Nick Griffin on Question Time

I am an avid campaigner for No Platform for racists and fascists on university campuses. Extremist and violent politics have no place in an environment where students live and work. Student unions have no obligation to provide a platform for a party to attend an event which may create a risk to the wellbeing of their students. I believe that it takes a particularly intelligent and well-seasoned public speaker to adequately, confidently and calmly discredit the BNP, and in a student debate, this is not a guarantee. Many of the most articulate student politicians I know would most likely fall to pieces when confronted with the kind of intimidation BNP politicians might bring when challeneged in a less confident manner.

Having said that, from the offset I have disagreed with fellow anti-fascist campaigners in their endeavour to prevent BNP leader Nick Griffin from appearing on Question Time. Nick Griffin on Question Time was one of the most damaging blows to his party and reputation that anyone could have dealt. This was not a programme legitimising his party, affirming his views or giving him a platform to incite racial hatred, this was an opportunity to rip his policies, his racist ideology and his fragile ego to shreds.

Griffin was ill-prepared for the direct challenges he would receive. As the show progressed, Griffin appeared visibly shaken, unable to defend direct quotes, in many instances claiming he had been misquoted.

When confronted with quotes from video footage of Griffin addressing American white nationalists (including former KKK leader David Duke) stating "every last one of them must go"(you can find the footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw ), which was subsequently impossible to deny, his justifications were so painful, they didn't verge on the ridiculous, they put on the clown wig and nose and ran starkers into the night. He basically argued that he was trying to appear to be extreme in order to befriend the extremists and ultimately win them round to a less extreme way of thinking. This bizarre and somewhat comic reasoning could be detected as a big stinking lie by even the most ignorant of people.

I agree that the whole show was a mass attack on Griffin but so what? The BBC has a duty to broadcast objective and democratic political programming and the majority of true, proud, Brits are thrilled to be living in a multi-cultural, pluralistic democracy in which equal rights are respected. All that this show did was showcase the typical public reaction to Griffin. It couldn't have been fairer.

The media reaction was furious. Even those who didn't watch the programme, even the lowest common denominator, somebody who is frustrated, and not so bright and might be duped by the BNP had the tabloids glaring "BNP=BAD". Those who might have been duped before certainly won't be now.

This has even caused massive divisions within the party, with the membership thoroughly pissed off that their leader wasn't quite racist enough.

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen, an early Christmas present for the BNP? I think Santa just dropped a big fat lump of coal in Griffin's stocking, if not something far less pleasant, and I wish I was a fly on the wall to see the clean up job. I have a feeling it won't be an easy one, and perhaps, hopefully, it will leave a permanent stain on the moderate reputation the BNP have tried to build.

Watch Question Time for a limited time here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nft24/Question_Time_22_10_2009/

The Bigamist Bride: My Five Husbands

Having been ill for a few days and away for a few more, every day didn't quite work out. Epic fail.

I want to say a bit about a documentary I watched just now, and you can watch it here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-bigamist-bride-my-five-husbands

The whole documentary was edited to demonise the subject, Emily Horne, who has been married five times, despite never having had a divorce.

I agree that her behaviour is both bizarre and abhorrent, but what is truly appalling is that such a damning documentary was made about a woman whose mental state is clearly crumbling.

Any monkey watching this documentary can see that this woman is not right in the head. The way she speaks is slow and disturbing, deliberate, as if every word is planned to create maximum effect. She clearly believes her own lies to some extent and is desperate to paint a portrait of herself as a victim, a romantic heroine, misunderstood by all, fierce and defiant, perhaps even a feminist hero. She needs serious help. The last thing she needs is a sensationalist documentary, purporting this terribly unwell woman to be an evil mastermind, chewing off victim after victim.

For the entire documentary, Emily remains sullen, self-righteous and melodramatic. Her puzzling version of events changes radically from moment to moment and she seems very adept at lying in order to maintain maximum sympathy in any situation. She is a woman in need of serious psychological help, perhaps even sectioning. She is obviously unable to function in society, and feels incapable of gaining love without generating massive sympathy.

I don't deny that the documentary was entertaining, I don't condone her actions and I certainly didn't find her to be a very sympathetic character, but I have concerns that the majority of people watching this programme will not be watching with love and empathy, but she will become a pariah, instead of getting well and being able to function normally in society.

John and Edward

Let's talk about John and Edward. In case you don't know who they are (if you don't, massive respect) here's an exciting reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr-p-3CC3AU

John and Edward are like some horrible science experiment gone really, really wrong. If there was ever an argument for abortion, here they are: Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-GetthefuckoffmyfuckingTVyoumakemyearssad.

1. They look like escaped Oompa Loompas, like somewhere Willy Wonka is running around trying to find them before they talk...
2. They just can't sing. Not in the way all the other contestants can't sing, but in the way that they shouldn't be allowed to sing in front of anyone, let alone on national TV. It's so bad that they have to sing in unison, like confused four year olds who have been shoved into the limelight at a great aunt's birthday party and told by their overbearing and deluded stage mother to sing a song. "It's OK, we'll sing together." This breathtaking display of musical inadequacy is one thing but
3. What's with the whole homoerotic incestuous undertone? And last week, why was Louis grinning away at them as if he's whacking off a quick one under the table?
4. Further to 3, watch the video. Just watch it. They do the whole "I thought the old lady through it into the ocean" bit. In bad American accents. To each other. Why don't they just make out and get it over with? We all know.

So there we go, John and Edward (couldn't even come up with a terrible band name, like "Two Much" or "There's Two Of Us For Some Reason") and why, on this occasion, it's OK to waste good money calling the X-Factor if only to boot these two irksome little shits right back to Loompa Land. Where are the Daily Mail on this? Damn Loompas, taking our X-Factor places...

Ugh.

Welcome

This blog is kind of an experiment in discipline. Can I write something every day?
All great writers have a target. I don't. I want one.
I don't expect anyone to read this humble experiment (which will probably consist of my various personalities having vicious bitch fights with one another) but if you are reading this for some reason, thanks. In case somebody does read this, I will try to make it vaguely entertaining.