Shocking.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/latest- ... 5763380.jp

One in five could welcome to the board and kiss my piece.

This is not about politics though is it. The ambush by the BBC the other night has completely backfired. You know how the British people still even now, love an underdog and fair play. Nick Griffin was the victim and people tend to support the victim.

If that is true maybe questions should be asked why instead of people shouting racist when people try to say why they would follow Griffin.

My point is that it was such an obvious set up people in this country tend to gravitate towards the victim rather than the orchestrator. It's not a political point I'm saying it goes against the inherent and historical belief in fair play. The BBC would have been far better playing it with a straight bat.

No argument with that but the post QT surge in BNP support is nothing to do with those things, its about the perception (and reality) that he was stitched up by the Hamstead and Islington based intelligencia of the BBC. The panel line up, the hand picked audience, the seat placement (notice that the Griffin supporters were way up at the back?) That program was supposed to be a debate in which the policies of the BNP could be shown to be extreme, whereas in reality it was a load of people queuing up to big themselves up in their a 'I'm more anti BNP that you are' and 'I can attack this bloke more than you can' way.

The end result is that people seen a bloke treated grossly unfairly ironically by a load of people who were outraged by that bloke's unfair policies. There was plenty of facism in that program but it wasn't from Griffin and thats what got peoples goat and why it was the greatest recruitment drive the BNP has ever had.

Exactly................I said the very same thing in another thread.

Didn't really want to comment on here re BNP as its a fairly pointless exercise - opinions tend to be entrenched and it becomes a little on the posturing side, but ...

The phrase "the Hamstead and Islington based intelligencia of the BBC" is a virtual lift from what Griffin actually said, and is utter wank. The BBC is THE finest public broadcasting institution in the world, revered around the globe and held up as an example of best practise by most national media organisations. If you have travelled abroad and witnessed what passes for PSB, or indeed general news reporting, and still agree with your quoted phrase then you must have another agenda other than commenting on the BBC. Granted, a difficult situation - QT - wasn't handled brilliantly but however it was or wasn't done was going to court critisim. To claim this is a "the Hamstead and Islington based intelligencia of the BBC" says more about where your ideology and politics are rooted and very little about the event.

As it goes I wouldnt have let the odious prick on TV but they did, he looked like the shite he was and they will never get anywhere in mainstream politics above where they are now. They need discontent, recession and fear to grow - these things come in cycles, and as soon as the economy improves the BNP will feck off back under their rock.

They, and there supporters, deserve little comment, discussion or fecking airtime.

I sincerely hope this helps.

Two points; I didn't lift it from anywhere, if it is similar to what Griffin or anyone else said then I susoect it is based on the factual issues rather than copying.

My ideology is right wing, nobody can ever suggest I have ever hidden the fact. I am not however far right or facist and I don't vote BNP. This is not because I don't have any sympathy with some of their policies, I do but more because I don't believe there is the skill set in the BNP to operate a government. Besides, there are some BNP policies I vehermently disagree with.

Take your right wing ideologies to a right wing web site, discuss it there.

.. and you can take your 'undefined, if indeed you possess , have , or even have or have ever given a single thought to politcs other than following the majority' ideology to a 'waiting to see what everyone else says before following them' site ... and 'discuss' it there.

On the subject of voting BNP ....... NOBODY, apart from a minority, actually admits to voting for the them, but people do. ... and there's the problem.

I think he doesnt realise.

The audience is 'hand-picked' every edition to represent voting patterns. The hostility he felt accurately represents the feelings of the 100 or so people I have heard discuss or discussed the programme with over the last week.

I live in a constituency in North Yorkshire where Labour loses its deposit and our MP is little Willy Hague. Yet, over the last week, when everyone has been talking , alas, about the festering boil that is the BNP I have heard only one attention-seeking drunk voice support to them.

Some people have longer memories than the BNP give them credit for. The reasons people despise then (and feel violently opposed to them) were neatly summarised by an extrememly right-wing guy on my pool team last week. When he began to join the debate about Griffin I cringed because I was certain he would support them, given his usual views. Instead he came up with this gem:

'If you're going to support that bong-eyed little shit then you might as well go to the war memorial and p i s s on it, because arseholes like him are what those men died fighting against'

About right I think. And then people are surprised when an audience reaction is hostile.

By the way Mr I, I don't know what a psychologist would make of someone using the phrase 'intelligentsia' ('the educated people in a society') as term of scorn.

I'm not sure excatly how you could have a debate with the BNP, though. I think that's what was coming over in that programme, rather than it's being a stitch-up.
Griffin simply doesn't respond to most rational points that are put to him. He 'forgets' he's said things; he's 'changed his mind' (and therefore no longer has to explain 'awkward' positions). When people tell him his view of race history is demonstrable false, he doesn't reply. Neither does he reply when it's pointed out that people from what he calls 'other' races fought for Britain, or contribute to British life. Neither, significantly, has he even got a plan for 're-patriating' the thousands of people he thinks ought to be re-patriated (including the backlash of other countries returning 'our' people to Britain). In short, he just isn't amenable to normal debate. It's as tho the Yorkshire Ripper wanted a platform to advocate murder.

can anyone remember when all those Yanks thought that was real?

Nobody except a minority admit to voting for the bnp - because it is a minority, so the majority couldn't admit to it.
duh!

They've just completed a remake of V and it's about to be aired in a couple of weeks.

.. if a concepts too hard to comprehend, it's not worth comprehending eh...? doh.

Ah, so loads of people would vote bnp but dont cos they're too clever to admit it! Cunning!

I'll keep it simple for you, of the people who vote BNP, the majority will not admit to having voted for the party, only a minority will admit to voting for them ... there.

So very few people vote for the bnp, and of those who do, not many actually admit to it.

So some people who are "undefined, or indeed possess ,have, or ever have given a single thought to politics blah blah etc" wont say so. Ummm? Strong convictions.

I can be accused of many things but undefined in my political views is not one of them.

Do I support the BNP? No. If I did then believe me I would say so.
Do I believe we are allowing too many people into the country? absolutely.
Asylum Seekers? I don't believe a single one has been genuine. The rules state that you claim asylum in the first safe country (as long as the state benefit is to your liking) How you get from Afghanistan to the UK without passing through a safe country is beyond my comprehension.
Would I deport foreigners? BNP policy is to kick out foreign criminals - absolutely I agree.
Would I deport Asians/niggers?
I know a good many Asians and I don't know any I would deport. Well there is one but he tried to get off with my missus and as much as I don't like him I'm not sure its a valid reason for deportation.
niggers? Everyone who is convicted of gun crime / drugs then out they go. If they were born here then fuck them off to the country of the heritage. Law abiding black citizens I have no problem with whatsoever.
Poles / Jews; I have no issue with either group. But the foreign criminal veto would stand. I don't think its particularly relevant in these two group anyway.

Right wing, yes. BNP, no.

So you would send back a convicted gun criminal to Jamaica, because his grandfather came from there in the 50's? I doubt the Jamaican authorities would agree with your policy.

Absolutely!

I also do explanations in Cave painting form and pictograms for the chronically pedantic.

Three pictograms with Angel Delight topping for me please.

Mr I, your political opinions are obvious as you mention them frequently. I have no issue with them, I don't agree obviously but in a democracy we all have the right to opinion. As I said previously, an arguement on the BNP is pointless and you have made it clear that you don't vote BNP as all their policies don't fit your politics - fair enough. You sound like, and by Reading previuous posts, obviously are an intelligent bloke. So why say "Asylum Seekers? I don't believe a single one has been genuine."

Every one bogus? Every single one? I guess that's the difference, I'm proud of my country, really proud that we can be seen as a safe haven from evil regimes. Aye, some will take the pi$$, but not all, not by a long way. I genuinely want our country, our culture as being seen as one that can and will help-guess that's the difference.

I think the point Mr I making is that they are bogus but there is very little chance of the UK being the first country they could possibly come across.

Personally I think there must be more to it than that.

I think its exactly that. Asylum is supposed to be claimed at the first safe haven. Saying every single one is probably stretching the point, but unless you arrive by plane or ship then I don't see how the claim is justified. Given that the overwhelming number arrive through Calais its hard to understand how the UK is the first safe haven.

Take Iraq for example. To get here you would have to go through; Turkey, Bulgaris, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Belgium & France. How are they all unsafe countries?

This is the one reason that my contention is that almost all claims are bogus.

I don't think you can say your sample is average of the UK. In the euro elections 6.2% of voters voted for the BNP. Only 15.7% voted Labour so for every 5 Labour voters out there there were 2 BNP voters!! Try repeating what you did in Bolton, Leeds or any one of another 100 towns and cities and you will get a very different answer.

The strategy of portraying them as a tiny minority, just like Jack Straw tried to do, is exactly what Griffin is feeding on. It just adds to his argument of BNP supporters views being ignored by the main parties. The recent rise of the BNP is 100% to do with this Government.

This raises an interesting question. If the supporters of BNP and fat West Ham fans became a majority, would you still support democracy? I wouldn't, but then I'm not sure I do now either.

So when exactly would you think that support is significant 5%, 10%, 20%??? Thats the point I'm making. People are trying to convince themselves that the BNP are not a force and their party and arguments can be dismissed and ignored. But that is exactly what the BNP are feeding on. Their policies on immigration are hitting home with a lot of people and they then say to them that everyone else ignores you so vote BNP.

If Labour, Conservatives etc continue in this fashion you will one day have a large and strong BNP and then it might be too late to act.

the Adventures of Fat Hammer on ITB board was quality!!!

Yes, I agree, but I meant, would you still support the principle of votes for everyone?

But what if it didn't disappear? It's a thought experiment, right. If everyone voted and the majority opted for a party like BNP, would you still think votes-for-everyone is a good thing, given the consequences to the human race of being ruled by people like them?

Yes, provided that they didn't do what Adolf did and immediately remove democratic voting once they achieved power.

Democracy has to be allowed to function even if some people don't like the outcome.

I would make voting compulsory for everybody over 21 and take the vote off people under that age.

You can't make people vote, what you gunna do force a pen in there hand?

You'd get people with no real knowledge of parties just voting for anyone cos they had too!

Of course you can't make people vote, but you can make it illegal not to.

Minimum 6 months jail for anybody failing to cast their vote would be a good enough incentive I reckon, increasing by 6 months for every subsequent failure up to the maximum length of the Parliament.

We wouldn't be the first country in the Western world to make voting mandatory.

I don't think it's a question of just 'not liking the outcome', though, is it? More that if the BNP got in, this would be reducing the human race to its lowest common denominator. Not even mentioning the race and ethics issues, someone on the board has already pointed out the hatred expressed by BNP members for people who can think rationally (or, the intelligentsia, if you prefer...)

But you say that cos you wouldn't like the outcome that had been determined by democratic means.

Well i dont vote, so im a 'lovely lovely person'.

In democratic terms then yes, you are.

So if everybody voted because it was mandatory and that was the outcome (it's hypothetical anyway as it wouldn't happen) then you would have the choice as to whether you accept it and live under that Government or if you would leave and go elsewhere.

Or you could look to stage a coup and remove people's democratic rights because you don't agree with them.

gordon brown didnt win an election but we accepted him as pm if godforbid bnp ever get in then what could we do?

Well, I wouldn't like it, to be sure, but the reason I wouldn't like it is the effect on the human race.
I think the people who run a country ought to be able to bring about the greatest good to the greatest number of people, or at least do the least harm. I think that should be the principle people should use when voting. It isn't a principle too many people go by, and that's why I think democracy isn't necessarily the ideal system.

ADG, you and I can form the 'Ethical People's Party'.

So, this EPP?

What's it's manifesto?

If you don't agree with our ideals we'll stop you from being able to vote?

Is that not a little totalitarian?

THE EPP ARE FACISTS!!!

Do what I did.

Vote communist.