Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
This is a picture of the head of the British National Party on the Andrew Marr political show on BBC1 TV sunday morning. I thought it was quite a shock to see him (Nick Griffin) on the screen as a short time ago I seem to remember they were banned. Even Irish Politicians like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were banned one time, as the powers that be considered that these types getting their message out was both unsavoury and unhelpful to the greater good.
Now we have the BNP bright as a pin on sunday morning, racists and fascists slotted in between respectable items with Labour and Conservative. But isnt this giving them, the BNP, a veneer of repectability..to be beamed in this way into our homes over the cornflakes.
There was nothing new in any of it, nothing at all. They have all the obvious race issue questions off pat with ready made pre mixed answers. If you see him on another show next week he will still give those same ready made pre mixed answers. He has a list no doubt in his pocket..how to answer question A or B or C etc etc.
They have increased their vote in recent times...roughly from 800,000 before to 1million in the recent election. So are they on the rise? Should we be giving them air coverage because as shure as eggs is eggs, their vote will increase on account of it.
But he was so transparent! I could see him clinging to the sides of his credibility as he slipped further down towards the sediment. His attempt to appear rational and kind was pathetic and a waste of time, as his mask slipped inevitably and painfully.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is exactly the right way to beat them in a democracy, expose them and their policies for what they are.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
If you stick a little tash on his top lip he stragely reminds me of someone from the past, I just can't think who.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
BarryW I dont ever see this point of view....who exactly exposes them and who beats them in debate. Ian referred to Hitler and its true if he had no exposure he wouldnt have got anywhere. He'd be still living in a basement in Vienna doing watercolours(maybe!) Debate only goes on amongst the chattering classes..ie the Guardian and Telegraph readers, much like as shown in the Bremner Bird and Fortune skit show, which shows these things debated totally inaccurately at dinner parties with a sort of scary all too real air about it all.
The salt of the earth people out here in real living rooms etc see it on their TV's and to them it works as an advert for a slimey outfit, and viewers may see some qualtities in their message. Advertising works as we know. Millions who never saw Nick Griffin in a cosy chat on their TV's before may well be captivated...or some of them may well be captivated.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You have a very low opinion of people PaulB.
To deny the BNP freedom of speech and media exposure would be totalitarianism and would place us at the same moral level as the BNP themselves, Hitler and Stalin, our long fought for freedoms would be worthless.
To do that will also create an aura of persecution about them. You cannot shut people up, particularly in this internet age. Try to do so and you will make them heroes fighting for freedom when the opposite is true.
They should have the same freedoms that all policital parties have and each and every individual to speak freely, as long as they are not advocating a crime such as violence.
Let people hear what they say and the opposing arguments and the basic decency of the British public will be what finishes them off.
You make reference to Hitler and how he gained power. That is not a good comparison simply because the cause of Hitler's rise to power were the appalling terms of the Versailles Treaty. The resentment and economic problems created was an ideal spawning ground for such extremism. We dont have that situation.
I'm with BarryW - the people drawn to the BNP will be drawn to them whatever appears on telly. And Hitler was a poor example: the political situation spawned him, and he was also manipulated and promoted initially by people who wanted power - that mushroom effect was developed by the atrocious economic situation and the arrogance that abounded. Germanys social culture was and is also different to the UK and was ripe for a social disaster for many many reasons.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Well yes and no...the point Im making about Hitler is that if no one at all had heard those devastating speeches then history would have changed for the better. Would we have given Hitler a platform on our anchor televison channel? He would have gotten his message across even swifter, he would have mesmerised the masses doubly quickly. If you cut these people away from the limelight, cut out their direct source to the masses then surely they cant do any harm. This is the policy employed by HMGovernment with the current Muslim radicals.
Yes people who want the BNP will gravitate towards them but thats not the full picture. Why do we think politicians go on televison week after week...no..its not just to claim more expenses! but to persuade the millions out there floating and disillusioned that.. "my party is the one for you" Have a good television performance and it can change in a flash peoples perception of you forever.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
OK so you ban the BNP so where does it end?
Ban the Communists next? OK, that done, so why not the Socialist Labour Party, after all they are extremists and dont deserve to be heard either. OK, gone that far so what about the rump of a Labour Party, they are a pretty pointless lot, so why not ban them...
You can always find excuses to suppress freedom of speech and to ban someone, once you get on the slippery slope its hard to get off.
Protecting our freedoms is much harder to do but it must be done and that does mean allowing the unsavoury to exert their freedoms along with the rest of us.
As I say to do anything else lowers yourself to their level. I want nothting to do with banning or restricting anyone from exerting their traditional freedoms in this country. This Government has, in many ways, already gone too far down that path with much of its so called 'equality' legislation.
Hitler mesmerised the masses because he was enabled to, not allowed to.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
comparing nick griffin with adolf hitler is a bit over the top, i think.
when people take wheelbarrows of money down to the shops for a lump of stale bread, then maybe a hitler type may become popular.
i never saw the interview, so cannot comment on what he said.
mention of those two wierdos from the ira, sorry i meant sinn fein, took me back.
i never used to listen to what they had to say, then when they were banned, i suddenly took an interest.
i seem to remember their local vote going up too.
i may have said this before, but old winnie once opined "i disagree with everything that you say, but will defend your right to say it".
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Well no Im not comparing the two directly but drawing comparisons about their ability to deliver their message. Should our latest fascist racist be allowed to deliver on primetime TV?
But BarryW we already draw a line in many cases. There isnt no line at all. You seem to suggest its all open to everybody,that there are no curtailments, but not so. There are already caps on 'free' speech. Its only free this speech thing as long as we approve of it. I mentioned Muslim preachers earlier for example. They are not allowed access to the airwaves. So a line always has to be drawn. Maybe our line is just too liberal
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,i see you have dissmissed banning the conservatives then.why not ban all political partys and be done with it. then start afreash on a fair and equell basis with an indipendant chairperson.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
paul
the only muslim preachers that have been banned, have been the ones that advocated violence against us infidels.
The limit is, as Howard says, when incitement is involved. That seems reasonable. Free speech is beyond price.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Wow paulb you started a good one here.
On the forum iv always supported peoples right to post even those that i disagree with.
With the BNP it is that very thin line, the BNP as i dont think anyone disagrees is a racist party but gaining respect because of our political system and our political parties(and non political) or so called
I'm realy unsure on this issue and realy torn on the best route.
To gve racists air time is a worry and the general public(some) do believe wot there hear in papers and on TV
And now the BNP is trying to create this nice suited image
I do fear the increase in this so called party, but i suppose its down to us all as well as the politicians to do summat to stop them gaining ground.
It is worrying this freedom of speech how far do we go with it? clearly the BNP DON'T condemn violence and would be happy a few people were tsaken up dark alleys.
I'm realy concerned on this one, freedom of speech V Racists
its a hard one
wot do others think
The British have a great way of deflating ego-driven power-crazed eejits: taking the mick. Satire and outright pomposity-pricking is a genetic trait of the Brits and it works fabulously. Give those racists airtime, and save our Free Speech ethos, but mercilessly poke fun, tease out the hot air, reveal the arrogance and inconsistencies. That will not only amuse but will work!!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
BERN
I just wish i had your faith, I worry if what you say doesnt happen then wot?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are 100% right Bern. Keith you have to have more faith in the simple common sense and decency of the British people.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Well the notion of free speech is good of course but its the kind of thing that comforts the chattering classes isnt it. The Guardian readers feel good to hear it and the Churchillians love the notion that we will defend to the death everyone's right to it.
But lets push all the grandiose stuff aside and get down to the practical daily living stuff. This BNP leader, as Keef says, not a stranger to violence himself, is on our national TV at breakfast time spouting racist obnoxious rubbish to the nations kids over their sunday morning relaxed cornflakes...with the message "all blacks are bad people" ( that isnt an actual quote but am just illustrating the general gist).
Why give this guy a platform in such circumstances. Its wholly irresponsible. Its an advertisement to their cause as it caught us all unawares. The nations kids are used to seen lovable Dave or cuddly Gordon as are their mums and dads and nobody at all was ready for this.
When people years ago spoke of free speech thay had a soap box on Hyde Park Corner in mind. In the meantime the 1984 revolution came, and the box in the corner is brainwashing all our thinking. Beware what you put on it.
