QT backfires as survey shows 1 in 4 would consider BNP after Griffins appearence

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:44 pm

One in four would consider voting BNP - Telegraph

Dear Dear Dear, what a tangled web we weave, when we first set out to decieve.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:41 pm

oscar;1255459 wrote: One in four would consider voting BNP - Telegraph

Dear Dear Dear, what a tangled web we weave, when we first set out to decieve.

Well stop deceiving us then! It says 1 in 5 in the article....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:52 pm

dubs;1255484 wrote: Well stop deceiving us then! It says 1 in 5 in the article....

When I read the link It said 1 In 4 but the headline is 1 in 5 as you correctly point out.

I'm not a fan of polls and don't trust them myself. If this poll was in The Sun or the News Of the World, I'd Instantly dismiss it but I thought maybe the Telegraph may have some element of truth.

To give you an example of how I am surprised at this backfiring on the BBc... One of my husbands mates is a staunch Labour supporter, always has been. he has never been backward at coming forward as to how he dislikes Nick Griffin. He rang my husband tonight and Hubs was stunned to hear his pal ranting and raving at the 'Disgusting treatment' toward Griffin on last nights prog. He was really really angry about It. Hubs said Jokingly 'Blimey Mate, you'll be voting for them next' and he said he may well do that because of the tactics used. All concerned in the Lynch mob against Griffin last night are going top have to wake up that If folks like Hubs Pal felt that strongly, others will also and the whole thing could backfire on them. Oh well.... they were warned.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:05 pm

oscar;1255487 wrote: When I read the link It said 1 In 4 but the headline is 1 in 5 as you correctly point out.

I'm not a fan of polls and don't trust them myself. If this poll was in The Sun or the News Of the World, I'd Instantly dismiss it but I thought maybe the Telegraph may have some element of truth.

To give you an example of how I am surprised at this backfiring on the BBc... One of my husbands mates is a staunch Labour supporter, always has been. he has never been backward at coming forward as to how he dislikes Nick Griffin. He rang my husband tonight and Hubs was stunned to hear his pal ranting and raving at the 'Disgusting treatment' toward Griffin on last nights prog. He was really really angry about It. Hubs said Jokingly 'Blimey Mate, you'll be voting for them next' and he said he may well do that because of the tactics used. All concerned in the Lynch mob against Griffin last night are going top have to wake up that If folks like Hubs Pal felt that strongly, others will also and the whole thing could backfire on them. Oh well.... they were warned.

He can't say the things he does and not expect to be treated badly...You have to vote on the policies you think are best, not chuck them a sympathy vote cos their leader got roughed up a bit for having extreme views.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:11 pm

dubs;1255491 wrote: He can't say the things he does and not expect to be treated badly...You have to vote on the policies you think are best, not chuck them a sympathy vote cos their leader got roughed up a bit for having extreme views.
I totally agree with you. However, it was the devious tactics of secretly filming it 3 hours early and then showing an edited version. Also, the revelation today that some of the audience was supplied by the agency that supplies the BBC with tv audiences. The whole thing stinks. The audience was 60% ethnic minorities. let me ask this.... Can you Imagine the uproar If Tony Blair was on the panel against 4 anti Iraq war MP's and the BBC hand picked an audience largely made up by grieving parents of dead boys killed out there? Or Dianne Abbot MP on the panal with 4 other anti-Immigration MP's and a hand picked audience largely made up of Millwall supporters? It's the hypocrisy I abhore. Are we also forgetting the so called tolerant folk of this country under the name of the UAF battling against the nasty extemist BNP yet it was them who Injured three police officers last night? Hypocrisy.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:14 pm

oscar;1255492 wrote: I totally agree with you. However, it was the devious tactics of secretly filming it 3 hours early and then showing an edited version. Also, the revelation today that some of the audience was supplied by the agency that supplies the BBC with tv audiences. The whole thing stinks.

Haha! It don't take long for the old conspiracy machine to get churning!!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:38 pm

dubs;1255493 wrote: Haha! It don't take long for the old conspiracy machine to get churning!!!
I did check it out and it was on 'haveyoursaybbc' website. Either way, what's done is done now. I suppose the true test will be in June in the General Election.

Labour have alot to do.... Jack Straw brought nothing to the table. The Tory was good in parts. The Lib Dem guy was very good and didn't join in the lynching which at least showed him dignity and as for Bonnie Greer :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:06 pm

dubs;1255493 wrote: Haha! It don't take long for the old conspiracy machine to get churning!!!
Looks like QT being stage managed is all true.

The BNP backlash - MPs accuse BBC of playing into Nick Griffin's hands by stage-managing Question Time onslaught | Mail Online

If you read the link, It does state that the members of the audience were hand picked etc etc.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:32 am

Whatever happened to fair play? Why did they feel the need to stage manage it? I didnt watch it, cause it felt too much like watching some public execution. I was never one to throw rotten fruit at dying people. Just goes to show how much attitudes have changed since the medieval days. Not at all.:-2

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:30 am

oscar;1255492 wrote: I totally agree with you. However, it was the devious tactics of secretly filming it 3 hours early and then showing an edited version. Also, the revelation today that some of the audience was supplied by the agency that supplies the BBC with tv audiences. The whole thing stinks. The audience was 60% ethnic minorities. let me ask this.... Can you Imagine the uproar If Tony Blair was on the panel against 4 anti Iraq war MP's and the BBC hand picked an audience largely made up by grieving parents of dead boys killed out there? Or Dianne Abbot MP on the panal with 4 other anti-Immigration MP's and a hand picked audience largely made up of Millwall supporters? It's the hypocrisy I abhore. Are we also forgetting the so called tolerant folk of this country under the name of the UAF battling against the nasty extemist BNP yet it was them who Injured three police officers last night? Hypocrisy.

So??? I saw in a paper today Nick Griffin saying London isnt even English any more and why didnt they do the show somewhere else, like stoke i think was one the places mentioned,,, Why??? why do it somewhere that Nick Griffin thinks has more "english" People , so what he is saying is i dont like ehtnic or non english people and they know it so it wasnt fair i had to face them and explain why.. wtf?

Why shouldnt he? Why shouldnt any politician be made to answer for their actions or convictions to the very people it matters to?

Again a smoke screen is the answer to cover for an abysmal performance by Nick Griffin, oh it wasnt his fault,, its cos most of the audience were ethnic minorities!!! so what! Its because they were hand picked!!! Its because nobody liked him ,, boo bloody hoo thats proportionate to the feelings in general of the public about Nick Griffin. he was given a chance to show what he stands for ,, to disprove his accusors, he didnt do it , he gave a poor show ,, it was his OWN fault!

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:33 am

LOL! The only thing 'english' about London is the Queen lives there! :yh_rotfl And that it's located in England!

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:58 am

Raven;1255579 wrote: LOL! The only thing 'english' about London is the Queen lives there! :yh_rotfl And that it's located in England!
Never a truer word spoken...

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:01 am

Hugh Janus;1255611 wrote: Never a truer word spoken...

so?

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:07 am

kazalala;1255614 wrote: so?
So what?

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:14 am

Hugh Janus;1255615 wrote: So what?

exactly! and i asked you first!:p

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:35 am

Lets put this 1 in 4 would consider voting for the BNP into context.

Me and my black wife consider many of their policies are 'votable' (is that a word ?)

Don't mean we are going to vote for them though......the poll means most people are honest, not foolish.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:12 am

And to put more perspective on it, 2/3 of people wouldnt vote for them "under any circumstances"

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:01 am

Hugh Janus;1255611 wrote: Never a truer word spoken...
The truth behind that programme.

BBC show trial that taught us nothing | Mail Online

Taken from The Mail:

Set aside director general Mark Thompson's preposterously disingenuous claim that Mr Griffin was invited to take part because of the Corporation's 'central principle of political impartiality'.

After all, the BBC, which is utterly in thrall to the left-wing agenda of the majority of its staff, has contributed hugely to the rise of the BNP through its systematic censorship over the years of any coverage or debate on the biggest wave of mass immigration in British history.

Note how on Thursday night the subject that WASN'T discussed was the official forecast that Britain's population will be more than 70million within 20 years.

Set aside also the nagging suspicion that inviting Mr Griffin, a decision hyped for weeks in advance, was a cynical exercise designed to boost the ratings of a flagging, tired show (and how helpful of the BBC's early evening news to dedicate ten minutes to the show's transmission).

No, what was so disappointing about Question Time was the crass, cackhanded way the show subjected Mr Griffin to little better than a cross between a public lynching and a show trial. Before filming began, a crib sheet was handed to the audience (which, being predominantly young, metropolitan and multicultural, bore little resemblance to the demographics of the average community) demanding 'provocative' questions and littered with quotations about how loathsome the BNP was. Incredibly, before the show started, David Dimbleby even encouraged the crowd to boo, as if it was a trashy Jeremy Kyle-type show, rather than a serious current affairs programme. The result was inevitable: the BBC, which has achieved the remarkable feat of making Mr Griffin appear a victim, received twice as many complaints about the show being biased against the BNP leader as they did about him being allowed to appear.

And didn't Labour minister Jack Straw, too, play straight into Mr Griffin's grubby hands? His obfuscation and prevarication as he repeatedly failed to answer whether the recent successes of the BNP could be explained by misguided Government immigration policies was more eloquent than anything Mr Griffin could have said.

... and the grim truth

Meanwhile, out in the real world, the Office for National Statistics delivered the grim and unexpected news that the economy had shrunk by 0.4 per cent between July and September, officially placing the UK in the longest recession since records began in 1955.

In the past 12 months, the contraction has been a shuddering 5.2 per cent, and Alistair Darling's prediction of a swift recovery from a crisis which has already brought misery to millions now looks hopelessly optimistic.

The BBC may not have felt the economy worth a mention on Question Time - but nothing could be of greater public concern.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:18 am

you left some out:sneaky:

at the beginning

Let's be unequivocal. Nick Griffin is an odious man, who fronts an odious party dedicated to spreading odious racial hatred across a nation he insultingly professes to love.

His views on everything from Islam to the Holocaust are abhorrent.

But, nonetheless, this convicted criminal's treatment on Thursday evening's Question Time - a broadcast which can only be described as a circus - raises some deeply worrying questions.

and at the end.

Ultimately, the public learned nothing from Question Time that wasn't already known: namely that Mr Griffin is a deeply unpleasant man, and that the political establishment has yet to extend to the electorate the basic courtesy of involving them in the subject of mass immigration - a subject that has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with numbers.

and what is your point exactly? that because the BBC set him up he really isnt all that bad

that because the BBC set him up loads more people will now vote for him

what? i dont get it?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:27 am

kazalala;1255694 wrote: you left some out:sneaky:

at the beginning

and at the end.

and what is your point exactly? that because the BBC set him up he really isnt all that bad

that because the BBC set him up loads more people will now vote for him

what? i dont get it?

unlike oscar to try to misslead us :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

she has learnt a lot from her hero nik gremlin :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:45 pm

To Bonnie Greer:

Regarding your story of your Father meeting Jamaican airman who had flown in the Battle of Britain, unfortunately it appears the Jamaican airmen (about 400 were in the in RAF during WW2) could not of flown during the Battle of Britain. There was one Jamaican airmen that's recorded, Herbert Capstick of 236 Squadron and he appears to have been white.

I have double-checked this with the RBL RAF Vets... Can you explain this preposterous claim? hmmmmmm

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:08 pm

oscar;1255858 wrote: To Bonnie Greer:

Regarding your story of your Father meeting Jamaican airman who had flown in the Battle of Britain, unfortunately it appears the Jamaican airmen (about 400 were in the in RAF during WW2) could not of flown during the Battle of Britain. There was one Jamaican airmen that's recorded, Herbert Capstick of 236 Squadron and he appears to have been white.

I have double-checked this with the RBL RAF Vets... Can you explain this preposterous claim? hmmmmmm

I wasn't aware that Bonnie Greer was a FG member! :-2

Stop trying to convince us that NG the narcissistic twat is justified in his beliefs.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:10 pm

abbey;1255860 wrote: I wasn't aware that Bonnie Greer was a FG member! :-2 :wah: No... but if she finds this here... who knows, she may grace us us with a visit?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:16 pm

oscar;1255861 wrote: :wah: No... but if she finds this here... who knows, she may grace us us with a visit?

Well I haven't seen the Nazi prancing NG "Grace us with his presence"

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:26 pm

abbey;1255863 wrote: Well I haven't seen the Nazi prancing NG "Grace us with his presence" It'd be funny If he did :yh_rotfl

Let's just say I'm a little miffed at the smug Ms Greer. Whatever anyone thinks of anyone else, to call someone a liar and hypocrite in public and then state such unfounded claims themself, is more than hypocritical.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:33 pm

oscar;1255865 wrote: It'd be funny If he did :yh_rotfl

Bleeding hysterical, I wouldn't imagine he'd have the intelligence to work a computer.

Does He have opposing thumbs? :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:42 pm

abbey;1255867 wrote: Bleeding hysterical, I wouldn't imagine he'd have the intelligence to work a computer.

Does He have opposing thumbs? :wah: He has got opposing eyes. One is looking at you and one is looking for you :yh_rotfl

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 pm

oscar;1255858 wrote: To Bonnie Greer:

Regarding your story of your Father meeting Jamaican airman who had flown in the Battle of Britain, unfortunately it appears the Jamaican airmen (about 400 were in the in RAF during WW2) could not of flown during the Battle of Britain. There was one Jamaican airmen that's recorded, Herbert Capstick of 236 Squadron and he appears to have been white.

I have double-checked this with the RBL RAF Vets... Can you explain this preposterous claim? hmmmmmm

The battle lasted from 10th july till the 31st october 1940... So she's not too hot on her dates. After that time there were lots of black fighter pilots in the RAF, Vincent Bunting, Julian Marryshow, Michael Manley, Winston Racile, Gilbert Hubah were just a few. Oh and Herbert Capstick wasn't in fighter command. He flew Blenheims for coastal command. 236 squadron hunted for U Boats.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:10 pm

dubs;1255877 wrote: The battle lasted from 10th july till the 31st october 1940... So she's not too hot on her dates. After that time there were lots of black fighter pilots in the RAF, Vincent Bunting, Julian Marryshow, Michael Manley, Winston Racile, Gilbert Hubah were just a few. Oh and Herbert Capstick wasn't in fighter command. He flew Blenheims for coastal command. 236 squadron hunted for U Boats. Thanks Dubs... that exactly confirms what I was told today. The date she gave, there was only one. An innocent mistake or is she talking bollocks do you think? Considering she is meant to be highly educated In that arena, I'm surprised.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:21 pm

oscar;1255882 wrote: Thanks Dubs... that exactly confirms what I was told today. The date she gave, there was only one. An innocent mistake or is she talking bollocks do you think? Considering she is meant to be highly educated In that arena, I'm surprised.

Meh! Dunno bird! It is a very specific time frame, which us Brits tend to know. Outsiders p'raps think of the whole of the air battle as the BoB....but saying that she is an historian, and they can be a bit anal about dates being correct! I'm erring on modern history not being her thang.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:18 am

well looks like the debate is finished:rolleyes:

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:51 am

Not defending the lady but what are a few dates ?

Did black airmen fight for the freedoms that Mr Griffin holds so dear ?

The is the relevant point I think.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:21 am

Bruv;1255945 wrote: Not defending the lady but what are a few dates ?

Did black airmen fight for the freedoms that Mr Griffin holds so dear ?

The is the relevant point I think.

very good point :-6:-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:47 am

Bruv;1255945 wrote: Did black airmen fight for the freedoms that Mr Griffin holds so dear ?

The is the relevant point I think. Yes, of course they did, no-one is denying that or for a moment saying their contribution was an less than a white man. We just lost far more numbers. Also, take Into account that by the end, It was not Germany Vs Britian, but a world war. All countries took sides and those nationalities in other area's of the globe at the time, fought for who they chose to. World war drags every colour and creed in.. not just the British and German.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:59 am

Bruv;1255945 wrote: Not defending the lady but what are a few dates ?

Did black airmen fight for the freedoms that Mr Griffin holds so dear ?

The is the relevant point I think.

So did indians, gurkhas, czechs, poles hungarians. and they fought in europe, north africa, burma and the far east but they tend to get written out of history. Arguably some black people have a greater claim to be indigenous british then does griffin-they've been here longer same with anglo indians.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:05 am

oscar;1255955 wrote: Yes, of course they did, no-one is denying that or for a moment saying their contribution was an less than a white man. We just lost far more numbers. Also, take Into account that by the end, It was not Germany Vs Britian, but a world war. All countries took sides and those nationalities in other area's of the globe at the time, fought for who they chose to. World war drags every colour and creed in.. not just the British and German.

So....whats your point ?

We just lost far more numbers.
Because the RAF was predominantly white ?

Any Afro Caribbean would have had to journey across half the world to sign up...............perhaps meaning they really wanted to ?

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:12 am

Bruv;1255958 wrote: So....whats your point ?

Because the RAF was predominantly white ?

Any Afro Caribbean would have had to journey across half the world to sign up...............perhaps meaning they really wanted to ?

I asked her that a good while back:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:12 am

Bruv;1255958 wrote: Any Afro Caribbean would have had to journey across half the world to sign up...............perhaps meaning they really wanted to ? Yes, 400 did. And on November 11th, both services I attend, the Priests Includes them in the long lists they read out along with the US, Canadian, Ghurka's etc etc. We do have a African/ Caribbean Vet in our local BL which Is where I got my imfo from yesterday.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:13 am

kazalala;1255961 wrote: I asked her that a good while back:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Sorry Mate... bad day today.. I missed your post

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:23 pm

Actually quite a few of Griffins tribal sub group got stuffed in to ovens as sub humans. You'd think he'd be a more aware of where his kind of racism could lead.

Nazi Persecution of Gypsies

Gypsies: Executed for Their Race

Like the Jews, the Rom Gypsies were chosen for total annihilation just because of their race. Even though Jews are defined by religion, Hitler saw the Jewish people as a race that he believed needed to be completely annihilated. The Rom Gypsies also were a nomadic people that were persecuted throughout history. Both groups were denied certain privileges in many European countries. The Nazis believed that both the Jews and Gypsies were racially inferior and degenerate and therefore worthless. Like the Jews, the Gypsies were also moved into special areas set up by the Nazis. Half a million Gypsies, almost the entire Eastern European Gypsy population, was wiped out during the Holocaust.

Course I assume he considers that to be fantasy

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:32 pm

Probably waiting to see the German radio intercepts..........

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:56 pm

Bruv;1256075 wrote: Probably waiting to see the German radio intercepts.......... I have to say, that was one of the funniest things I've ever heard on QT :wah: