Army Rumour Service

P: < 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31 > :| |:

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:26 pm
Author: Monty417 Location: Over The hill and beyond reason.
QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:43 pm
Author: lsquared

Monty417:

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

Not quite as I would have put it 'Monty', but spot on nevertheless.

The British, including the English of course Very Happy

, do NOT like being told what to do - hence our dislike of the European National Socialist Soviet Union.

The British enjoy being led - led by someone or something they respect.

For over a thousand years, or 57 years short thereof, we have refused to be 'told what to do'.

Sadly, we now have such a disorientated and deceiving and dysfunctional government that is driving us - the tax-paying public - into a corner where we will have to obey our masters residing in Brussels.

I await with quivering anticipation the British finally wakening up to their loss of sovereignty and independence - should be quite a show to watch.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:57 pm
Author: Steven_McLaughlin
I think that the main reason that the BNP will go from strength-to-strength and become a mainstream party, is because they’re quite rightly moving away from the frankly ludicrous ‘skin colour’ debate, and are focusing on the following very troubling issue:
How on earth are we going to integrate Islam, with all of its backward and unpleasant practices, into a modern, multicultural and diverse (God I hate that word but it fits my point!) society?

When we’re all agreed that we need to combat racism and victimisation of minorities, what are we to do when the biggest and most offensive perpetrator of such practices is Islam? The vast and decent majority of British people have got no problems with hard-working Poles, Hindus, Sikhs or Afro-Caribbeans, but they do have a genuine and legitimate fear of Islam. And perhaps with just cause.

In virtually every single conflict in the world the one common denominator is Islam:

Muslims fighting Sikhs

Muslims fighting Hindus

Muslims fighting Christians

Muslims fighting Atheists

Muslims fighting Jews

Muslims fighting Muslims (the biggest killer of Muslims is Muslims)

Muslims fighting all other groups I’ve not mentioned

Indeed, if Aliens landed from outer-space tomorrow who do you think they’d probably end up fighting longest, hardest and first? I don’t even need to answer that do I – which is really sad. There’s no doubt that if you put some of the more vocal Islamists in a locked bathroom they’d even start arguing with their own reflection in the mirror…

To many people Islam seems like a racist and religiously intolerant creed:

Can Muslims marry non-Muslims without fear of violence?

Can Muslims convert to other religions without fear of violence?

Can Muslims be homosexual without fear of violence?

Can Muslims renounce Islam without fear of violence?

Can Muslim women live free and modern lives without fear of violence?

What Nick Griffin has touched on, is that the rise of far-right politics is NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR OR RACE – BUT ABOUT A TOXIC AND POISONOUS RELIGION THAT THREATENS US ALL – Jews, Hindus, Christians and non-believers alike.

I think that in the coming decades you’ll see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of different races, religions and cultures, all coming together to stand up to Islamic Fascism and Islamic racism against all other belief systems.

IT’S NOT ABOUT RACE; IT’S ABOUT RELIGION.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:03 pm
Author: Monty417 Location: Over The hill and beyond reason.

lsquared:

Monty417:

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

Not quite as I would have put it 'Monty', but spot on nevertheless.

The British, including the English of course Very Happy

I'm happy to be corrected, I just didn't want a Welshman Wink

or Scot telling me to speak for myself.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:18 pm
Author: Yellow_Devil Location: exile

Steven_McLaughlin:

What Nick Griffin has touched on, is that the rise of far-right politics is NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR OR RACE – BUT ABOUT A TOXIC AND POISONOUS RELIGION THAT THREATENS US ALL – Jews, Hindus, Christians and non-believers alike.

I think that in the coming decades you’ll see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of different races, religions and cultures, all coming together to stand up to Islamic Fascism and Islamic racism against all other belief systems.

IT’S NOT ABOUT RACE; IT’S ABOUT RELIGION.

That is probably the key question that the QT panel failed to answer, even though Griffin raised it.

I tend to think that things are much much better on the ground than the media would have us believe. Based both on anecdotal evidence and recent work by researchers, it seems that there has been a sea-change within a lot of the Muslim community during the last five or ten years - and especially since 7/7.

7/7 was a massive wake-up call for British Muslims. In the past, a lot of Muslims - not all, but a lot - fudged on the issue of terrorism. It got conflated with ideas of 'righteous' jihads in Bosnia, Kashmir and Soviet-era Afghanistan. The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq were - and to an extent still are - seen as justifiable resistance to foreign occupation. This created an environment where the 'crazies' - people spouting off about Sheikh Osama, Global Jihad and The Jew - would at least be tolerated or ignored.

But when terrorists struck London - and remember 2 Muslims were killed, and one of the bombs was at Edgware Road - the reality hit home for many, many people. THere has been a lot of soul-searching within the community and the kind of rhetoric heard in the 1990s - in some mosques and community centres - is much rarer nowadays. Some former extremists actually did a somersault and started working with the Home Office. Although there is a lot of suspicion of the PREVENT strategy, there was no shortage of volunteers to take up the funding and work with imaginative projects to try and keep young people away from the crazies.

It is a shame (but not surprising) that this has not been extensively covered in the media, so the British public hasn't seen these positive changes.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:20 pm
Author: vaeviso

Markintime:

vaeviso:

The BBC made a big mistake here - not by letting Nick Griffin appear, but in its ham-fisted attempt at ambushing him. It really would have been much better if they had kept to the usual QT format and debated the issues of the day. Nothing exposes a single issue party - extremist or not - quicker and more effectively than engaging them in debate on the full range of issues. It's why the BNP, the Greens and all the fringe parties will never govern; they can only see things through the prism of their particular conceit and they appear trivial and silly. By planting a load of questions about race and immigration and so on, the BBC have not only allowed the BNP to cry "foul", but they also allowed Griffin to play to his strengths (such as they are). The BBC should also have got someone more effective than Jack Straw on - he really was hysterical and useless. He was a left-wing extremist when he was an undergraduate at Leeds University, so it's all a bit hypocritical really.

The more the mainstream political parties and media vilify Griffin and the BNP, the more he is lionised in the eyes of the BNP electorate (and there most definitely is one). The government would do better to identify the issues that are making BNP supporters feel marginalised and address them properly rather than high-handedly refusing to engage the BNP in debate. The media should also drop all this ad hominem stuff about Griffin. His views are eminently "targetable"; there really is no need to attack him personally. It undermines the argument.

Incidentally, I thought only Bonnie Greer and David Dimbleby acquitted themselves at all well. The others need to look up "debate" in a dictionary.

You lay all the blame at the feet of the BBC, in my view unfairly. The QT format has always been the same: The audience submit the questions not the BBC. Yes the BBC choose who will ask their question but if there are a hundred questions and 75 of them ask the same question, albeit in different ways, then they have no option other than to go with that question. The audience apply to be the audience, they do not have to state their demographics or their political views although obviously, the style of their question can give a clue (they submit their question with their application).
Similarly the Beeb don't choose who the panel will be, they invite the three main parties to submit their choice and choose three panellists to try to create a balance of views. Labour put forward Straw who does come with quite a formidable reputation (probably slightly tarnished after last night's debacle).
Given the BBC had invited Griffin (quite rightly too) it was probably inevitable that there wouldn't be a balance of panellists and the BNP obviously didn't decide to flood the BBC with applications or couldn't muster the support, either way the vocal few stole the day. The BBC merely recorded the battle.

I have to say, I think they do bear the majority of the blame. The BBC production team may have no control over the audience or the questions but they do have editorial control overall. We'll never know what questions didn't make the cut but it was fairly clear that the vast majority of questions were designed to put Griffin on the spot and I have to say, even the normally equitable Mr Dimbleby seemed to be enjoying the opportunity to prolong Griffin's agony. The BBC will claim it was all fair and above board, I have no doubt. However, when the three main party leaders go head to head before the general election, will all the questions focus in on one particular controversial or failed element of Labour policy for example? (I doubt it - there are so many to choose from). I do concede however that the BBC did not invite Jack Straw. It's perhaps indicative that he was the best that the Government have to offer.

Don't get me wrong, I carry no torch for Nick Griffin. I find the BNP's policies small minded, bigoted and pretty much representative of everything that's wrong with the UK at the moment - much like the people who vote for them I imagine. However, the BBC is so ferociously PC, "neutral" and "right-on" these days that I find it hard to believe that they would pass up an opportunity to humiliate someone like Griffin.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:35 pm
Author: BlueDanubeWalt

Steven_McLaughlin:

I think that the main reason that the BNP will go from strength-to-strength and become a mainstream party, is because they’re quite rightly moving away from the frankly ludicrous ‘skin colour’ debate, and are focusing on the following very troubling issue:
How on earth are we going to integrate Islam, with all of its backward and unpleasant practices, into a modern, multicultural and diverse (God I hate that word but it fits my point!) society?

When we’re all agreed that we need to combat racism and victimisation of minorities, what are we to do when the biggest and most offensive perpetrator of such practices is Islam? The vast and decent majority of British people have got no problems with hard-working Poles, Hindus, Sikhs or Afro-Caribbeans, but they do have a genuine and legitimate fear of Islam. And perhaps with just cause.

In virtually every single conflict in the world the one common denominator is Islam:

Muslims fighting Sikhs

Muslims fighting Hindus

Muslims fighting Christians

Muslims fighting Atheists

Muslims fighting Jews

Muslims fighting Muslims (the biggest killer of Muslims is Muslims)

Muslims fighting all other groups I’ve not mentioned

Indeed, if Aliens landed from outer-space tomorrow who do you think they’d probably end up fighting longest, hardest and first? I don’t even need to answer that do I – which is really sad. There’s no doubt that if you put some of the more vocal Islamists in a locked bathroom they’d even start arguing with their own reflection in the mirror…

To many people Islam seems like a racist and religiously intolerant creed:

Can Muslims marry non-Muslims without fear of violence?

Can Muslims convert to other religions without fear of violence?

Can Muslims be homosexual without fear of violence?

Can Muslims renounce Islam without fear of violence?

Can Muslim women live free and modern lives without fear of violence?

What Nick Griffin has touched on, is that the rise of far-right politics is NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR OR RACE – BUT ABOUT A TOXIC AND POISONOUS RELIGION THAT THREATENS US ALL – Jews, Hindus, Christians and non-believers alike.

I think that in the coming decades you’ll see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of different races, religions and cultures, all coming together to stand up to Islamic Fascism and Islamic racism against all other belief systems.

IT’S NOT ABOUT RACE; IT’S ABOUT RELIGION.

Totally off the point...how come you get a 'full rack' after 29 posts 'n' joining in sep. 09...will you be Charles III at some point..???

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:47 pm
Author: Engineer01
The more I think about this it is becoming apparent that any political or intellectual shortcomings of the BNP will be moderated by Civil Service inertia and financial constraints, (should they make Government).
However, a new focus on "Indigenous" Brits and less foreign aid to better off countries may prove just what the UK needs.

The BNP proposals on Law & Order etc will definitely set us off in the right direction.

Bear in mind what the "Experts" have achieved in the last 12 years!

Last edited by Engineer01 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:48 pm
Author: Steven_McLaughlin
Yellow Devil, I hope you’re right my friend, I really do, otherwise this beautiful country of ours isn’t going to be a particularly pleasant place to live in, in the years to come. I work in Preston and spend a lot of time in Blackburn, and I can tell you there’s a lot of fear and anxiety on the streets. One of my colleagues is a British born Hindu and another an immigrant Pole, and even they are wary and nervous about the hostility. Barry, my Hindu buddy, lives in fear that his beautiful teenage daughter will fall for a Muslim lad, because then she’ll have to convert and he won’t be seeing much of her again. And Zenon, my exuberant Polish pal, has just about given up on even attempting to get close to a Muslim after countless rebuffs and insults.

We work as ESOL teachers so we see it from all angles. The funny thing is the Turkish immigrant lads are very cheeky and full of fun, desperate to fit in and learn the British ways, but the resident born and bred local Muslims are often rude and downright hostile to anybody but one of their own.

I don’t know what the hell the answer is, but Jesus Christ man it worries me – it really does. There’s something incredibly powerful and potent about Islam that makes all other lifestyles seem puny, pathetic and weak. I’ve got a lot of sympathy for young Muslims because I can see how the religion can grab you for life – like a drug almost. One of my all-time hero’s is Richard Dawkins (a GIANT!) and he’s said in many interviews, that as a scientist and humanitarian, the only thing that gives him sleepless nights is the spread of Islam.

It’s a powerful, powerful thing, but what are we to do about it? How can we bring them round to reason? God I hope we can find a way…

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:58 pm
Author: Steven_McLaughlin
Hi Bludanubewalt,

It’s because I made a small financial donation to support the site, as I use it a lot and know it doesn’t run on hot air – unlike me and my big mouth! Seriously though, it’s a great resource and I know that a hell of a lot of time and hard work goes in to maintaining it by the moderators and sponsors etc, so we’ve got to dig in and keep it going. There aren’t many places like this around where we can come and enjoy uncensored debates like this one, posting all kinds of ‘strongly worded’ stuff. I’m sure the ‘New Labour’ crowd would dearly love to shut us down for dissent and might even attempt to if they get in again – so dig deep and let’s enjoy it while we can!

Cheers

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:23 pm
Author: insert-coin-here Location: England-nice little place while it lasted

Monty417:

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

If the comments on the BBC's 'have your say' are anything to go by then your assessment here is spot on.

I only caught the show earlier this evening on BBCi player but was pretty dismayed by what I saw.

The program was rigged as a kangaroo court from the outset and never looked likely to evolve into anything more interesting than a 'we all hate the BNP' circle-jerk.

Straw was frankly pathetic and just couldnt wait to deploy the NuLab tactic of cheap political point scoring. (and I really did enjoy watching him taken down a peg or two by Griffin highlighting his old man as having a LMF).

Warsi was ineffectual and seemed evasive when questioned on civil partnerships (why would that be?).

Greer exceeded my expectations by not referencing Obama Beach every time she spoke,but her repost to Griffins 'Maori' comment had me wondering exactly what she was was supposed to be bringing to the table.(Apart from the obvious).

Huhne came across as a typically lightweight LibDem useful idiot who looked ridiculous as he berated Straw on the governments projected immigration intake.....and then was asked why did his party support the governments stance in the first place.

And then we had Griffin who looked browbeaten from the start (his body language said it all).Hounded,hectored and shouted down from the off,he played the martyr well,and with good reason too in this case.When he did get a chance to talk about immigration he spoke in the sort of direct and impassioned manner that will strike real cords with the BNP demographic.

Searching through all the fallout from the show online I find it incredible that the likes of Peter Hain ect think they got one up on the BNP and Griffin last night.The overwhelming consensus seems to be that Griffin was simply bullied for an hour.

As far as the point of this thread goes I feel that if QT is the flagship political television show in the UK then we realy are a nation of halfwits.Is this really the best the BBC can do?
The QT format certainly has its merits but needs a serious revamp.There is simply not enough time to have any sort of meaningful debate on a show that has five panelists with so many questions taken from the audience.A reduction of panelists might also help to cut out the level of white noise generated on the show.

Politico's are never pressed on issues in a sustained manner and invariably resort to soundbite politics.As this is the case I would like to see
the show extended or limited to two insightful questions per episode.I want to finish watching a show with the feeling that I have actually seen a debate rather than an extended party political broadcast.

And I would also like to see Dimbleby replaced as I think he simply too lightweight to deal with the sort of politico we are saddled with these days.
Andrew Neil would IMHO make a much better chairman if HARDtalk is anything to go by.

Basically QT totally failed to meaningfully explore the immigration question and Griffin,for me,came out of it with the most.
We British never like to see a person bullied and when you start to feel sorry for a member of the BNP you know that something is seriously wrong.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:01 pm
Author: hairyarse2 Location: Manchester

insert-coin-here:

Monty417:

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

The QT format certainly has its merits but needs a serious revamp.There is simply not enough time to have any sort of meaningful debate on a show that has five panelists with so many questions taken from the audience.A reduction of panelists might also help to cut out the level of white noise generated on the show.

Politico's are never pressed on issues in a sustained manner and invariably resort to soundbite politics.

Here's a radical idea. How about we get an old building, call it 'The Mother of All Parliaments' and perhaps elected, educated representatives could have debates. Perhaps they could actually represent people called 'Constituents' and have debates that actually represent 'Their Constituents' hopes and fears. Or we could just abdicate responsibility to an unelected board of gravytrainers in europe.
I only have one question.
How can I board this mythical gravy train?

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:02 pm
Author: Yellow_Devil Location: exile

Steven_McLaughlin:

To many people Islam seems like a racist and religiously intolerant creed:

I think that this is a very important question Steve, and for that reason I would like to try and answer your queries about Islam one by one, but in the interests of time, I will only look at one angle, which is that of people leaving Islam.

This is a complicated question which needs a complicated answer - which is not the kind of thing that our media is good at.

I should explain that I am not really qualified to do this: I am not a Muslim and I am not trained in the science of the Quran and the hadith. However, I have lived and studied in Muslim countries, and been taught by Islamic scholars, as well as having endless discussions with a lot of Muslims, ranging from former mujahideen to people who were Muslim in name only.

I have tried to limit my answers to Muslims living in the UK so that is the country we're concerned about at present.

Steven_McLaughlin:

Can Muslims convert to other religions without fear of violence?

Can Muslims renounce Islam without fear of violence?

In my view, the practical, realistic answer to these two questions as of 2009 is 'probably not'. Even though we live in a democratic, mostly secular society, some Muslim communities in the UK are still governed by local traditions and a old-fashioned interpretation of the Islamic rule on apostasy. IMHO a convert would risk suffering violence from his or her family or from others nearby.

This is a problem; and we can't simply wish it away or deny it, as some of the liberal press would do. But - and this is a big big but - in reality, the most public, well-known (to Muslims, not to the media) preachers and scholars have stated that people should not attack someone simply because they leave Islam.

Why do we have this paradox? Well, the traditional penalty for leaving Islam was death. The reason why is that, in the early days of Islam, to renounce Islam was equivalent to treason. If someone renounced Islam, it meant that they had gone over to Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. In effect, this was like capital punishment for treason, just like British law until recently.

But it is more complicated than that, in fact a lot more complicated. The difficulty for non-Muslims in understanding this is that the sharia does not always explicitly fix penalties like the Criminal Justice Act. The Quran does not state that people who leave Islam should be put to death, so we have to rely on the Prophet Muhammad's statements and later legal rulings.

There are wide disagreements about these issues - in fact, it would be easy to find scholars throughout the Muslim world who emphatically state that there is no death penalty for leaving Islam; it is equally easy to find others who advocate whole-heartedly. When they argue, they argue in lawyers' language with extensive quotations from the Quran and earlier legal rulings. This can be hard for outsiders, and easpecially non-Muslims, to understand.

However, what is important to us is not necessarily the fine detail of the legal arguments. It is how British Muslims live their lives on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the view of the scholars that I have heard most often in the UK - whether in person, on respected Islamic TV, radio and internet outlets - is that, if someone decides to stop being Muslim, it is recognised as a personal choice rather than as an intention to commit treason as in the early days of Islam. Therefore when people leave Islam nowadays, it is not because they intend to join the enemy army - and therefore, leaving Islam should not be punished with violence.

I should say that because of the power of Saudi money, there are many Saudi-published texts still in circulation in the UK. These sometimes give the opposite view - that people leaving Islam should be put to death. However, there is a widespread view that the Saudi form of Islam is incorrect, and even heretical. I have spoken to a lot of young people who advocate the need to train British Muslim scholars to answer these issues, since solutions which might apply in Saudi are not necessarily right for British Muslims.

To give you an idea of how Muslims debate these questions among themselves, I have added a link to Islamonline on apostasy. A lot of traditional scholars dislike people phoning into Islamic TV or radio or asking questions on the internet since they think each case has to be considered very carefully, taking into account centuries of legal judgments, but the fact is that this is how many British Muslims get their information. Any scholar who has a dial-in fatwa session on Peace TV or The Islam Channel gets inundated with calls. The website www.islamonline.net is a very popular version of this phenomenon online.

However, in my view, it is possible that Muslim opinion 'on the ground' has not caught up with the scholars. Apostasy is unthinkable for many Muslims, and would be a source of undying shame for most families. Therefore, it would not be surprising if a Muslim convert tried to get as far away from his or her family as possible. In my view, this is a matter of education - which is best done by Muslim preachers and scholars, since they have the moral authority that the media and the government do not.

It is worth pointing out that the numbers of people leaving Islam in the UK is very small. This may be because Islam is simply a more successful (or is the best!) religion. However it is also possible that 'Islam' has become a badge of identity for some 2nd or 3rd generation Britons without any real engagement with the faith. This is particularly the case since 9/11, when the endless questioning of Islam in the media and in the non-Muslim communities has understandably led many to reaffirm their Islamic identity as a kind of defensive instinct.

The one anomalous exception in my experience is the large Iranian diaspora, based on the Westernised middle and upper classes who fled the 1979 Revolution. Having been exposed to an especially virulent form of political Islam, a very small but noisy minority of the Iranian community in exile tends to criticise much of the traditional teaching of Islam and some have left the faith altogether. Generally living in more affluent and more secular circles than other Muslims, they don't seem to have suffered any reprisals (though I could be wrong about this).

I told you it was complicated. Smile

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:15 pm
Author: insert-coin-here Location: England-nice little place while it lasted

hairyarse2:

insert-coin-here:

Monty417:

QT appeared to have been engineered to humiliate Griffin. That is my considered opinion, but it made him out to be a victim and the English have a habit of supporting the underdog.

Here is our 'mother of all parliments' in all its glory.....

Perhaps we can send this as an instruction video to the Afghan parliment as a heads up to what they can look forward to once we have finished dying to deliver 'democracy' to them.

Mad

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:20 pm
Author: All_I_Want

Markintime:

All_I_Want:

Markintime:

KGB_resident:

Markintime:

If we were being really simplistic, there are 60 million people in the UK and 1 million of them voted for Griffin. Therefore a representative audience of 120 people should have 2 Griffin supporters, it looked like there were between 10 and 15 of them so, in fact, he was over-represented and not ambushed by a pre-selected and hostile audience.

As a mathematician I dare to correct you. BNP had 6.2% on elections to the Europarliament. So as

120*6.2/100=7.44

then no less than 7 BNP supporters should be present.

There were 10-15 supporters so they were over represented then.

Why 10-15, do you KNOW how many there was or are you just guessing?

Why not 6-10 or 15-20?

Did you count them?

What was your estimate then?

(I tried to count the number of people clapping when Griffin had finished speaking, not accurate as there is a very small time frame but I honestly believe the number I quoted as being a fair estimate.)

Well I don't.

Your error margin is 50% of your lowest figure, this to me implies a guess, and as you have stated you only base your figures on the amount of people you thought (if you knew you would give a figure) you saw clapping. Do you not think maybe some of the neutrals may have clapped some of the things he said?

I don't have an estimate as I cannot see how we could possibly even estimate it. However the questions were most definitely nearly all posed to try and make Griffin look a fool.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:25 pm
Author: doc80905 Location: The nanny state
To chuck this in (and I realise this is very selective reporting)

Clickety click

There could be trouble ahead....?

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:28 pm
Author: Steven_McLaughlin
Thanks for that Yellow Devil – a brilliant post and you certainly know what you’re talking about. I think the long-term key here is we’re just going to have to keep on talking and trying to establish some kind of middle ground and mutual respect. The strange thing is I actually don’t think the current political mainstream tactics (bury your head in the sand and pretend there isn’t a growing problem) are helping things; I think Muslims are feeling patronised and ordinary people are feeling alienated and made to feel like racist outcasts – so maybe more robust honesty and knockabout debate would establish a mutual rapport?

Funnily enough it was Griffin himself who touched on one of the more admirable traits of Islam when he mentioned its fairer and superior (IMHO) banking system, where innocents aren’t bled dry if they fall behind on their payments. One thing that I admire in Islam is its willingness to forgive genuine mistakes e g. if you were a white guy working in an office and foolishly got involved in a fight and convicted of assault, you’d likely be instantly fired and booted out, no matter how unlucky the circumstances. But in an Islamic business they’d all sit round as mature men of the world and probably forgive the guy, if he was genuinely contrite and sorry. They’d say ‘our brother has made a mistake and let’s forgive him, not destroy him further’, whereas in my culture they’d just drop you like a stone. The Army would forgive you too, so I guess that’s a bit like Islam in a way!

Anyway, if I were a Muslim I’d feel a bit aggrieved at all these pompous and self-righteous careerists like Straw claiming to speak for me and my community, when in reality all’s he speaks for is himself. Look at his actions in Iraq, and then call him to account for his deeds, not words. Funnily enough it was Griffin too who said we should stop trying to de-Islamify the Middle East and pointed out that the Conservatives would speedily launch a misbegotten war with Iran, if the American’s beckoned.

I tell you mate but it’s strange; when honest but forthright people (even those whom are diametrically opposed) speak plainly and truthfully, we make a lot more peaceful progress, build a mutual rapport and get to the real issues quicker and more effectively. And when the slippery tongued politicos start waffling on nothing gets done and we all end up disliking each other even more – because nobody respects anybody who can’t speak their own truth or be honest enough to answer a straight question.

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Author: Werewolf Location: Slightly to the Right of Ghenghis Khan...
According to the News tonight, 22% of people asked would consider voting for the BNP now.

As far as Griffen is concerned, it's job done. It's frightning to think how much oif an impact he might have made had he been a more polished speaker. Because, let's face it, with the exception of Greer, the rest of the panel looked like a second-rate student debating society. Rolling Eyes

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:51 pm
Author: Archimedes

doc80905:

To chuck this in (and I realise this is very selective reporting)

Clickety click

There could be trouble ahead....?

As you say, it depends on how you spin it. Torygraph has gone for the 'boost for Griffin' angle.

You could, alternatively, note that support is 3%, which is a grand upsurge of zero percent since the last poll for the Torygraph. Or, since they got 6% of the vote in the EU elections, you could say (at a push) that their support has halved.

On top of that, the percentage of people who said they had a positive view of the BNP when YouGov did their last poll was 11%. Now it's 9%.

And of the one-in-four (actually, since it's 22%, it isn't one in four) who might, shock, horror, support the BNP, 15% answered it was possible that they might - just as it's possible that I might find myself in the 2012 Olympics team (but really very unlikely), and it was only the remaining 7% who said that they would probably or definitely consider voting - not would probably or definitely cast their vote - for the BNP. Which sounds like we might be talking about the disillusioned Labour supporters who wish to cast a protest vote next time round, a factor noted here by arrsers across the political spectrum.

The actual headline is 'QT appearance does frankly bu&&er all to make BNP more electable and 66% of public say Griffin is an utter chopper', [cynicism] but where's the story in that? [\cynicism]

Re: A Question of Question Time

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:56 pm
Author: hairyarse2 Location: Manchester

insert-coin-here:

Quote:

Everyone is blogging about ....

... Question Time and the BNP. I'm not going to.

Much wiser to focus on how we clean up Westminster, tackle uncontrolled immigration and restore meaning to politics. Do that, and I think fewer folk would vote BNP in the first place.

Posted on 23 October 2009 by Douglas Carswell

www.talkcarswell.com/

Just had a quick scan through his Blog and it is very 'Right On'
No mention of The EU though, and how its directives force us to have an open border policy. I'll have a closer look in the morning.
I live in a very predominately labour strong hold, the Tories did not even bother contesting the last two local elections, bnp were second, if I want to register a protest vote, who do you reckon I should vote for?

Edied once for clarity.

Last edited by hairyarse2 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

All times are GMT
Page 29 of 31 P: < 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31 > :| |:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/