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..

Hurray..!

Finally, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has commenced legal proceedings in respect of the BNP's membership policy..!

This can only be good news, as it will expose the sheer hypocrisy of the EHRC (i.e. there are sooo many other organisations they could have gone for, such as the Society of Black Lawyers, the Black Police Association, etc), it will bring huge levels of publicity for the BNP and there's a very good chance the EHRC will be unsuccessful - pretty much win-win, then.

As the EHRC action proceeds, the public will become increasingly educated as to what the BNP stands for and the chances are, that set against the hypocrisy and do-gooding-political-correctness that pervades the EHRC, they may even start to sympathise. This level of publicity would have cost huge amounts of money to buy-in - all this, for free..!

Okay, yes - legal fees will be involved, but the BNP has an army of supporters who will undoubtedly dig into their pockets to assist - and if the BNP successfully defends the action, the chances are that the EHRC will have to reimburse the BNP's costs anyway..!

Gerald Warner's piece here summarises things pretty well. All in all, this should make for an entertaining couple of months..!

Red White & Blue 2009

Predictably enough, the success of this year's event has resulted in an unsurprisingly low level of media coverage - (bar a couple of ugly mugs from the UAF managing to get their faces shown (hopefully for the last time) in the press).

In the absence of anything much else to write about, it seems the Guardian and the Independent have been left desperately scraping the barrel in search of something to say.

So, what we have today (or rather, yesterday) in the Guardian's editorial is the somewhat sweeping/provocative statement that 'the near million who voted for the British National Party in June's Euro-elections are certainly angry and no doubt racist [in some varying degree]..'.

Actually, no. Having a sense of pride in the traditions and culture of this country and accordingly wishing to ensure these are protected from the creeping erosion of multi-culturalism and political correctness does not make me a racist. The Guardian's editorial is just another example of lazily written, politically motivated drivel somehow finding its way into print.

According to Rachel Shields in the Independent, Red White and Blue 2009 'both fascinated and appalled in its apparent normality'. Uhm, 'apparent' normality..? Putting conceptual difficulties re normality to one side, something is either 'normal', or it isn't - what Rachel perhaps meant to say is that she was disappointed the event wasn't less normal.. - or put another way, that she didn't find a bunch of skin-headed blokes teaching others the art of regimented goose-stepping. That, after all, would have made a far better story.

I think it's time that people woke up a little and realised that it is hugely misleading to suggest that all BNP supporters/members are racist/fascist thugs - we are not.

Yet again, all Unite Against Facism and the others have managed to demonstrate this weekend is that they are incapable of conducting themselves in public and that they find it impossible to tolerate views other than their own.

Sooner or later, though, they will find that it is their views that come to be considered unpalatable/incongruous with the mainstream. Sooner or later the lunatic-left (or some religously motivated fanatic, perhaps?) will go too far - and the tide of public opinion will turn.

Fingers crossed this will be sooner than the UAF and other smug, self-righteous, 'self appointed guardians of left wing bollocks' believe.

Oh for Christ's sake.

Will the ultra left-wing liberal media please just get over the fact that (1) the BNP has been democratically elected, (2) it is a legally constituted political party and - (3) let's be frank, it leads on policies that strike a chord with a great many of the British people.

The sheer number of articles published in the Guardian in the vein of this is beyond a joke. It is not racist to seek to protect the interests and welfare of the indigenous people of these islands. It is discriminatory towards these people, however, to increasingly seek to undermine our position in society and systematically dilute our culture and values. Oh, and if we don't like this happening we find ourselves barred from speaking out, lest we find ourselves branded racist, bigoted, etc.

Did anyone ask the majority of the population if we wanted to be multi-culturalised (sic)..? No, they didn't. Yes, it's a noble idea - but it's been taken to an extreme and it is fragmenting communities everywhere. If it were possible to achieve integration between the indigenous population and newcomers, it might work - it could be wonderful.

But, how can this be achieved when frequently newcomers can't speak English, they can't communicate with us, they don't teach their children English - and they don't care for the English. It would be wrong to say this is the case in every instance - it isn't. However, it doesn't seem to be an unusual state of affairs - for instance, read this - it illustrates that even the mainstream media is coming round to the idea that the BNP has a point.

The fact that a vast number of articles in the spirit of this continue to proliferate shows just how out of touch a disturbing number of journalists seem to be with the views of an increasing number of the British population.

It is unacceptable for large media institutions to continue to allege that the BNP is racist - it is not, it merely seeks to look out for our own - after all, none of the other political parties appear to want to do so. For the Equality & Human Rights Commission to seek to injunct the BNP from operating represents the most ironic form of discrimination ever - an organisation in our country, staffed predominantly by immigrants, seeking to outlaw a political party that wants to protect our interests..! It is preposterously outrageous.

Mind you, if the EHRC were able to secure an ability for afro-caribbeans, for example, to join the BNP - and through their membership fees support the BNP's political aims and objectives- then good on them. Can't really see it happening, though - so all in all, it seems to be a massive waste of time, expense and effort. It is nothing more than yet another attempt to cast the BNP in a bad light.

This time, happily, it won't work. The EHRC happily seeking to discriminate against the indigenous British population, using the taxpayers' money from which they are funded to do so, simply will not wash.

All in all, EHRC - you just go for it. Do your worst - for it is you that is completely, wholly and totally in the wrong.