This morning, the intensity reached fever pitch among the Righteous:
A BBC presenter has attacked the decision to invite the leader of the British National Party (BNP) on to BBC1's Question Time tonight, warning that the move "completely contradicts" rules on impartiality and would erode the public's trust in the Corporation.Hmm, which one? One of the big political presenters – Huw Edwards? Jeremy Vine?
Michael Rosen, the former children's laureate…Ah…
…accused the broadcaster of "hiding behind" the BNP's European election victories to justify its decision, adding that executives "were relishing" the ratings that the broadcast is expected to receive. "It is failing in the very impartiality that it claims to be trying to uphold," he said.He didn’t elaborate on how allowing an elected party member onto a tv debate would do that, which is just as well.
He added that the BBC's championing of the "trust agenda", introduced after controversy over a documentary about the Queen, had been ignored in pushing ahead with Mr Griffin's appearance. "It will lose my trust and that of others if it goes ahead with this," he said. "The BBC is not just any ordinary organisation. It is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone.And so are the people that have voted for them.
"They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on. The BNP's whole notion of reversing immigration rests on the notion that many people shouldn't be here ... the people that the BNP target are licence-fee payers."
Quite a dilemma, eh, Mikey?
He added: "The BBC is obsessed with putting things 'through compliance', to ensure no one will find programmes politically, sexually or socially offensive. I have been stopped from reading a poem that contained one swear word before. Yet while they go into palpitations over things Jonathan Ross says, they are allowing Nick Griffin airtime to say things that will offend millions."Because no-one voted for you or Jonathon Ross. You are just employees on contract.
This man, like it or not, is an elected official, and is therefore entitled to present his case.
What are you all worried about? The BNP will likely condemn themselves out of their own mouths, so why not let them speak? After all, as DumbJon points out, the creme de la creme of diversity is aligned against them. Surely Sayeeds Warsi will have no trouble swaying us all?
But it seems that some aren’t so sure, and would rather subvert democracy:
Hundreds of protesters are expected to gather outside the BBC tonight, and police are poised for violent clashes. The programme may be moved to a secret location should it prove too dangerous to ferry guests to the studio in BBC Television Centre, west London.It shouldn’t prove ‘too dangerous’ – the slightest hint from the UAF and other rent-a-mob scum intent on undermining democracy and the riot gear and water cannon should be deployed.
Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said: "The BBC will be responsible for any increase in racist attacks that take place after they have gone ahead with this."No, they won’t. The people that commit them will be responsible.
Or would you accept being held responsible for the actions of your members?
No? Thought not…