WHY "QUESTION TIME" FAILED TO DESTROY THE BNP

WHY "QUESTION TIME" FAILED TO DESTROY THE BNP

>> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2009

James Forsythe, in the Telegraph, hits the nail squarely on the head when he says the the BNP can be dismissed - but their constituency can not. Unfortunately almost all politicians and vast swathes of the media, the BBC above all, have consistently failed to make any serious analysis of why the party has grown in membership and electoral support over the last fifteen years despite the seedy nature of it’s current leadership.

So naturally, as Minette Marrin pointed out in The Times, BBC’s Question Time concentrated on shooting the messenger by setting him up.

What Griffin’s Question Time also showed was, for lack of a better word, the pusillanimous political correctness of the BBC and its lack of moral courage — something not peculiar to it, but characteristic of most public debate today. Deciding to involve a studio audience and then rigging it, to get the sort of response that’s felt to be right, is a form of moral cowardice and it happens all the time.

Initially the BBC and the chattering classes felt Question Time had cracked it. By exposing Griffin as comparatively inarticulate, nervous and unsophisticated they hoped to destroy him and his party. Instead they turned him into a martyr. Also, by completely subsuming concerns about immigration and identity within the concept of “racism” they closed the debate yet again – and gave many of those people who voted BNP a signal that their worst fears had been justified.

Many of the middle ranking, younger cadres in the BNP, unlike Griffin, do not come from the old Tyndall/Webster NF machine with it’s neo nazi fetishism and aryan folk mythology. They will not be able to be baited in the way that Griffin was baited.

What will the BBC do then?

COPENHAGEN OR BUST

>> SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2009

Nick Griffin reverberations continue loudly, but meanwhile our friends at the BBC are pushing as hard as ever this weekend in their climate change nonsense. The corporation desperately wants agreement in Copenhagen, and is leaping at every opportunity to support moves which will have only one real effect: to condemn millions in Britain and throughout the world to fuel poverty.

Posted this morning was a story which, as usual, has related pictures of melting ice and a forlorn polar bear. It suggests that a sub-group of countries and legislators are working behind the scenes to ensure that agreement is reached to cut emissions come what may. As is wearily predictable in BBC "reporting" of such issues, the anonymous writer of the story accepts without question that cuts are needed; and he or she fails to report that thousands of scientists do not accept at all that global warming is even happening, let alone that measures are necessary to combat it.

What's truly chilling about the report is that, according to the reporter, it seems that this shadowy sub-group possesses the power to implement its recommendations irrespective of the outcome of Copenhagen.

Meanwhile in the real world, Anthony Watts continues to report what is happening with the climate: temperatures in the US this fall are continuing toset record lows; and as this year's hurricane season comes to an end, the tally for the storms that Al Gore so confidently and loudly predicted would escalate in numbers is this year? - er, none. 

Reporting of any of this on the BBC? No.

One in Five?

Are one in five really considering voting for the BNP?
If so, and Nick’s appearance on QT was the catalyst, some thoughts belatedly occurred to me.

It’s generally accepted that QT exposed him as a holocaust denier and racist. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that being a racist is perceived as the ultimate wickedness, one in five have somehow managed to push Nick’s racism to the back of their minds. Or should that be the backs of their mind.

The thing QT exposed was the very thing the BNP has been trying to hide. But imagine if Mr. Griffin really wasn’t a racist, what if he opposed mass Muslim immigration because he genuinely loved Britain’s values?
Or, what if someone else who wasn’t Nick Griffin and who wasn’t a racist, did so; say a politician from one of the mainstream parties? Dream on.

If the BBC thinks that simply revealing the BNP’s racism is enough to discredit it, what about the type of racism that the BBC itself tacitly peddles. Can we have that revealed in a custom made question Time? Can we have a panel of multi-party pro-Zionists versus Helen Boaden?
Someone needs to ask why Islington antisemitism is alright, but confronting genuine concerns about Islamism is all wrong.

We see how the BBC portrays the Jewish state, and we observe that the mud they’ve slung has stuck to diaspora Jews. We haven’t yet reached the stage where it’s okay to openly espouse antisemitism, but anti Zionism does have a full seal of approval even when it’s demonstrably a mere cloak.
Not even Jack Straw’s unnecessary “As-s-Jew” outburst was enough to deter potential BNP voters from assuming that it’s permissible to turn a blind eye to a a bit of harmless holocaust denial.

I don't know whether my grandparents came to the UK from eastern Europe intentionally, or whether they ended up here by accident, as many did. But they assimilated, and their descendants are respectable members of British society. They made no demands and adapted.
There is a world of difference between racism and objection to Islamification of Europe. But neither our government nor the BBC will admit that.
If there is a genuinely benign interpretation of Islam that accepts and respects others, no problemo. Muslims that follow that variation on a theme should be welcome to live wherever they’re prepared to assimilate. Reiterating that Islam is the religion of peace is not enough, nor is trying to normalise cultural practices that are antithetical to ours.

What angers the potential BNP voters is that their understandable objections to demands for Sharia law, 12,000 seater mosques, belligerent burka wearing, refusal to integrate, Asian-on-white racism and demonstrations against British soldiers are branded Islamophobic, and considered beyond the pale, too taboo to discuss.
So the BBC is the flagship of hypocrisy on that score, and has played a considerable part in creating this ‘one in five’ sorry state of affairs.