Should the BBC allow interview with BNP?

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The BNP, Englands far right nationalist party now represents 7% of the nation and has two seats. The BBC has allowed an interview with BNP leader Griffin which has the country in an uproar. Should the BBC have allowed a platform to the BNP? Is it fair to ignore the BNP when they have a small but growing constituency? Is it up to the media to censor the far right?


"Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary, has condemned the BBC's handling of an interview with two "anonymous" BNP members, claiming it casts serious doubt over "the corporation's grip" on covering the far-right party.

The interview, broadcast on Radio 1's Newsbeat programme, introduced the men as "two young guys who are members of the BNP" but failed to tell listeners that they were prominent party members and one was the BNP's publicity director. The BBC now faces calls for an internal investigation after it received more than 100 complaints.

Writing in the Guardian, Hain says the interview was in clear breach of BBC guidelines and underlined the corporation's "shaky handling" of reporting on the BNP.

The interview, broadcast on 1 October, and the BBC's decision to invite the party's leader, Nick Griffin, on to Question Time next week indicated the BBC was "sadly succumbing" to those who "in Griffin's obnoxious words, 'defend rights for whites with well-directed boots and fists'," he adds.

The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, called on the BBC to launch an investigation into whether the corporation had breached its own guidelines.

"The point of interviewing the BNP is to make sure that they are held to account for their totally noxious views. It would appear that did not happen here and that is a matter of great concern," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/11/bbc-bnp-ashley-cole-comment-row


Interview with two BNP supporters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002000/10002087.stm

BBC explains why they gave the BNP a platform:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/01/bbc-bnp1

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, how is keeping their issues hidden a solution to the problems they represent?

We have a similar party called the Shiv Sena, which has run on the platform of the Marathi Manus [the Maharashtrian Person] for the last two decades. They gone from a violent racist extremist party, to an educated assimilative one and have extended their platform from the Hindu native Marathi man to embrace all religions and peoples of Maharashtra. Nothing like public opinion to reform a party's mandate.

 

[mike47]

The BBC should let them show their political views so people know exactly who they are . In a real democracy people ought to be given the opportunity to express their views and to defend them as well . People can see what is right and what is wrong . Hiding an agenda does not make it go away plus why do we have to hide any agenda from the people ?!.

 

[ejderha]

We have one in the current government! :bawl:

I don't know how to response to this though.

People are upset that they are giving a chance to talk to a potentially fascist party.
But also BBC did not inform listeners about those men's official political identity.

If these people are that dangerous to society for being 'advertised' and addressed openly, how did the BBC announce them in the radio?
Didn't those two men or the party object to this?

So, BBC 'modified' the situation according to reflect some sort of democracy?

Is investigation about the party's nature or misleading people? :shrug:

 

[ejderha]

The BBC should let them show their political views so people know exactly who they are . In a real democracy people ought to be given the opportunity to express their views and to defend them as well . People can see what is right and what is wrong . Hiding an agenda does not make it go away plus why do we have to hide any agenda from the people ?!.

I am not supporting but guessing, that's because of the kind of groups found in every country. The ignorant, easily confused people. These people do not pay attention or energy to follow or accept political situations. With bigotry result is raise in nationalist parties and their votes. Perhaps, the idea is letting them speak openly and have some propaganda on their side is thought to be making it dangerous overall. I am not sure, I disagree.

 

[mike47]

I am not supporting but guessing, that's because of the kind of groups found in every country. The ignorant, easily confused people. These people do not pay attention or energy to follow or accept political situations. With bigotry result is raise in nationalist parties and their votes. Perhaps, the idea is letting them speak openly and have some propaganda on their side is thought to be making it dangerous overall. I am not sure, I disagree.

I think that Tony Blair and his friend G.W. Bush had too much propaganda on every TV station in the U.K. and in the U.S.A.
If you give too much propaganda to TERRORISTS known as Bush and Blair then why not let others speak too ?!!!.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

We have one in the current government! :bawl:

I don't know how to response to this though.

People are upset that they are giving a chance to talk to a potentially fascist party.
But also BBC did not inform listeners about those men's official political identity.

If these people are that dangerous to society for being 'advertised' and addressed openly, how did the BBC announce them in the radio?
Didn't those two men or the party object to this?

So, BBC 'modified' the situation according to reflect some sort of democracy?

Is investigation about the party's nature or misleading people? :shrug:

Well when they allowed Griffin on the BBC special along with other politicians the fear is that it will legitimize the party and give them a greater voice, as one person noted it was tantamount to allowing the Nazi party to make their case. In the case of Le Pen in France his television appearances actually boosted his popularity. But there is no use people putting their head in the ground and pretending that there are not some issues that need to be addressed so I think they have a right to be heard and challenged.

 

[sniffy]

LOL!

Democracy is often criticised as not being ideal as a political system. I would be the first to agree that this might indeed be the case but I do recognise that there is little, if anything, in this world that is perfect.

Whatever the case 'for or against' where I live this is the system we have. If I don't like it I can open my mouth or keep it shut. I could join the 'marxist revolutionaries pink panthers workers party' or 'fascists united' or 'anarchists a R Us' or 'women are better than men' or 'men are better than women' or set up my own 'party' and try to destroy the exisiting system one way or the other so that a system I prefer can be introduced. I might be careful what I wished for if I wished for any of that though.

I might just decide to register my disatisfaction with democracy or with those who are currently 'in power' thanks to democracy and all the faults therein by not voting.

I might not give a rat's arse about democracy and choose not to vote because voting day happens to be on the same day that I'm having my hair done. How very inconvenient.

I might not vote because someone is intimidating me into not voting.

Now there are dangers inherent in both voting and not voting as we can see.

Let's look at the dangers of not voting:

One danger in not voting is that someone might recognise an opportunity and use my not voting (and others not voting) to their advantage.

In my country the BNP are one such party that recognised an opportunity and took it.

I will go on the record here as saying I don't much like the BNP but now we have a problem. Although I did vote and I did not vote for the BNP; the BNP got in all 'fair' and square.

Suddenly the BNP have a platform. That pisses me off (quite) a bit I must admit but that's democracy for you. Now some have argued that we should censor the BNP becasue we don't like what the BNP represent, we don't like what the BNP have to say and we don't like the way the BNP say what they have to say.

However I find that if you don't censor and people say what they want to say in the way they say it the truth is sometimes revealed. The danger in this approach is the 'oxygen of publicity' might serve certain other purposes very well.

Therefore I would say that censorship is not a clear cut issue.

It's Not Fair!!!

Sometimes people use systems and then go about dismantling systems until those systems are no longer effective, partially effective or even recognisable. Then those who have done what they set out to do (but didn't tell anyone) start to put in place something entirely different. To lovers of fair play this may not appear fair; it may be that this actually is not fair but sometimes life is just not fair!

Best not to expect those who do not believe in fair play to respect the fact that some people do. And we haven't even started on hypocrisy yet.....

Often the best one can do is keep one's eyes, ears and nostrils open.....and hope that one's brain is engaged! It is, however, sometimes possible to do more than that!


Making connections

In a democracy the elected take their voters for granted at their peril. In a democracy the elected patronise their voters at their peril.

The voters should know that voting can be tampered with.

The voters should know that they can be tampered with.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sniffy in your opinion what are the issues that helped the BNP get two seats

I think it was a strong message to the labour party, I also think that many are feeling the pressures of immigration (from the EU and outside). I think it is a backlash from a social system that has failed to fully integrate immigrants and prepare the host society for inevitable social and cultural changes.

 

[sniffy]

Sniffy in your opinion what are the issues that helped the BNP get two seats

I think it was a strong message to the labour party, I also think that many are feeling the pressures of immigration (from the EU and outside). I think it is a backlash from a social system that has failed to fully integrate immigrants and prepare the host society for inevitable social and cultural changes.

Er...from my previous post...

I might just decide to register my disatisfaction with democracy or with those who are currently 'in power' thanks to democracy and all the faults therein by not voting.

Voters were very pissed off with politicians from ALL parties, the catalyst being the MPs expenses scandal. No party came out of that untainted. There may have been larger issues but believe me 'expenses' was the biggy. When you have elected representatives using the expenses system to pay for extensive housing repairs, moat cleaning and 'duck pond islands' (I kid you not), something somewhere is very wrong (no shit Sherlock!). The fact that the office responsible for paying expenses encouraged MPs to claim for things that were well beyond the pale....the rest is history.

The BNP, a far right fascist party, took advantage of the situation, knowing that people would not turn out to vote in the European elections - general apathy, yes, but also massive anger amongst the electorate. So just with their usual supporters and a few who may have 'gone over to the dark side' because of other issues we now have two BNP members of the European parliament. I for one am very, very angry about it but I can't say it wasn't utterly predictable.

You can see, again outlined in my earlier post, that having had the oxygen of publicity, how more people might buy in to what the BNP has to say on immigration. I for one believe that these things must be discussed. But what many people may not realise is that the BNP is a 'final solution' party no matter how much they deny it.

Let that sink in...

We've seen it all before haven't we? And that's what really, really worries me.

I'm not saying we are on the slippery slope but we are dangerously close the the edge of something.

Having said all that Nick Griffin the leader of the BNP was very entertaining when he appeared on the BBC's Question Time - a political round table show with a live audience. Having been given the 'oxygen of publicity' Griffen went on to choke on it. He later complained that he had been set up in order to be made a fool of but he did a very good job of doing that himself...

Still there is always a worry that the 'single issue' voters and the BNPs 'regular' supporters might provide enough votes for more seats in Europe and even a seat in the UK parliament. I think the former is actually rather more worrying as they are already meeting up with their European counterparts...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Still there is always a worry that the 'single issue' voters and the BNPs 'regular' supporters might provide enough votes for more seats in Europe and even a seat in the UK parliament. I think the former is actually rather more worrying as they are already meeting up with their European counterparts...

I agree with you. I think this can tie in with a larger european nationalist movement.

 

[sniffy]

I agree with you. I think this can tie in with a larger european nationalist movement.

I should coco. National fascist movement.... Anti immigrant, anti jewish, anti muslim, anti democracy.... they are all the frigging same whether to the left or right....fundamentalist.....totalitarian police states.

Freedom of speech - goes
Censorship - arrives

That is why I shout 'cunt' so often and so loudly . It tests the water. However shouting 'cunt' isn't quite in the same league as:

"I'll murder you and your entire family because you are:

athiest/jewish/muslim/christian/buddhist/woman/man/white/black/short/tall/ging/have IQ less that 100/have IQ more than 100/old/young......

and I dont happen to like that."

Having said that you don't have to like me.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Freedom of speech - goes
Censorship - arrives

That is why I shout 'cunt' so often and so loudly . It tests the water.

Now Now! We've been through that and a one day ban to boot

I have a very liberal friend of the left who doesn't believe in freedom of speech and doesn't think the BNP should have a platform. Its the voice of the fascist left 'thought policing and censorship'. My point is that without a television appearance the BNP is still capable of finding one hence the two seats they already have.

 

[sniffy]

Now Now! We've been through that and a one day ban to boot

I have a very liberal friend of the left who doesn't believe in freedom of speech and doesn't think the BNP should have a platform. Its the voice of the fascist left 'thought policing and censorship'. My point is that without a television appearance the BNP is still capable of finding one hence the two seats they already have.

I have very conservative friends on the right who don't believe the BNP should have a platform. I disagree whatever my firends politics are.

A few years ago, actually probably more than I care to remember, the BBC allowed some grand wizzo of the ku to be interviewed. A ku family also appeared on a chat show. Now I was pretty sickened myself when the family walked on with their tiny baby dressed a miniature clan 'uniform' and the audience was palpably disgusted. However they were questioned in a professional manner and allowed to speak. It was obvious to me that these people had been indoctrinated from a very early age and were continuing in that 'tradition' with their won family..that's how it goes isn't it? They were completely unable to discuss any issues because they didn't understand the issues. They just 'di'nt want to live with nun of them niggers'. That was the sum of their argument; again I kid you not.

The grand whizzy got a far rougher ride (deservedly so) and like Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, showed himself for what he was and what his 'legitimate' organisation is and stands for.... need I go on?


So as far as I'm concerned let them speak for themselves....

 

[Stryder]

The problem with the likes of Griffin and his Ilk is they tend to neglect that the Naturalisation of Foreigners is done because the country gains a revenue from it. Every person that comes through legal channels into the UK is potentially bankrolled by Members states of Europe wanting someone else to take their dirty laundry away, This makes immigrants a "Cash cow".

Such a system could actually work in a State system, A country has an open policy allowing immigration once every 10 years (One Generation), the other 9 years would be spent rotating the immigration policy around other member states. No single country would be flooded by immigration.

Every member state would then have to pay a "Premium" to that country taking in immigrants, that premium would go towards increasing housing, schools, healthcare amongst other "Public" things. In short allowing immigration actually increases the overall spending on areas that would otherwise be stagnant with poor public systems as funding isn't their to spend on the locals.

Of course politicians will never fathom it, they will always be out for their own personal gain over that of anyone else. This is true not just of normal politicians but wingest's like Griffin's party the BNP. They are out for their own eugenic retribution against being born ugly as sin.

 

[Challenger78]

Most people are rational, logical beings. (I'm trying to keep a straight face), I'm sure that the BNP won't benefit from this. /sarcasm.

The more publicity they get, the more they'll attract the idiot section of the electorate.

While it is true that the BBC is biased, the issue here should be their journalistic integrity, not the BNP.
Can they ask unbiased, objective questions that a journalist is expected to ask ? (Of the BBC anyway, not of Fox, or CNN/MSNBC).

I'm all for interviewing these people. By talking to them, we can find out what makes them tick, and then address those concerns, before they can manipulate the electorate to serve their needs.

 

[Stryder]

Most people are rational, logical beings. (I'm trying to keep a straight face), I'm sure that the BNP won't benefit from this. /sarcasm.

The more publicity they get, the more they'll attract the idiot section of the electorate.

While it is true that the BBC is biased, the issue here should be their journalistic integrity, not the BNP.
Can they ask unbiased, objective questions that a journalist is expected to ask ? (Of the BBC anyway, not of Fox, or CNN/MSNBC).

I'm all for interviewing these people. By talking to them, we can find out what makes them tick, and then address those concerns, before they can manipulate the electorate to serve their needs.

Ah but this is where you take a Corporate Brand name and try to imply honesty, while not considering that the general "Paparazzi" isn't exactly renowned for being honest. (Ever since the posters of Kitchener during World War I, Propaganda has thrived, not just from Ministerial Offices, but the offices of corporate empires... such as the BBC)

Incidentally I think the BNP party is a bit like Scientologists. I think they have been created by the other parties to generate a necessary evil to try and force Voter attendance to break the 40% turnout margin. (Yeah 60% stay at home and have Roast Quorn)

 

[Dywyddyr]

While it is true that the BBC is biased, the issue here should be their journalistic integrity, not the BNP.

Nah, the real issue is that the existing parties don't like it being pointed out to them that they''re failing (i.e. the loss of seats to the BNP*).
The comment from Hunt -

"The point of interviewing the BNP is to make sure that they are held to account for their totally noxious views. It would appear that did not happen here and that is a matter of great concern," he said.

I found particularly amusing as an example of hypocrisy: whenever the BBC (or any any other service) makes the attempt to hold "reigning powers" to account the accusations of "antigovernemental bias" or "overstepping the bounds" start to fly thick and fast.
IOW it's a case of the BBC not doing what the existing parties WANT to do but actually daren't, which somehow makes the BBC in the wrong.

* Lest that be taken as apologetics for the BNP, nope. Ive been on my share of anti-Nazi rallies.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The problem with the likes of Griffin and his Ilk is they tend to neglect that the Naturalisation of Foreigners is done because the country gains a revenue from it. Every person that comes through legal channels into the UK is potentially bankrolled by Members states of Europe wanting someone else to take their dirty laundry away, This makes immigrants a "Cash cow".

Such a system could actually work in a State system, A country has an open policy allowing immigration once every 10 years (One Generation), the other 9 years would be spent rotating the immigration policy around other member states. No single country would be flooded by immigration.

Every member state would then have to pay a "Premium" to that country taking in immigrants, that premium would go towards increasing housing, schools, healthcare amongst other "Public" things. In short allowing immigration actually increases the overall spending on areas that would otherwise be stagnant with poor public systems as funding isn't their to spend on the locals.

Of course politicians will never fathom it, they will always be out for their own personal gain over that of anyone else. This is true not just of normal politicians but wingest's like Griffin's party the BNP. They are out for their own eugenic retribution against being born ugly as sin.

Yeah but I don't think that is what is getting across. There are those who feel that they are being disenfranchised by those who are more likely to be hired because they accept lower wages and then there are those who have difficulty dealing with the cultural differences they are confronted with, don't understand and feel uncomfortable with. These are issues that need discusssing and programs to help bridge a social cultural gap and move towards a more cohesive society. Like Challenger I think most people are reasonable and not racist in the least. I would imagine that even among the 7% that voted for the BNP there are many who voted for reasons that have nothing to do with true racist sentiments. Its these issues that need to be addressed and discussed on some level. I mean if you historically look at german society before the rise of Hitler Jews played a part in society that was quite beneficial and they considered themselves german and were accetpted as such and yet still due to circumstances that had nothing to do with race a movement was able to sway a number of people into a racist facist regime.

 

[Stryder]

Incidentally I think the BNP party is a bit like Scientologists. I think they have been created by the other parties to generate a necessary evil to try and force Voter attendance to break the 40% turnout margin. (Yeah 60% stay at home and have Roast Quorn)

I'll explain this a bit clearer, lets take into consideration the manipulation of foreign policy within countries that this country doesn't see eye to eye with. An Example would be the rather publicised claim of Mark Thatcher attempting to fund a coup in Equatorial Guinea. While I can't claim this country is responsible, and indeed there is a very likely chance that it wasn't, certain people or "conspiracy groups" do like to go out on a limb and attempt to invoke completely political change, often spurred by very undemocratic processes.

This particular method has been used the world over by countries other than England (I won't waste time pointing fingers).

My suggestion is that what is used as foreign policy can easily be cultivated domestically when it's decided that the time is right. In this instance the Bank Rolling of the BNP party is likely to have been done by other parties to use the BNP as an evil entity a NAZI in the ointment, to get people off their arses from staying at home and actually out to the voting booths.

However I see this as completely undemocratic, in fact such methods are dishonest. After all the sudden increase of votes to Labour, Conservative, Liberal or any other party is only done so through this pantomime.

Why can't the government just be honest, Why can't they say "We aren't happy with the current turnouts during elections, the numbers are roughly 43% what figures exist as being the voting populous (of age and ability to vote). Why can't you turn out and support us?"

The simplest reason of course is they are scared of "REFORM". Party systems are like an evolutionary dead end, they are going no where fast and if we continue with them then they will just prove how rapidly they can sink a country. We need ways for the public to vote and incentives to vote, however the vote shouldn't be for which ugly mug we want to throw darts at down the local public house, the votes should be for the very nature of policy making.

This is why I won't vote currently, because I support complete political reform, where every person in every household will be able to login, logon or attend booths around the country to make their thoughts, opinions or votes known FOR POLICY.

Anyone that wants to play at being a politician then will require to "VOLUNTEER" that basically means they will not draw a wage or take money from the state. They will boo and hiss, but quite frankly Open Source software projects have proved time and time again that volunteers with a passion for what they are volunteering for can pull off the same if not better projects than those motivated just by money alone.

The only problem I face to see my dream of policies being shaped by the masses and tyrannical minorities losing their power, is of course the public sharing the same view.