What parties were present? Labour, Conservative and LibDem.

During the most recent elections (in the Europarliament) they had

news.bbc.co.uk/2/share...999999.stm

Conservative 27.7%
Labour 15.7%
LibDems 13.7%
BNP 6.2%

27.7+15.7+13.7+6.2=63.3

Thus fair percent of BNP representation should be no less than

(6.2/63.3)*100=9.8%

As a result 12 supporters (from 120) would not be over-representation.

Last edited by KGB_resident on Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

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?

Not quite I think only about 45 million people can vote.

Just to confuse things a little more their 6.2% came from a total that did vote not a total of those that could vote

Last edited by stacker1 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

If you pause it at the end and count the whites in the crowd you get that figure,its a Larnden auidence for petes sake joking lads only joking

I saw his Cuprinol coated clock yet again on the 1830hrs ITV News, making the same tired, unoriginal comments. I don't know why they think that this devious, corrupt fcuker should have any say. Is it because he is a prominent supporter of the UAF and has form in regard to his leadership of an illegal direct-action interference group. Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200. He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs. As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified". Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged."

It was the manner of your post that I reacted to not the correction, which KGB_Res managed to do quite politely.

Fair point, but fundamentally, we congregated into tribes, groups or clans as a means of protecting our own group and advancing. So if I was swinging from the trees the fact that anyone from outside my group might smell or look or act a bit 'different' was reason enough to hit them over the head with a stick.

Racism is just an extension of this 'them and us' behaviour









We have all had a racist thought, guaranteed, we might not have known it was racist or do anything about it but we have still thought ill of someone because they are different, different race, perhaps even a different country or just because they are ginger.

Is calling someone a fcuking ginger tosser any different from calling someone a paki.

One might be racist in the true sense of the word and one not but its just what we like to define as racism isn't it







Fought over, competed for, you are splitting the definition there I think, and lets not get into Mazlov eh

We are talking about the real things that people in areas of high immigration have to compete for, schools where English is the first language, hospitals that don't have to treat rising diabetes or TB and for many, minimum wage jobs.

These are real concerns for real people





We all know what it means but the debating club members like to pretend that if we go back we are descended from this country or that race so we are all British, how very clever.

Its got nothing to do with colour, its about your stake in this country and your adherance to a set of common values that have evolved over many centuries and in many cases earned with blood. Yes, sometimes the blood of immigrants and I am not denying their sacrifice or value

I don't care what colour anyone is, I don't care what sky fairy they might pray to and I dont subscribe to the view that the UK is a white Christian society, like Christianity is anything we can be proud of. All religion is arrse and quite frankly I don't care

What I do care about though is when that religious belief spills over into my world.








The 7 million people over 20 years comes from 70% of them being directly attributed to recent immigration, I must not have made it very clear.

Anywhere there is spare land, sorry but that is a ridiculous statement, because houses must have roads, at the end of the road are schools, schools will need doctors and teachers and a water supply and somewhere to pipe their sh1t, generate electricity and all the other things that those 7 million peoples houses will need.

The level of immigration is unsustainable, its a simple and very obvious fact.

How would I control it, simple, shut the doors, work out who many immigrants we need to maintain a healthy economy for our aging population and just let that number

In other words, managed, controlled migration, not the free for all it is now.



And as for racism

I am honest enough to say I don't want my kids educated in schools where English is the second or third language.

If you have kids, would you want your kids to go to school to a school where hardly any of the pupils speak English

be honest

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.)

Here's a comment from the Daily Mail.

On the BNP site comments section a member who was at question time said there were 5 BNP supporters there.

Panel show audience Walt!

That would be five that he knew about, there were more than 5 people applauding Mr Griffin, they may have been neutral or they may have been biased towards the BNP, I certainly don't think they were polite anti-racists.

The audience was obviously a leftist mob. That was blatent.

You trying to say anti-racists are impolite ?

That would appear to have straightened things out and confirms what most of us seem to think. What a sad load of leftie fcukers the BBC are. Backfired on them though, only the very naive and thick, believe otherwise.

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.

Last week QT was at Hull. There were no holding rooms and the audience was mainly made up of people from Hull, some of whom knew each other but all had applied separately. Apparently there were a few who had travelled because they are QT Groupies (I know, go figure).
I assume (but I don't know) that the BBC would try to separate those from the two counts to try and avoid audience confrontation before the show. There was certainly one gentleman (with glasses) who directed a stream of hatred towards Griffin, I doubt if he would have kept his counsel if he had been cooped up for two hours next to a BNP supporter.
The UAF with there thuggery made sure that it wasn't a normal QT so perhaps that is why the format wasn't quite the norm.
The BBC are incredibly PC but they value their neutrality more than life itself. They would not have orchestrated a stitch up they merely did the best they could given the depths of feeling Nick Griffin rouses. I also feel that a similar QT would have evolved had Anjem Choudary been on the panel.

The government only take action against British nationals who pay taxes. Anyone else they bumlick around.

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.

Having watched the programme last night and having kept up with current affairs in regards to other aspects, I think the BNP will now start to pose a serious threat.

We are living in a country were people find Jordan and Peter and X factor more important than troops dying and pensioners being abused.

How many people in working class areas leave school with less than 5 GCSE's grade C these days?

I will tell you why the BNP will do well now, because Nick Griffin was the only person on the whole of that programme who the masses within the working class can relate too. Even the audience were all middle class.

That is my opinion of how I saw things last night and when i look at the bigger picture in general.

I AM IN NO WAY A SUPPORTER OF THE BNP. However I havent got a clue who I will vote for in the next election, however I will vote as people before me fought for us to live in a democracy.