Thread: A Question of Question Time

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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.

What parties were present? Labour, Conservative and LibDem.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...ion_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.

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by All_I_Want

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Originally Posted by Deadreckon

Our black, Muslim and Jewish citizens will sleep much less easily now the BBC has legitimized the BNP- Welsh Secretary Peter Hain

Yes Peter, because Question time was the true watershed moment.... not the moment they managed to get elected to national positions because throbbers like you are completly failing to address the issues they are feeding off of!

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."

Originally Posted by Sympathetic_Reaction

Comments in bold and below, but only because I'm amused at your over enthusiastic response and hope to have another.

I am amused by your faux superiority but will endeavour to give you the replies you seek. I have chosen italics.

Originally Posted by Markintime

I said that the audience was representative of the UK population note the electorate,

But used the total UK population against the BNP vote to back that up..hence my comment on bad statistics

OK I apologise, I said it was simplistic perhaps it was too simplistic. I was merely trying to show that the BNP were represented and probably fairly proportionately to their support base within the community.

however, even by the figures you proffered you said that their should have been 8 and, as I pointed out there were about 10 - 15 Griffin supporters

so taking into account the error in your estimate and the statistical significance of using 120 people to represent a population of 60 million then "10-15" is within the tolerance bounds of the value ( you would expect to turn up statistically

So are you agreeing that there support was proportionate or was I wildly inaccurate? The 120 people was the audience and my comments were that the audience mix probably fairly well represented the population mix.

as well as many neutrals, there was also a reasonable thnic mix with caucasians being in the majority. The questions came from a mix of ethnicities and were reasonably representative

So 4 questions (out of 5) directly about the BNP and it's policies is representative of the current UK news?

Out of interest, as I only saw the 'highlights' how many questions were asked by 'non-ethnic' british and was that representative of the UK population?

I took your question to be about the racial mix of the questioners not the subject of the questions. The questions were not representative of current affairs but that was presumably because most of the audience asked similar questions on a narrow range of subjects.

as were the comments.

The 'comments' that I did manage to see seemed to be mainly abuse and involved lots of shouting, but as i didn't see the whole thing i'll accept your comment

There certainly was an awful lot of bile spilled but there were some reasonable comments from some of the audience. I'm certainly not going to expose myself to your derision by giving an estimate but my opinion was that there were a few very active abusive commenters, a couple of hecklers and the rest seemed fairly neutral but you would have to make up your own mind when you see it for yourself.

I hate people who don't even take the time to read a post properly and rant about numbers and still don't manage to change anything that was said. Griffin was well represented and had more than you would expect from a cross-section of society but hey, don't bother to watch the programme or read a post properly, why let that get in the way of your opinion?

I read the post properly, ranted about numbers (as they were important to your post) and hopefully managed to demonstrate that Griffin was probably realistically represented and not over-represented as was the main thrust of your arguement.

As I said I have seen part of the program, I will attempt to spare some time to watch the whole thing in due course, but my post had nothing to do with the programme content, just your twisted attempt to use statistics to boost your point, which I wanted to correct.

It wasn't a twisted attempt to use statistics to boost my point, I had drawn the conclusion that the audience was probably fairly representative, impression can obviously become distorted by a vocal minority appearing far more in number than they actually were, but I used a simple analogy to illustrate my thinking not to reinforce a point it was a back of the fag packet rough calculation not a mathematical thesis. Many are talking about the ethnic mix as if this reinforces Griffin's claims that he was bushwacked. Just because someone has a brown face does not necessarily mean that they've come to boo and heckle Griffin, a very eloquent 'City Gent' type illustrated that beautifully. That there was a very vocal minority there was inevitable when you consider that this man fronts an organisation that appears to see nothing wrong with a final solution.

S_R

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

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

No its not. Competition is fundamental to evolution, survival etc. Speciesism, tribalism are, but racism isnt - why? Because up until very, very recently we didn't invent this crap about there being more than one race. It is not scientific, it is political, so you are completely wrong to try and mix it into a scientific explanation and attempt to justify racism that way.

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

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

We are all guilty of racism? Really? Show me when I last was. (okay, this may depend on your definition of racism, so probably on dodgy ground).

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

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Well, those resources are still shelter, heat, food etc., we just use these other things as enablers to get them. So they are NOT resources to be fought over, by any stretch.

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

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Do I count? I am 25% Irish (republic), 25% Danish, 50% British (and by British I mean descended from Angles / Saxons / Vikings etc).

What is your definition of "Native British"?

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.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Because your final argument is based on the spruious claims you made at the start, I haven't bothered taking them apart - as they are built on dodgy foundation anyway. Sort those out, and you might have a cogent argument.

Also - I don't follow your maths. An extra 10 million people over 20 years - is an extra 10 million people - not 7 million? Have I missed something?

Well, as soon as you realise that the answer to the question - where can we build houses for another 7 million people is quite simply - all over the bloody place - anywhere there is spare land.

Also - what are your answers to it - in order to reduce the population, do we implement birth controls - i.e. you are only allowed one child per family because we are getting close to the maximum number of people?

I don't think you are racist, personally. I just don't think you have thought through your argument, but that is only my opinion.

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

Originally Posted by All_I_Want

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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.)

Here's a comment from the Daily Mail.

I was in the QT audience last night. Before we went into the studio for filming we were held in a holding room. (I was in there for over two hours) I was on my own and was never aware you could get multiple tickets. I arrived early and it became very obvious that groups of people were arriving who new each other. I spoke to three different people who worked for an agency who supplied audience people for the BBC.

Before the show the Chairman of the panel came into the holding room and encouraged us to boo and shout if we did not agree with certain things that were said by the panel. He said as we had Griffin on the show, we don't want to miss an opportunity.

This was an organised stitch up by the BBC.

- Peter, Oxford, Oxfordshire, 23/10/2009 10:56

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by All_I_Want

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by 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.)

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

Originally Posted by jaspery

Here's a comment from the Daily Mail.

I was in the QT audience last night. Before we went into the studio for filming we were held in a holding room. (I was in there for over two hours) I was on my own and was never aware you could get multiple tickets. I arrived early and it became very obvious that groups of people were arriving who new each other. I spoke to three different people who worked for an agency who supplied audience people for the BBC.

Before the show the Chairman of the panel came into the holding room and encouraged us to boo and shout if we did not agree with certain things that were said by the panel. He said as we had Griffin on the show, we don't want to miss an opportunity.

This was an organised stitch up by the BBC.

- Peter, Oxford, Oxfordshire, 23/10/2009 10:56

Panel show audience Walt! :D

Originally Posted by jaspery

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bolo-Driller

Originally Posted by jaspery

Here's a comment from the Daily Mail.

I was in the QT audience last night. Before we went into the studio for filming we were held in a holding room. (I was in there for over two hours) I was on my own and was never aware you could get multiple tickets. I arrived early and it became very obvious that groups of people were arriving who new each other. I spoke to three different people who worked for an agency who supplied audience people for the BBC.

Before the show the Chairman of the panel came into the holding room and encouraged us to boo and shout if we did not agree with certain things that were said by the panel. He said as we had Griffin on the show, we don't want to miss an opportunity.

This was an organised stitch up by the BBC.

- Peter, Oxford, Oxfordshire, 23/10/2009 10:56

Panel show audience Walt! :D

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

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by jaspery

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

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.

You trying to say anti-racists are impolite ?

Originally Posted by jaspery

Here's a comment from the Daily Mail.

I was in the QT audience last night. Before we went into the studio for filming we were held in a holding room. (I was in there for over two hours) I was on my own and was never aware you could get multiple tickets. I arrived early and it became very obvious that groups of people were arriving who new each other. I spoke to three different people who worked for an agency who supplied audience people for the BBC.

Before the show the Chairman of the panel came into the holding room and encouraged us to boo and shout if we did not agree with certain things that were said by the panel. He said as we had Griffin on the show, we don't want to miss an opportunity.

This was an organised stitch up by the BBC.

- Peter, Oxford, Oxfordshire, 23/10/2009 10:56

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.