BBC makes a mountain out of a dunghill
Friday, October 23, 2009 I missed Question Time last night. (I was guzzling champagne and stuffing my face with canapes and "light bites" at the Royal Academy of Arts, but that's another story.) Nevertheless, an article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail on Tuesday reminded me of something.
"Back when I had a show on Sky TV," Littlejohn wrote, "my producer thought it would be a good idea to invite Griffin to appear. After all, we'd had the Islamist headbanger Omar Bakri on the programme a couple of weeks earlier, so why not?
"Interviewing the shifty and unsavoury Griffin was like trying to nail jelly to a wall ... Afterwards, I felt rather grubby."
As it happens, I was a guest on that very same programme. So, too, was Henry Olonga, the first black cricketer to represent Zimbabwe at international level.
Henry and I were chatting in the green room when we were joined by the BNP leader. I'm not sure if Henry knew who he was, or what he represented, but Griffin's presence certainly put a dampener on the conversation!
In the event, his appearance on Sky came and went without comment. There were no protests, no editorials, nothing (as far as I can recall).
Truth is, only the BBC could make a mountain out of a dunghill.
Reader Comments (133)
I think that the BBC really scored an own goal in its handling of last night's QT. Many online commenters have expressed, if not sympathy for the BNP, at least indignation at Griffin's stage-managed mauling. In changing the format, cherry-picking a provocative audience and encouraging panellists, Chair and audience to treat Griffin with complete contempt, Auntie has, indeed, given the BNP its predicted Christmas present. Sure enough, today Griffin on his website tells BNP supporters that there are several thousand more people waiting to be recruited. Even more importantly, though, he claims that from now on any reporting on the BNP will be viewed with the suspicion that the party is the victim of black propaganda. I think that he has a point and that, either out of a sense of fair play or curiosity, more potential recruits will be driven to investigate the BNP. All it need do to increase its power is to consistently present an acceptable face against continued failure of the main parties to address issues such as mass immigration and a post-Lisbon EU.
The Beeb has defended its 'strategy' on the grounds that the questions were, as usual, representative of those submitted by the audience. Perhaps they were but few, I think, would have considered the audience to be representative of the population as a whole. Had Labour and the Beeb refused to make a mountain out of Griffin's appearance then, at the very least, the broadcast wouldn't have attracted some three times the usual number of viewers. Now Griffins's filing a complaint about his treatment and 'suggesting' (I imagine, in vain) that QT invite him on again, 'properly'.
I am no BNP person nor will I become one, but I was disgusted by the way in which Nick Griffin was set up - after all, he is a properly elected MEP whether Jack Straw and co like it or not. As soon he tried to answer a question, he was immediately shouted down, not only by the howling mob of an audience, but also by the panel.
I used to watch Question Time religiously a few years ago until I realised that the programme was just a platform for politicians to spout the party line. Now back to CSI and stuff - real fiction.
Today there is such a pressure on people to conform to the overarching politically correct beeb/zanulabour/lib line. Non conformity seems to inspire frothing hatred in many of the followers of this line (hence some of the ghastly "you stink" and much worse comments we get from anti smokers on this and other sites.)
I can just see some unfortunate representative of the non believers in climate change view or of pro smoking view being subjected to similar treatment.
I cannot believe we have moved from being easy going and tolerant and respectful of people's possibly eccentric views, to this type offrothing mob. All encouraged and arranged by a public service broadcaster too.
I agree, banshee. I've commented on a couple of blogs about QT and my comments haven't been overtly hostile towards the BNP. I've deliberately not prefaced my remarks with what seems to be the obligatory disclaimer ("I'm no fan of the BNP but...") because the existence of such disclaimers testifies to the fear we have nowadays of expressing an opinion or having what we say misinterpreted as providing evidence of an unacceptable opinion. I'm just not playing the game.
You're right - we see it everywhere. I'd regard anyone who denies the holocaust as misguided but certainly not criminal. Sceptics of AGW are being treated like holocaust deniers. When the campaign begins in earnest to denormalise smoking in the home, parents will rationalise their huddling in the freezing cold in their gardens, so fearful will they be of society's opprobrium.
In my view, with power on the shift to Brussels anyway, I cant see what difference or impact the main govt parties will make as they all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet.
A big shake up in the order of things is needed to cope with this new regime waiting in the wings.
Will Cameron really hold to his promise and grant a referendum or amend the smoking ban if he gets into power, or will he succumb to the brown envelope.
As the people have lost all trust in the main parties, I think the time has come for the fringe parties like UKIP and BNP to be allowed have a crack at it. Even with all the scaremongering abount them, can they really be any worse than what we have at present.
If they dont have the numbers to form a party they could still shake things up to make a difference.
At least people would be more confident about their govt standing up to the diktat bullys in the EU.
As ann says, "the time has come for the fringe parties like UKIP and BNP to be allowed have a crack at it. Even with all the scaremongering abount them, can they really be any worse than what we have at present.",
Particularly on the smoking issue. You're wasting your time lobbying the Conservatives, Labour etc. they're not going to do anything about the smoking ban. Both UKIP and the BNP will abolish it so why not get behind them? According to the papers this morning 22% of people will consider voting BNP, put that together with UKIP and you are looking at a real, valid alternative to the corrupt politicians of the main three parties.
There's plenty of time yet until the next election and still more to come out about the corruption of the main three parties which should revolt the electorate even more. I'd say there's everything to play for regarding getting the smoking ban lifted as long as you disregard those who won't help you and assist those that will.
What made me laugh was the hollier than thow garbage.
For example commisar Straw is proposing trials that can be held in secret ,in a nutshell people could just dissapear.
As for immigration there is a problem there ,this is a small Island we have unemployment ,we just do not need any more people.
Mainstream Politicians have to engage in rational debate here ,and caste aside the fear of being branded a rascist because of it.
Because that is the reason they wont touch the subject eith a barge pole.
What surprised about the show was that someone suggested that him and his party went to the South pole where he be in colourless surroundings. I don't know where these people were educated because it wasn't approved. 'Black' is the absense of colour and 'White' is the result of all colours. Just goes that the educational standards in politics is beyond belief.
I've had inside information from UKIP that suggests there is as much support for the organisation as there is opposition.
As for the BNP, there is too much of the white supremacist about their ethos to make it possible for me to vote for them. As it was pointed out on the programme we are all minorities in one or another (Chris Huhne - ha!)
I did have sympathy with one or two of Griffin's utterances (such as pointing out that Jack Straw's support for the Iraq War made it hard to believe any guff about racial harmony from the Labour Party). But I fundamentally don't trust him either.
That leaves me with no one ... somehow the people have to remind the political class who is boss, as industry leaders, doctors and others never cease doing. Much easier said than done of course.
sorry: there is as much support for the *ban* within the organisation as there is opposition.
Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter to Toady Bliar, has spilled the beans on nulabor's secret immigration policy:
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date..."
"...Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.
This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants."
Some "very interesting" reading here today, to say the least!
Like almost everyone else I know, I too watched Question Time, and as a confirmed Conservative voter and supporter, and believer if free speech, I was appalled at the way Nick Griffin was treated. The whole programme was rigged from start to finish, starting with a blatantly obvious rent-a-crowd demonstration outside the BBC before the show, then going onto the hand-picked, politically motivated audience, who represented just a very small fraction of the electorate of this country.
As for the panel, they were not much better, Jack Straw and Bonnie Greer in particular, ranted and raved so much that they made Mr Griffin sound very sedate in comparison.
In answer to "Annon", Bonnie Greer is an American playwright, not a British politician, so her lack of knowledge in that area, does not show up our politicians "educational standards" at all.
Getting back to the "show" for want of a better word, the Chair, David Dimbleby, has always been, the man that keeps the wolves at bay, but this time, it was Mr Dimbleby himself that unleashed the wolves, and threw the unsuspecting Mr Griffin to them as bait. And boy did they go for that bait hook line and sinker!
The irony is that the self righteous BBC and its left wing followers, are the very people who bang on about fox hunting and field sports, yet it was these very people who yelped and screamed with delight as their prey was hounded from pillar to post, with no let up for a solid hour. He was, like the fox that they defend do dearly, completely defenceless against such a baying mob.
I was expecting to hear what Mr Griffin's party would do on normal every day issues that affect our lives. What was their policy on health, on education, on the war in Afghanistan, transport, nuclear power, etc., etc.. Instead of which all I heard was that he was a racist, and that he apparently said the holocaust never happened.
If he and his party are indeed racist, which I am inclined to believe, then both he and his party should be banned from British politics. And if he really did deny the holocaust ever happened, then he is a complete fool, who is not worth listening to anyway.
So why were we not allowed to hear the truth? Why did the left wing establishment gag Mr Griffin? And if the BNPs policies are so racist and abhorrent, why has his party not been banned?
My feelings on this are that Mr Griffin is simply not up to the job, he is a self deluded fool, and is being used by the left as a scapegoat, to try and show the electorate just how caring and perfect they are. The only trouble with this of course, is that this time, the plot has backfired, and so many people are now seeing Mr Griffin and his party as victims. And as we know, so many people are ready to stand up for the victim, no matter how vile he is in other areas. It is almost like feeling sorry for the peadophile who has been beaten up by the mob, after raping a five year old child.
Mr Griffin smiles and acts very calmly, even under ferocious attack, but then again, so did Hitler. He hands out the promise of "sweeties" to anyone who will follow him. He promises to get us out of Europe and to overturn the smoking ban. But as I have already said, the man is really nothing more than a fool. How would he get us out of Europe? I don't recall ever hearing how he intends doing this, and as for the smoking ban. Even if (God forbid) Mr Griffin became Prime Minister tomorrow, he alone could not overturn the smoking ban, it would still have to be put through parliament. Or does Mr Griffin plan to form a dictatorship if ever his party did form a government?
As I have said before, no one in this country is forced to vote for anyone, but what we all need to bear in mind is that we need to vote for the party which can offer us the best list of policies for the nation as a whole.
I am a smoker, as I assume most people on here to be, but to vote BNP just so I can smoke down the pub again is plain suicide. As far as I am concerned Nick Griffin and the BNP can stick their fags right up their arse, where most of their rhetoric comes from in the first place.
Belinda - I have read on a UKIP formum a response from party Chairman Paul Nuttall to a complainer about UKIP's policy to amend the ban. Paul said that UKIP had thrown it's support behind an amendment and he was sorry if this person didn't like it "but given also the association and support that UKIP has with Freedom2Choose, the party is fully behind an amendment,". I think this was a comment on the Blogers4UKIP site. The party, I believe, also showed it's support for the smoking ban amendment with the symbolic vote to abolish smoke-free legislation.
All political parties with fascist ideologies should be banned from Question Time, including the Labour party.
Peter, Peter! If he's [Griffin] racist he should be banned from British politics! Who's going to decide if he's racist - the Labour Party to whom everyone who doesn't positively 'embrace a Britain enriched by multiculturalism? Banned? Banning everything it doesn't like has been the hallmark of this Government which is managing to gag free speech by stealth. Do you really agree with the concept of free speech or only if you don't find the views expressed offensive? Banning politicians you don't like is the mark of totalitarianism - like it or not, under a system of democratic government, people have voted for the BNP and they have a right to be heard.
(How would he get us out of Europe? I haven't heard how Cameron's going to get us out of Europe. How is he going to overturn the smoking ban, he'd have to put it through Parliament? I haven't heard Cameron even say he's going to overturn the ban but, if he wanted to, he, too, would have to put it through Parliament.)
I dislike the BNP but, even more, I dislike the mob mentality that now seems to be prevalent which demands constant trumpeting of acceptance of right behaviour, right attitude, right opinions and views even mild dissent with outrage. I've seen plenty of comments online which express disgust at Griffin's treatment and a few which mildly sympathise with the BNP but how many of those people would go into their public sector jobs the next day and express those views? I suspect very few, so cowed are we after twelve years of insidious stifling of free speech.
There has been a distinct softening of attitudes towards the BNP and UKIP over the past week as people begin to realise that they are the only alternative to more of the same from the corrupt politicians of the main three parties. It is evident in comments right across the internet and in those that I have spoken to. Let's hope it keeps gaining momentum.
I am aware that there are anti-smokers within UKIP, as there are many anti-smokers within the Tory party, but UKIP anti-smokers are drowned by those wanting choice, freedom, democracy and tolerance.
UKIP would never abandon their commitment to amending the smoking ban. If they did, they would lose over 50% of their support and it would be the end of UKIP. They know that and all their chosen speakers know it as well.
UKIP would slam down very hard on any of their members who spoke publically in agreement to the ban.
Unfortunately, all parties have misfits who cause mayhem.
Simon - this is what I find worrying (WRT the BNP). I think that their new, acceptable facade still conceals less acceptable policies and there will be mayhem if they grow in power. I'm sure that many BNP supporters aren't violent racists but simply people who feel betrayed by Labour but, because of its antecedents, there will be an element who will try to fuel aggression - and how easy that is to do, witness the QT mob who no doubt consider themselves to be decent, tolerant people.
If attitudes have been softening then it could be argued that it's another of those unintended consequences of Labour and the Beeb's mismanagement, just as Griffin predicted. Griffin might have come across on QT as someone who can safely be ignored but with inept enemies you don't need friends..
I totally agree Joyce.
The ex-labour voters in my town (who are those because mummy and daddy voted labour and weren't allowed to vote for anyone else), are now voting BNP!!
The labour government has gone one step too far with a blanket smoking ban. If they had adopted smoking restictions and catered for everyone, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
The big concern for me is what on earth will happen to the political arena if the tories are not strong enough to attack to the zealots?
The next election means nothing at the moment to smokers due to those who have seeked their way into the global agenda and the funding that goes with it.
I understand that the tory PPCs wish to stand up for tolerance and democracy - do the tory hierarchy though? I've yet to see that.
David Cameron's words tonight in an email to all supporters:
"but I think the way the British people don't tolerate the politics of intolerance is something we can still be proud"
I'm sorry - but Cameron is intolerant when he refuses to embrace the mountain of solutions to a blanket smoking ban which is causing thousands to be laid off work
Maria,
I live in a Tory local authority and they are just as bad, if not worse than Labour. Laws, bans, disproportionate penalties for everything, spy cameras everywhere, non jobs by the thousand. smoking police. I even parked on a verge in the middle of nowhere and a "verge warden" popped up from nowhere and threatened me with a ticket. Add to that the corruption of the Tory Mp's who have been troughing with the best of them and you have a picture of what life would be like under Cameron. He could have stopped the excesses of these local authorities but chose not to.
The only alternative I see is to vote for whoever looks strongest locally at the election, BNP. Green or UKIP, it doesn't matter, the main goal must be to oust the main three parties because they do not have our interests at heart. There is another raft of scandal and corruption this morning, the worst of which seems to be the seizure of assets by secret courts as reported in the Mail on Sunday.
This whole disgusting farrago has got to be stopped and none of the main parties are going to do it. They will only tighten the screws further.
I think that Nick Griffin pointed out one thing that that we should all be concerned about, and that is this.
Our country is affluent. There is no doubt about it. Of course, this affluence is not available to all the people of the country - some are rich and some are poor.
That is the way it is at this time, and it will continue to be so until some way is found to spread the affluence around more equitably.
What Nick Griffin pointed out is that this affluence that we have now was created by the blood, sweat and tears of our fathers and grandfathers. I do not believe that I am being 'racist' if I say that while African people were sitting around in the sun and amusing themselves, our fore-fathers were sweating in pits and factories, digging canals and building railways.
Nick Griffin's point was: Why are we giving away the affluent heritage that our fathers and grandfathers sweated for to people who did nothing to create it? I think that he has a valid point.
There are those who say that the population of this country has to continue to increase in order to continue to increase our affluence. This idea does not make sense. Our prosperity has always depended upon invention and innovation. We do not need more people. There are not sufficient jobs for the 'indiginous' population. Nick Griffiths is right in that respect. Unrestricted migration of people throughout the EU cannot be correct since Countries such as ours can so easily be overrun. Individual countries must have the right to say, "Enough!"
A serious problem that has arisen as a result of the European integration of laws has been totalitarian imposition of standards.(Totalitarian means that EVERYONE lives their lives in the same way as eveyone else).
Our politicians are so stupid.
They do not understand that they are falling for totalitarian ideas. The smoking ban is a case in point. No one with any intelligence whatsoever agrees that Passive Smoking is harmful. The idea is simply untrue. If that were not so, then millions of people would have died at a young age because their parents smoked. These millions of people did not die.
We really must get rid of this Government. Ministers have come, buggered things up, and gone. All the time, being dictated to by the likes of Archdeacon Sir Liam Donaldson, chief exec of the new religion of HEALTHISM. Persons who post on this site, few though they are, must decide how best to ensure that this present Government is removed.
"If that were not so, then millions of people would have died at a young age because their parents smoked. These millions of people did not die."
Bullseye, Junican !
But, alas, too many of our 'politicians' are either:
a) Too SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND Simple Truth, or
b) Too 'SOPHISTICATED' to APPRECIATE it.
And their collective mindset is such thay they feel almost obliged to hint at access to some great Secret Knowledge - denied to the rest of us - which entitles them to govern us.
Many, in short, seem even now NOT to have grasped the significance of the Internet.
Not a mistake that Dan Hannan will ever make !
The internet is their achilles heal as now their lies are exposed ,but only to the people smart enough to look ,however it must come as a real embarrasment to the controlled mainstream media as the expose of the propaganda they have printing and broadcasting for years becomes apparent.
And it is becoming more apparent to more people.
The old saying you can fool all the people some of the time.
You can fool some of the people all of the time,but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
This is why they have lost all semblance of credibility as they are now caught lying, spinning and distorting the truth far too often .
'What Nick Griffin pointed out is that this affluence that we have now was created by the blood, sweat and tears of our fathers and grandfathers. I do not believe that I am being 'racist' if I say that while African people were sitting around in the sun and amusing themselves, our fore-fathers were sweating in pits and factories, digging canals and building railways.
Nick Griffin's point was: Why are we giving away the affluent heritage that our fathers and grandfathers sweated for to people who did nothing to create it? I think that he has a valid point'.
Hasn't Junican heard of the slave trade? The idea that the forefathers of Africans were lying around in the sun enjoying themselves while industrious Brits slaved away in the mines and mills is pure invention. Britain got rich on the exploitation of labour both here and in the colonies. White people carried that model to South Africa where they played in the sun, and were maintained by black South African labour in mines over there.
Griffin is entirely wrong to base his analysis of history on the idea that black people lazed around while white people slaved. It is a perverse excuse to restrict immigration. People of whatever colour have always shown a regrettable tendency to 'lie about in the sun' if they can organise a labour force to maintain them in their luxury.
Well said, Belinda!
I'm also pleased to hear what you have to say about UKIP, Maria. I guess as the election gets closer, there will be much muck-spreading to turn people away from UKIP so that the Tories can slip into Lab's controlling shoes.
I think those of you that do vote Tory will be saying after the next election "just one more chance" and by the one after that, you will know that NuCameron is the same as NuBlair was - "what does it matter if we abandon our traditional values for votes - where else will our core supporters go if they don't vote for us?"
You all should think about changing your support now before you suffer the abandonment that we former Labour voters have had to endure. Don't let the Tories pull the wool over your eyes as Labour pulled it over ours.
Firstly Joyce, although I do believe that Griffin is a racist, I did not say he was in my post.
My actual words were : "If he and his party are indeed racist, which I am inclined to believe, then both he and his party should be banned from British politics. And if he really did deny the holocaust ever happened, then he is a complete fool, who is not worth listening to anyway" The little word that means so much in my post is "if".
If you read my post completely, you would have seen that I stood up for free speech, and I defended Griffin's rights to be heard on that programme, in the same manner as every other politician. But we didn't get that did we? What we got was a gang of baying left wing militants stopping him from airing his views on everything that the public was entitled to hear.
And there is no point in you, or anyone else, asking, how is Cameron going to do this or that, at this particular moment in time, because it is not Cameron we are supposed to be debating here, it is Question Time and how Nick Griffin was treated on it.
Griffin has previously stated that he is against us being a part of Europe and that he also wants to overturn the smoking ban. As it was Griffin on QT, I expected to hear his views on these subjects, and I feel cheated that I was not allowed this.
You say you haven't heard Cameron even say he's going to overturn the smoking ban. Of course you haven't, because he has not said he would, but Griffin has, so we are entitled to hear how he would do this. We all know he couldn't because as I have already said, an act like this has to be taken through Parliament. Labour only got their own way on this through firstly having such a big majority, and secondly, having the entire Lib-Dems backing them.
If and when Cameron does get in, I am 75% certain he will not have such a large majority, as all the boundaries have been rigged by Labour. If he gets in with a majority of between 20 to 50 seat he will be very lucky. Even if he wanted to do something about the smoking ban, which he hasn't mentioned anyway, I doubt very much whether he would be in the electoral position to carry it out, and if he couldn't, then I am damn sure the likes of the BNP stand absolutely no chance.
As for poor old UKIP, they are in a real state at the moment aren't they, what with this enormous fine hanging over their heads, and now we learn that the BNP has apparently paid to get a list of UKIPs members, I am sorry to say that I don't think they have the ghost of a chance.
I am sure there will be further opportunities in the coming months to hear Griffin address the nation. I approve his getting a hearing as he is leader of a national party that has gained seats, but do not expect to be impressed by anything he says – except that people are voting for him because the mainstream parties won't listen to them.
I cannot imagine being persuaded to vote for him even for this reason.
The BBC has lost all credibility to say 40 plus years ago was a very world wide respected institution. Now policitcal correct zeros run it.
However, back to mundane matters. Harrogate Saturday 24th. Wet windy and just bloody awful. Eight smokers including me standing outside. I asks what do think of the smoking ban when we have to stand outside ? Answer ' I've got used to it mate dont give a s..t.Not bothered mate. could not care less mate.I,m all right Jack mate. Get it.
As for Mr D C nd his ilk you might as well believe the world is flat
Sorry Peter T.I do like your firey caustic comments..
And I would not have any faith in UKIP either no matter what the promisies are. The situation is dead! full stop. Ask the population. We need to prevent full proibtion from the EU now.
It's very transparent why the BNP are getting such coverage. Fear. There's an election coming which may well have a low turnout, for various reasons. One way of persuading people to get out and vote is the wellworn,'we must vote to keep the BNP out.even though we have no faith in the main parties.' It's an old trick.Nick Griffen and the BNP are no serious threat at all, but to make out they are scares an awful lot of people, and it will work.
Just one other point before i leave for the time being... I worked in cotton mills from sixteen to have for I have today.Privlaged to have own bar etc. We smoke etc.. Do we enjoy it ? NO!!!.How can we do when our fellows are made to suffer. I now appreciate even more the freedoms what have been lost.
As for the pubs..They can rot.
Oh, Peter, now you've taken the huff when it was my intention to be provocative rather than offensive (and, if I'm honest, I was in a bit of a mood, so sorry).
I didn't misinterpret, though. I countered that even if Griffin is, indeed, racist, he shouldn't be banned because to do so would compromise the very notion of democracy.
Despite your doubt about Cameron's ability to overturn the ban you will, undoubtedly, still vote for him. Given your loyalty to the Tories, I would be surprised if you intended to do otherwise. Those of us who don't share that loyalty are still in a bit of a quandary. If UKIP go down I might have to abstain.
To Belinda.
There were no slaves imported into this country. It is this country of which I speak. But I agree with you that many people became wealthy on the backs of slave labour. On the other hand, our 'indiginous' forefathers were, for all intents and purposes, also slaves. They had very few rights, were paid a pittance for their labour and dared not critisise their Masters.
Also, it is a matter of fact that no scientists have ever come out of Africa until recent times. I am not being Racist; I am being factual. When I said that Africans were sitting around in the sun amusing themselves, I was generalising in a very wide way.
You really ought not to castigate me. We are all agreed, are we not, that exploitation is not acceptable. Nevertheless, there is definitely a genuine arguement that the risks that our parents and grandparents took in order to establish Trade Unions and such in order to gain a fairer distribution of the wealth that they created ought not to be given away to all and sundry.
I am sorry if you do not like it, but I personally do not like the idea that the children and grandchildren of the indigenous population cannot get jobs because of the influx of people who did nothing to create the affluence historically.
I am not being racist. My thoughts apply to Europeans, Asians, Africans and whatever. This country cannot absorb the whole population of the world.
Junican
Whether slaves were brought into the country is not the issue because the British wealth was founded on exploitative trade and labour relations both here and abroad. The fact that there were no African scientists until recently is also fairly irrelevant. It wasn't the scientists among our forefathers that were slaving down pits. Being a qualified scientist is not the only way to earn a respectable and worthwhile living or contribute to the community and national wealth.
Immigration policy is a problem in its own right and trying to restrict immigration on the basis that the forefathers of immigrants made no contribution to the British wealth is unhelpful as well as being historically inaccurate. There is a school of thought that declares most imnigrants much harder and more willing workers than many so-called indigenous British people. From my experience I can agree with this to an extent. I work in a shop in Edinburgh which is at least 50 per cent staffed by immigrants or second-generation immigrants. My partner works in an elderly/dementia care home, where it is a truism that local people don't like working because they don't like the personal care element, ie wiping bums and changing pads several times a day.
If you say you don't like exploitation I can't dispute it, but your understanding of the riches of the Empire seems woeful.
What IS ‘Racism’ ?
A pertinent question in this Age of Fashionable Cant – but one which no-one ever seems to ask whenever the term is applied.
Clearly, I’ve been living in a bubble of ignorance for over fifty years, since I seem to be the ONLY one who DOESN’T know what it means any more. As a result, and being the tedious little precisionist that I am (in terms of language and meaning, at any rate), I have this irritating tendency to ask people EXACTLY what they mean when they deploy this catch-all condemnation (or confession) of All-Consuming Evil.
Enoch Powell, of course, was a ‘racist’. Ask ANY ‘Guardian’ reader.
This DESPITE the fact that he constantly expressed an enduring love for India and its people, and even suggested that he might like to retire there.
But he DID make the mistake of saying that his love for India did NOT mean that he wished to see ‘India on the streets of England’.
Quite intolerable !
He MAY have been the youngest Brigadier in the British Army (rising from the ranks), and the youngest Professor of Greek in the British Empire, but he was clearly a fool. And a racist.
Ask any ‘Guardian’ reader.
I’ve even heard it suggested that our fathers and grandfathers went to war ‘to fight against racism’. I, on the other hand, had always thought that ‘we’ went to war primarily as the result of a defence treaty with Poland, and secondarily to combat the menace of National Socialism and its pan-European agenda of total control.
And possibly something to do with Freedom (that outmoded construct of 18th century reactionaries).
Few people gave a damn about the Jews in 1939. In fact, many of the trains carrying refugee Jewish children under the admirable ‘kindertransport’ scheme were stoned as they trundled through the English countryside.
If ‘racism’ had been the pre-dominant motive, then what on earth were we doing defending a country which – together with its neighbour to the East – had a long and inglorious history of anti-Jewish persecution ?
“I MAY be a wife-beater, mass-murderer, and child-rapist, but I’m NOT a racist !”
This familiar apologia (and variations thereof) is shortly to be displaced, of course, by the more ‘progressive’:
“I MAY be a racist, but I’m NOT a smoker !”
We have now reached the ludicrous stage in which a violent attack on an Asian by white youths, if accompanied by some such phrase as “Take that, you Paki bastard !” merits an even greater sentence (‘racially-aggravated assault’) than a ‘non-racially-motivated’ assault on a pensioner (“Take that, Grandad !”).
One can only hope that Grandad understands the need for this subtle distinction, as they repair his broken body in the A and E ward.
Since this ‘racial’ element is often merely inferred, such a concept – in effect- confers a special status on all ‘coloured’ people denied the rest of us. That sounds like ‘discrimination’ (another Humpty Dumpty word much favoured by the Left) to me.
As does the granting of a free University education to the ‘Scots’, but denying it (in Scotland) to the ‘English’ (black or white). Even if the ‘English’ are paying for it.
And, of course, making jokes about ‘Asians’, black people, and Jews IS ‘racist’.
But making jokes about Americans, (white) South Africans, and the French is NOT.
Recreational Guilt, perhaps ?
Thus, the impeccably Leftist ‘Spitting Image’ team WERE able to produce a satirical song in the late Eighties entitled ‘Never met a nice South African’ – with, one imagines, the total approval of the Guardianistas.
But, had an East London rock band produced a counterblast in the form of ‘Never met a nice West Indian’, I wonder whether their reaction would have been quite the same.
Possibly not.
A Somalian expressing a preference to live in a ‘black’ area would merely be exhibiting a perfectly understandable desire to ‘live among his own’. This would be a matter of ‘culture’.
An Englishman expressing a preference to live in a ‘white’ area would be demonstrating an unhealthy obsession with ‘race’, however – and should probably be sent to a Political Correction Facility. The English don’t have a ‘culture’.
When I worked in the all-male environment of a bakery in the Seventies, our chargehand (from West Ham) habitually addressed our Asian colleagues (somewhat inaccurately) as ‘Nigger’. In turn, the Indians and Bengalis referred to us ‘white boys’ (inappropriately) as ‘Honky’.
In two years, never a blow was struck, never a tear shed. This rough barrack-room humour was TOTALLY unmalicious, and probably served to lance any resentment that MAY have been festering beneath the surface.
Such an approach would – in our over-feminised, feely-touchy, none-may-be-offended-or-I’ll-call-a-policeman, Polly-Toynbee-wouldn’t-like-it, environment – now be quite unthinkable, of course.
Tell a female executive that she has a nice figure today, and you risk getting beaten over the head with an ‘anti-harassment’ suit.
Even if she can’t pronounce ‘harassment’ correctly.
And God and all His Angels protect you if she's BLACK !
Gender AND Racial stereotyping.
Unforgivable.
Time for the return from exile of our ever-trusty friends, Mr Common Sense and Mr Common Humanity, surely ?
Common Humanity tells you that chucking people into death camps is wicked and wrong – whether it’s because they’re Jewish, or because they’re trade unionists, conservatives, gypsies, or merely because they part their hair on the ‘wrong’ side.
And ‘waterboarding’ is TORTURE – whether perpetrated by the Gestapo OR the Americans.
Common Sense tells you that making jokes about people on account of their ethnicity and the supposed characteristics of their ‘race’ (Tight-Fisted Scotchmen, Loud-Mouthed Yanks, Voluble Italians, Efficiency-Crazed Germans etc etc) does NOT inevitably lead to Dachau and Treblinka. All tyrannies are humourless.
But films showing smokers getting beaten up by invisible hands MIGHT just ‘send the wrong message’ to certain people.
And anyone who ‘denies’ the Holocaust is a fool. A pretty offensive one at that. But, under what Moral Code should Folly and Wounded Feelings be the subject of CRIMINAL (as opposed to SOCIAL) sanctions ?
Freedom of Speech - short of an OBVIOUS incitement to criminal behaviour -should be cherished and protected at ALL costs.
And not nibbled away by the locusts of Fashionable Opinion.
Common Sense and Common Humanity.
Typically (if not uniquely) ‘British’ characteristics.
Once upon a time.............................
(Gawd - don't 'e go on...........)
Junican wrote: What Nick Griffin pointed out is that this affluence that we have now was created by the blood, sweat and tears of our fathers and grandfathers. I do not believe that I am being 'racist' if I say that while African people were sitting around in the sun and amusing themselves, our fore-fathers were sweating in pits and factories, digging canals and building railways.
It should perhaps be pointed out that life in the high northern latitudes was always harder than life in the tropics. In a cold climate, people needed to build robust dwellings, wear more clothes, and eat more food than they did in the tropics. So northern European types like us were always more hard-working than our African cousins, who enjoyed a relatively easy life. This has nothing to do with cultural values, but with geography and physics.
Northern Europeans like us also had a strong motivation to innovate in order to make their lives easier for themselves. What is a canal or a railway or a metalled road but something that enables goods to be moved around more easily? Our African cousins, who were already enjoying a relatively easy life, had no equivalent incentive to innovate, and so did not.
Martin V asks 'What IS 'Racism' ?
After treating us to a 1000 page (or thereabouts) monologue on the subject Martin, I would have thought you didn't really require an answer, but as I am an expert on the subject, along with every other poster on here, I thought you might like to hear my take on the subject.
In my opinion, racism is a state of mind. It was planted there by ignoramuses in order to further their political ambitions. After all, if you are a politician, you obviously need people voting for you, and what better way to get a massive proportion of the vote than to tell the increasing numbers you have just let into this country, that you are on their side, and if anybody dares to say one word about them, you will make sure they are prosecuted under the new laws you have just brought in.
We all know that there isn't really any harm in calling in calling someone black or a Jew, for that is what they are. I am part Jewish myself, and couldn't care less if someone called me a Jew or a Yid, no more than I would if they said I had a big nose. What I would take umbrage to, is if someone said that I should be imprisoned or murdered or my freedom taken away from me because of my race or religion. That is real racism.
Our stupid police force, say that if you call someone a name, relating to their ethnicity, then they class that as "Hate Crime" What absolute crap!
Our elected (and non elected) "leaders" plant all this crap in people's minds, just like they have planted the idea that smokers are evil, dirty people in the minds of other ignoramuses.
I personally have black friends, Jewish friends, Asian friends, Chinese friends, Greek friends, Spanish friends, Italian friends, Gay friends, Girl friends (don't tell the wife will you?), Irish, Scottish, and even a few English friends, and I can honestly say that racism and discrimination, hardly if ever, enters into our conversation. It is brought up from time to time, but only in the same way as politics or the price of fish is, as a perfectly normal discussion, and nothing else.
You know why this is? Because we do not let ourselves be taken in by our political "masters". We question what they are saying, and do not accept their rhetoric blindly, as so many people do in this country today.
What do you think of these quotes in todays newspaper of an article written by Mary Kenny.
"The most hated man in Britain today is Nick Griffin.
Griffin enraged the nation by insisting that were Winston Churchill alive, the BNP might be the only party he would be able to join.
But closer and cooler examination of the facts would reveal that Winston Churchill's ideas were not always at variance with those of the BNP.
Indeed the odd thing about the rage against Griffin and the BNP is that only a generation ago, most Englishmen would have agreed, broadly with many of Griffin's ideas.
Nevertheless, on rational examination, what Nick Griffin and the BNP stand for is not hugely different from the England that Churchill, and his countrymen, once accepted.
But you can't help suspecting that some of the louder protestations against Nick Griffin and his BNP are fuelled by a massive dosage of cant, and an anxious collective desire to repudiate what was one held dear by many British
traditions."
While I would agree that life in the colder climes can be tougher, I still find that Idlex makes sweeping generalisations on what has contributed to progress in African countries compared with the UK, and I'm not sure what they contribute to Nick Griffin's idea of an immigration policy anyway. I still find the easier that black Africans have had an easy time of it a little bit hard to believe. Do you really think people in Africa have not been innovative and resourceful to meet their needs in all these millions of years? Their needs were not the same as ours, but survival has always been as critical to all people everywhere - this is true of Africa and Asia especially after they were colonised by people who did not understand their culture and way of life but sought to profit from it.
I'm not in favour of blanket positive discrimination in favour of women, black and ethnic communities, in housing, employment or in the definition of crime. Beating someone up is bad, whoever the perpetrator and whoever the victim.
Ann ... I fully agree that some of what Griffin passes as 'common sense' even I could agree with: such as, how does Jack Straw possess to support multiculturalism and the Middle East when he supports the slaughter in Iraq. The smoking ban may be another example. In some senses the BNP is annoying the establishment by not subscribing to so-called PC nonsense and there is a danger that it might win many votes for this reason.
The twisted thinking of the political elite is such that voting BNP is tempting to many. However their analysis of the world is so clearly tainted with white suprmacism that I can't go along with it.
The political elite feels accountable to itself, to its European masters, to the corporate world, and not to its constituents. This is something that the voters must put right, not just at election time but between elections too. Whatever those people at Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels etc think they are there to serve us, not we them. Money talks, power talks, and the people must learn to talk as well. The Turks can do it! http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200403/s1060709.htm
Peter -
Have you been taking Grumpy Pills lately ?
I was only asking, after all.
Only asking.
(And I bet my Big Nose is bigger than yours: courtesy of my Italian Dad, God bless him !).
I just hope that I don't now receive a text message from David Cameron, BANNING me from voting for HIS party.
It'd probably be superfluous advice, anyway.....
Martin V, you're a block of sense. You really have a way with words that puts it all into context.
Never have I read an article showing up the PC bullshit that's now called racism, for what it is.
Its a pity you're not a spin doctor for the good party, un-named as yet!
Martin V: 'Even if she can’t pronounce "harassment" correctly.' Brilliant: a whole, dreary culture summed up in a mispronunciation.I have actually come to think that the word should have two separate entries in any dictionary according to where the main stress falls.
Do you really think people in Africa have not been innovative and resourceful to meet their needs in all these millions of years? (Belinda)
When they needed to be innovative, they were. And they would have had to have been to get through a few ice ages. It's simply that if you live in a warm, energy-rich environment, you don't have to do much innovating.
I am not sympathetic to Junican saying that Africans were 'sitting around in the sun' while Europeans were 'sweating in pits and factories', because it suggests that Africans should have been sweating in pits and factories as well, but were too lazy to do so. My point was that they didn't need to, which is quite different.
There are many reasons why Africa has not produced scientists and the most persuasive I have come across is this. Sub Saharan Africa is by and large either side of the equator, which means it has a clement, consistent climate and day/night hours. This means that there is no need to develop the technology for clothes, and food is available all the year round. Africans hence have very little perception of the future. I was told an anecdote by an African if you say to at 1.00pm at lunch I will leave £10 on the table, you can have it now, or £20 when I return at 2.00pm they invariably go for the tenner.
Contrast that with a Europe emerging from an age where the land is frozen 3-4 months of the year, making hunting and gathering extremely difficult, same too with differing daylight hours. This also meant that ice age man had to develop the technology for sophisticated clothing to combat -20c temperatures. Because winter planning became paramount we assumed massive technological and strategy skills which have been amplified over the years.
Also, my add on to this theory, is that because life was so difficult, families would of been small. We were forced again out of necessity to cooperate with people who we were not genetically related to. Hence in Africa especially the only people you trust are your immediate family, i.e. rampant nepotism, while we are happy to delegate and trust non family people. The social sites Facebook and LinkedIn are examples of social networks that work very well.
Geography and climate were the west's natural advantages that has given the world science and relative wealth.
Are we straying a bit? The smoking ban, as implemented, is, I believe, a sign and symbol of an age-old domineering and dictatorial streak in the human psyche which affects many activities other than the use of tobacco. This site has opened up its relevance to the politics of our country.I hope our MPs are listening. I would like to suggest we keep our eye on that.
Isn't it interesting that no-one is reporting Andrew Neather's bombshell (apart from The Mail, natch)?
Expect support for the BNP to rocket.
It was reported in The Sun today as well Joyce.
Ann -
Many thanks for your kind comments. One would rather hope, however, that people's hunger for Truth would render the black arts of the Spin Doctor irrelevant. Some chance !
Norman -
Well spotted. And you may care to add the word 'COVERT' to your list. THAT one is always sure to bring on one of my 'Grrrrrrr' moments.
Oh, and 'ZO-OLOGIST', too, please. I've yet to find 'ZOO-OLOGIST' in the dictionary: someone who 'studies zoos', I assume ?
Pat, Timbone et al -
Thanks to you, too, for your kind remarks on an earlier post.
But, Pat - I don't believe I have a URL, do I ?
Or, have I misunderstood ?
Twelve-hour shifts tend to blunt the sensibilities somewhat. Think I might become an MP:
I could do with a break from work.................
I wonder if we should put this debate to bed.
My own final comment is that in no way did I intend to suggest that African people are less intelligent that European, Asian or Chinese people. Between, say, 1500AD and 2000AD, as others have said as well as me, there was simply no need for African people to bother with mechanical, electrical, astrophysical things. There is nothing wrong with that if you are content with your lifestyle.
There is every reason to expect that the African people will soon begin to realise the potential of the vast wealth of their continent - that is, provided that the new religion of Environmentalism allows them to do so. If the environmentalists have their way, then Africa will be condemned to continuing poverty, starvation and disease.
You cannot have progress in these matters without ENERGY.