[quote]Sifu wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him
He did. He said the BBC was biased and he was set up.
His face was on he cover of many newspapers today and this has been big on the TV news and late night political discussions.
That was quite obviously a stage managed affair [/quote]
I would expect nothing less from the BBC.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree with most of what you have written here. British people want a European social system with US tax levels.
In general people in Europe want lavish social services along with employment and work rules that go way beyond what most countries do for people. They are clinging to an old paradigm where Europe and the US represented the developed who could produce manufactured goods and that was it.
Times have changed. We are in a global market place competing against countries like India where you work or you starve and die. They don’t have the deadweight of a liesure class on benefits to drag along when they compete with Europe. Nor do they have employment laws with extended vacations, environmental protection laws.
That European social system is a house of cards that is starting to collapse.
I am not as dead set against the EU as you. Most of the claims of ridiculous EU regulation are pretty much a fabrication of shitty newspapers. This is one of the reasons that lazy sensationalist journalism winds me up so much. People end up focussed on totally the wrong issues.
There is a lot more than silly regulations wrong with the EU. The EU has a serious democratic deficit. One of it’s main goals is the concentration of power in as few hands as possible buried inside a complex beaurocratic mess that few people understand and can follow. The entire structure of the EU has been designed by people who had severe flaws in their thinking and hidden agendas.
For the most part the people playing off both sides in the political race are big businesses. The lobbying power of various groups is pretty scary (especially in the US.)
Don’t delude yourself, the EU has worse problems with big business and big money controlling government than the US. Europe has corporations that are so massive that if the were US companies they would be in violation of US antitrust laws and get broken up by the government. [/quote]
Again, agree with a lot of what you have written, though on paper the EU is democratic, the problem is that if people can’t even be bothered to keep up with what is happening in government at the local or national level, how likely are they to be up on the details of European politics. Unless they have a specific local issue that is being addressed by the person standing as MEP, they typically just vote for the party based on what they would vote at local or national level.
By the way, I wasn’t specifically referring to where the company was based (that is pretty much immaterial these days.) I was talking about the lobbying power that companies hold over US politicians.
US politicians are so removed from the public that they are even more likely to be swayed by the corporations dollars. They are also far more reliant on money for re-election.
I wonder how many front line US politicians would be prepared to turn up for an open format questioning session like question time week in week out.
[quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ephrem wrote:
BNP on Question Time:
Part One: BNP Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time Part 1 - YouTube and go from there…
Appreciated. Will watch that when I get home. Just got sent the clip of him talking about an almost totally non violent branch of the KKK.
Again you are misrepresenting what was said. Griffin’s remark was about David Duke and to some extent he was correct. Duke did try to repackage the Klan and make it more mainstream.
Part of that repackaging was moving away from violence because it was bad for their image. The panelists jumped all over Griffin so quickly that they didn’t stop to consider that he baited them and they took the bait.
Here is an interesting history of the Klan. If you watch this video and the 8 others that go with it towards the end of the series the head of the NAACP discusses how Duke tries to play himself off as the boy next door by having a clean cut image.
I did state that I had only seen the clip and not the full program yet. Still the choice of phrases was pretty clumsy. An almost totally non-violent racist group. as in still violent but not so violent that it is important. Given his history of association with groups like Combat 18, that is a pretty stupid thing to say.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.[/quote]
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.[/quote]
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching. [/quote]
The show was in London and the audience was representitive of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin.
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the opposition. Smirking smugly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties. [/quote]
How has Griffin got credability when he claims on live TV that he cannot explain the reasons for his change of position on the holocaust because the British Courts won’t allow him to even though the Justice Secretary is sitting next to him pointing out that he is talking total rubbish?
Oh and I agree that Brown is a bumbling idiot when he has to speak but that was why the deal was struck with Blair in Granita in the first place.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching.
The show was in London and the audience was representitive of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin.
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things.[/quote]
Doesn’t London have a BNP guy sitting on the london assembaly? Where were the people that voted him in? Of course large parts of London’s population hate the BNP- they are recent immigrants who have personally gained massively from Labours policies.
By all accounts the show was a set up. Something that will only serve to support the BNP’s position as being hated by the media for not being part of the established political elite. In my opinion it will in the long term play right into the BNP’s hands. People will start to check up what the BNP actually say rather than what people say about them- agree with their immigration policies and vote for them.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching.
The show was in London and the audience was representitive of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin.
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things.
Doesn’t London have a BNP guy sitting on the london assembaly? Where were the people that voted him in? Of course large parts of London’s population hate the BNP- they are recent immigrants who have personally gained massively from Labours policies.
By all accounts the show was a set up. Something that will only serve to support the BNP’s position as being hated by the media for not being part of the established political elite. In my opinion it will in the long term play right into the BNP’s hands. People will start to check up what the BNP actually say rather than what people say about them- agree with their immigration policies and vote for them.[/quote]
There are I think 13 BNP councillors in London but that is out of a total of about 2,000. There were a few ripples of applause to some of the things that Griffin said so I would imagine that the audience contained a couple of BNP voters or at least people who were sympathetic to some of his arguments.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching.
The show was in London and the audience was representitive of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin. [/quote]
Actually that audience was hand picked by the BBC and was not representative of the nation as a whole.
[quote]
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things. [/quote]
The panel ganged up on him because they are the establishment that have DONE some pretty horrible things.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the opposition. Smirking smugly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties.
How has Griffin got credability when he claims on live TV that he cannot explain the reasons for his change of position on the holocaust because the British Courts won’t allow him to even though the Justice Secretary is sitting next to him pointing out that he is talking total rubbish? [/quote]
You are so full of shit! I would not take slimey Jack Straw at his word on anything. Jack Straw has proven himself to be a completely untrustworthy traitor. Britain is not America, they do not allow free speech over there so one has to be very careful of what they say. Jack Straw did not point out that griffin was talking rubbish.
What Straw said was more like “go ahead and say it I won’t prosecute you I promise, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, Saaayyy no more”.
[quote]
Oh and I agree that Brown is a bumbling idiot when he has to speak but that was why the deal was struck with Blair in Granita in the first place.[/quote]
That is because it is hard for Brown to keep his lies straight as he talks, while Bliar is a much more accomplished liar.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching.
The show was in London and the audience was representitive of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin.
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things.
Doesn’t London have a BNP guy sitting on the london assembaly? Where were the people that voted him in? Of course large parts of London’s population hate the BNP- they are recent immigrants who have personally gained massively from Labours policies.
By all accounts the show was a set up. Something that will only serve to support the BNP’s position as being hated by the media for not being part of the established political elite. In my opinion it will in the long term play right into the BNP’s hands. People will start to check up what the BNP actually say rather than what people say about them- agree with their immigration policies and vote for them.
There are I think 13 BNP councillors in London but that is out of a total of about 2,000. There were a few ripples of applause to some of the things that Griffin said so I would imagine that the audience contained a couple of BNP voters or at least people who were sympathetic to some of his arguments.[/quote]
Here is an excerpt from what the BNP has to say about it…
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bnp-leader-“will-be-invited-back-onto-question-time”/
Certain people were handpicked to be in the audience for the very purpose of asking the â??rightâ?? questions. These people were subsequently selected â??randomlyâ?? by host David Dimbleby.
In addition the audience was specifically prompted before the show to ask â??robustâ?? questions and told that they should boo as much as they wanted. The audience was not selected on the traditional basis of randomness, but from a predefined list of people identified as BNP-hostile. Of the 200 people invited to be guests, about eight were known or suspected to be BNP-friendly.
In short the entire programme was crafted to be highly politically biased â?? all in direct contravention of the BBCâ??s charter.
According to media reports, many in the audience â??appear to have been rushed through the vetting process in a bid to emphasise the multicultural nature of London.â??
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the opposition. Smirking smugly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties.
How has Griffin got credability when he claims on live TV that he cannot explain the reasons for his change of position on the holocaust because the British Courts won’t allow him to even though the Justice Secretary is sitting next to him pointing out that he is talking total rubbish?
You are so full of shit! I would not take slimey Jack Straw at his word on anything. Jack Straw has proven himself to be a completely untrustworthy traitor. Britain is not America, they do not allow free speech over there so one has to be very careful of what they say. Jack Straw did not point out that griffin was talking rubbish.
What Straw said was more like “go ahead and say it I won’t prosecute you I promise, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, Saaayyy no more”.
[/quote]
I have no love for Jack Straw but Griffin just looked stupid in his response to that question. The way he smirked and squirmed throughout just made him come off as a deeply unlikeable person.
[quote]
Oh and I agree that Brown is a bumbling idiot when he has to speak but that was why the deal was struck with Blair in Granita in the first place.
That is because it is hard for Brown to keep his lies straight as he talks, while Bliar is a much more accomplished liar. [/quote]
See I never got why people talked about Blair as a good public speaker or thought he seemed trustworthy. From the first moment I saw him he struck me as untrustworthy and I hate the way he randomly pauses at all the wrong places when he speaks.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the oposition. Smirking smuggly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Your inability to SEE the appropriateness of the analogy is what’s ridiculous.
I know next to nothing about British politics, but I know an overwhelming gang attack when I see one. That guy could have been the next MLK in terms of oratory skills, and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was going to be booed and ridiculed no matter what he said or how he said it.
If anything, his judgement should be questioned for subjecting himself to such a one-sided lynching.
The show was in London and the audience was representative of the London population and their opinions of idiots like Griffin.
Yes the panel ganged up on him but that is because he has a history of saying and supporting some pretty horrible things.
Doesn’t London have a BNP guy sitting on the london assembaly? Where were the people that voted him in? Of course large parts of London’s population hate the BNP- they are recent immigrants who have personally gained massively from Labours policies.
By all accounts the show was a set up. Something that will only serve to support the BNP’s position as being hated by the media for not being part of the established political elite. In my opinion it will in the long term play right into the BNP’s hands. People will start to check up what the BNP actually say rather than what people say about them- agree with their immigration policies and vote for them.
There are I think 13 BNP councilors in London but that is out of a total of about 2,000. There were a few ripples of applause to some of the things that Griffin said so I would imagine that the audience contained a couple of BNP voters or at least people who were sympathetic to some of his arguments.
Here is an excerpt from what the BNP has to say about it…
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bnp-leader-“will-be-invited-back-onto-question-time”/
Certain people were handpicked to be in the audience for the very purpose of asking the â??rightâ?? questions. These people were subsequently selected â??randomlyâ?? by host David Dimbleby.
In addition the audience was specifically prompted before the show to ask â??robustâ?? questions and told that they should boo as much as they wanted. The audience was not selected on the traditional basis of randomness, but from a predefined list of people identified as BNP-hostile. Of the 200 people invited to be guests, about eight were known or suspected to be BNP-friendly.
In short the entire programme was crafted to be highly politically biased â?? all in direct contravention of the BBCâ??s charter.
According to media reports, many in the audience â??appear to have been rushed through the vetting process in a bid to emphasise the multicultural nature of London.â??
[/quote]
8 out of 200 would be more than representative of the share of the BNP vote both locally and nationally. Why should their be an over-representation of a fringe party? They don’t pack the audience with green party supporters when a green party MEP is on.
It was obvious that they picked questions aimed at the BNP but the BBC was in a no win position there. I would have liked to have seen Nick Griffin asked questions about policies and issues other than race because I think that is where we would have seen what an empty shirt he is. Problem is, if the BBC did that then they would have been accused of letting him off the hook.
I welcome the BBC giving him a forum to air his views because in the long run, the more that the general public sees of him the quicker that they will see through him.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the opposition. Smirking smugly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties.
How has Griffin got credability when he claims on live TV that he cannot explain the reasons for his change of position on the holocaust because the British Courts won’t allow him to even though the Justice Secretary is sitting next to him pointing out that he is talking total rubbish?
You are so full of shit! I would not take slimey Jack Straw at his word on anything. Jack Straw has proven himself to be a completely untrustworthy traitor. Britain is not America, they do not allow free speech over there so one has to be very careful of what they say. Jack Straw did not point out that griffin was talking rubbish.
What Straw said was more like “go ahead and say it I won’t prosecute you I promise, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, Saaayyy no more”.
I have no love for Jack Straw but Griffin just looked stupid in his response to that question. The way he smirked and squirmed throughout just made him come off as a deeply unlikeable person. [/quote]
I can understand how to anyone who already dislikes Griffin his answer came across as evasive. However Jack Straw, Brown Bliar Et al. have created a legal climate where people have to watch what they say for fear of arrest. Griffins answer got that point across. For all their protests that Griffin is a facist it is Labour who are the ones who have legislated to crush freedom of speech.
[quote]
Oh and I agree that Brown is a bumbling idiot when he has to speak but that was why the deal was struck with Blair in Granita in the first place.
That is because it is hard for Brown to keep his lies straight as he talks, while Bliar is a much more accomplished liar.
See I never got why people talked about Blair as a good public speaker or thought he seemed trustworthy. From the first moment I saw him he struck me as untrustworthy and I hate the way he randomly pauses at all the wrong places when he speaks.[/quote]
I never liked Bliar from day one. History channel did a show on body language and Blair was one of the people they featured. They showed his speech when lady Di, died and broke down why Blair was insincere in his speech. Usually he is very chatty and a very quick talker. But in that speech he was full of dramatic pauses where he was trying to play it off that he was emotional. What the show said is that when people truly are overcome with emotion they use their normal speaking style, which for Bliar is to be real chatty and without pauses.
Here is another example of the British people being betrayed by their government who are playing into the hands of the BNP. It is rank hypocracy to criticise the BNP and claim they are going to be undemocratic while at the same time giving taxpayer funds to an islamist group that wants to turn Britain into an islamic dictatorship.
How can any reasonable person justify a nominally democratic government giving funds to a groups whose stated goal is the overthorw of democracy and the imposition of a theocratic state?
â??A Nation Heaping up Its Own Funeral Pyreâ?? â?? Taxpayers Forced to Give Money to Islamist Group Calling for Destruction of Britain
British taxpayers have been forced to donate in excess of £100,000 to a foundation created by Islamists whose openly declared aim is to create a Caliphate sharia law-based dictatorship in this country.
According to accounts filed at the Charity Commission, £113,411 of taxpayersâ?? money was given to the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, which is run by senior members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir party. Another three of the four trustees are all publicly active members of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
The Shakhsiyah Foundation received the money from the Governmentâ??s â??Free Entitlementâ?? and â??Pathfinderâ?? programmes.
The foundationâ??s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the groupâ??s spokesman in Britain.
Hizb ut-Tahrir (which is Arabic for â??Party of Liberationâ??) is an international pan-Islamist, Sunni political party whose goal is to combine all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and with a caliph head of state elected by Muslims.
The taxpayer funds have paid for the running of a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools. The teachers are selected by Hizb ut-Tahrir and the entire system is under that groupâ??s control.
Hizb ut-Tahrir was last in the news in July this year when thousands of militant Muslims gathered in London to demand a Caliphate at a mass meeting organised by that organisation.
Amongst the teachings of Hizb ut-Tahrir, as stated quite openly on their website, is the belief that anyone who believes in democracy is a â??Kafirâ?? or an unbeliever. It orders Muslims to keep apart from nonbelievers and boycott British elections and political processes.
The two primary schools are located in epicentres of the Islamic colonisation invasion: Tottenham, north London; and Slough, Berkshire.
The schoolâ??s websites say their â??ultimate goal and foremost workâ?? is the creation of an â??Islamic personalityâ?? in children. Children are taught that â??there must be one ruler of the khilafah [caliphate]â?? and that sharia law is the norm in all Islamic history.
The time has come for this treason to the British people to be halted. Only the British National Party has the political will, and the political programme, to reverse the colonisation process and return control of our nation to the British people.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I’m sure the BNP will play off that he was a victim and the audience and panel was stacked against him however if he is some great leader, surely he should be able to turn around that kind of situation.
Me and 6 of my friends are planning on “jumping” you.
But if you’re REALLY a true martial artist, you can handle it, right?
LOL.
If you want to fight me one by one in a ring using the current NCAC rules then bring it on. I train for a sport as I have said numerous times.
Your analogy is ridiculous. He wants to be seen as a serious politician. In Britain, a serious Politician has to be able to stand up in front of the house of commons and get their point accross whilst being heckled by the opposition. Smirking smugly whilst trying to play down your true beliefs is not a good tactic for this.
Compare Griffin to Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government - YouTube and then you might see what I mean.
Have you ever seen and heard Gordon Brown stuttering his way through PM’s questions? Gordo’s no Hannan either.
What bothers me about Hannan is he accuses Brown of acting like a Brezhnev era apparatchic but a couple of months later the Tory’s voted to re-elct a Maoist, communist, Jose Borrasso as European commissioner.
As far as being taken seriously goes I think that when Griffin says he is going to do something to control immigration he has more credibility and is taken more seriously on that issue than any of the other politicians. You don’t need to be a slick silver tongued fast talker to get a simple point across.
At the end of the day Griffin is irrelevant. This is all the fault of Labour. Labour are the ones who chose to engage in a massive social engineering experiment of mass immigration and use accusations of racism to bully and intimidate the other parties into silence so they could continue with it.
Griffin was accused by one of the planted questioners of polarizing politics, but really it is Labour who have done that by accusing anyone who spoke out against their immigration policies of racism. That rhetorical tactic has created the circumstances for the BNP to flourish. The BNP has been accused of racism so many times in the past that additional accusations don’t affect them like they would other parties.
How has Griffin got credability when he claims on live TV that he cannot explain the reasons for his change of position on the holocaust because the British Courts won’t allow him to even though the Justice Secretary is sitting next to him pointing out that he is talking total rubbish?
You are so full of shit! I would not take slimey Jack Straw at his word on anything. Jack Straw has proven himself to be a completely untrustworthy traitor. Britain is not America, they do not allow free speech over there so one has to be very careful of what they say. Jack Straw did not point out that griffin was talking rubbish.
What Straw said was more like “go ahead and say it I won’t prosecute you I promise, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, Saaayyy no more”.
I have no love for Jack Straw but Griffin just looked stupid in his response to that question. The way he smirked and squirmed throughout just made him come off as a deeply unlikeable person.
I can understand how to anyone who already dislikes Griffin his answer came across as evasive. However Jack Straw, Brown Bliar Et al. have created a legal climate where people have to watch what they say for fear of arrest. Griffins answer got that point across. For all their protests that Griffin is a facist it is Labour who are the ones who have legislated to crush freedom of speech.
Oh and I agree that Brown is a bumbling idiot when he has to speak but that was why the deal was struck with Blair in Granita in the first place.
That is because it is hard for Brown to keep his lies straight as he talks, while Bliar is a much more accomplished liar.
See I never got why people talked about Blair as a good public speaker or thought he seemed trustworthy. From the first moment I saw him he struck me as untrustworthy and I hate the way he randomly pauses at all the wrong places when he speaks.
I never liked Bliar from day one. History channel did a show on body language and Blair was one of the people they featured. They showed his speech when lady Di, died and broke down why Blair was insincere in his speech. Usually he is very chatty and a very quick talker. But in that speech he was full of dramatic pauses where he was trying to play it off that he was emotional. What the show said is that when people truly are overcome with emotion they use their normal speaking style, which for Bliar is to be real chatty and without pauses. [/quote]
Funnily enough that speach had me screaming at the TV. The leaders of the other parties and various other ‘important’ figures were interviewed and they gave off the cuff remarks about how sad it was. Then Blair was there, groomed and prepped giving a carefully written speach. It was one of the most insencere things I have ever seen.
He was pointed out as a liar during the first election and the press failed to run with it (mainly because everyone was so keen to see the tories out.)
His PR team had kept making a big thing about how cool he was because he played the guitar, had been in a band at university etc. He was at a PA event at a school and walked into a music lesson. One of the kids handed him a guitar and asked him to play something and he was totally stumped, couldn’t even play a chord. He made some strangled excuse about not having time to keep up the practice but it was clear that he had just been caught out.
Bliar is a pathological liar.
He believes his own press.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is another example of the British people being betrayed by their government
[/quote]
Sifu, what is this government getting out of this posted example?