Nick Griffin: allowed to stumble into the mainstream against a wall of bias…

…created by those who let him on.

Sean Gabb

I link to an article of mine on, penned in the wake of settling dust after the appearance of Nick Griffin of the BNP last Thursday on Question Time. Please follow my link and read the whole essay: for a flavour of what I said, here is an extract:-

…From the opening minutes, it was plain that this would not be—nor was planned to be—a normal episode of Question Time. The other panellists had conferred and brought along set speeches of denunciation, which the Presenter, David Dimbleby, both allowed and encouraged. Indeed, he joined in with hostile questions of his own.

It is unlikely that the audience had been fed questions to put. It was hardly necessary, bearing in mind the demographic profile—quite unlike Mr Griffin’s own electoral base. The questions were universally hostile. So were most of the audience comments.

Rather than Question Time, this was an hour in which Nick Griffin was put on trial before the nation, following the sort of process that a Communist police state might have envied. It was all set up to be grossly unfair.

I believe that Mr Griffin is planning a formal complaint to the BBC about bias. Sadly, he is missing the point. Whatever unfairness was meant, he was given the opportunity of a lifetime to do two things—first, to show the world that he was not a sinister crank; second, to tell the world directly and in brief what he was in politics to achieve. Judged in terms of this opportunity, his performance was an embarrassing failure….

Today, we learn that Griffin may be asked back onto this programme. I might leave speculations, of a conspiratorial kind about the reasons for this announcement, to our Blogmaster.

9 responses to “Nick Griffin: allowed to stumble into the mainstream against a wall of bias…

  1. He came across as nervous and human. And sometimes it is good that one is seen as being human and fallible, sometimes better than having all the answers. But not a stellar performance. No.

  2. Very seriously, the racial prejudging approach is stupid. It is unnecessary. And why go for it? Similarly I do not like football matches or any other form of collective hysteria or non-specific assessment.
    Here’s a letter in a Nigerian newspaper that throws a different perspective.

  3. Something I didn’t bear in mind was that there were several hundred Trots outside the studio, all howling for his blood. Between him and them stood a handful of politicised filth who had shown no inclination to protect him before. That might have put anyone off his stroke.

  4. I notice that he has been repeatedly criticised for ‘appearing nervous’.

    Apart from making him seem more human, the idea that having a hostile crowd, hostile audience, hostile chairman and hostile panel seems somehow designed to make anyone nervous.

    I imagine even the most politcally unaware members of the public are going to see through that set up. It might end boomeranging on the establishment bullies after all.

  5. one question that remains to be asked: did politically unaware persons watch the show? I know it got high viewer numbers, but that may have been mostly those, like me, who are politically aware but do not usually watch.

  6. why you all sound like fascists?

  7. Because, unlike you, we aren’t.

  8. Hmmm,

    Didn’t notice anyone here calling for a corporatist State, militarism, central planning and dictatorship.

    Wonder how i missed that?

  9. Those aren’t generally the sorts of things libertarians are in favour of…

    Back on topic for a sec, I wonder if Griff’s poor performance might be something to do with his lack of practice at this sort of thing? It seems to me that he may have spent most of his public speaking career with people that generally agree with most of his views, unlike his co-panellists who are old hands at this sort of thing.

    Dreadfully, if he gets more coverage and more TV invites he may become much slicker.