I've not got time to read the full thread, so I apologise if this has already been covered.

I am by no means a BNP sympathiser, AT ALL, but I feel the BBC couldn't have handled last night any worse than they did!!

A fair "debate" (which everyone is entitled to in the UK) is NOT given when you have the following:

1) One guy on his own surrounded by 5 panellists that blatantly don't like Griffin (personal opinions should stay at the door), its Question Time we want someone to sort out the "sh*t state of affairs" the country is in, not to argue about the guy in a (borderline) personal manner!

2) The the audience had just one or two BNP sympathisers (I'm not saying they have loads), but they again weren't at the front, or dotted around everywhere in the audience, they were all at the back. He may not have allot of support, but it seemed strange that they all got put out of view?

When you look at it, Griffin's only real election styled pledge to anyone in the UK is based on immigration, if he had more realistic views surely we'd have heard them by now and at the very least people would have discussed them in public arena and far more than they have currently?

Last nights one sided debate basically made a martyr of Griffin to his current supporters and possibly strengthened the resolve of previous hanging voters to join the cause. I feel last night did more damage, in convincing [isome[/i people to join him and his obnoxious campaign.

What should have happened is a fair debate with stringent "one at a time" questions for both arguments, who is right and who is wrong is no issue in this discussion as, as we live in a free speech society and debate is the life blood of a democracy FFS. If Abu Hamza gets free speech, then so does Griffin (unfortunately true, but he's allowed his say, even if it does make him look like a numpty).

They should have avoided the obvious race argument or got it over and done with and then pushed him on real issues, such as the post office dispute, the NHS, schools, our armed forces being places they shouldn't be; not just something to get his usual reply of "my granddad was in WWII argument", to that statement someone should have said "Mr Griffin, if I remember correctly, it was called World War 2, not UK War 2, everyone was there and not just your flaming granddad or just the UK."

He's already using last nights staged witch hunt as an "oh, woe is me" campaign!!
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm

Well done BBC, you thought that through well didn't you?!

(Just my opinion)

I've not got time to read the full thread, so I apologise if this has already been covered.

I am by no means a BNP sympathiser, AT ALL, but I feel the BBC couldn't have handled last night any worse than they did!!

A fair "debate" (which everyone is entitled to in the UK) is NOT given when you have the following:

1) One guy on his own surrounded by 5 panellists that blatantly don't like Griffin (personal opinions should stay at the door), its Question Time we want someone to sort out the "sh*t state of affairs" the country is in, not to argue about the guy in a (borderline) personal manner!

2) The the audience had just one or two BNP sympathisers (I'm not saying they have loads), but they again weren't at the front, or dotted around everywhere in the audience, they were all at the back. He may not have allot of support, but it seemed strange that they all got put out of view?

When you look at it, Griffin's only real election styled pledge to anyone in the UK is based on immigration, if he had more realistic views surely we'd have heard them by now and at the very least people would have discussed them in public arena and far more than they have currently?

Last nights one sided debate basically made a martyr of Griffin to his current supporters and possibly strengthened the resolve of previous hanging voters to join the cause. I feel last night did more damage, in convincing [isome[/i people to join him and his obnoxious campaign.

What should have happened is a fair debate with stringent "one at a time" questions for both arguments, who is right and who is wrong is no issue in this discussion as, as we live in a free speech society and debate is the life blood of a democracy FFS. If Abu Hamza gets free speech, then so does Griffin (unfortunately true, but he's allowed his say, even if it does make him look like a numpty).

They should have avoided the obvious race argument or got it over and done with and then pushed him on real issues, such as the post office dispute, the NHS, schools, our armed forces being places they shouldn't be; not just something to get his usual reply of "my granddad was in WWII argument", to that statement someone should have said "Mr Griffin, if I remember correctly, it was called World War 2, not UK War 2, everyone was there and not just your flaming granddad or just the UK."

He's already using last nights staged witch hunt as an "oh, woe is me" campaign!!
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm

Well done BBC, you thought that through well didn't you?!

(Just my opinion)