PDA

View Full Version : Griffin On Question Time



Danny Jarman
10-23-2009, 12:46 AM
Luckily for Griffin, Jack Straw was on hand to make a bigger fool of himself.

Jack White
10-23-2009, 03:35 AM
The above posting makes no sense.

Magda Hassan
10-23-2009, 03:41 AM
The above posting makes no sense.
For the US members and readers Nick Griffin, leader of the fascist, reactionary, racist British National party, was invited by the BBC to their programme 'Question Time'. Griffin was an idiot and Jack Straw from the Labor Party was an even bigger one.

Myra Bronstein
10-23-2009, 06:48 AM
The above posting makes no sense.
For the US members and readers Nick Griffin, leader of the fascist, reactionary, racist British National party, was invited by the BBC to their programme 'Question Time'. Griffin was an idiot and Jack Straw from the Labor Party was an even bigger one.

Thank you Maggie.

Ed Jewett
10-23-2009, 08:00 AM
Good one, Magda, and it serves notice that, as a somewhat international forum, we often come from radically-differing media/governmental/cultural places with local personalities, scandals, politics, and history.

Given the global trend toward, well, globalism, I suggest, therefore (not too-terribly-tongue-in-cheek) a conference someplace for three or four days, all expenses paid (ha!), perhaps in Bermuda, or Paris, or Milan, or Toronto, or Montreal, or maybe on a cruise ship near Cruz Bay or some place dull and far more realistic. (The Black Bear Inn, a few miles north of the runway at the Bangor International Airport near the University of Maine and the world-class Acadia National Park, comes to mind. Perhaps we could get Stephen King to drop by.)

Such an event could include short dinner time skits on trans-cultural awareness and humor, short briefings on the items mentioned in the first paragraph, breakout sessions on selected thread topics (I see at least seven major groupings), and key note speeches by Peter Dale Scott, Ola Tunander, Alfred McCoy, David Ray Griffith and others. [There is enough material here at DPF not to even mention Dallas or interfere with its related events.]

If we planned it right, we could sell tickets and squeeze the heck out of DVD sales and international online conference/blogging/MP3 sales, and have a 'proceedings' or conference syllabus published by someone. It could be DPF's third anniversary gala.

Pardon the interruption... We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on British parliamentary interactions.

Myra Bronstein
10-23-2009, 08:23 AM
Good one, Magda, and it serves notice that, as a somewhat international forum, we often come from radically-differing media/governmental/cultural places with local personalities, scandals, politics, and history.

Given the global trend toward, well, globalism, I suggest, therefore (not too-terribly-tongue-in-cheek) a conference someplace for three or four days, all expenses paid (ha!), perhaps in Bermuda, or Paris, or Milan, or Toronto, or Montreal, or maybe on a cruise ship near Cruz Bay or some place dull and far more realistic. (The Black Bear Inn, a few miles north of the runway at the Bangor International Airport near the University of Maine and the world-class Acadia National Park, comes to mind. Perhaps we could get Stephen King to drop by.)

Such an event could include short dinner time skits on trans-cultural awareness and humor, short briefings on the items mentioned in the first paragraph, breakout sessions on selected thread topics (I see at least seven major groupings), and key note speeches by Peter Dale Scott, Ola Tunander, Alfred McCoy, David Ray Griffith and others. [There is enough material here at DPF not to even mention Dallas or interfere with its related events.]

If we planned it right, we could sell tickets and squeeze the heck out of DVD sales and international online conference/blogging/MP3 sales, and have a 'proceedings' or conference syllabus published by someone. It could be DPF's third anniversary gala.

Pardon the interruption... We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on British parliamentary interactions.

Fertile ideas Ed. Thanks. I'll just note that, while I'm most certainly not speaking for DPF as I'm merely one voice of many, we have been careful to steer clear of profiting from our efforts. Note, for example, that DPF is untainted by advertising.

And just my own opinion if we were ever to have a conference, and if it were in the US, some mention of Dallas would be essential. All roads lead to Dealey Plaza. It's the rosetta stone.

Ed Jewett
10-23-2009, 08:45 AM
Great. I agree about the Rosetta business and Dallas, I just don't want to rain on anyone's parade (though perhaps the deeper Rosetta Stone is an understanding of the post-WWII transition from OSS to CIA and the creation of the National Security Council, and the players thereof). I certainly don't mean to exclude or demean that topic or its importance, especially when -- to this bystander -- things seem to be heating up a bit.

I've been not-for-profit-oriented for most of my professional life and ran such conferences for two organizations. While I'd certainly endorse a very tight review and restriction on "advertising" and acknowledge that there are potential pitfalls, I also appreciate that growth and improved functionality for accomplishment of DPF's mission, whatever the DPF leadership determines that ought to be, requires income. Properly done, such an event might not even require a formal structure or incorporation of DPF but could piggyback off a publisher or another willing ally or organization. But let's set this aside for a different means of communication and time.

David Guyatt
10-23-2009, 09:46 AM
Luckily for Griffin, Jack Straw was on hand to make a bigger fool of himself.

Call me a cynical fool, but I chose not to watch it.

Decades ago, when (then) Robin Day was the principal interviewer, it struck me as a programme that was designed to manage the agenda - and Day was ferocious in stamping down (or completely ignoring) questions from the audience that stepped into forbidden areas.

Paul Rigby
10-23-2009, 08:17 PM
Luckily for Griffin, Jack Straw was on hand to make a bigger fool of himself.

Griffin's treatment proved a fascinating example of "negative promotion," that is, of a kind visited by the BBC on, for example, Mark Lane in January 1967; or Noam Chomsky by William F. Buckley, Jr., on his TV programme "Firing Line."

"Negative promotion" constitutes the plausibly deniable and temporary foregrounding, via portrayal as dissident underdog assailed by the forces of the establishment consensus, of a deep state asset by an ostensibly disapproving host or broadcaster.

Its purposes are the predictable ones, to delimit a debate and control its outcome.

In due course, after Griffin has served the purpose of electing Cameron, he will be destroyed.

Magda Hassan
10-25-2009, 01:47 AM
Interesting that only the head of the Church of England comes out to repudiate the BNP.
"To hear the phrase 'Christian Britain' coming from the mouth of Nick Griffin made me shudder. It was the most chilling moment of Question Time, perhaps better described as the Nick Griffin Show," he said.
"And what a pity that none of the other panellists challenged Griffin's deceitful attempt to align his despicable policies with Chritianity."
He called on "all Christians to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in rejection of Griffin's notion that 'Christianity' has any place in his bigotry".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8324455.stm
Why did any one from any other political party agree to go on the BBC 'Question Time' with the BNP? Jack Straw wouldn't even speak with one of his constituents in his office because she wore a niqab but he is happy to be in the company of fascist Nick Griffin in front of millions? And the others on the panel?
Why did the head of the BBC, a man personally responsible for refusing to broadcast a community announcement appeal to raise money for the victims of Israeli destruction of Gaza, a decision he presumably does not consider to be censorship but permits the BNP a public platform which is against the BBC own standards? There is plenty of editorial control in the BBC for things they want controlled and for the head of the BBC to say that not to have the BNP on 'Question Time' is disingenuous. It amounts to promotion of fascism and racism on the public dime and time. Also antifascists have been meticulously vetted from the audience, while BNP members and supporters were in attendance.

Ed Jewett
10-25-2009, 07:01 AM
I'm about 35 pages into Marvin Vining’s book “Jesus, the Wicked Priest: How Christianity Was Born of an Essense Schism”. He was the schism, rejecting the prevailing wisdom of his teachers. Thus far, a fascinating read...

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 08:23 AM
Why did any one from any other political party agree to go on the BBC 'Question Time' with the BNP? Jack Straw wouldn't even speak with one of his constituents in his office because she wore a niqab but he is happy to be in the company of fascist Nick Griffin in front of millions? And the others on the panel?

Why did the head of the BBC, a man personally responsible for refusing to broadcast a community announcement appeal to raise money for the victims of Israeli destruction of Gaza, a decision he presumably does not consider to be censorship but permits the BNP a public platform which is against the BBC own standards? There is plenty of editorial control in the BBC for things they want controlled and for the head of the BBC to say that not to have the BNP on 'Question Time' is disingenuous. It amounts to promotion of fascism and racism on the public dime and time. Also antifascists have been meticulously vetted from the audience, while BNP members and supporters were in attendance.

The point wasn't Griffin, Maggie, but the new face of multi-racial Cameroonian Toryism: The anti-fascist was carefully excluded to enable this to happen.

If you get the chance, watch closely the performance of the young female Asian Tory panelist - whose performance the Tory press and "spontaneous" contributors to the comment sections on press websites has widely celebrated - and some of the audience figures picked out by that old establishment hood Dimbleby.

Someone should have a good look at who funds and backs the production company responsible for Question Time. It is almost certainly of relevance to recall how the spooks stacked Question Time audiences during the debate on British membership of the EEC in the early 1970s.

Magda Hassan
10-25-2009, 08:26 AM
Someone should have a good look at who funds and backs the production company responsible for Question Time. It is almost certainly of relevance to recall how the spooks stacked Question Time audiences during the debate on British membership of the EEC in the early 1970s.
Ooohhh! I'd sure like to know more about that!

Magda Hassan
10-25-2009, 12:04 PM
Question Time is owned by the Mentorn Group http://www.mentorn.tv/People/
which is part of the Tinopolis group http://www.tinopolis.com/WhoAreWe/Management/?pid=2&id=33
Looking for more info. Any of these company directors look interesting?

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 01:33 PM
I can’t stress enough how routine is the creation by “the other level of government” – in Peter Shore’s felicitous phrase – of straw men (and women – look at Palin), pseudo-oppositions etc. These projects range from the utterly catastrophic (Hitler) to the humorous (Noam Chomsky, who’s so painfully unconvincing as to invite laughter), from the creation of intellectual secret policemen (the latter) to fully fledged exterminatory monsters (the former). Only very occasionally do we get a glimpse in public prints of this process at work, both overseas and domestically. Here’s one such rare example:

Smallweed’s column, untitled, The Guardian, Saturday, 22 June 1996, p.24:


By way of contrast, morale has never been higher round at the offices of Conservative 2000, John Redwood’s mildly anti-European brains trust, although we detect the hand of the Foreign Office in the recent events that have helped buoy the Vulcans. All those ambassadors and emissaries lining up to pay their respects – Argentina has called, Australia and France are expected – look suspiciously like part of that classic FO shuffle known as building up a moderate, acceptable version of the enemy. There was the SDLP in Northern Ireland and there was, famously, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, PM of Rhodesia’s transitional government and Britain’s great black anti-Marxist hope. In News From Nowhere (Hamish Hamilton, 1986), David Caute’s hero Richard Stern covers the Zimbabwe elections in early 1980 for the Times. His bosses are assured that Stern’s despatches are off track, tipping Robert Mugabe as election favourite; “the bishop” is the main man. The Times resolves to sack Stern. At last glance, RM was still i/c in Zim, and the bishop, presumably, has returned to bishoping. Not an encouraging long-term career outlook for JR.

How prophetic and accurate this piece proved, though I can’t help observing that four days later, the FO succeeded in placing a long, characteristically childish piece from one John Redwood in the pages of …The Guardian (“The Crowning Glory,” 26 June 1996, p.19).

Jan Klimkowski
10-25-2009, 08:47 PM
It is almost certainly of relevance to recall how the spooks stacked Question Time audiences during the debate on British membership of the EEC in the early 1970s.

Question Time as a TV programme didn't start until September 1979.

It was originally produced in-house by BBC News & Current Affairs. In the 1990s, the BBC signed up to a 25% "production quota" from outside production companies. At some time during this period, Question Time was moved to Mentorn, or its predecessor company - I can't remember.

Danny Jarman
10-25-2009, 10:03 PM
Now that they have seats in European Parliment and over 1,000,000 voters, what do you all think about the prospect of using the BNP as a protest vote, to shake up the establishment a bit, to get their arses in gear and sort themselves out?

Saw a Nick Griffin video that popped up in YouTube's most viewed section, and he talked about the imminent withdrawal of troops, Tony Blair becoming the EU president without being elected etc etc. While he is a racist fascist idiot, i can see many more people voting BNP because of these issues and forgetting that he is a racist. Whether or not this is a good thing, remains to be seen.

Mabye i'm just talking rubbish but it is interesting anyway.

David Guyatt
10-26-2009, 07:34 AM
The problem I think Danny, is using a completely discredited person/group (BNP) to even further discredit an already completely discredited political process (Parliament).

Personally, I would not waste my spit on the BNP.

Paul Rigby
10-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Question Time is owned by the Mentorn Group http://www.mentorn.tv/People/
which is part of the Tinopolis group http://www.tinopolis.com/WhoAreWe/Management/?pid=2&id=33
Looking for more info. Any of these company directors look interesting?


Panorama is always a good place to start, Maggie. It was, after all, founded by an "ex-" MI6 officer and disciple of Crowley's. Now there's a winning combination.

Paul Rigby
10-26-2009, 09:39 PM
Question Time as a TV programme didn't start until September 1979.

It was originally produced in-house by BBC News & Current Affairs. In the 1990s, the BBC signed up to a 25% "production quota" from outside production companies. At some time during this period, Question Time was moved to Mentorn, or its predecessor company - I can't remember.

You're right, Jan, and I was wrong: Quite why the Beeb handed the programme to that obnoxious sex-pest Robin Day is unclear to me. His manner with the general public was as repulsive as that with women in private.

What I suspect I was thinking of was a series of BBC Question Time-like programmes which took place in 1975 in the run-up to the referendum on EEC membership. Harold Wilson gave us a vote, MI6 promptly rigged it, not least by planting officers and assets in studio audiences. The BBC was entirely complicit in the propaganda campaign. When I recall the source for MI6's efforts, I'll post it.