Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/22/09 06:19 PM, Gagsy wrote: Also, yeah this country sucks. Let's move to Canada.

I did. It's great! I recommend it.

At 10/22/09 06:39 PM, Gagsy wrote: Also I don't agree with children being taught about homosexuality at young ages and I'm pro homosexuality. Perhaps I can admit that because I'm not part of the biased Question Time audience.

Exactly, he made a perfect point about that, homosexuality happens but why should we subject primary school children to it? Not even homosexuality specifically, all sex isn't suitable for 8 year olds which is what he reiterated. They asked if he didn't want homosexual people to kiss in public and he said yes, they didn't say "Do you only want to ban homosexual people from kissing and not straight people?".

At 10/22/09 06:39 PM, liljim wrote: I thought he made some valid points NOW AND THEN, but he still proved to be a total and utter cunt overall.

What gets to me is that they ignored all his valid points totally, which I guess is understandable but this is supposed to be bias lacking but oh no, they ignore them totally and then Jack Straw only waffles about irrelevant shit and nobody boos, they just ignore it as if he's a fucking saint.

From as much as I've heard about this party, I still really don't see why the BBC would actually offer him a soapbox to stand on. I understand the whole impartiality thing, but can you honestly say that the entire ideology of the BNP is mainstream enough to warrant attention?

This really only benefits them as a way of getting the attention that they cannot get regularly. I'm sure their supporters will now view this as a personal attack and actually try to empower their base. Hell; even someone who may not agree with the majority of things they say might catch light of one point he makes and actually be drawn to that. Believe me, that is possible; just look at all the lower-class people here in the US who believe the trickle-down theory benefits them, or angry right-to-lifers who are indifferent to war or the death penalty.

At 10/22/09 06:50 PM, liljim wrote: The bbc is supposed to be impartial, they can't account for the audience, though. If the majority of the audience is against him from the start, then the bbc can't do much about that.

Not sure if other outlets that they use count under impartiality, but the twitter account for the show was tweeting things that were clearly anti nick griffin and bnp, which I'm sure they aren't supposed to do. this account had a tweet earlier saying something about nick griffin being a dick, but it's since been removed, but it still has only negative things about him when there are people saying positive things. Regardless of whether or not these things are right, surely by only displaying the negative they're being totally bias.

silly bbc

At 10/22/09 06:40 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

I did. It's great! I recommend it.

Can I marry you and get a green card?

At 10/22/09 06:50 PM, liljim wrote:

Furthermore, they hosted the show in London, which is probably one of if not THE most multi-cultural cities in the world, so anyone preaching racism of any sort is typically going to be lynched there.

I doubt the majority of the audience actually hail from London though. I know a guy I work with tried to get in the audience with his girlfriend. Sadly they couldn't get it. This is down in Kent, basically East Sussex end. I imagine many people travelled just to try and get in.

But that's got nothing to do with it anyway I think. The people who turned up tonight were ALWAYS going to be anti Nick Griffin/BNP to the point that they felt it worth a trip to a political show to show their distaste for him.

At 10/22/09 06:52 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: From as much as I've heard about this party, I still really don't see why the BBC would actually offer him a soapbox to stand on. I understand the whole impartiality thing, but can you honestly say that the entire ideology of the BNP is mainstream enough to warrant attention?

When they get to like a million votes or whatever the figure was, apparently it does.

I was thoroughly disappointed, but not surprised, with this show. Wait, the BNP might be racist? No way, I'd NEVER have worked that out for myself. Our country is at war, in an economic crisis and one of our major utilities is striking, let's waste an entire hour of prime political discussion on how some minority party got in by a few thousand votes by focussing EVERY SINGLE QUESTION at them. Just ask actual questions about what people care about and he'll kill himself. There's no need to turn the thing into the Nick Griffin Show.

Also, politics forum ldo, you should know better James :-)

At 10/22/09 07:04 PM, liljim wrote: The primary discussion I intended to spark on this thread was to do with the show, not the politics that Griffin represents, which could be summed up in a few words.

Sieg Heil?

The BBC were absolutely right to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. I don't see how it would be acceptable for the media to suppress a party based on their own ideas of what is acceptable. The BBC were right to allow the public to form their own opinion on whether the BNP are bad or not. What does it say if they don't allow Nick Griffin on? I think it says "Sorry British public, you don't have the collective intelligence to listen to Nick Griffin and know he's a cunt".

I'm especially glad they had him on, because earlier yesterday my friends asked me who I was going to vote for at the next election, and I said I hadn't given it much thought. Truly, I can't think of any party that deserves to run this country, so not voting is a pretty easy conclusion to come to. But then I saw Question Time, and I was reminded that apathy is just as bad as voting BNP.

I can't justify voting Tory over Labour over Lib Dem or whoever, but I equally can't justify allowing BNP garner a comparatively higher percentage of votes thanks to my apathy. I think this is part of why the BNP have had more success recently, but even though I can't stand the main parties, I hate the BNP more, and I will vote for someone just in a bid to prevent the BNP gaining anything.

Still i hate the BNP less than UKIP, mainly because there a one issue party and ignorant about the EU, but to be honest so am I but still one issue parties are silly. But I still might vote for the BNP just for the lulz cos my vote wont make a difference anyhow. Anyway Nick griffin keeps going on about the English, welsh, irish and scottish being the indigenous peoples of britain, that guy has forgotten about all the cornish, manx, Jerriais, Guernesiais, Sercquiais,Auregnais and arguably the british jews and gypsies as indigenous peoples too. Goddamn racist forgetting the Manx.

At 10/22/09 06:39 PM, liljim wrote: I thought he made some valid points NOW AND THEN, but he still proved to be a total and utter cunt overall.

The only bit that sounded slightly worthy was the truce between Islam and Christianity in England - they don't beat up women and we allow them to stay. I was put off straight afterwards due to the fact of being reminded about how deceptive Nick Griffin can be by that woman that represented the Conservatives.

completely forgot her name

I was laughing at whenever Nick Griffin was proven to be a big, elephantitus dick - mainly by the woman he was sitting next to, as well.

and christ knows I've forgotten her name, too

The funniest bit on the question time was when someone said D then paused and said Nick Griffin.

While I in no way support or condone his policies I feel he was the strongest panellist. Most of the time he listened to the other's views whereas he couldn't speak for more than a few seconds without the other panellists shouting him down.

Also, at least he answered his questions truthfully - 'I'm against two men kissing in public' - compared with Jack Straw who when asked whether the BNP's rise in popularity was due to the failure of Labour's immigration policy completly avoided the question and spent 5 minutes talking about the previous conservative government and even made reference to Enoch Powell (conservative minister who said basically the same things about immigration in the 60s) and only stopped when David Dimbelby told him Labour have been in power for 12 years, he can't blame teh BNPs success on the Tories.

Finally, the audience were completly biased against him and nothing he said could have changed that.

At 10/23/09 02:47 PM, liljim wrote: It's pretty funny that he's also filed a complaint against the BBC for being biased in all of this. The truth of the matter is that he's probably not been in front of a forum of people who don't all agree with him, so when he got nailed on pretty much everything he said, it must have come as a bit of a shock to him.

I didn't notice it myself but I was told that he was shaking really badly during the booing, so maybe.