Thursday, 22 October 2009

Sometimes Ignorance is not bliss

Ok I've just finished watching the "OMFG how controversial the BNP are on" Question Time.

What a load of absolute drivel delivered by a BBC pandering the masses who were baying for Nick Griffin's blood.

OK, I'm going to point out right now, I am not a fascist in fact I find the BNP party deplorable and think Mr Griffin is an ignorant, miseducated cretin who also has the mis-fortune to be an ugly version of Ricky Gervais.
However; why invite the guy onto the show so you can tear him a part. So you can level the occasional intelligent and indeed relevant question only to then talk over his answer.

The beauty of Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP members are that they are at their most stupid when they are simply allowed to talk. However I got very frustrated that whenever fuck-face started to talk somebody (usually Jacky-boy or Dimbledore) cut-in and moved him away from his point (which one can only assume would be as much bizarre as it was contradictory).

However I suspect this is what the BBC intended all along. They won their viewers over by having the BNP represented on a show that otherwise plods along as part of the regular Thursday night political schedule by giving a hint on controversiality but instead aired a public lynching which served no real political debate and would not have gone any way to sway anybody's political opinions. Those who already stood against the BNP will come away from tonight with the opinion that Griffin has no no political points and is an ideologically confused moron. However those that support him and his policies will claim he was being fought against from all corners audience, panel members and, quite shamefully, the host as well. What is the fucking point? Surely Question Time's role is to inspire political debate not to chastise someone, no matter how much of a moron they are.

Indeed had Griffin been allowed to carry on down some of his lines of thought there may have been more of the comments which appeared towards the end where he appeared to be a more right-wing version of Jan Moir. His homophobic comments have alienated him even more from the domain of the sane public. Had he been given room to breath and put himself across fully I'd imagine he'd have convinced many who thought of themselves as 'BNP supporters' to perhaps think again.

I am very disappointed by the BBC and sickened by Dimbleby.

What a waste of time and over-hyped drivel. I'd rather watch a bull-fight, which strangely probably would've looked quite similar had Straw dressed up a bit more.

On another note how awesome was Bonnie Greer!


  1. "The beauty of Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP members are that they are at their most stupid when they are simply allowed to talk."

    Have to disagree with you there Mr Christopher - Griffin is certainly racist, repulsive and dangerous, but stupid he isn't.

    Griffin went to an exclusive school and later Cambridge - this set him apart from the majority of the National Front's, and later the BNP's ranks. Thus, when he became leader of the party, he realised that the language used by the majority of the membership would keep them in the political wilderness, and set about trying to tone down the party's public image (this was referred to by Dimbleby last night).

    Each time Griffin began his answers on QT, they were exactly that - carefully thought out, calculated to deceive the audience into viewing the BNP as having 'changed', when the truth is their public image is simply a facade. Had he been allowed to speak with the same number of interruptions as any other guest, that would have allowed him to pursue this line.

    The end result would have been exactly what Griffin wanted from last night - an hour of the BNP's filtered, voter-friendly language. It was Dimbleby's duty to ensure that the true views of the BNP were heard, and in my opinion he did just that.

  2. I disagree, it was a lynching. It was like watching Jeremy Kyle without having to put the subtitles on. (Also, where were you?)

    I also think he performed quite badly.

    Yes, there was a bias, and the rest of the panel/host/audience had every opportunity to set him up and make him look as bad as possible.

    I also think he did himself absolutely no favours. The times he was able to answer, he didn't produce much. You'd think the 'most loathed man in Britain' would maybe have been able to see some of the atacks coming beforehand? Nope, no answers, save for the 'Shaggy' defense.

    "'You're quoted as saying..'
    'Wasn't me.'
    'We've got you on camera.'
    'Wasn't me'."

    Bonnie Greer saved it for me. No agenda, no party to make look good/bad. She just waited for a moment, picked a hole, and took the piss.

    With all this said, I'll admit to enjoying it anyway. It's like the smoking ban. I was against in in principle due to the fact that there was no referendum, but in the end, I'm not complaining.

    Watching him twitch, squirm, and fail to answer was still quite satisfying to watch, even if they could have easily let him dig his own hole.

    Evil Scott.

  3. "Also, where were you?"

    Are you asking me or Jeremy Kyle?

    I was watching in between reading about Michael Foot for dissertation. What a contrast.

  4. It was a good night, stimulating.

  5. "Each time Griffin began his answers on QT, they were exactly that - carefully thought out, calculated to deceive the audience into viewing the BNP as having 'changed', when the truth is their public image is simply a facade."

    Thanks for making my own response to your argument Gary.


  6. Alo I don't think you should confuse education with intellegence.

  7. I never said Griffin was intelligent, but nevertheless to go down the stupid vs intelligent road is to miss the point entirely.

    Regardless of whether Griffin is genuinely ignorant, choosing to deliberately misrepresent the truth to suit his own agenda or - most likely - a combination of the two, he still understands the power of language and presentation - that's why it was so important that he was put under intense scrutiny on QT.

  8. I'm going to finish by saying:

    What's the point of having it at all when a democratically elected person isn't treated with the same respect as other panelists; regardless of his opinions he should've at least been allowed time to answer the question layed at him....

    ....I'm more angry that he has come across as a victim, which no matter what you say Gary, he did.