Sunday 25 October 2009

Kudos to the Daily Mail for..

.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222769/Dishonest-Blair-Straw-accused-secret-plan-multicultural-UK.html

Sounds rather like something a particular political party has been saying for quite some time.

Funny how it has taken a certain appearance on Question Time for someone else to publicly say so too..!

Question Time..

The most talked about edition of Question Time has been and gone - yet the fuss and furore surrounding the inclusion of Nick Griffin shows no sign of abating.

To be fair, given the circumstances (i.e. the BBC/programme-producers threw him to the hounds by hand-picking the audience and encouraging those who were selected to speak to be as hostile as possible), I don't think he did too badly.

It is all very well for various commentators (e.g. Libby Purves in The Times, alongside every other media outlet going) to pan Nick Griffin's performance, but the simple fact was that for the most part he wasn't allowed to finish answering the questions put to him without being interrupted by either a panel member, David Dimbleby or the audience. If he had been allowed to speak, he would have come over a lot better - but then, that wouldn't have been what the programme producers wanted.

I cannot recall a previous edition of Question Time where successive members of the audience were allowed to take it in turns to launch into prepared attacks/diatribes on a panel member without admonishment of some form - but then, this was no ordinary Question Time.

The audience was the most ethnically diverse QT audience I can remember seeing - the producers even managed to find a Jewish child, complete with skull cap, to jump in with a Holocaust question..! Hurrah for the farcical pantomime the programme rapidly became.

Whilst it is all very well for the media/commentators to loudly proclaim that the programme 'revealed the BNP for the horrid organisation it really is', that isn't what happened -and isn't true. Nick Griffin was barely given an opportunity to speak without being interrupted or shouted over by the audience or the panel. What was revealed by the programme, though, is that even Jack Straw found himself unable to defend New Labour's track record on immigration..!

Whilst Bonnie Greer was only too keen to try to pick apart the BNP's version of 'what is British', all she really achieved was to show that she absolutely no understanding of why we want to defend what remains of the 'British' way of life and our cultural heritage. She does not even seem to appreciate why we perceive our way of life/heritage to be under attack - which seems ironic for the deputy director of the British Museum(!)

Happily, it seems a fair majority of observers take the view that the BBC/programme-producers skewed the show so as to allow the audience, panel and chairman to gang-up on Griffin - hence demonstrating what appears to be the institutional bias of the BBC and thereby presenting Griffin as a victim. Surprisingly, even the broadsheet newspapers have reported this view, which lends credence to the BNP's position that it has historically been the victim of media bias, hostile reporting, etc.

So, all in all, it does not seem the Question Time appearance has done the party any harm - whereas it has damaged the reputations of those who seek to supress it. In the circumstances it has been grossly unfair for those who have set out to criticise Griffin's performance to do so - he did the best any one could have done in the face of overwhelming hostility.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. It has been widely reported that 22% of people questioned following the programme in a YouGov poll said that they would 'seriously consider' voting BNP in future elections. However representative that may have been, it seems things are heading in the right direction..

Tuesday 20 October 2009

BNP membership list leaked 'again'

"Oh no, not again" pretty much sums up my thoughts here. The party says the 'new' list (published on Wikileaks) is a forgery and that a lot of the information it contains is fictitious - but seems to concede that it contains details of some who have made enquiries about membership/the-party-in-general in the run up to the European elections.

The question has to be *how* has the additional information (assuming it is valid) been extracted from the party's records. I had thought that the party would have learnt any necessary security lessons the last time round and could manage to avoid further information falling into the public domain - but apparently not.

It pains me to say it, but I feel let down. The party needs to recognise (and act on the fact) that whilst a lot of people are willing to support it in whatever way they can, it needs to repay the favour by ensuring that their details remain secure.

I'm sure it's not as if the party takes data protection lightly, but if data is still escaping, something still isn't right and it needs to be fixed.