A Question of Question Time

**hornepils** · 23-10-2009, 09:33

Not had the opportunity to read the entire thread yet..but had to throw in my tuppence worth too.
I dont often get so p*ssed off watching a TV programme as to want to kick the screen but last nights show was as close as I've come in a long time.

In retrospect I'm wondering if my anger was directed entirely at that fat Naz.. uh i mean the fat facist that says he's not a Nazi, or if part of it was directed at the Beeb for seemingly taking a highly emotive topic and using it as a ratings grabber. If it wasn't such a cynical attempt to boost ratings, why did this particular show get so much more coverage and promotion compared to any other edition of QT?

One could argue that this was always going to get coverage, but if this was the "impartial" Beeb, giving "mainstream politicians" an equal opportunity to aire views on issues of the day, why was there so much indignation and news coverage in the months leading up to the show?
NB, not being Naive here..just seems double standards that Aunty would claim to be bound by its own constitution to be impartial but then spend so much time before hand and during the show "shouting down" the BNP.

Oh and Griffin is a Tw@.

**jagman** · 23-10-2009, 09:36

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by Markintime

Sayeeda Warsi was magnificent and the only panellist who had a clue what the real issue was last night. She was the only one who put up any sort of a credible argument and who strove to tackle the issues. Her remark about Asylum Seekers: She is a lawyer and a politician she cannot talk about bogus asylum seekers, asylum seeker is a legal term for someone seeking asylum, is she had made it plain that what was referred to as bogus asylum seekers were in fact failed asylum seekers she would have done far better. She had obviously come prepared to debate the issues - good for her.

Broadly agree. However, Dimbleby let her off the hook.

I wanted to hear her explain her opposition to civil partnerships, as it happens its probably best she didn't get too as up until that point she seemed to be the bastion of common sense on the show and it looked like she was about to score a massive own-goal by getting all homo-phobic.

I noticed the very careful lack of direction when it came to the other panelists including Warsi (or especially Warsi?) responding to Griffin's comments on Islam in general and militant Islam in particular. I was disappointed that in many areas his position wasn't contested in any area where it was possible that he may have a genuine argument.

On the whole the whole program carefully avoided debating issues where the public may agree with Griffins standpoint.

**pombsen-armchair-warrior** · 23-10-2009, 09:42

Originally Posted by TopBadger

I wanted to hear her explain her opposition to civil partnerships, as it happens its probably best she didn't get too as up until that point she seemed to be the bastion of common sense on the show and it looked like she was about to score a massive own-goal by getting all homo-phobic.

What is the link between 'opposition to 'civil' partnerships' and 'homophobia'?

**TopBadger** · 23-10-2009, 09:51

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Originally Posted by TopBadger

I wanted to hear her explain her opposition to civil partnerships, as it happens its probably best she didn't get too as up until that point she seemed to be the bastion of common sense on the show and it looked like she was about to score a massive own-goal by getting all homo-phobic.

What is the link between 'opposition to 'civil' partnerships' and 'homophobia'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...variant_people

By homophobia I really mean't sexual discrimination - what other reason is there to oppose civil partnerships?

Well, that was rather my point - we didn't get to find out.

**DemsMaShoes** · 23-10-2009, 10:00

Originally Posted by Markintime

Jack Straw - ........I couldn't get over the fact that he was of Jewish decent yet his father refused to fight Hitler (absolutely nothing to do with the debate but still stuck in my mind).

Was Straw's father left wing/communist? If so it would have been appropriate for him not to want to fight the German-Russian alliance at the start of the war. Which, if is the case, is reprehensible.

The programme IMO was a damp squib. They might as well have not invited Griffin and just let the rest abuse him. At no point was he allowed to answer fully a question, giving him no chance to drop himself in it.
I also feel that the guests (not Griffin) were briefed on questions. They all seemed to have similar packs of documents.

**Roger_The_Cat** · 23-10-2009, 10:05

Britain did not go to war to fight Fascism shewent to war in response to an act of aggression on Poland. A country that, along with France, had joined us in treaty. The fact that we were fighting Fascists is entirely coincidental. We could have been fighting Orcs or Clowns.

When I say we I mean those of us that can honestly say that our Fathers joined. Justice Secretaries are therefore excluded.

Straw's pre-rehearsed "rainbow of humanity fighting the Nazis" spiel was shown up as pure Stolen Valour the moment it became apparent that Straw's father, a jew for God's sake!, had refused to join up. Plenty of Concientious Objectors joined the RAMC or similar. There are instances in WW1 of them getting VCs, MMs & MCs - principled but brave men. There is no excuse to abstain.

End result

1st (by a country mile) Varsi & the bloke in the pin stripe suit that challenged Straw on immigration

2nd Greer - considered answers but definately there on race grounds ahead of intellect

3rd Griffin - stifled but struggling regardless

4th Straw - feeble, woudln't even look at Griffin, thought he was there for a free ride and got caught out

Did not Finish - Huhne - tried to piggy back Varsi but generally surplus to requirements

Last - Baying mob of self righteous prigs that seemed to dominate the audience. Even when Griffin said he'd pull troops out of Afghanistan they refused to applaud. Had anyone else said that they'd have ejaculated in their pants.

**pombsen-armchair-warrior** · 23-10-2009, 10:10

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Originally Posted by TopBadger

I wanted to hear her explain her opposition to civil partnerships, as it happens its probably best she didn't get too as up until that point she seemed to be the bastion of common sense on the show and it looked like she was about to score a massive own-goal by getting all homo-phobic.

What is the link between 'opposition to 'civil' partnerships' and 'homophobia'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...variant_people

By homophobia I really mean't sexual discrimination - what other reason is there to oppose civil partnerships?

Well, that was rather my point - we didn't get to find out.

TB,

Fair enough. As for other reasons, religion is one - but that's an issue for a different thread.

PAW

**telecaster** · 23-10-2009, 10:18

Not so much as a bang, but a whimper.I thought that perhaps we would see whole-hearted consensus, but once again,it subsided into political sniping.Thankfully, the Army doesn't operate in a similar fashion.Hopefully, it never will.

**Over4MeNow** · 23-10-2009, 10:20

Having watched the prog (and caught most of the rest of this thread) I have to say that Jack Straw made more of a tw@t of himself than Griffin did. His usual performance of not answering/evading the fecking questions put to him, even when Paxman-like, Dimbleby asked him at least three times the same question.

Straw just showed himself for the cnut he is.

And, as per my earlier posts about 20 pages ago, Griffin just kept on digging, without any help from the mob, just by opening his fat gob! As long as he heads up the BNP they will never get in (John Major and Neil Kinnock spring to mind).

**tropper66** · 23-10-2009, 10:27

The Labour Party must love the BBC for this crap, there are far more important things that should have been discused than a racist nutter, another "Smoke and Mirrors " moment

**Biped** · 23-10-2009, 10:29

Originally Posted by Roger_The_Cat

Britain did not go to war to fight Fascism shewent to war in response to an act of aggression on Poland. A country that, along with France, had joined us in treaty. The fact that we were fighting Fascists is entirely coincidental. We could have been fighting Orcs or Clowns.

When I say we I mean those of us that can honestly say that our Fathers joined. Justice Secretaries are therefore excluded.

Straw's pre-rehearsed "rainbow of humanity fighting the Nazis" spiel was shown up as pure Stolen Valour the moment it became apparent that Straw's father, a jew for God's sake!, had refused to join up. Plenty of Concientious Objectors joined the RAMC or similar. There are instances in WW1 of them getting VCs, MMs & MCs - principled but brave men. There is no excuse to abstain.

End result

1st (by a country mile) Varsi & the bloke in the pin stripe suit that challenged Straw on immigration

2nd Greer - considered answers but definately there on race grounds ahead of intellect

3rd Griffin - stifled but struggling regardless

4th Straw - feeble, woudln't even look at Griffin, thought he was there for a free ride and got caught out

Did not Finish - Huhne - tried to piggy back Varsi but generally surplus to requirements

Last - Baying mob of self righteous prigs that seemed to dominate the audience. Even when Griffin said he'd pull troops out of Afghanistan they refused to applaud. Had anyone else said that they'd have ejaculated in their pants.

That about covers it.

Interesting to note that there appears to be no separation in the minds of these left-wing freaks between the cultural issues created by uncontrolled immigration and racism.

The Conservative woman got it in one, and so did the black bloke in the pin-stripe, not to mention the African Caribbean woman who question and corrected Straw.

The issue of immigration is not about skin colour or genetics (which is really Griffin's gig); it's about cultural dilution and conflict and also work. If immigration is controlled to such an extent that the incoming people have an opportunity to assimilate better the rules and ways here, then things are more manageable. If you allow 2 milliom + people from all over the globe to settle here willy nilly over 12 years, then the process of assimilation doesn't occur at all in many cases. You get instant cultural ghettos, with nationalities moving en-masse to the same locations to speak their own language and continue their own cultures with scant regard needing to be shown for the social requirements of the host nation.

Jack Straw and his party fail to grasp that point, and thus, anyone who mentions it is immediately branded a racist. Being branded a racist by Labour for a perfectly acceptable view such as this makes people angry. As they see the issue, and nobody but the BNP say they are going to address it, they stick a protest vote to the BNP, and all of a sudden we have massed debates about the vile threat of the BNP and their racist agenda.

If the ethnic minorities of this country get the point, and the electorate in general get the point, why the hell was that cretin Straw still trying to make it a BNP racism issue on the show? By doing so, he gave the BNP credence, and that's why perfectly ordinary people who would normally hate everything the BNP stands for suddenly found themselves nodding in agreement with Griffin on the show, and disagreeing with Straw.

Who'd have thunk it?

**Grownup_Rafbrat** · 23-10-2009, 10:31

Have to agree withe tropper. The BBC have been making this their lead news item for too long now. They should not BE the news, but should report it. Enough, already! FFS even the Jeremy Vine show is going to cover it. Griffin must be loving it!

Keep reporting on MPs expenses, House of Lords nonsense and the loss of civil freedoms being passed into law!

**Markintime** · 23-10-2009, 10:35

Originally Posted by DemsMaShoes

I also feel that the guests (not Griffin) were briefed on questions. They all seemed to have similar packs of documents.

The questions were so blindingly obvious that even those on planet Labour must have been able to pre-guess them (apart from the Gately one).
If they were aware of the questions then they certainly didn't prepare at all well and we certainly wouldn't have had the mother of all blamethrowers, Straw citing Harold McMillan as being the cause of today's problems. Perhaps people were tired of 18 years of Tory misrule. Come on Straw, surely some of the blame can be put on Cromwell and as for Henry the Eighth, well.......

**joey_deacons_lad** · 23-10-2009, 10:39

Nick Griffin on the news now asking for another go on question time and a 1 on 1 debate with Jack Straw claiming he was the victim of a lynch mob last night. So he has gotten the publicity he wants