He wasn't very good, was he?
But that isn't really the point. Are there points of view which are so unacceptable that they should not be simply treated as others? Should the BNP be regarded as any other political party?
I'm asking a rhetorical question, because I think not, but if so, then should they be permitted to exist?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
You know it makes sense....
We moderate, and you're not welcome! Also - no anonymous comments , please....
Idiosyncratic maverick thoughts of a liberal fortysomething Brit
Facebook Badge
About Me
- Merseymike
- Liverpool, United Kingdom
- Greetings. I'm a 48 year old man, living in Liverpool with my civil partner David. I'm vaguely left-wing, usually argumentative, gay, and have a PhD. Enough to be going on with?
Search This Blog
Buy this book!
You know it makes sense....
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed
This blog believes in and actively supports....
To all Christian readers....a reminder
A Warning to any Trolls (Tories, conservative evangelicals, homophobes) who try and post here....
We moderate, and you're not welcome! Also - no anonymous comments , please....
Dorothy, our pussy-cat
Challenge homophobic hate crime
Music....soul and smooth jazz
Links - organisations I like or respect
Blogs and bulletin boards worth looking at
Support Palestine
The greatest football club in the land.....
Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia
3 comments:
The BNP has been getting more votes recently. This is worrying both the mainstream political parties and the liberal media.
The BNP's Achilles Heel is Nick Griffin. He is an unattractive man, who sweats a lot, who is not very clever and who does not come over well in interviews.
I am pretty certain that his invitation to the Question Time panel was a deliberate ploy to let the BNP hang themselves. I am also pretty certain that the invitation would have been discussed among all interested parties before it was issued. It wouldn't surprise me if the idea came from outside of the BBC. The fuss in the newspapers was just a smokescreen put up by people more than likely in on the deal from the beginning.
And I think everyone would agree that the cunning plan worked a treat.
How can you stop people from talking without cutting your own lifelines?
Let him talk. Forbidding people from appearing on TV only makes them look like martyrs and you look like a scold afraid to let adults make up their own minds.
People don't need official churches, official political lines and state-run media with virtual monopolies on "respectability". Paternalism is ugly, no matter if it's "conservative" or "Progressive".
Tend to agree, but there do have to be some limits with regard to direct stirring up of hatred
Post a Comment