Nick Griffin on question time
Comments
-
Moray Gub wrote:
I thought Dimbleby was appalling tonight as chair of QT he is supposed to be impartial much as i disagree with most if not all of what Griffin says Dimbleby was clearly hell bent on putting it to him. As for the audience i dont think the BBC could have picked a better bunch of plants to have a go at Griffin all night. The whole show just came across as the whole panel and a lot of the audience basically ganging up on one man and not allowing him to answer questions the way the other panelists were i would have liked to hear what he had say on a lot of issues but too many provocateurs in the audience looking for their 15 secs of fame. If ever the BNP got a shot in the arm it was definately tonight.
completely agree - Dimblebore allowed the entire programme to become an 'anti-BNP fest' and made no attempt to address any other contemporary issues. The other panelists might as well not have been there at all...0 -
Wether we like it or not immigration is an issue purely on the grounds that this small island will become over populated ( if it isn't already). The mainstream parties are going to have to deal with it one way or another.
Obviously with an ever increasing elderly population the work force has to be maintained, and people already inhabiting these shores will have to be encouraged by some means to work rather than sit around on their @rses. There is a finite amount of room in GB.
The BNP is not the answer, but, if like Jack Straw appeared to do last night and bury his head in the sand to the uncomfortable reality of the situation some mis-guided souls my well think the BNP are the solution.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
it was a very poorly chaired debate. They all had their pre-prepared speeches and quotes ready to pounce and yet blurted them out inappropriately at times.
A good chair would have let the BNP fella hang himself with his own words and beliefs.
I dont think anyone on the panel came out higher in my estimation than they went in...and most of the politicians dropped...0 -
It was best summed up by the member of the audience who described the BNP's policies as "Anti-human". But the BNP arn't alone in holding contemptous attitudes towards some sections of society. IMO we have more to fear from the nasty tendencies within both the 'Labour' and Tory parties. Unlike the BNP, they can put thier ideas into parctice...0
-
A total disappoimnt to watch last night..cos it was badly arranged...all we heard was the mainstream voices.screaming at him....JachkStraw took the main stage ipromoting the Labour view leaving the guy only a chance to justify or deny what was said in the newpapers.all week..I didnt say that was such an easy esacpe route for him..Just feel he should have been given a chance to speak more before naIiIng him..jc0
-
He spoke enough to contradict himself - the chair just picked up on this. THe BNP should only be allowed on such programmes if their lies & half truths are challenged and they've got a lot more of these than the other parties. Their ideas shouldn't be discussed as if they are true eg holocaust facts & they Churchill claims. Dimbleby was correct not to allow such inaccuracies. I also think that the whole programme should have been about the BNP because question time was itself the biggest newstory of the day. So I think that the BBC were more ot less right in their approach & that the BNP is not like any other party & does not deserve to be treated with respect. Also Griffin came across really badly - he clearly can't cope well with pressure.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
-
cjw wrote:teagar wrote:I
I'm surprised he got as much as a 2.2 in his history degree given his marshalling of 'facts' relating to the Holocaust.
!
Not just Holocaust but who on earth are indiginous Biritish. Does he mean the Angles and Saxons (who emmigrated from Germany).
That'll be the Angles whom, don't forget, England is actually named after - and they arrived on these shores a long time after the Celts (probably the earliest inhabitants of these isles?) did. Says it all, really; this country's fabric has been shaped by the influence of people from all corners since goodness knows when - get used to it, Griffin!
As for last night's performance, I agree with Passout - there did seem to be a fair bit of self-contradiction on Griffin's part (especially the muddled answers on Islam and the Middle East) and he couldn't cope with being put under the cosh. Came across like a schoolkid up before the headmaster who either couldn't explain his actions or tried to wriggle out of explaining them. That said, Straw did seem to bluster at times when arguing his case, although Huhne managed rather better than the lightweight performance I was expecting of him (though I've a feeling that Norman Baker would have packed a better Lib Dem punch, but he was only on QT last week so unlikely to have been chosen 2 weeks in a row).
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
No balance at all. A debate from Liberal West London with 5 on the panel having a go at Griffin. They seem to have forgotten 1 million voted BNP.
Ganging up and having a go reminds me of the attitudes towards Asians in the 60s and 70s in Lancashire.0 -
Terrible programme all it showed up was what I knew already; Griffin is a nasty piece of work and all the other parties are devoid of ideas.
Why the QT format was changed was beyond me.0 -
berliner wrote:No balance at all. A debate from Liberal West London with 5 on the panel having a go at Griffin. They seem to have forgotten 1 million voted BNP.
Ganging up and having a go reminds me of the attitudes towards Asians in the 60s and 70s in Lancashire.berliner wrote:No balance at all. A debate from Liberal West London with 5 on the panel having a go at Griffin. They seem to have forgotten 1 million voted BNP.
Ganging up and having a go reminds me of the attitudes towards Asians in the 60s and 70s in Lancashire.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling you're right about that. There was an element of ''he's outnumbered, let's bully the bully'' - in effect a kind of watered down show trial. Ironic, I suppose.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:afx237vi wrote:Anyway, it was an interesting debate. Dimbleby held it together better than I thought he would.
Griffin didn't score any points whatsoever as far as I could tell. He was rattled right from the gun when Dimbleby pwned him over the "misquotes" that were attributed to him. The holocaust denial stuff obviously made him look like a complete tit.
The most interesting bit was Straw, Warsi and Huhne scrambling over themselves to prove how tough on immigration they are.
I reckon I spotted two BNP plants in the audience. Fat bloke in white shirt rambling on about the EU, and a bloke who looked like he hadn't a wash in 3 months rambling incoherently about... well, something, I don't know what.
I thought Dimbleby was appalling tonight as chair of QT he is supposed to be impartial much as i disagree with most if not all of what Griffin says Dimbleby was clearly hell bent on putting it to him. As for the audience i dont think the BBC could have picked a better bunch of plants to have a go at Griffin all night. The whole show just came across as the whole panel and a lot of the audience basically ganging up on one man and not allowing him to answer questions the way the other panelists were i would have liked to hear what he had say on a lot of issues but too many provocateurs in the audience looking for their 15 secs of fame. If ever the BNP got a shot in the arm it was definately tonight.
+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.0 -
As odious as the BNP is, certain aspects of what was said last night by Nick Griffin as regards immigration, Islam and homosexuality does strike a cord with many British people. I just wish there was another party who would stand up to the mainstream political parties when it comes to these issues, that doesnt have fascist/nazi roots.
A common sense debate with no pathetic left wing name calling is needed, otherwise the BNP will continue to grow.
I am surprised at the reaction on the BBC Have your Say website as I expected Nick Griffin to be villified and demonised like all the other forms of media are attempting to do, but like I said earlier, parts of their message strikes a cord with a hell of a lot of people. Below is a link to the most recommended (popular) replies.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...310&#paginator0 -
totally agree with the poor handling of this debate it was a pathetic attempt to not allow nick griffin let him speak eventually he wil spout the racist cr*p he keeps coming out with elsewhere. jack straw was a joke i actually turned off after 10mins.
havent labour introduced detention without trial for terrorist subjects,? that worked so well in NI, entered2 conflicts with muslim states , didnt see anyone having apop at j straw for that.0 -
wicked wrote:+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.
When it contravenes race hate laws, which is what most of Nick Griffin's real opinions would do.
How on earth is it censorship if he was given a platform to speak in front of 8 million viewers? If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.0 -
wicked wrote:+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.
Fallen for the Griffin propoganda I think!
Griffin's near 1m votes represents about 3% of the electorate, the audience was 180 people, 3% would be less than 6 people, the remainder are most likely vehemently opposed to everything he says and stands for. The audience was probably highly representative!0 -
davelakers wrote:I am surprised at the reaction on the BBC Have your Say website as I expected Nick Griffin to be villified and demonised like all the other forms of media are attempting to do, but like I said earlier, parts of their message strikes a cord with a hell of a lot of people. Below is a link to the most recommended (popular) replies.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...310&#paginator
Going to the BBC Have Your Say forum and expecting reasoned opinion is like going to the next Boyzone reunion and getting a free copy of the Daily Mail with your ticket.
HYS loons and nutcases have an entire blog dedicated to their idiocy:
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/0 -
alfablue wrote:wicked wrote:+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.
Fallen for the Griffin propoganda I think!
Griffin's near 1m votes represents about 3% of the electorate, the audience was 180 people, 3% would be less than 6 people, the remainder are most likely vehemently opposed to everything he says and stands for. The audience was probably highly representative!
Oh here we go :roll: As it happens I do not agree with them but i do not need to defend myself to you. 1 million votes may be 3% of the electorate but how many of the electorate actually vote? That 3% is probably looking like a larger portion of the voting public. Talking to people on the streets, pubs etc there is support for them.
Who put you in a position to tell what the public think? Why don't you let then speak for themselves? That is after all what deocracy is all about isn't it? Or are you one of those people who seem to think that the great british public are not capable of making their own minds up?It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.0 -
afx237vi wrote:wicked wrote:+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.
When it contravenes race hate laws, which is what most of Nick Griffin's real opinions would do.
How on earth is it censorship if he was given a platform to speak in front of 8 million viewers? If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.
I have not heard griffin contravene hate laws. Have you? Why he not been arrested?
The BBC decided to allow griffin on questiontime a decision that is to be applauded, if you care to read my post i was merely stating that politicians were opposed to his platform not the bbc. That is censorship in my opinion.
I am not defending the BNP but I will defend their right to their opinion in a free democratic society.
Even if it is wrong
It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.0 -
No, please don't justify yourself to me!wicked wrote:alfablue wrote:wicked wrote:+1
The BBC are a disgrace over the handling of this programme.
Firstly the BNP are entitled to their view and a platform just the same as everyone else whether any of us agree with them or not. If you do not like it tough its a free country (just ).
The crowd (mob?) seemed to be loaded with those intent on berating griffin at every turn and disturbingly rounding on anyone who dared approve of griffins statements. Not a fair cross section of the public IMO given that the BNP have recieved a million votes.
The witch hunter general dimblebore was a complete embarrassment and I have never seen such a one sided chair who completely failed to control proceedings.
Maybe auntie wanted a witch hunt last night but I for one found it very disturbing and certainly not what I am paying my licence fee for. I was under the impression that the BBC was supposed to be impartial?
We are on a slippery slope here people. Since when is an elected politician not allowed to express his opinion? What next? Censorship? Thought police? The so called freedoms are being steadily eroded in this country and now we have the "mainstream" political parties trying to stop griffin's appearance on what was supposed to be a debate.
Fallen for the Griffin propoganda I think!
Griffin's near 1m votes represents about 3% of the electorate, the audience was 180 people, 3% would be less than 6 people, the remainder are most likely vehemently opposed to everything he says and stands for. The audience was probably highly representative!
Oh here we go :roll: As it happens I do not agree with them but i do not need to defend myself to you. 1 million votes may be 3% of the electorate but how many of the electorate actually vote? That 3% is probably looking like a larger portion of the voting public. Talking to people on the streets, pubs etc there is support for them.
Who put you in a position to tell what the public think? Why don't you let then speak for themselves? That is after all what deocracy is all about isn't it? Or are you one of those people who seem to think that the great british public are not capable of making their own minds up?
Sorry, I don't recall stating what the public think. I did however, suggest that most of the audience would be vehemently opposed (well, they seemed to be, anyway), it was you who stated that the "mob" was "loaded". The issue here is that you are stating that the audience was not representative, I would argue that it most probably was. The latest YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times puts the BNP voting intention at 2%, so even 5 BNP supporters in the audience would be an over-representation at the present time. As for the non-voters, why the hell should they be represented when they can't be a*sed to get to the polling booth?0 -
Alphablue wrote:
Griffin's near 1m votes represents about 3% of the electorate, the audience was 180 people, 3% would be less than 6 people, the remainder are most likely vehemently opposed to everything he says and stands for. The audience was probably highly representative!
Talking of ''representative'' I note from the BBC's site that as part of Griffid's complaint about the way QT was conducted...
''He also claimed the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was "no longer a British city".''
So, there you have it: I'm no longer in a British city.
0 -
just to add, I am entirely supportive of the idea that the BNP, if legally constituted (which is at the moment in some doubt), has elected representatives, and complies with the laws of the land, should be given a platform, however I am not going to cry foul when, surprise surprise, the vast majority oppose them!0
-
deptfordmarmoset wrote:Alphablue wrote:
Griffin's near 1m votes represents about 3% of the electorate, the audience was 180 people, 3% would be less than 6 people, the remainder are most likely vehemently opposed to everything he says and stands for. The audience was probably highly representative!
Talking of ''representative'' I note from the BBC's site that as part of Griffid's complaint about the way QT was conducted...
''He also claimed the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was "no longer a British city".''
So, there you have it: I'm no longer in a British city.
he always has a "clever" answer to wriggle out of the truth - jeez, he could argue black was white . . 0 -
afx237vi wrote:wicked wrote:+1
If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.
Strangely though the people disagreeing with him often didnt let him have his say shouting him down led by the Inquisitor in Chief DD The programme last night ended up not being about him (Griffin) but more about Dimblebey and the rent a mob he had at his beck and call. I think questions need to be asked how they decided the audience make up as it was obvious they had a large proportion of bammers at least more than normal. On another note DD should be dragged in front of his bosses to expain how it went so badly wrong.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:afx237vi wrote:wicked wrote:+1
If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.
Strangely though the people disagreeing with him often didnt let him have his say shouting him down led by the Inquisitor in Chief DD The programme last night ended up not being about him (Griffin) but more about Dimblebey and the rent a mob he had at his beck and call. I think questions need to be asked how they decided the audience make up as it was obvious they had a large proportion of bammers at least more than normal. On another note DD should be dragged in front of his bosses to expain how it went so badly wrong.
What is a bammer?
QT takes great care to make it's audience representative. If you look at their Audience Application page you will see the data that is used to facilitate this. This representativeness will be based on some benchmark, most likely current demographic and opinion poll data. I don't believe the BBC would deliberately skew the audience for this show, to do so would inevitably lead to discovery and hugely negative consequences. They may have done, I doubt it, but we shall see.0 -
wicked wrote:I have not heard griffin contravene hate laws. Have you? Why he not been arrested?
The BBC decided to allow griffin on questiontime a decision that is to be applauded, if you care to read my post i was merely stating that politicians were opposed to his platform not the bbc. That is censorship in my opinion.
I am not defending the BNP but I will defend their right to their opinion in a free democratic society.
Even if it is wrong
Someone obviously has heard him contravene race hate laws because he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred in 1998 and was given a 2 year suspended sentence. That episode clearly taught him a lesson, as evidenced by the way he weaseled out of answering the questions about holocaust denial last night. Note how he never gave an opinion one way or the other on the holocaust, despite Jack Straw giving him immunity to say what he really believed.
I agree with your other point about him being allowed a platform. Peter Hain is utterly wrong in what he tried to do.0 -
I think that as Griffin is an MEP he could feasibly be arrested for holocaust denial when travelling in Europe (in the EU each member state has the option to criminalise this with a 3 year prison sentence, UK and Norway/Sweden blocked full EU implementation of this). At the moment I think only in Germany and Austria is it an offence, and he doesn't need to travel there on MEP duties. The UK will not extradite British Citizens to face holocaust denial charges.
Interestingly, David's dad, Richard Dimbleby was one of the very first people to report from Belsen concentration camp in 1945, so whilst Griffin may have chosen to deny the holocaust, the Dimbleby family has had an eye witness to this supposed fiction.Here over an acre of ground lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which... The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them ... Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live ... A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days.
"This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4445811.stm0 -
alfablue wrote:Moray Gub wrote:afx237vi wrote:wicked wrote:+1
If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.
Strangely though the people disagreeing with him often didnt let him have his say shouting him down led by the Inquisitor in Chief DD The programme last night ended up not being about him (Griffin) but more about Dimblebey and the rent a mob he had at his beck and call. I think questions need to be asked how they decided the audience make up as it was obvious they had a large proportion of bammers at least more than normal. On another note DD should be dragged in front of his bosses to expain how it went so badly wrong.
What is a bammer?
QT takes great care to make it's audience representative. If you look at their Audience Application page you will see the data that is used to facilitate this. This representativeness will be based on some benchmark, most likely current demographic and opinion poll data. I don't believe the BBC would deliberately skew the audience for this show, to do so would inevitably lead to discovery and hugely negative consequences. They may have done, I doubt it, but we shall see.
Well they have already been accused of changing the format specifically for last nights show so i wouldnt be surprised if they changed the way audience was made up. Also the lack of questions on current issues which is what question time is all about was very apparent.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Changing the format is one thing, fixing the audience is in my view, much more serious, as it would represent deception. We shall see, I am 100% certain they will be required to account for this. Until they do I would not assume they are guilty.0
-
alfablue wrote:Moray Gub wrote:afx237vi wrote:wicked wrote:+1
If Griffin is incapable of expressing a coherent opinion then that is not the BBC's fault. The fact that most of his claims were ridiculed simply represents the fact that what he says is objectionable to the vast majority of the population. 900,000 people voted for him... the other 60 million people in Britain did not.
If you repeatedly say disagreeable things, then people are going to disagree with you repeatedly.
Strangely though the people disagreeing with him often didnt let him have his say shouting him down led by the Inquisitor in Chief DD The programme last night ended up not being about him (Griffin) but more about Dimblebey and the rent a mob he had at his beck and call. I think questions need to be asked how they decided the audience make up as it was obvious they had a large proportion of bammers at least more than normal. On another note DD should be dragged in front of his bosses to expain how it went so badly wrong.
What is a bammer?
QT takes great care to make it's audience representative. If you look at their Audience Application page you will see the data that is used to facilitate this. This representativeness will be based on some benchmark, most likely current demographic and opinion poll data. I don't believe the BBC would deliberately skew the audience for this show, to do so would inevitably lead to discovery and hugely negative consequences. They may have done, I doubt it, but we shall see.
The only people I saw on the programme last night who might not normally have been in a QT audience (remember that local political groups are offered tickets - I was offered a place in the audience once as a Labour Party member back in early 90s) were the tiny number of Griffin supporters - they were clearly invited along becasue of Griffin's involvement...which is fair as long as it's proportional - which it seemed to be.0 -
Listening to Matthew Bannister on R2 today there were a high number of emails supporting Griffin's comments about Islam and on immigration levels. Many of the BNP policies, in particular on repatriation, are unworkable on both moral and logistical grounds. But on the two mentioned above I would be in agreement with, and so would many people who are a long way from having any Faciast sympathies.
I noticed Jack Straw managed to weasel his way out of expressing his and Labour's intentions about controlling immigration. Once the dust dies down I think the BNP may gain from last night, and if they do then the mainstream parties have only themselves to blame.0
