mercuryg

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.

Funny that, I've never had a headache from drinking Tavern piss, and I drink plenty of it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That makes sense. Next??

By the way, Cobra used a Ford 427 (or 289), not the Chevy.

Panther Six, 1977.

Now you're talking - a truly glorious car that, it's an Iso Rivolta Grifo SII from 1970 onwards until about '73?

Labia?

u'll have to do better than that when dealing with an interested and curious pedant such as me! I had never heard of it so googled it; it's called 'Edonis' and the first model was produced in 2001. Next!

B...Engineering....Adonis??

Micky, Thanks, and I had originally thought that. However, the letters clearly state the Chapel would be opening in 1845; the Church you mention has a date stone standing to the left of the door that is dated in the 1870's, hence my confusion.

Hornet....Coal....Aristotle?

What on earth is that?????? I know - it's what the Alien came in!

When were ou last in the Tavern? Perfectly decent pint of John Smiths, and the house rum is rather nice. Even the alien agreed.

Oh, they already have. The Blue Bell is open again.

I'm afraid i'm not up on the replica market, but I have seen replica's offered; i'll have to pass on that - who's it by, when, and what's in the back?

Good one, that. If it's a genuine 1969 McLaren M6GT it's a very rare beast indeed, but that's the question - is it an original, or is it one of the many replica's? The square lights don't look right.

I am of the opinion that a man cannot have 'just one pint'; it's not possible. As for the alien, that was a curious day for a bunch of us were having an early afternoon pint in the Tavern when in walked the Alien, with film crew in tow. We all pitched a bit in to the story, and were pictured at the bar supping a pint with the Alien. The landlady then posted a copy of the picture on the wall with the caption 'Spot the Alien'. She had a point.

Looking at some info means it must be the Typhon? 2004? Had never heard of that one, I must admit.

whooooooossssshhhhhh! ?

I met the Bedlington Alien. Had a pint with him, in fact, and a picture taken. He was a sound alien, him. For the banner, the dog and a train must feature, nails too.

That's if they can all park at once!! This I agree with, but when was the last time you visited a market that had any quality?