On the QT,,,

[mrph]

So... Nick Griffin on Question Time. Interesting viewing - I don't think he did terribly well.

Opinions?

Comments

[razornet.livejournal.com]

see my post

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

It's friends-locked. Quick summary for the rest of us?

[razornet.livejournal.com]

I don't think the BNP should be prevented from appearing on QT or other politics based program.

On the other hand when he did get his platform we made a public burning out of it. You could just about smell the bloodlust coming out of the tv. Don't get me wrong, I fucking hate the geezer and I smiled along with everyone else while the strips were being tore off but I can't help feeling that in many ways this was as bad as denying the BNP the platform in the first pace. As burkesworks pointed out the audience of the show was primarily local to where it was being shot and in very hostile territory for NIck. People in BNP constituency aren't going to see restrained debate taking the BNP apart, they'll see an angry baying mob attacking principles they hold or have been persuaded to hold dear. They won't have heard the good bits, they'll have seen someone they support thrown to the lions.

Now Nick can use the same clumsy rhetoric and bullshit conspiracy theory to continue hating his way into larger support.

Of course I'm a grumpy old pessimist and also frequently wrong, but even given all said above it was rather fun to watch the slimey shitebag light himself on fire so effectively.

[bikerfaerie.livejournal.com]

This was what I thought. Yes, he looked like a total uneducated, fumbling moron to us, but what have his followers thought? Will his martyrdom to the baying mob make those who feel hard done to by our wicked multicultural society more resilient in their beliefs? I am a bit worried, but I guess it remains to be seen.

[kittentikka.livejournal.com]

Yeah. That's my problem with it too, having seen it. Leading questions, and the people he wants to appeal to are probably not the QT demographic. So he has legitimacy, a kicked puppy expression (bulldog, in that case) and he'll recover.

On the other hand, one can hope it'll get debate moving where it has to.

[kittentikka.livejournal.com]

Man, I missed that!

Opinion? The BNP should be given air time, but not serious air time. I'm hoping Nick Griffin fell flat, but as I said - not watched it. I was falling off walls.

[ehrine.livejournal.com]

Not watched it all, but what I saw pretty much confirmed my opinion on him as being a homophobic rasist. Was fun watching him getting shot down on some of the "facts" he was trying state without being able to cite his source. Far from giving the BNP a platform to promote itself, I feel it's given a lot of people a chance to see what he is really like.

One of the funniest moments was when he pretty much insulted the BBC :)

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

He was dreadful - and I was quite surprised actually - I was worried that he might actually come out of it quite well, but he looked utterly out of his depth. And those who objected to his appearance were wrong because he was exposed and made accountable for his beliefs/actions far more than he would have been in a normal interview type situation. And those objecting to the appearance were wrong anyway because it isn't for the BBC to pick and choose whose views it happens to like or not like.

[the_axel]

Maybe - but it certainly does when it wants to.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

I think the BBC was wrong to exclude that, for what it is worth, but I also think that case was more complicated for various reasons. The rationale in the Griffin case was really quite simple - they have a system whereby when parties get a certain amount of electoral support they get occasional invites onto question time. There were merely applying this to the BNP in the same way they did to everyone else. The gaza appeal thing related to whether they would agree to give a specific, one-off platform for a particular charity appeal. I think they made the wrong call on that one and was disappointed, but at the same time its important to appreciate that had they shown the appeal they would have been hammered by various people.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

I thoroughly enjoyed the show, and I was impressed at how well Mr. Dimbleby managed to keep control and stop the whole thing being "bash the Nazi", he let Nick Griffen hang himself on his own rope.

Did Nick Griffen come across well? No, not to me. But the question is how does he come across to that section of the public that might consider voting BNP? Not so sure there. He made some points that might curry favour, but he also seemed completely unable to actually deal with the questions put to him and generally came across as a squirming politician.

I was disappointed that Dimbleby let the Asian Tory Woman completely avoid his question over Section 28 and friends.

[kantti.livejournal.com]

Yes, I felt the tories might do rather well out of it and pick up some of the BNP supporters: "Want homophobia and immigration restrictions without the stigma of voting BNP? We're the party that can give it to you, nicely sanitized!"

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

Indeed... and look, we have a Muslim MP so our constant attempts to panic the public about floods of immigration must be entirely fair and reasonable and not at all about tapping into distrust of foreigners or people who look or sound different or anything...

[jorune.livejournal.com]

He rolled the dice and he botched. Michael Portillo said in the following 'This Week' show that it wasn't wholly surprising given the panel and the London audience. How would he fare with an audience drawn from those areas who voted BNP?

I guess the bigger question is when is his next appearance? If the party's ethos changes, if they win more seats?

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

I was looking forward to him being on TV because it would show what an bigoted ignorant idiot he really is. Which is one of the best wasy of be-bunking his "political" party. I think he had enough rope to hang himself thrice over.

[belladonna-9.livejournal.com]

If I have to be honest.... Im becoming slightly bored with it now and I hold NG in the same distain as I hold all other MPs or EMPs or PM for that matter... and probably Banks as well.... they are only really in it for one person... and thats themselves... we just make up the audience...

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Odd that they totally changed the format and did it in London instead of a regional town.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

I suspect that TV centre was used because of worries about security elsewhere - as well as because they wanted a multiracial audience - i.e. at the same time as giving air time to him, they also were giving air time to some of the people who find themselves on the wrong end of his racist rhetoric. As for the format, they pick questions on the basis of what members of the audience put forward and it would be surprising if they weren't inundated with questions about the BNP in the circumstances.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Indeed. But usually Question Time pick local (or at least regional) politicians to face a local audience. The BNP don't have much of a standing in West London, so I didn't understand why they'd picked a BNP politician to face an audience that never votes BNP.

I mean, what was the point? We already know that people in West London don't vote BNP. We learned nothing about WHY people in BNP areas vote BNP, something that we NEED TO KNOW if we are going to fight them.

If security concerns prevented the filming from happening elsewhere, fine, but they should have shipped in the audience from a BNP-voting area. It's not as if the programme is aired live anyway, and none of the audience questions addressed any current political issues; it could have quite easily been filmed several months ago.

[malal.livejournal.com]

That came up on the Andrew Marr program this morning. QT goes all around the country, and it was West London's turn. Nick Griffen knew that was where it would be held when he agreed to come on the program. He had the option to "actually, can I come on it the week after".

Unless you wanted the BBC to take special measures in light of him coming on? I don't think the BBC were prepared to do that as well as having him on the program, particularly as the reasoning they were giving was "we have to do this as the normal course of events".

[lechuguilla.livejournal.com]

Yeah he didn't do very well, but then niether did the BBC, or the, mostly, moronic audience. For a 'flagship' political programme, I'd expected better than misinformed rhetoric and open abuse. It was a sad inditement of the state of politics, not from the side of the politician, but from the side of the voter.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Griffin, and I mostly condemn his views (although his thoughts on Churchill are bang on - the man was a racist and a fascist who, given his way in the 30's, would have seen a eugenics programme introduced to limit the diversity and freedom of choice of the British people - socialist, my arse!). If we're going have an informed debate, let's have that. QT, however, was a witch-hunt.

It was McCarthyism at its most public, and it wasn't healthy.

It was people (the audience, the producers and the Beeb) being scared of his views, and if you're frightened of them, you give then credence. Worse, you give them power.

The Beeb may have two left feet, but it'll get knowhere if it keeps shooting them.