Platforms for Fascists?

Call me a bit warped but I’m kind of looking forward to Nick Griffin being on Question Time.  I’m certainly bemused at all the attempts to stop him from “being given a platform”.  I mean whatever we think of his politics, he was democratically elected and as distasteful as it is that he now has legitimacy, legitimate is what he is.

What I don’t want to happen (but I’m sure it will) is for him to be jeered and booed at all the way through the programme by the audience.  Don’t get me wrong.  There’s nothing I’d like more than to see Nick Griffin being publicly humiliated on national television but apart from this being an ideal opportunity to challenge Griffin and his dirty ideology, I actually like to listen to the show and every week we get the same thing, an impassioned audience constantly interrupting with their applause-on-demand and predictable heckling.

Anyway, Griffin himself will do a mighty fine job of self-humiliation so let’s hope the anti-fascist groups stay calm and allow him to hang himself.

It will happen folks so in the grossly ill-judged words of that silly old geezer George Bush, bring ’em on.  Just make sure there’s enough room at the table for the angry-heads.


18 responses to this post.

  1. If we are to know our enemy we must see, hear and understand her/him.

    I don’t have the slightest doubt.


  2. Posted by ders on October 15, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Hello EP,
    Unite Against Fascism told The Times that if thousands of protesters turned up there were plans to blockade the BBC building. A rally is also planned for the night before the event in Central London. Anti-fascists plan to leaflet BBC workers on the day itself, as they arrive at the White City building in the morning, urging them to stop work for the day in protest.

    “If we get hundreds, the aim will be to just protest against his presence,” a spokesman, Anindya Bhattacharyya, said. “We are getting a massive response from students — we are expecting a lot of people. What we don’t want is for this to go smoothly and for Griffin to get a pat on the back and take his place in polite society. We will make sure that the heat is on Griffin, as well as on the BBC for inviting him.”
    It’s a win win for Nick Griffin and the BNP. The uaf do great work for the BNP.


  3. Hello from Russia!
    Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?


  4. Absolutely Jose, censoring him is futile. We need to confront him head on and challenge his views in open debate.

    Hi Ders. Hope you are well. Well they do say that any publicity is good publicity but I don’t believe the UAF actions will be counterproductive in the long run.

    Hi Polprav, you’re welcome to quote from this blog.


  5. Posted by ders on October 16, 2009 at 8:51 am

    Well, we all agree on open debate,thats good. I don’t agree with you on the uaf, their name is mud in most places after Luton and Birmingham,but we’ll see. Anyway here’s a QT from a while back.


  6. Love the video Ders. Very funny!! 🙂


  7. Posted by ders on October 22, 2009 at 11:16 am

    It’s been a great week watching the lefty-liberal luvvies and commies getting their knickers in a twist, or just shitting them, roll on QT. I do think the uaf will mess up big-time tonight.


  8. People with bad ideas will expose themselves when they are allowed to talk. As Chomsky said: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for the people we don’t agree with, then we don’t believe in it at all.”


  9. Absolutely Paddy. Griffin was certainly in the spotlight tonight and he exposed some of his party’s hateful ideology. But overall it was an underwhelming show. The sky didn’t fall in, the country hasn’t turned to the BNP en masse and the politicians are all still tosspots.

    Next . . . .


  10. Posted by ders on October 23, 2009 at 8:54 am

    Jerry Springer?
    I’ve read alot of blogs,comments on BBC HYS and, Nick Griffin and the BNP have come out of QT better off, more than the BBC and UAF.oh and Jack Straw. Not real debate tho. Still I’m happy.


  11. Posted by ders on October 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Is this how your ears picked it up EP?


  12. This kind of politics may cause a “shake” under given circumstances, but I am of the opinion that normal people of the street will eventually ignore it.


  13. Ders, It wasn’t a proper debate I agree and I didn’t like the way Question Time panned out but I’m not worried or concerned that Nick has gained any popularity after his appearance. He’s only become more popular with those who already supported him.

    Jose, yes, it will soon go away when the media has someone else to talk about and there’s never a shortage there.


  14. Posted by ders on October 24, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    That made me laugh, I know I shouldn’t, but I found it funny. I don’t agree with your, only thoses who already supported him line, 1 in 5 ?


  15. One thing is support him, another be in agreement with what he said. I wouldn’t be too happy if I were him, we all know how erratic the electorate is. At times beauty goes before mind in politics.


  16. Posted by ders on October 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

    Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed. LINK

    By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
    Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

    As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

    Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

    Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

    Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

    He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

    He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

    He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

    “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended ? even if this wasn’t its main purpose ? to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

    The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

    Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

    On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

    In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.

    He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

    But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

    “Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

    “But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

    Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.

    “Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

    “This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

    The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: “We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

    “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: