says Mark Holland, in a piece on the new Channel 4 (non-BBC) output which takes a sideswipe at BBC ‘comedy’ (which on Radio Four means Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steel and a host of public-school lefties, one of whom must be called Sally for some reason).
These days we all know how to read between the lines, Pravda style, during any BBC news broadcasts we’re unlucky enough to catch. On the radio mostly. But it’s getting that way with the Radio Times too. One only has to spot a few tell tale keywords in the listings to know that a cavalcade of cobblers is looming onto the broadcasting horizon. ‘Satire’ is the big one for me. Take the BBC4’s The Late Edition;
Marcus Brigstocke hosts BBC FOUR’s studio audience comedy show, a riotous half hour of intelligent satire and debate with contributions from leading comedy writers. Strong language..
If Roy Castle were to rise from the dead in an effort to discover just how many George Bush is thick “jokes” it’s possible to squeeze into the back of 28 minutes of air time it just might be worth bothering to tune in. Otherwise forget it.
O/t election in Chile:
The mainpage on BBC Views Online has an upbeat
“Change in Chile
Celebrations as the country’s first female president is elected “
You might have guessed that she’s not a right-winger.
If the Conservatives are victorious in Canada’s election I wonder if we’ll have such a happy-sounding reference on the Beeb?
ot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615636.stm
all i have to say is:
Operation BOOT
Pathetic.
Iran nuclear bid ‘fault of West’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615832.stm
Not so much a crit on Al-Beeb as they are just reporting what
Prince Saud al-Faisal said. However why no counter comment with the alternative view? ie “this guy Ahmadinejad needs to be dealt with before he can carry out his plan to visit his maker and collect his 72 virgins along with the rest of his country in a Israel/Iran act of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ that was a deterrent to the Soviets, but is unlikely to be so for Iran.”
In 1939 was the BBC spouting:
Hitler War Plan ‘fault of West’?
When actually Hitler was just another nut job who needed to be dealt with.
Does Europe need to go through a catastrophic event every 25 years or so, to ensure we never forget the consequences of appeasement?
Re Iran, If I was the US President, I’d be sorely tempted to say to the so-called EU3 -“You, deal with Iran, we’re busy”.
Steyn has written about this much more elequently than me.
Yes “Socialisim is Necroting” that’s the one. So far as I can tell, that’s a straightforward breach of the Race Relations (Public Order Act 1986), constituting material that’s “threatening, abusive or insulting” – most probably with active intent to stir up racial hatred.
“What is the point of testing anything on Americans unless it’s a new type of cattle prod or the Ebola virus”.
Good grief, I hope he and his wretched producers are utterly ashamed of themselves.
For what it’s worth, I’ve filed an official complaint with the BBC – something I’ve never done before, and I’d urge as many of you who can be bothered to do the same. There’s got to be a line drawn somewhere, and as far as I’m concerned, this is well well past that line.
Why the heck should anyone be forced to pay their licence fees to subsidise this horrible race-baiting. . . in the name of comedy.
Go on, make that complaint and let these racist creeps know what you think.
I was in Taiwan at the time of the infamous 9-11 Question Time.
I tried to watch it online as soon as I heard about the outrage it provoked. The BBC had already pulled it from the website, so that nobody else could see it.
I’ve been hoping to watch it ever since, but it never appears. It a bit like that Panorama on Islamic extremism. I missed the original broadcast and hoped to watch it online. For some reason, it was never made available online and simply skipped to the next edition.
I can’t help but feel the BBC made the Panorama programme to placate the UK audience, but didn’t dare make it available online, in case any of their Gulf viewers saw it.
Who’s the other member of the whiny gang who always gets on the Radio 4 ‘satire’ shows? Linda somebody – could be Smith. What’s her form? I’ll bet that she is/was a member of that personnel agency which supplies the BBC’s talent(?), the Socialist Workers’ Party.
think Linda Smith (who is as you describe) is now President (or such) of hte Humanist Society – and quite possibly does have a SWP background too.
Could be. But with these sorts of fruitloop organisations it’s impossible to know who is for or against whom even if you wanted to.
Other well known supporters of the Socialist Alliance include Mark Thomas, Mark Steel, Harold Pinter, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, Paul Foot, Linda Smith, Saffron Burrows, Ricky Tomlinson, and Ken Loach
There’s right royal list of wankers if ever there was.
Golly. What a list! Though Paul Foot dropped off the perch in 2004.
Name: Linda Smith.
Born: June 1, 1960.
Occupation: Comedian who is a regular on Radio 4’s News Quiz and Just a Minute, and BBC2’s new topical comedy show Mock the Week.
College: Erith, now Bexley College.
Course: A-levels in English, history, general studies and elective studies.
Attended : 1976-1978.
Ritter:
Just for you: 🙂
Asiff Tamourian was one of the talking heads invited onto the 5Live morning news, and I must say, the result was a pleasant change.
A ME ‘expert’ (when the BBC calls in an ‘expert’, I have a tendency to fear the worst), he gave the counter-argument for the problems confronting the world as Iran pushes on with its nuclear programme.
A previous interview with Prince Saud al Faisal toed the line: Anti Israel (they have Nuclear Weapons and that fact destabilises the region), anti West (Double Standards: they allowed Israel to develop Nuclear Weapons, but are seeking to prevent Iran from doing the same), Supportive of the Iranian position (he believes Iran when it says that the Nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only and everything can be sorted out by diplomacy).
Mr Tamourian, offered the alternative viewpoint.
He said that responsibilities for the present situation lie, for the most part, at the feet of the Iranians themselves.
He pointed out that, for all the talk of Israeli nuclear weapons, Israel has not declared them, neither has Israel tested such weapons (* see below)
He pointed out that Iran gives support, in the form of money and weapons to Hisbollah and Hamas, terrorist organisations.
He said that the Iranian President is ‘stoking the fire’ by his rhetoric and actions. He believes that the forthcoming Conference on the Holocaust to be held by the Iranians will be a ‘put-up job’, a show for the people of Iran. The so-called ‘scientific investigation’ will be little more than a chance for Holocaust Deniers to pontificate on spurious evidence to arrive at a forgone conclusion (in essence it would be similar to a debate Mr. Tamourian mentioned, held in Turkey, concerning an event which NEVER gets airtime • the Armenian Holocaust).
Mr Tamourian also said that Israel was a progressive democracy, surrounded by hostile neighbours, but it had not invaded anywhere since 1956** and by nature of its geography, could not use its Nuclear Weapons except in extremis.
But Iran is an aggressive, ambitious, regional power, with a mission to export its brand of hard-line Islamism throughout the ME.
Now I have to pick holes on a couple of points.
*During the 80s, a US satellite detected a bright flash over the S. Atlantic (?). The accepted wisdom was that the flash was an ‘over ocean’ test of a S. African Nuclear weapon. Rumours circulating at that time, were that the weapon was built by S. Africa with the active support of Israel (interestingly enough, the S. African Assault Rifle (the R3 (?) seems to be a version of the Israeli ‘Galil’, itself a redesign of the Kalashnikov. Certainly not proof positive; after all an assault rifle is not an A-Bomb, but this implies that there were no ethical reasons to stand in the way of Israeli/S.African cooperation)
**Yes, well…
This is obviously NOT correct, as Lebanon will testify
That concluded the analysis of the Iranian Nuclear problem on 5Live; the rest was a rehash of the Beeb’s position over the past few days.
I’d like to add something at this point. Everybody is seeking to restrict Iranian access to machinery to produce ‘enriched Uranium’; i.e. Uranium with an above normal proportion of U235 v. U238. The fear is that the Iranians would decide to produce ‘Highly Enriched Uranium’; this is Uranium that is mostly (85%+) U235 • fissile, weapons grade Uranium.
Iran is in the process of constructing a reactor that does not need any U235 to operate.
The Heavy Water Reactor uses D2O, DiDeuterium Oxide as a Moderator. The use of ‘Heavy Water’ lets the reactor ‘burn’ common, fissionable, U238.
But either way, Heavy Water or Pressurised Water, what comes out of the reactor, in the form of spent fuel rods, is mostly unburned Uranium and waste products, with a very small proportion of an element not seen in nature;
Pu239 – Plutonium.
Spent fuel rods can be subjected to fairly simple (compared to Isotope Separation) chemical processes to recover the unburned Uranium, separate out the waste, and leave the Pu239.
This is what the US does with its Heavy Water Reactors; and the Plutonium they produce goes into the US Weapons Programme because Plutonium really has only one use • weapons.
Fenton
You say that their is no difference between the 3 main parties in Britain.
This is so, to the extent that free market capitalism is now seen rightly as the only way for Britain to progress in the world. After all, we did invent it. But HOW the power and wealth is taxed distributed and USED,and therefore its effect on personal liberty is the issue. You and your BNP mates should try and read a history book some times. Or read The WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith so that you might understand just a little about what you hate so much.( that is your fellow citizen making more money than you ) Take those lefties you also hate so much, if you understood them at all, you would be the greatest lovers, you really do have so much in common. The only reason why a member of the BNP hates the BBC is because they are not in control of it themselves.
POWER IS MONEY and MONEY IS POWER
Your mate Hitler knew this, thats why he stole so much from other people, their teeth and hair as well as their businesses and homes. I am not going to bother to tell what he did with the ready cash, because you would probely like that as well.
For what it is worth; I think YOU represent the state in all its nastyness, because you have been conned into believing that it holds an answer. IT DOES NOT. Only by following your personal path of individulisation can you ever understand yourself and therefore stop being a threat to others.
Yes it is known that Israel, Brasil and South Africa cooperated on weapons systems -.
Does anyone seriously believe Japan with the world’s largest plutonium stocks could not build nuclear weapons ? It is not a question of know-how but whether such weapons are better held by democracies or dictatorships, especially regimes with delusional fantasies such as Iran or North Korea.
It comes down to the simple fact of keeping such weapons out of the hands of delusional madmen.
G Powell, this government has been doing everything in its power to restrict the free market, not expand it. Our membership of the EU is an automatic restriction on free market capitalism, as it is a protectionist organisation. Our trade with the commonwealth has collapsed since we joined, and we’re all the poorer for it.
GP, it’s a bit simplistic and almost (but maybe not completely?) wrong to brand the BNP and their supporters as nazis. There are now several Jews who are members (at least one is a local councillor) and the lack of integrity of UKIP and the leftward lurch of the Tories means that people who don’t want to live in a United Kingdom dominated by Brussels and kow-towing to islam have nowhere else to go other than abstain – and millions of Tories have done just that.
“wrong to brand the BNP and their supporters as nazis”
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck
“There are now several Jews who are members”
hello? Ever hear of John Tyndall – the founder of the BNP – known anti-semite.
Archduke, please reply to what was written rather than what you think you would like to have been written. You have deliberately and very selectively taken excerpts from my comment in an effort to make me appear as a nazi supporter. Nazis don’t support Israel: I do.
John Tyndall – Isn’t that old nazi dead?
And, whilst on the sorry subject of the BNP. let’s look at how the BBC reports the trial of Nick Griffin and his colleague for incitement. The BBC report is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4620762.stm
and The Times reports as:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1989752,00.html
Looks like the BBC has forgotten the M-word again.
Looks like the BBC has forgotten the M-word again
Indeed the BBC lead para amends his words (reported later in their column) to introduce race rather than religion
people of Asian ethnicity
Well Nick Griffin is just as much as an antisemite as Tyndall was – inter alia, he thinks it appropriate to make comments to large audiences like “I smoke like the chimneys at Auschwitz, ha ah”. The fact they have one just as racist councillor who happens to be Jewish in Epping Forest (or, for example one prominent repeated nearly-candidate who is Turkish)is neither here nor there.
sorry about that Allan – so you are saying that you support the BNP , dont think its Nazi, and also support Israel? or am i just misreading the whole thing.
Vernichka is essentially correct but I don’t accept that there are 1 million nazis (Euro ‘parliament’ elections) in the UK who would vote BNP. We just don’t have Europe’s affinity for nazi/fascist parties.
Archduke,
The answers are: no, possibly, yes, probably. Closed?
strangely enough, Allan, i was one of those 1 million BNP voters in the Euro elections. it was more of a “none of the above” kind of vote. and i loathe nazism with a visceral hatred – it was more a signal to the powers that be – “hello, we’re a bit pissed off with the current political system in the uk”
yeah – misread you there allan. apologies about that.
Archduke, do you support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself? I visit the BNP website occasionally and, although it can be quite enlightening, their views on the ‘zionist state’ are just not acceptable to me.
Now, back to the BBC. Their coverage of Griffin’s trial is actually reminiscent of the Soviet or nazi eras. It’s a pity that their reporter who did such a sterling job of infiltrating the BNP didn’t put his energies into infiltrating a certain little conspiracy taking place about 20 miles away within a group of ‘Asians'(?).
“do you support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself?”
most definitely. yes.
“energies into infiltrating a certain little conspiracy taking place about 20 miles away within a group of ‘Asians'”
indeed. very good point.
however BNP supporters would, at most, rough you up and give you a few slaps if your cover was blown.
islamic nutcases would just chop off your head or blow up your house. different ballgame entirely.
And indeed the police have put great energy into the preparation of the prosecution’s case. I read somewhere that 12 officers were deployed full-time for a couple of weeks on this matter as the islamobombers were getting their rucksacks ready. Not the best allocation of resources.
From the report in The Times, that is the first time that I have seen any of what Griffin actually said. I’ll have to read it again because I can’t see anything which is factually incorrect. Is that why the BBC haven’t reported any of his actual words.
I need a reality check here: Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, is having the speech for which he is on trial deliberately misrepresented by the BBC. How can we be in such a mess where a former or wannabe nazi is the defender of free speech? This is where the BBC has taken us. WTF!
The bastards – they’ve updated their report and added the M-word. Do they survey this site?
allan : yes , i think they do. i came across a mention of it somewhere in the comments thread of a previous post..
Fact is: However despicable the BNP and the views of their leaders are you’d never see the Beeb remotely as critical of Islamists. Just compare the reporting on Mr. Hook to the reporting on Griffin.
I do subscribe to Griffin’s views when he says “…as Asian Muslims aim(ed) to conquer the country.”, by the way. That’s exactly what is happening all over Europe, all over the World. And the Beeb are assisting them but not reporting everything that is going on.
P.S.: Have the police arrested Sacranie for his inflammatory comments on gays yet?
Sacranie voiced his opinion as he has a right to do, and there is some truth in what he said. It appears to me that Blair and the BBC are attempting to create an order where feeling offended is more dangerous than being assaulted etc and that someone should be punished for it.
On Griffin, the BBC really is in a right old pickle entirely of its own making. What Griffin appears to have said can be supported by a wealth of evidence, not least by the utterances of muslim clerics and their ‘holy scripts’. Griffin will call this evidence to be heard in court, but the BBC dare not report it because it will destroy a case which was brought by ‘evidence’ supplied solely by the BBC in the type of sting operation which they would never employ against real criminals, such as those rucksacked muslim lads 20 miles away.
This is why I’ll be comparing the reports on the Griffin trial by the BBC with those of The Times.
Allan@Aberdeen writes:
“This is why I’ll be comparing the reports on the Griffin trial by the BBC with those of The Times.”
Whatever one believes about the BNP, this situation stinks to high heaven and you are right to monitor the BBC’s reporting of this case.
A clearer instance of having a vested interest in the outcome would be hard to imagine.
“Sacranie voiced his opinion as he has a right to do, and there is some truth in what he said.”
even though i think there is NO truth in what Sacranie said, even Peter Tatchell defended his right to say it.
You honestly have to admire Tatchell – defending somebody who is a homophobe – for the greater principle of free speech.
Now, can someone tell me why Tatchell isn’t a “Sir” , and Sacranie actually is? That’s just baffling.
Ah, so there’s a few BNP voters knocking around this site! Well, that explains a lot. Where does that leave you RE “Islamofascism?” I mean, to me, fascism is fascism, but presumably for some of you – voting for a fascist party and all – fascism is ok just as long as it’s only done by Christians?
ot (but ultimately i think not)
earlier today – or maybe last night – paxman was interviewing colonel powell, and eventually asked powell whether powell thought he should apologize to the world for misleading them over WMD
powell replied (i paraphrase) that as he acted in good conscience based on the information he had at the time, which information was widely believed, (and which he also unreservedly “admitted” was, in hindsight, false) he thought no apology was necessary – indeed, he claimed he had not misled anyone.
now although technically in a sense if you present false information which your listener believes, you perhaps have misled him, i was/am irritated with paxman for what i perceive to be his deceitfulness: had he said to powell “you deliberately misled the world”, powell would have had the high ground, because i don’t think anyone believes that; had paxman said “you inadvertently misled the world”, the robustness of the accusation would have fizzled, and the pseudo-indignant near demand for an apology would have seemed overkill. i think paxman fully knew this; that’s why he omitted the qualifier – it’s a tactic i’ve been subjected to myself on occasion: the audience views you as a liar based on a straightforward connotation-less dictionary definition if you deny, and they view you as guilty with malice and aforethought if you “admit”. So the tactic itself is designed to MISLEAD an audience.
and the irony here of course is that this tactic is being used to convict someone of having misled!
this was sparked also by will’s post: if i read it correctly, are the BBC themselves not continual misleaders with their cherry-picking use (or omission) of the I-word and the M-word?
how CAN they live with themselves?
i do hope i haven’t rambled.
Now, can someone tell me why Tatchell isn’t a “Sir” , and Sacranie actually is? That’s just baffling.
archduke | Homepage | 17.01.06 – 10:33 pm |
in a word: multiculturalism!*
it has to be seen to apply (or to be applied?) to them lot what’s up there too, you know!
* i was going to say ‘tokenism’ but decided against it – for the better? not sure
incidentally, the first time i heard the paxman-powell thing, right after the interview the in-studio announcer read one – just one – email from a listener in the US…
…you guessed it: congratulating paxman for asking powell the questions the US media have failed to ask
oh that such a grilling would be given to all and sundry!
BBC lurkers: please provide me a link for the chastisement-by-interview that you gave anyone responsible for the issue of muslim-only tsunami aid;
and a link to your articles discussing even tangentially reparations to african* slaves from former (and current!) arab** slavemasters and/or their descendants
* you know who i mean
** you do know who i mean – lest anyone try to debase this to a semantic argument, i read that in darfur the terms are muslim, arab and african. some (african) people just don’t seem to want to refer to themselves as african…
Well, Thom Boston (is that the left-wing Boston in Massachusetts by any chance?) I haven’t seen anyone outing themselves as BNP voters / members.
I guess what you’re trying to do (and what all Lefties usually do) is to smear the people on this blog because they’re probably slightly more conservative than you.
People like you make the BBC great – because you still believe what this “news organisation” puts out. Congratulations – you’re stuck in a time-warp!
“Haven’t seen anyone outing themselves as BNP voters / members,” – disillusioned_german.
Presumably you missed archduke’s “strangely enough, I was one of those 1 million BNP voters in the Euro elections”, or Fenton’s “Genuine opposition is today being prosected in Leeds Crown court” (a reference to the trial of the BNP’s Nick Griffin, if you need it spelling out.) Both comments are further up this discussion.
People like you are what make biased-BBC great – jumping in with both feet, seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
I do see some good points raised on this blog, but there are others which make occasionally absurd contentions, and a one-eyed willingness to simply overlook anything you don’t agree with is not going to help your cause.
Actually it’s Boston Lincolnshire, from whence the first Pilgrims left, and where several hundred years later I was born. Boston Massachusetts is named after it.
Thom, do you consider people who vote BNP to be nazis? I don’t and, having read the contributions from archduke (haven’t seen more from Fenton) wrt Israel and gay rights, it is evident that he cannot be a nazi, yet 1 million people voted BNP. I cannot believe that there are 1 million nazis in this country (we’d know for certain) and this is the point which I am making.
I think “useful idiots” is what most of them are, but it’s a daft question – not everyone who voted for the actual Nazi party were themselves in full agreement with all of the party’s policies.
archduke,
even though i think there is NO truth in what Sacranie said, even Peter Tatchell defended his right to say it.
If “Sir” Iqqy said that homosexuals spread diseases, he is factually right. There is a far higher incidence of STDs — including hepatitis — among gays than among any other group, with one possible exception which I’ll come to.
That said, gays tend to ‘spread’ diseases only to other gays. As they are all grown up and know what they are about, they have clearly volunteered to run this risk, and in so doing, they aren’t hurting anyone else.
So they should be left alone.
Africans immigrating illegally in order to obtain free palliative care off the NHS most certainly are hurting other people. In GB, they are hurting those whose suffering is prolonged because of the resources they consume. In Africa, preventative health care could be provided to thousands for what it costs the NHS to treat hundreds here.
“Sir” Iqqy must be aware of, and very angry about African HIV tourists too, if disease is such a big deal to him. African immigration is, after all, the entire reason for the recent rise in UK HIV infection.
So what we really need “Sir” Iqqy to say – and a public service broadcaster would make sure we all heard him saying it – is that blacks and gays are disease-ridden and depraved, we shouldn’t let blacks into the country, unless they’re Muslim, and can we now get on with the stoning of gays for being gay.
Presumably that is roughly what he thinks, so let’s hear the filthy fascist stand up and say so. I double dare him to do it.
You honestly have to admire Tatchell – defending somebody who is a homophobe – for the greater principle of free speech.
Except that I think you’ll find Tatchell would not speak up if, say, Nick Griffin, Norman Tebbit, or any other white male were to voice views similar to Sacranie’s.
The left cannot opine on much at all unless it has first considered the race of the principals. Certain races are allowed to express racism and it doesn’t count as racism; some races can have racism hurled at them and that doesn’t count as racism either. Whether a sentiment is racist or not depends on the race of the racist.
The same goes for homophobia. The left figures Sacranie is an ignorant darkie savage who worships the moon god and can’t be expected to know better than to hate poofs. So it’s regrettable that he does, but hey, that’s free speech for you.
Anyone white and Christian of course better not try to pull any of the same crap, as Radio 4 callers now know.
Idiots perhaps, Vernichka, but I think that there’s a lot of people out there who are just sick at how the mainstream (media and politicians) have marginalised many or even most Britons that a vote for the BNP is the only real protest vote that there is. The (daft?) question was put to Thom of Boston because his initial post did indeed indicate that he believed people who voted BNP were nazis, or similar: an opinion which I don’t share.
Bottom line: nazis hate Jews ergo anyone who doesn’t hate Jews and supports the state of Israel cannot be a nazi.
A@A
Oh yes, I know that – they got 16.9% of the vote where I grew up in the election this year.
And I fear the Tories drift to the vacuous centre-ground (ie identicial or nearly to the other 2 main parties) will help the BNP greatly, unfortunately.
It still doesn’t justify voting for such a party, though. (Even if it may be understandable)
It still doesn’t justify voting for such a party, though
I agree that BNP policies, when not barking, are sinister.
But how is a person to register a protest vote against immigration, terrorism & the EU? Staying at home provides no clear indication of one’s views.
Just to add, I feel that the topics above are far more important than the marginal differences one would see between the main parties in health, education, tax, etc etc. They are critical to the future direction of this country. Who gives you a vote on them?
“The (daft?) question was put to Thom of Boston because his initial post did indeed indicate that he believed people who voted BNP were nazis, or similar: an opinion which I don’t share. Bottom line: nazis hate Jews ergo anyone who doesn’t hate Jews and supports the state of Israel cannot be a nazi.” – A@A
Well that’s fair enough. If you read the post in question, what I actually said was that the BNP is a fascist party, adding that this presumably meant certain types of fascism were ok with some of you. I didn’t mean that people who voted BNP are Nazis necessarily, any more than voting Labour makes you a member of the Labour party. But clearly, if someone votes for the BNP implies you have some sympathy with their views. (Or maybe you just liked their policy on encouraging organic farming, I don’t know).
Nick Griffin, after all, has gone on record (in the BNP publication Spearhead) as saying “Some antisemitism may be provoked by the actions of certain Jews themselves and thereby have a rational basis”. I would not be happy voting for a party whose leader had said anti-Jewish hatred can be justified. But I guess it’s cool for some of you lot.
No Thom, anti-semitism is not cool for any of us on this site as you would know if you were to read the posts from the contributors. Please bear in mind that it is the despicable anti-Israeli slant of the BBC which drives us to vent our rage here. What I said, and this is backed by archduke (he admitted voting BNP as a protest, yet his comments are all pro-Israel), is that those who vote BNP are not nazis but are simply protesting against the relentless leftism of the political establishment, backed by the BBC. The BBC’s lauding of David Cameron is not down to him having a pretty face. This is at least as sinister as any BNP policy.
So let me get this straight. A vote for the BNP is, you feel, a way of sending a message to the “leftist political establishment”.
But don’t you fear that message might be misinterpreted? If support for the BNP grows, one of the first things people might well feel that support is growing for anti-Semitism.
The party’s leader, for example, is explicitly anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier: in another BNP publication, the Carlisle Two Defence Fund Bulletin, he said “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat… I have reached the conclusion that the extermination tales is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch hysteria.”
Were any mainstream leader to make such a comment, they would rightly be hounded from office and derided around the world – including, I suggest, on this site. But for the sake of sending their “anti-left message”, it seems some are prepared to overlook this.
I would suggest that if people use their vote to back a party who rallies support by stressing his own anti-Semite credentials, they are effectively supporting anti-Semitism.