Thursday, October 22, 2009
BNP on "Any Questions"
Nick Griffin was booed, jeered and mocked by a hostile television audience on the BBC's "Any Questions" last night, say the UK Daily Mail. Other newspapers also criticise his appearance.
IMO: Griffin sounded really excellent and his party sounded well worth a vote. The protestors outside the BBC, the BBC audience and the others on the panel sounded like twisted barbarians, a mad crowd. The history of Griffin's party,BNP, is not appealing. I recall the foundations of this party right back to Martin Webster's "Australian Nazi Party" through well-attended UK "National Front" rallies up to the present-day BNP. I believe I clearly understand Griffin's well-presented qualifications as to the aims of the present Party. We can compare the early days of the BNP with those of the Liberal Party, run by Jeremy Thorpe whose believed then illegal activities with rentboys and perhaps more important his alleged threats and murders, and his proven animal killings reminiscent of the horses-head-on-the-bed activities of the film Mafia godfathers, plus the apparently still continued attempts at vote-rigging by the same party could tempt one to think of the Libdems as being England's "Hamid Karzai"s. The BNP did none of those things AFAIK. Other parties covered up better than the Liberal party used to do, even bearing in mind the jailed Lord Kagan and Lord Plurenden, the John Stonehouse matter and the too numerous to mention Tory misdeeds, but most people realise by now that all the major parties, bearing in mind the banking and expenses scandals, are criminal incompetent scum. Anyone who wanted to vote for any of the major parties should have found their showing on the program disagreeable and disappointing even by their own standards. Vote for the BNP ? It would take long reasoned argument to say why not, but at this time a BNP vote does not yet seem advisable. Bear in mind that in office or with a strong voice the BNP are unlikely to be better than the rest. Perhaps you shouldn't give a dog a bad name, but UK politicians seem to have earned their bad name.
IMO: Griffin sounded really excellent and his party sounded well worth a vote. The protestors outside the BBC, the BBC audience and the others on the panel sounded like twisted barbarians, a mad crowd. The history of Griffin's party,BNP, is not appealing. I recall the foundations of this party right back to Martin Webster's "Australian Nazi Party" through well-attended UK "National Front" rallies up to the present-day BNP. I believe I clearly understand Griffin's well-presented qualifications as to the aims of the present Party. We can compare the early days of the BNP with those of the Liberal Party, run by Jeremy Thorpe whose believed then illegal activities with rentboys and perhaps more important his alleged threats and murders, and his proven animal killings reminiscent of the horses-head-on-the-bed activities of the film Mafia godfathers, plus the apparently still continued attempts at vote-rigging by the same party could tempt one to think of the Libdems as being England's "Hamid Karzai"s. The BNP did none of those things AFAIK. Other parties covered up better than the Liberal party used to do, even bearing in mind the jailed Lord Kagan and Lord Plurenden, the John Stonehouse matter and the too numerous to mention Tory misdeeds, but most people realise by now that all the major parties, bearing in mind the banking and expenses scandals, are criminal incompetent scum. Anyone who wanted to vote for any of the major parties should have found their showing on the program disagreeable and disappointing even by their own standards. Vote for the BNP ? It would take long reasoned argument to say why not, but at this time a BNP vote does not yet seem advisable. Bear in mind that in office or with a strong voice the BNP are unlikely to be better than the rest. Perhaps you shouldn't give a dog a bad name, but UK politicians seem to have earned their bad name.
# posted by uv : 6:32 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
