My fears are as above. All he has to do is paint the others as bad and him as some poor inoffensive patriotic lamblion hybrid, and he could look 'good'. Hopefully someone with some fucking integrity will pin him down and take big chunks out of his rhetoric. I feel the best outcome will be the BNP screaming bias, more than anything else.

They have. I'm not convinced by the UAF's disruption approach but, contrary to the impression given by the media, that isn't the only approach UAF use. They are a campaigning body in addition to taking direct action. Alas, folks dishing out flyers, lobbying MPs and spreading the word through trade unions and other high profile organisations isn't as newsworthy as a high street kerfuffle.

I so hope that someone brings up the Panorama programme tonight, really is quite shocking

This is the general consensus of the office. I don't want people to "boo hiss" the bastard, but to take him apart with intelligent debate

My boss reckons Hague is the best man for the job

Without wishing to shamelessly plug...

http://bbnmusings.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... g-bnp.html

Isn't that a bit like "I'm no racist, but ....." <insert>.

I'm no shameless plugger, after all some of my best friends never shamelessly plug anything...

I've a concern, following the Army statement about use of military imagery (Spitfires etc) by certain political parties (they never explicitly named the BNP but it's pretty clear they meant them), Griffin now has a new card to play.

In a statement yesterday, the BNp compared senior army figures to the likes of Jodl, Doenitz etc, as 'war criminals' for waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, whether this means they admire them (what with, you know, being Nazis) or simply want to play a Reducto ad Hitlerum, can you consider Griffin playing the "We're anti-war" card? I can.

Of course, I was an opponent of the war in Iraq, and have deep reservations about our continued presence in Afghanistan, but do you think someone will get the chance to explain that there is a difference between personally disapproving of a misguided military action and calling the leaders of it war criminals? Because, as we know, to the populist, black is black, white is white and never the twain shall meet. Of course, the BNP's opposal to these wars is rooted more in a 'fuck 'em, they're foreign' mentality than anything to do with international law, a skewed Special Relationship and misguided anger following 9/11.

Personally I hope the attack on the army does for them as it did for McCarthy back in the 1950s. It'll have the tabloids split though - between their constant hard-on for all things 'our boys' related, and their constant subliminal message of "Yes, yes, we really secretly agree with you but please stop saying 'nigger' out loud."

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221619/BNP-hijacking-forces-heritage-Generals-fear-extremists-exploiting-servicemen.html]BBC to allow BNP supporters into Question Time audience to watch leader Nick Griffin
[/url]

Sounds like the Gerry Springer show.

The following is apparently from the text of Griffin's weekly email to subscribers to the BNP's website email list :



Political blood sport? I do hope so.

Is that on before or after the Jerry Springer show?

The National Union of Journalists just waded in:

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1381

I know QT is always recorded earlier in the evening but it's a pity it isn't live. Some of the best bits might not make it to air. I'm thinking with the audience. I doubt there will be any segregation like at a footy match. If there was it could well descend into a chanting match between the pocket of BNP pricks (probably sat on the extreme right-hand side of the studio audience[!]) and the rest. There might be the odd scuffle in the studio because we're not just talking about Labour sat next to Tory, we're talking about people having to be sat next to someone with totally repugnant views.

If I was a Government minister appearing on the programme I'd have spent every spare moment of the past week or so studying footage of Griffin, using all the relevant resources the Government had. Getting a top body language expert in to study it so as to see which specific types of questions and subjects he is most uncomfortable with so I could target those specific areas, anything to provoke a negative reaction from him so he can shed himself in a bad light.
Because as James O'Brien said on GMTV this morning, short of goosestepping round the studio or shouting "sieg heil" he's not going to come out of this badly. That's why I'd do what some footy managers do before big games if I was on QT tonight- study the opposition and home in on their weaknesses. An academic said yesterday that Jean-Marie Le Pen saw membership of his party double after appearing on a similar programme in France in 1984. Never mind the BNP membership doubling- what if their VOTES double from nearly a million? That's why I would hope Griffin's fellow panellists go on ultra-prepared.

That entire email looks like he's having second thoughts about it. AOB's pretty much got it right, the panelists (and by extension audience) really need to find the questions which are going to unstick Griffin.

Personally, I think it'd be immensely clever if somebody simply asked a very specific question which has nothing to do with race or immigration - something like the postal strike, the economy or whether advertisers are promoting Christmas crap too early. He'll either fumble the question with a lame unprepared response, or somehow work immigration back in to the equation and show him up as a single-issue fool.