Jump to content

Radio 5 Live


tonyh29
 Share

Should any UK political party be banned and not allowed a public debate ?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Should any UK political party be banned and not allowed a public debate ?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      20


Recommended Posts

Interesting show today as they allowed Nick Griffen on the show .. Some interesting and heated debate ..

For me the interesting / ironic comment was the Indian women from the respect party saying that the BNP should be banned and not allowed to have a voice whilst being perfectly entitled to state her case

anyway forget the specifics of which party the question I'm curious about is

In your opinion should any UK political party be banned and not allowed a public voice ? and if so Why / Why not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Thatcher and her mob imposed that stupid ban on Sinn fein and blacked out faces and got actors to do the voice over. It made only one lot of people look stupid.

Obviously though any words have to fall within the law and you cant say extreme views if they are contrary to the laws of the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i think Nick Griffin is a not work safe and his party are a bunch of definitely not work safe but they should still be allowed a voice. Not only to give sane people something to laugh at, but you cannot selectively censor out the stuff that doesnt suit you. Thats the thin edge of a dangerous wedge and unfortunately the likes of the BNP are a price worth paying for the right of free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Thatcher and her mob imposed that stupid ban on Sinn fein

don't we still have a terrorism law that bans people from promoting terrorism ??

I don't rememebr Bin Laden doing any party politicla broadcasts on the BBC of late

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Thatcher and her mob imposed that stupid ban on Sinn fein

don't we still have a terrorism law that bans people from promoting terrorism ??

I don't rememebr Bin Laden doing any party politicla broadcasts on the BBC of late

But wasn't it just that you couldn't hear Gerry Adams's voice? They had to put a Gerry Adams impersonator over the top didn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Thatcher and her mob imposed that stupid ban on Sinn fein

don't we still have a terrorism law that bans people from promoting terrorism ??

I don't rememebr Bin Laden doing any party politicla broadcasts on the BBC of late

Dont remember Bin Laden standing for UK parliamentary seats either :roll:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted no, but the question is misleading. Should parties be banned? No.

Should they be engaged in debate? Questionable.

I don't think its worth banning the BNP, but I don't think its worth engaging with the BNP in debate, as they are IMHO still a party very much focused on promoting the ideas of white supremacy and national socialism, who use violent and underhand means to back up their ideas.

But the wider concerns of the white working class need to be heard, even if they have been manipulated somewhat by the far-right through falsehoods and scaremongering on some issues, like immigration.

And the link the original poster made with the BNP and the Respect Party is just lame.

And Radio 5 Live is a shit radio station. A waste of license-fee payers money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the link the original poster made with the BNP and the Respect Party is just lame.

please explain why it's lame .. don't you find it ironic that someone given a voice can object to someone else given a voice ??

I don't know anyhting about the BNP and the original post actual said forgot about specific parties , but if they do use underhand means , find me a political party that doesn't

And Radio 5 Live is a shit radio station. A waste of license-fee payers money

maybe we should ban them as well :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whenever the BNP get a voice I think actually they sound stupid

well I was expecting some dimwit ranting and raving on the radio , but to be objective he seemed quite intelligent , I don't mean policy wise , just the way he argued his case , spoke ... a wolf in sheeps clothing

He certainly didn't sound stupid much as I wanted him to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please explain why it's lame .. don't you find it ironic that someone given a voice can object to someone else given a voice ??

Its no comparison - you sounded like you were saying "well, if the BNP can't have a voice, why is Respect allowed one" or along those lines, implying that both were as bad as each other. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the Respect figureheads like Lindsey German/Yvonne Ridley/George Galloway may all be attention-seeking arses, but they never said:

"I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."

I don't know anyhting about the BNP

Which sometimes helps when you start a debate on a particular subject or one as emotive and hotly contested....

and the original post actual said forgot about specific parties , but if they do use underhand means , find me a political party that doesn't

I doubt many other used underhand means such as those proposed by Nick Griffin in the past:

"The electors of Millwall did not back a postmodernist rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

maybe we should ban them as well

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you sounded like you were saying "well, if the BNP can't have a voice, why is Respect allowed one"

well thanks for putting words in my mouth , however please don't , whatever your merits I'm cabable of speaking for myself ... if you don't think it ironic then fair enough , however I find it amusing that someone can use a radio show to give their opinions about denying others the exact same right .. i don't agree with you on everything , doesn't mean I've ever asked to have you silenced or deny you your right .... nor do i call another persons opinions lame

Which sometimes helps when you start a debate on a particular subject or one as emotive and hotly contested....

well that rules out 99.9 % of posts in off topic :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to understanding the position she was coming from. Respect is a funny, disjointed party of trotskyist socialists and conservative islamists. How on earth they can be bedfellows is beyond me; after all, the greatest socialist, Karl Marx, said "religion is the opiate of the masses".

The problem with Respect is its main activists tend to be your trot-bot types, usually a member of the Socialist Workers Party. They call for "No Platform" on the BNP, as do the main far-left opposition groups to the BNP, the Anti-Nazi League and Unite Against Fascism. Its ingrained in their political philosophy.

BTW - Apologies if I offended you/put words into your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respect is another party I know next to nothing about ... I find them and the BNP a bit like Jordan & Andre , it's best just to ignore everything they say but be wary of the danger to society they represent

That said the respect representative on the radio seemed quite articulate( but did seem to struggle sometimes when pushed by Matthew Bannister)

no need to apologise if your intentions were honourable as I'm sure they were ..... I just need to stop being so sensitive to replies to my posts ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Respect pose any danger to society, after all, they will probably destroy themselves within a few years anyway. The SWP have done their usual entryist tactics on Respect, stuffing the party with SWP hacks and other cultists. They did this with Socialist Alliance a few years back, deciding to vote it out of existence. Once the next great bandwagon comes along, they'll jump on that instead.

There have been SWP front groups for all sorts of things - Anti-Poll Tax, Anti-Globalisation, Anti-Fascism, Anti-War etc. They have usually been started by independent, honourable campaigners, before becoming hijacked somewhat by the trotbots. They appear independent from the outside, but if you look inside they are always crammed full of the same faces.

Respect are the same, unfortunately they don't represent the new workers party that the political system in this country badly needs.

Their main figurehead is a man who refuses to take an average workers wage for christ's sake, having three houses (Galloway), and has a very poor turnout in Parliament. He may say he is doing wider international work, but when he turns up appearing on cack like Celeb Big Brother and brings an entourage of lackeys to each "debate" he attends to stifle discussion (i.e. no one is allowed to ask hard questions) it shows their true colours, and its a real shame.

They are just vague liberals after the muslim vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I think Tony is right

Doesnt happen very often but he's right

You don't need to know the first thing about a poolitical party to defend their right to free speech. Its a principal of democracy and as Ian says, the only parties that should be banned from airing their views are those that preach violence

As for the SWP as RICO points out (in his own way) they are a bunch of Trotskyite socialist fascists. Their version of Entryism started way back in the 70's with Rock against Racism, bunch of arseholes who know that if they just stood up and yold their real policies they'd be laughed at and told to get back to the circus so they have to hide behind all these front organisations to try to recruit to build the party large enough to start the next revolution a bit like the new cuddly BNP who hide behind their new reasonableness to try and gain more support for their party, when really they are a bunch of racist fuckwads. BNP / SWP - same horse different jockey as far as I'm concerned but both should be allowed to air their views, whats that saying about knowing your enemy? well if they are forced underground they become a whole lot more dangerous imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â