole electorate. Instead of being asked about a whole raft of policies put forward by the BNP to tackle today's economic and social problems we almost denigrate ourselves by taking a position on this one single topic. It has to be discussed of course and these radical parties exposed for what they are and how they stir up the darker sides of our nature's to gain votes. It might not be pleasant but it should be cathartic....

...It might be easier to just say they represent a faction of society you don't want to have anything to do with but to win the hearts and minds of the people who vote for them reasoned and balanced counter arguments have to be forthcoming or we risk ignoring them at our own peril, as history clearly shows.

Yup, we're off topic to an extent. So in answer missvic about that audience just turn on Sky News to see the result of their survey. They are saying that 22% of people interviewed would seriously consider voting BNP. What's more more than half those interviewed think they are making valid points. In that light do you still think that BBC audience was representative?

William Hague has just been recorded saying he thinks that if the range of issues was discussed then the BNP would be exposed as a one-issue party. Nick Griffin is saying that he wants to discuss the whole range of issues. Shouldn't we be permitted to judge who is right and who is wrong for ourselves instead of being told what to think by the Peter Hains of this world (one of the very people that has a hand in the current economic mess)?

[Monsta®]

lefties dont listen they just win there arguements buy sticking "ism" on the end of the subject! fact!

[Merlin]

My uncle and many thousands like him fought and died in WWII.He fought for this country and paid the ultimate price,to give you and me,miss vic,a way of life free from tyrants,dictators and facism! It is an insult to him and the many thousands like him,for people in this country to defend other nationalities who come to this country to attack and undermine the fabric of our society, that he gave his life to defend! These people come here for a better way of life.If they wanted to live as before they would have stayed where they were.Sadly not all do! Ultimatly the decent law abiding ethnic minorities among us are as sick and tired as we are about the rantings and ravings of the likes of cleric Choudry and his clan.

If Labour the Tories or Democrats(if thats what you call them now) would make a stand against Choudry and his chums,this country would not need the likes of Griffin and he would drift off into the realms of history. Unfortunatly they will not or can not because they have let this matter drift too far down the line for change!

The government and opposition must now realise that something must be done and done quickly, because with no one else prepared to tackle this problem the people in this country will vote BNP and THAT must NEVER be allowed to happen. We need some one to address the problem of immigration and race hate preachers on BOTH sides,or this country will slide into conflict. I for one do not look forward to that!

But like my uncle I will fight for my country, I will fight to give my daughters a way of life where they can walk the streets free from tyrants, dictators and burkas.

If this makes me a racist then so be it!

One more thing miss vic,when Choudry and his clan do win power,and they have you kneeling on the centre spot, at The Terriers ground, for having the audacity to have a pint in the Tavern, don't say you weren't warned

[mercuryg]

My uncle and many thousands like him fought and died in WWII.He fought for this country and paid the ultimate price,to give you and me,miss vic,a way of life free from tyrants,dictators and facism!

True to a point, but also missing the fact that the thousands you mention were also fighting for the right for free speech. You can't have a country 'free from tyrants, dictators and fascism' unless you impose very strict laws and rules upon those who wish to speak out. It simply doesn't follow. Remember that what Hitler and the Nazi regime wanted was to impose a very strict way of life on people, and to eliminate certain groups, and that is precisely what those who argue that the BNP, and others who dare to raise controversial issues, should nto be allowed a voice. It's no different, it's simply directed in a different manner.

We live in a day and age when daring to speak ones mind tends to find you labelled: I question the immigration policy in this country and am branded a 'racist' for daring to suggest it may be the cause of problems; I question the very dodgy premise of 'multi cultural society' and am branded the same; likewise, the man who dared ask 'Why are we letting immigrants in when we have a rising unemployment rate?' on Question Time was instantly labelled by my good friend Mrs Vic as a 'BNP supporter'. With due respect, surely that question was aimed at teh Labour representative, as it is their immigration policy that is under the microscope? How do we know said man was not a staunch Labour voter, fed up with his party's inability to get anything right? The same 'labelling' occurs in many other walks of life: dare to question whether the Climate Change problem is as big as they say, or is man made at all, and one is branded a nasty savage who wants to kill Polar Bears. I don't, I love them, although the hairy two ton bastards certainly want to kill, and eat, me!

That is, of course, straying from the point, but I find it sad that we cannot express an 'alternative' view without being 'labelled' and accused from all angles.

[Monsta®]

[Camille]

I have been watching this thread develop. I dont profess to know everything, but i try to keep an open mind.

I call myself Geordie because I was born within sight of the river Tyne. I call myself English because I was born in England. Also, British because I hold a British passport.

My forbearers came from Scandinavia. Grandfather fought in first World War, father and mother in second. This country has been built on multiculturalism.

It appears Nick Giffin and his followers are feeding on the nations fears. His sound bites are very persuasive and appeal to those who believe everything fed to them by the media. However, he clearly cannot reason his points successfully within an open forum. He had the opportunity on Thursday evening, but did not rise to the challenge. Perhaps he should be given the opportunity within a more reasonable environment? The programme was farcical and manipulative for everyone involved and the BBC showed itself to be inept at createing a reasonable forum for 'all voices'.

When we get to the ballot box, people will, as usual, be voting for the party that most fulfills the thoughts and ideals we believe in. We MUST NOT be 'hooked' into believing that the BNP are capable of creating a stable multicultural society in Britain based upon the few sound bites that appeal to a large proportion of people. Apathy and sound bites could be the downfall of our society.

Lets get real. The country is in a mess. Culturally, financially, politically and most other 'ly's' you can think of. We should remember lessons learnt in the past, and not allow ourselves to be sucked into believing the propaganda we are fed.

[mercuryg]

I have been watching this thread develop. I dont profess to know everything, but i try to keep an open mind.

I call myself Geordie because I was born within sight of the river Tyne. I call myself English because I was born in England. Also, British because I hold a British passport.

My forbearers came from Scandinavia. Grandfather fought in first World War, father and mother in second. This country has been built on multiculturalism.

It appears Nick Giffin and his followers are feeding on the nations fears. His sound bites are very persuasive and appeal to those who believe everything fed to them by the media. However, he clearly cannot reason his points successfully within an open forum. He had the opportunity on Thursday evening, but did not rise to the challenge. Perhaps he should be given the opportunity within a more reasonable environment? The programme was farcical and manipulative for everyone involved and the BBC showed itself to be inept at createing a reasonable forum for 'all voices'.

When we get to the ballot box, people will, as usual, be voting for the party that most fulfills the thoughts and ideals we believe in. We MUST NOT be 'hooked' into believing that the BNP are capable of creating a stable multicultural society in Britain based upon the few sound bites that appeal to a large proportion of people. Apathy and sound bites could be the downfall of our society.

Lets get real. The country is in a mess. Culturally, financially, politically and most other 'ly's' you can think of. We should remember lessons learnt in the past, and not allow ourselves to be sucked into believing the propaganda we are fed.

Great post Camille, and some interesting points. I particularly note your opinion that this country is 'built on multiculturalism'. In as much as all countries are, across hundreds of years, I tend to agree, but I fail to see how anyone cannot accept (and I'm not saying you don't, btw) that the current state of 'multiculturalism' in the UK is simply not working. Some cultures and creeds settle and integrate, others don't, and those that don't clearly do not want to. This is where, in my opinion, the problem lies.

You're right, the country is a mess, and i'm at pains to explain how to tidy up that mess; however, without sounding too glib and unwilling that is not my job - we vote people in, we employ people, to run this country in the best possible manner. Right now, as you rightly say, it's not happening, and it is always the periods where people become disillusioned with the 'mainstream' political parties, and where apathy is concerned, that the extremists gain in popularity.

Talk to any group of youngster coming up to school age, and before everyone jumps down my throat this is a generalisation, and ask them their views on the different political parties; a good proportion - in fact, a worrying proportion - will tell you it 'doesn't matter, they all do the same thing anyway' and, to a point, they are absolutely right. It's not just the pre-voting age populace who espouse that view either, for turn out figures at the last few elections - general and otherwise - have been utterly woeful.

You are also right in that we must not be hoodwinked into voting for the BNP, a party with associations with some very dubious organisations, but neither must we deny them a voice; what is needed is for the 'major' parties to step up a gear and get to grips with what the people want. Most of us consider many aspects to be a greater problem than immigration - I do - but when all is said and done a rising population, one that is bolstered heavily by largely uncontrolled immigration, is always going to present problems.