h1

It was like a rematch of Rocky 5

October 23, 2009

Well it was like a remake of Rocky 5 with Jack, “Balboa,” Straw in the blue corner, and Nick, “Tommy Gunn,” in the red corner. Nick Griffin was shoddy; his arrogance and racist thinking began to shine through in what was also billed as on of BBC’s most controversial programme’s. What University gave him a 2:2 degree?

Does Question Time allow Nick Griffin, the leader of a racist party that is allowed to exist in our democracy, a platform, or not?  How many times did Griffin avoid the questions, how many times did he appear to hide beneath the cloak of race, but he says what his party wants has nothing to do with colour or race? What a load of bollocks again from this race ideology.

Initially he denied the Holocaust, then he was cleared of inciting racial hatred, thereafter he claims that Winston Churchill, if he was alive today, would sit with the BNP. Griffin also claimed that his father was in the RAF, well goody for him, and because his father fought against Hitler that makes Griffin not a Nazi. The fact is Griffin’s cronies do not like Black and Asian people, indeed any people of colour are disliked. What a tame excuse form a weak individual.

Griffin states the press misquote him; yet several  youtube clips somehow quote him well within his vile racial tones. Of course we would like to shut Abu Hamza up because he preaches hatred of the West. Why the hell are we not prepared top actually shut up this ignorant and malicious individual?

Now, in 2009, the BNP have been forced to let in minority ethnic people of colour and still Richard Barnbrook stood at the door of a BNP meeting and refused entry to Black people. The BNP are an absolute and dangerous phenomena, but Griffin said one thing which really matters; he implied that he wanted to influence the young and this is the critical point we wanted to make.

These people will try and influence the youngsters to go out and do the dirty work; this then becomes our problem.  Today Griffin claimed that he will make a complaint against the BBC stating, “It wasn’t real question time, it was like a lynch mob.”

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. Twinning I have to disagree with you but Question time was a major coup for the BNP. First the panel and audience seemed slanted against Griffin and secondly he seemed to be heckled and talked over by the other panelists. For the people they want to recruit namely white working and lower middle class it probaly struck a chord. As an avid question time viewer since my A level days in the late 80’s it was the most biased programme. The greatest weapon against the BNP is to treat them like any other political party because the more they spout their policies the dafter they sound!!


  2. Is the university question rhetorical?

    In case it wasn’t, he went to Cambridge.

    Personally I think people, even those who we don’t like what they say, should be allowed to speak – provided they’re not advocating violence. We can then hold their ideas up to the light and show why they’re wrong.


  3. Much disrespect to Cambridge.


  4. Met… I agree, it was totally biased against Griffin. Whatever we might think of him (can’t say I would ever warm to his slimy evasive character), the program, panel and audience, spoiled an opportunity for informed debate.

    Pity we couldn’t have seen structured questions about their policies to test him properly in the public eye. Allowing the opportunity to descend into personal attacks and racial arguments only served to strengthen his support from his existing followers.

    I would like to have seen DD ask him exactly how he would turn these policies into reality. Perhaps then the public might have had a better measure of him as a potential politician. If his verbal argument for policy is weak, his public support would diminish.

    Had a look at their policies and if you strip out the race issues for a moment, the remaining gyst of SOME (not all) of their Crime & Justice policies seem to make sense.

    •Return to traditional standards of law enforcement, combined with social reform directed at addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour.
    •Free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket which is stopping them from doing their jobs properly;
    •End the liberal fixation with the “rights” of criminals and replace it with concern for the rights of victims – and the right of innocent people not to become victims;
    •Re-introduce corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals;
    •Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence).
    •Decades of social welfare dependence which is the primary cause of social delinquency, must be brought to an end.
    •Social reform is required. Work, not welfare, except to the neediest, should be the norm. Only in this way can the cycle of social deprivation, which is the primary cause of criminality, be broken.
    •Focus on policies that increase job opportunities for those in unemployment benefit for more than six months with compulsory work and training in return for decent payment.
    •The concrete monstrosities which blight our urban areas and which are the breeding ground for delinquency and crime should be torn down and replaced with decent housing which encourages the stable family unit.
    •Overcrowding in prisons could be alleviated by the deportation of the tens of thousands of foreign criminals to serve their sentences abroad in their home countries. This alone will free up to 70 percent of jail space in many prisons.
    •Prisons should be more austere and criminals should serve their full sentences.
    •Offenders will be made to understand that they are being punished and not rewarded with a state-subsidised holiday for their crimes.
    •Use of electronically tagged “chain gangs” to provide labour for projects such as coastal defences;
    •Put police back on the streets and remove their current political correctness shackles;
    •Allow victims of crime full freedom to defend themselves and their property;
    •Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;
    •Police to concentrate on real criminals and serve the public, not the government’s political aspirations.
    •Crime must be tackled firstly by effective policing, and secondly by Government addressing the root social causes of crime.

    Can’t speak for the rest of their manifesto and the race issue will always be their undoing, however many of their crime policies echo a groundswell of popular opinion.

    Strange that in amongst all the racist bile and venom, there are actually some common sense, sound policies that will likely be the babies thrown out with the bathwater.


  5. Some of the above are dangerous policies if the system works against people of colour.

    Corporal punishment?

    Death penalty?

    Stops?

    Searches?

    Deportation of foreign criminals?

    These are all potentially fascist.


  6. You’re quite right sarge.

    As I understand it from the Oxford Online, fascism as “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice”.

    Any policies, however sound are flawed if they are implemented by a group with fascist or worse, racial leanings, as I suspect the BNP are. They have shown enough signs that they would not Govern impartially and I would hope that the public have the sense to see that.

    I am an old sweat (ex job) who believes in corporal and capital punishment as a last resort measure of the judiciary. Our judicial system has become a laughing stock among the criminal fraternity and the softly softly pc measures that last generation have exacurbated the problem dramatically, making the job immensely more difficult than it inherently is.

    Any measure of reform is open to abuse if those that implement it are so inclined. That doesn’t mean the intention of the reform was misguided, just that it has the potential to be perverted.

    As far as the deportation of foreign criminals is concerned, I have to say I’m inclined to favour a strictly policed version of such a policy. It sticks in the craw that we, the British taxpayer continue to fund the encarceration of indiduals who have abused the hospitality of the nation and the privileges it bequeaths to visitors.

    This has no regard to colour in my book. I don’t care if the offender is white, black or green – if they have broken the law of this democratic land, they should lose the right to the benefits. We see prison as a punishment, but who funds it? You and I and the ordinary taxpayer. The prison service has an occupancy problem. If deporting those who are not entitled to be here provides a partial solution, then it should be seriously considered.

    I am fully supportive of a cosmopolitan society, enriched by the variety of cultures, experiences and talents. It is the injustice of reverse descrimination, where law abiding nationals are asked to tolerate criminal behaviour and then have to pay for the privilege of keeping them under lock and key that goes against the grain.

    I am not talking about the offender who is entitled by law of citizenship to remain in this country. Each should be provided the opportunity to rehabilitate. However, there are those in the system to whom this does not apply and the deportation card should be used swiftly, if we are to demonstrate that the justice system is firm yet fair and not the toothless tiger it is portrayed to be.

    Similar policies are presented by the mainstream parties. The conservative policy for social reform seems to tick most of the boxes of transparency and honesty. However, what they say and what they will do if and when in power might be different.

    Chris Grayling MP (Shadow Home Sec) has visited our site and sent e mails of support, but the fact is any politician can talk about resuscitating public trust. The party that demonstrates their intentions and follows it up with decisive action that is genuinely in the public interest, will have the best chance of achieving it.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: