BNP interview on BBC Radio1’s Newsbeat website

// 30 September 2009

BBC Radio1’s Newsbeat website, aimed at young people and renowned for being a little dumbed down to say the least, has today run a pathetically uncritical interview with two young BNP members. The party is described as ‘controversial’ – not racist – and Joey and Mark are asked to explain their views on what makes someone British:

Do you think it’s OK for people who aren’t white in this country to call themselves British?

Joey: Civic-ly British they are. You cannot say they are ethnically British. It’s denying our heritage. It’s taking that away from us.

At what point do they become ethnically British? How long do they have to be here?

Joey: Well I think it would be an awfully long time before someone would become ethnically British.

So when you see someone like Ashley Cole play for England, are you happy to watch him?

Joey: If he wants to come to this country and he wants to live by our laws, pay into society, that’s fine.

But if he wanted to call himself British that would be a problem?

Joey: He cannot say that he’s ethnically British.

While the BNP members don’t come across as the most intelligent human beings and the interviewer does get a couple of gentle digs in towards the end, the BBC’s decision to run this interview without at least giving a bit of context about the party’s violent, racist and sexist history and policies on a website designed for young people who are assumed to have little political awareness is hugely irresponsible.

I know people are divided on the ‘no platform’ policy – personally, I think Griffin’s appearance on Question Time won’t necessarily be a bad thing providing he faces suitable scrutiny and condemnation from the other participants and audience members – but providing an uncritical platform for BNP members to spout their racist views (couched in pseudo-logic and reason, as ever) to generally apolitical young people is dangerous and completely unnecessary.

You can complain to the BBC here.

UPDATE: One of the interviewees is Mark Collett, who was exposed in this Channel 4 documentary, in which he proclaimed that 1930s Germany was a better place to live than Britain today. “Hitler will live on forever and maybe I will too”, said Collett. He said that he considered AIDS a “friendly disease because blacks, drug users and gays have it.” He also made this sexist little speech which I blogged last year.

Comments From You

Lucy // Posted 30 September 2009 at 2:34 pm

I’ve made a complaint, that is disgusting. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

HarpyMarx // Posted 30 September 2009 at 3:44 pm

I complained to the BBC re allowing Nazi Griffin on Question Time, the response was pathetic. The BBC are utterly right-wing. A good comparison someone made recently was the fact the BBC ‘ no platformed’ the DEC Gaza appeal YET are welcoming a fascist onto Question Time. Where’s the bloody logic in that? Frankly, it stinks.

The only way to deal with fascists is to no platform them, they may bleat ‘civil liberties’ and ‘freedom of speech’ but they destroy civil liberties and freedom of speech through violent means. That is the reality of fascism, that is their ideology.

I am pleased to hear that the trade union Bectu has said they support the anti-fascist demos outside BBC on the 22nd Oct. If technicians etc. walk out then that would be excellent as it says: no platform to fascists and it also tells the BBC hierarchy to shove it.

And I certainly will be, as part of my trade union, be outside the BBC on the 22nd demonstrating.

Gareth // Posted 30 September 2009 at 3:49 pm

It was also Mark Collett who said it was his human right to ogle women in Leeds and was part of European culture. Or something like that: the video’s on one of your posts from last year, Laura.

/blog/2008/03/the_bnp_stands

Troika21 // Posted 30 September 2009 at 4:22 pm

I like they way that ‘no platform’ is being advocated by people here – only to refer back to comments made by the BNP as a reason for doing so.

The fact is that denying the BNP a platform is what plays into their hands – they present themselves as speaking truth to power, but are only able to do so because all the others deny them the opportunity, every time people hear the words they say, they are revolted.

Besides, I believe in free-speech for everyone, including the idiots.

Kez // Posted 30 September 2009 at 4:28 pm

To be honest though, I can’t see them converting many people – even the young and impressionable – with this tripe. “Not ethnically British”? I don’t even know what that means (apart from “not white”, obviously).

I really don’t believe the majority of young people today are inclined towards racism – it certainly isn’t my experience – and I think the BNP are just showing themselves up for what they are, which will do them no favours.

Which is not to say the BBC are right to run this interview in the way they have done.

Laura // Posted 30 September 2009 at 4:38 pm

@Kez, I don’t think they’ll necessarily convert anyone, but they come across and are presented as rather benign, when in fact they are full of hatred and encourage intolerance and violence. If people think the BNP are harmless wallies they are less likely to fight against them, and that can only help increase their influence and political power.

Kez // Posted 30 September 2009 at 4:50 pm

Yeah, I take your point, Laura. (Though I’m not sure they come across as benign.) Equally, though, if they do come across as harmless wallies presumably people are also less likely to vote for them? (Then again, David Cameron apparently has high approval ratings at the moment….)

I certainly agree that the interviewer should have been a lot more probing in her questions.

I don’t necessarily support no platform, as everyone has a democratic right to express their views, as long as they remain within the law in so doing. But I do think that if they are given a platform, equal space must be given to critics and opposing viewpoints.

Anne Onne // Posted 30 September 2009 at 5:55 pm

I don’t get the ‘If you don’t let X do whatever, you are killing democracy!!1one!!’ argument. Not because I don’t get the concept of democracy and it’s not about getting rid of anyone we disagree with (I may disagree with nearly all things Conservative, but I wouldn’t treat them in the same way as the BNP).

It must be so nice to be privileged enough to see all parties as just another choice someone could make. Without direct consequences for yourself. But I can’t: the BNP would discriminate against most of the people I know. People who have every right to be here, people who contribute as much to society as ‘ethnically British’ people. This is a party that would use power to discriminate against many people, make life a misery for many of us, and all but force many out of the country.

The people talking about democracy, can they not understand this? Why should a party whose very aim is to destroy the human rights of marginalised people be given freedom or treated as legitimate just because some people vote for them? I hate how the’re presented as relatively benign and how most of the talk around them is NOT about their awful politics but about whether we should treat them like anyone else. Would we treat the Nazis like anyone else (a democratically elected party, after all!)?

I would never consider telling anyone, even a BNP voting fascist what to do with their life, so long as they break no laws or hurt nobody. Yet we’re supposedly mean and all 1984 if we refuse to treat them like any other party, even though they’d want to take away the same rights they (wrongly) use to defend themselves from legitimate criticism.

@ Kez: ‘Ethnically British’ would be having a background that is mostly descended from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It’s possible to be white and not be ‘ethnically British’. but I don’t personally know exactly how much the BNP hate people in that group as opposed to POC.

Laura // Posted 30 September 2009 at 6:16 pm

I just listened to the 17.45 newsbeat show, there was an APPALLING interview with Nick Griffin, the interviewer completely failed to challenge Griffin with any evidence of racism, encouraged him to talk about other issues like the recession and war in Afghanistan, so helping him push his lie that the BNP are a legitimate party that has changed. They then read out racist texts from readers (among anti-BNP ones), one of which said that the listener voted BNP because ‘his city is overrun with young Asian men dealing drugs and running prostitution’. This was read out unchallenged. I’m so angry I can barely breathe. You can listen again here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/default.stm

I REALLY encourage everyone to complain, this is shocking stuff.

Laura // Posted 30 September 2009 at 6:19 pm

They did get Griffin to say he’d be unhappy if his daughter came home with a black or Asian man, but then just moved on to other issues.

Daniela Vincenti // Posted 30 September 2009 at 6:22 pm

I think that contemporary British society is mature enough to tackle the democracy threat from the BNP. Giving them a platform only allows them to air their stupidity, as our dear friend Joey has done above.

Ashley Cole fine as long as he pays into society! Can’t he even see the irony in this? I mean Ashley Cole pays more tax in a few months than this guy probably ever will in his lifetime.

Kez // Posted 30 September 2009 at 6:34 pm

Anne Onne: “the BNP would discriminate against most of the people I know. ”

And that is why I said they should be allowed to express their views, as long as they remain within the law. Encouraging discrimination and inciting racial hatred aren’t within the law. And it’s, er, interesting to see them tie themselves up in knots denying that this is what they’re about while making it apparent that this is, in fact, what they’re about.

I really struggle with this issue. My instinct is to deny them a public voice because I find them and their policies utterly repellent. But I’m not sure that is the right thing to do or the best way to prevent them gathering support. (I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying I’m not sure.) Doesn’t trying to silence them effectively give them a certain mystique and encourage people who may agree or be tempted to agree with some, if not all, of their views to believe that the BNP and hence they themselves are being in some way victimised, silenced and ignored, which could then in itself stir up tension and harden views which may up till then not have been firmly entrenched. Whereas if they are put into the public arena, challenged and forced to explain and defend their views, a proper debate can be had and hopefully show them up for what they are. As far as I can see the BNP rely heavily on presenting themselves as “people like you” (assuming that the “you” is white and British, obviously) and encouraging people to believe that they are normal people putting forward views which many people hold, and being silenced by PC-gone-mad society for so doing.

I don’t know. I’m not saying I’m right. I’m not saying I’m making any sense. I’m just speculating.

Laura // Posted 30 September 2009 at 6:54 pm

I agree with much of that, Kez, and I think subjecting the BNP to proper, informed scrutiny in the public sphere could be positive, but if they are given a platform without being challenged – as with this Radio1 fiasco – it just legitimises them, allows them to continue to lie about what they really stand for and so drum up more support from people who are disillusioned with other parties and concerned about issues like immigration due to the rubbish they’re fed by the Daily Mail etc.

Rob M // Posted 30 September 2009 at 7:05 pm

We aren’t that stupid. The interview you linked to in the original post was on the lunctime Newsbeat, and they came of as absolute toss-ends. Unless the big three throw up total morons to appear on the upcoming ‘Question Time’, it’s going to be fucking brilliant – the BNP and their beliefs are spectacularly stupid, and will look as such unless everyone totally fucks it up.

Fighting fascism by banning things and silencing people isn’t a brilliant idea. Demonisation plays into the BNP’s hands – The Man is against us! Whereas sticking them on TV and interrogating them, forcing them to try to explain something that is entirely illogical, ill-conceived and without merit… Fling them rope and let the fuckers hang.

Amy Clare // Posted 30 September 2009 at 7:24 pm

The problem with the BNP getting airtime on mainstream media is this: they are going to spout the same spin and bullshit as any politician who is trying to get votes. They’re going to make themselves look as attractive and as reasonable as possible. Add this to the fact that very few people who vote actually bother to read a party’s manifesto – most are infuenced by the media, or family tradition – and you get a very dangerous result.

If the BNP can get the message out there that they are a reasonable party, then many people will not bother to question this. The consequences of this are vastly different to the consequences of people believing the Tories are a reasonable party. It behooves the media to give the public the facts about political parties’ policies, and this is especially true of the BNP, but as this post shows, this is clearly not happening. The BBC is a trusted source of information in this country, and they are not doing their job if they let such vile racism go unchallenged.

What I’m getting round to saying is that if the BBC’s journalists cannot do their jobs properly, the only other option is no platform for the BNP. Having read this post I’m not convinced that Griffin’s Question Time will do the BNP any harm at all. Non-racists will always say ‘oh they make themselves look like fools’ etc, because to us they DO look like fools – but many people will be listening to their tripe thinking ‘oh that makes sense’. Especially if they’re allowed such an easy ride.

So I would err on the side of no platform. I believe in free speech, but I believe this free speech should be the truth, not unfettered spin and lies. If the BNP are going to tell the truth about their policies then fine, but they should not be allowed to lie unchallenged on our mainstream media.

Kez // Posted 30 September 2009 at 7:34 pm

And by the way, Anne Onne, the BNP would discriminate against lots of people I know as well, plus even more people who I don’t know but about whom I am still concerned. Please don’t get the impression that I loathe them any less than you do, just because I am not 100% sure (for reasons I have stated above) that they should be refused any platform.

Laura, yes, I certainly do not think they should EVER go unchallenged.

polly styrene // Posted 30 September 2009 at 7:50 pm

It’s a pity they didn’t have a historian interviewing them. Because it would have been fun getting them to define ‘ethnically British’. And I speak as someone who is probably about half Anglo-Saxon (fifth century AD Germanic invaders) and half Irish immigrant (19th century economic migrants).

Does that make me ethnically British?

But I agree that if they are going to have media airtime, they need to be challenged a bit more than this.

Anne Onne // Posted 30 September 2009 at 7:53 pm

@ Kez: Yes,I see what you mean. I agree, there’s no simple answer, and I don’t think someone’s being racist or supporting the BNP if they disagree with the way someone else thinks would be better.

I certainly don’t believe they should be denied all chances to express themselves (I doubt that’s possible, anyway), and I do think that letting them express themselves can show people who they really are in a way their sanitised ‘we’re not racist !!! eleventyone!’ website cannot. But, (and this is a big but), if they are given a platform to express their views publicly to a large audience (a privilege, not a legal right, after all), there should be competent and shrewd questioning. There should be an opposing side, a debate. Their opinions should be drawn out.

My earlier comment wasn’t directed at people who, like you, are weighing up difficult choices and understand the seriousness of what this all means. I’m just honestly disturbed by the number of comments (online, in the papers, in real life) by people who seem to think that the BNP are just like any other party, and who will comment at length about their rights/privileges, whilst neglecting to think about the rights that the BNP wish to take away.

Kristin // Posted 30 September 2009 at 8:01 pm

Laura, yes. People thought Hitler and the Nazis were harmless wallies, at first! Especially ol’ Hitler with his mad hair and silly arm flinging and chavvy Austrian accent. Of course we all know they found out different – the hard way!

I don’t believe that giving the BNP a platform is right, or even legal. Surely everything they stand for (hating and wanting to oppress basically everybody but your standard white Brit dudey, and even him if he dares disagree with them) is illegal?! Correct me if I’m wrong, but discrimination of anyone on the basis of their skin colour/gender/religious belief is actually illegal in the UK, isn’t it?

Ketan // Posted 30 September 2009 at 9:49 pm

So I guess Radio 1 wuld have given Adolf Hitler or will mabe oneday give Osama Bn laden an equal air time ??

I think this was a dispicable display of poor judgement by the folks at Radio 1 … I would agree with giving th BNP a platform “if” they were propely scrutinized on the core element of their policy .. which is being a racist !!

Rita // Posted 1 October 2009 at 8:43 am

My biggest problem with the likes of BNP party has always been one, the failure to realise the contribution ‘non british’ bring to the economy. So many companies running on cheap labour by foreigners hence sustaining the economy. How countries are dependent on each other, i mean if they were allowed to implement their policies fully, what would the effect be. But these old antics of the british, ‘divide and rule’, seem to be going nowhere anytime soon.

As for the AIDS remark, i am at a loss of words. What can i say? I do not know why some white people hate blacks or asians so much but like to take what they can as in the past. Use them and discard them. Thanx to ‘colonialism the devil’, we exposed each other to ourselves and yet, cannot stand eachother sometimes. Sad sad.

JenniferRuth // Posted 1 October 2009 at 8:58 am

I wonder how far back your lineage has to go to be considered “ethnically British”? I certainly don’t think many of us would count if they truly mean to date us all back to Anglo-Saxon ancestors. But I don’t think they want to do that. I mean, how would they test? Subject the whole country to DNA analysis?

Ethnically British is just short-hand for white – a dog whistle for racists. Everyone knows this. The shame is that a lot of people seem to agree.

sianmarie // Posted 1 October 2009 at 10:39 am

krishnan guru murthy interviewed andrew brons on channel 4 news and it was a brilliant example of how giving the BNP a platform can in fact break them, damage them and ridicule them. krishnan did not let him get away with anything, he questioned everything until brons was so tangled up in knots he could barely string a decent sentence together.

if giving the bnp a platform results in interviews that expose them for racist, stupid and ill informed bigots that they are then i am for it.

the problem is, as highlighted, is that if an interviewer employs shoddy and lazt journalism the bnp fail to be exposed. they clearly have a media line that they stick to, which is the “we’re all right really, the man is keeping us down” nonsesne they are so fond of. the concern i have about going on question time is that the audience ask the questions and within the audience there may be people who support the bnp, who don’t expose them to intense questioning.

newsbeat is notoriously crap but refusing to question and argue and point out the flaws is what allows the bnp to convince people that they’re not racist. which is how they got 2 MEPs

Kez // Posted 1 October 2009 at 11:28 am

Sianmarie, I guess there may be people in the Question Time audience who support the BNP, but I am very sure that (a) there will be many more who don’t and who will be vociferously opposed to them, and (b) that the BBC will be very careful not to be seen to be giving the BNP an easy ride. (Not many people get an easy ride on Question Time anyway, but I would think the BNP would be especially unlikely to do so.) I’m not unduly concerned that they will not be subjected to intense questioning, because I’m pretty sure that they will be. I hope.

Lisa Brown // Posted 1 October 2009 at 11:38 am

@SianMarie

As much as I admire your optimism, I think the truth is quite simply that the vast majority of BNP voters are racist

sianmarie // Posted 1 October 2009 at 12:39 pm

kez – yes definitely, and i think if the debate is managed well (which i’m sure it would be, it generally is on question time) then it could be a real opportunity for the public to shout down the bnp. i guess my point more was that we need to constantly challenge them and not let people get away with sloppy journalism.

lisa brown – i do think people who vote bnp are racist, however it was more tht after the euro election people were justifying their vote for the bnp by saying they didn’t realise they were racist. which is just terrifying/naive/a lie but the point is people should not be able to make that excuse.

hope that clears up my slightly rambling post!

Elmo // Posted 1 October 2009 at 2:14 pm

i just watched the channel 4 expose on mark collett-it is thouroughly depressing and creepy-and im furious that this guy and the BNP are given air time to rant about their disgusting views. i was very impressed by the courage of the documentry maker (who is jewish) when he confronted him though.

i see some people here are discussing whether or not white people are “genetically British”. in Scotland, vast numbers of people are descended from the Irish, (including myself): the rest of the uk is 25% Irish descended. i imagine there is no one at all in britain today who is entirely “ethnically” british! aside from the fact that ALL people originally came from Africa! its so easy to make their arguments fall apart!

Anna // Posted 1 October 2009 at 2:23 pm

@JenniferRuth: ‘I mean, how would they test? Subject the whole country to DNA analysis? ‘

^don’t tempt them..

Kez // Posted 1 October 2009 at 4:13 pm

“Anna said:

@JenniferRuth: ‘I mean, how would they test? Subject the whole country to DNA analysis? ‘

^don’t tempt them”

Ah, but then some of them might find out unpleasant (to them) truths about their own ethnic origins… now that would be fun to see…

Tana // Posted 1 October 2009 at 4:27 pm

I know Question Time’s ratings have been going down – it’s one of the most boring programmes on television – but having some BNP tosser on is not going to make me watch it again. The BNP shouldn’t be given any public platform, as someone said, the party must be illegal in itself if racism, sexism, religious discrimination etc. is outlawed in the UK. What’s the point of having these laws if the police/government don’t enforce them?

Kristin // Posted 1 October 2009 at 5:03 pm

Kez, I don’t think it would be fun if some BNP members found out unpleasant (to them) truths about their ethnic origins. Hitler, Himmler and some other top (!) Nazis knew or suspected they themselves had some Jewish blood, and it lead to them persecuting Jewish people even more ruthlessly.

I harped on about Nazis in my earlier post. Can’t think why these BNP-Nazi comparisons keep occurring to me…!

Rob M // Posted 1 October 2009 at 6:10 pm

but refusing to question and argue and point out the flaws is what allows the bnp to convince people that they’re not racist. which is how they got 2 MEPs – sianmarie

No, they got 2 MEPs because of general voter apathy. They was no surge in support for the BNP. If normal people got off their arses and voted, they wouldn’t have those MEPs.

Some people are racist, so they’ll get their votes. Some people buy into the other stuff and overlook the racism, so they get their votes. A much larger number of people are non-voting bellends. And the rest of us read that interview and think “what a pair of racist dickheads.”

I think they dealt with it fine. What would you prefer, an interview that just goes “why are you so racist?” “we’re not racist” “what about all the racist stuff” “here’s our party line on how we skirt those issues”. Or ban them, like oppressive regimes silence people who are right about things. I think letting them talk about SPARROWS and CROWS (!!!) is better, myself.

Anne Onne // Posted 1 October 2009 at 7:01 pm

Ethnically British is just short-hand for white – a dog whistle for racists. Everyone knows this. The shame is that a lot of people seem to agree.

I’d like to add it’s even more nastily elegant than that. After all, it’s not good enough to be white to be tolerated by the BNP, if you’re Jewish or from one of the groups of European immigrants seen as undesirable. But say that it’s all about being ‘Ethnically British’ (and refuse to see even Jewish families who have been living here for many generations and see themselves as British), and they can conveniently say ‘we’re not racist, look we hate some white people, too!’ (Which they do, a lot. Shame people don’t bother to really think about it rather than taking their word…)

It’s definitely a dog-whistle all right, and it can conveniently extend to nearly anybody ”not like us” if they think that will win them votes with xenophobes. Which is why their definition of British is absolute pants. I mean, Ashley Cole was born and bred here, he didn’t ‘come’ here and he certainly isn’t stealing any jobs or not contributing to society! Yet evidently to the BNP members, any POC must be an immigrant, any immigrant must be a burden on society who refuses to live by the rules here.

sianmarie // Posted 2 October 2009 at 8:50 am

rob m –

yes, they got in due to voter apathy, but people also said they voted for the BNP because they didn’t know they were racist, which is naive and probably a lie, however it did suggest that the BNP were succeeding at presenting themselves as a valid choice.

no i don’t want interviews that go “are you racist” “no” – i thought i made it clear in my earlier post when i described the krishnan interview with brons that what we need are interviews that question and question and don’t let up on pointing out and arguing, because when this happens the BNP inevitably tie themselves up in knots and become ridiculous, and undermined.

and the newsbeat interview clearly didn’t do that.

sorry if i did not make that clear.

Kit // Posted 2 October 2009 at 1:12 pm

@Kristin – I think that’s called Godwin’s Law isn’t it? :)

@RobM – I remember reading somewhere they actually had less % of votes than last election or something. Voter apathy annoys me so much.

Raj // Posted 3 October 2009 at 6:54 pm

I wish BNP members would open thier mind and think of harmony rather than conflict. If they reckon white british people have been in britain for 40,000 years – do they know who was here 40 million years ago? Just as we were not here then we will not be here 40,000 years later. People should consider peoples feelings/emotions in the present to feel united and free to live their life, not worry about exclusion and to neglect another human of their rights. Earth is a big place and it belongs to all living creatures. Please educate stupid BNP members goverment! In fact please remove the party once and for all.

Anna // Posted 4 October 2009 at 6:15 pm

Kit: I’m not sure Godwin’s Law counts so much when the party has expressed support and sympathy for the Nazis, including Holocaust denial. More, um.. ‘eternal recurrence’ :)

David B // Posted 5 October 2009 at 12:25 am

@Tana: While I loathe racial nationalism as much as anyone, making [anything which could be construed as] racism, sexism and religious discrimination illegal is a short step away from creating ‘thoughtcrime’.

Someone on another thread said “Ban the Daily Mail”. They seemed to miss the point that the act of a government banning something [even something they didn’t like], as well as being draconian in itself, invests in it extra powers, which will come back to haunt them when their treasured freedoms are next on the agenda.

Laura Woodhouse // Posted 12 October 2009 at 11:19 am

The pitiful reply I received from the BBC:

I understand you were unhappy that an interview with BNP members was published on the website as you felt it was unsuitable for young people.

Whilst I can appreciate your concerns, we felt the article did ask challenging questions with regards to the party’s beliefs and opinions.

I realise you disagree with this decision and I’m sorry to read of your annoyance.

As you may still be unhappy with the article appearing I’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily internal report of audience feedback which we circulate to all programme makers including our online team. It ensures that your complaints are circulated and considered across the BBC.

I think they need to check the dictionary definition of ‘challenging’.

SL // Posted 12 October 2009 at 2:11 pm

Now this has turned into a bigger story – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/12/bbc-bnp – maybe we’ll hear something better from the beeb than that pitful generic email.

gadgetgal // Posted 15 October 2009 at 11:38 am

Check it out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308582.stm

Something to cheer everyone up for the day – how many votes do you reckon they’ll get for change (my bet’s on not too many), and how soon after do you reckon they’ll be forced to disband?

Kez // Posted 15 October 2009 at 12:28 pm

Gadgetgal – yes, was just hearing about this on the radio, yay. Although I suspect they will, reluctantly, comply in order to survive. I’d like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. Well, I wouldn’t actually, but it would be interesting in a horrible way….

BNP spokesman: “We have got to comply if we want to stay in the game. Of course it’s not right, it’s an infringement of our rights.” Yes, how dare anyone interfere with their right to discriminate against anyone they don’t like?!

A bloke on the radio phone-in said a couple of his mates had tried to join (purely for trouble-making purposes from the sound of it) and had been turned down although they were white, presumably because they had Irish surnames. Of course the BNP didn’t have to give any reason for declining them.

It will be interesting to see if lots of previously excluded people do now rush to join the BNP for similar reasons – to undermine it. (Admittedly you would need a lot of courage and a strong stomach to do such a thing.) Imagine the BNP collapsing from within when all those new members made their presence felt…. Probably just a fantasy though!

gadgetgal // Posted 15 October 2009 at 1:03 pm

Kez – nice fantasy, though, it can be my new happy place for the day :)

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds