Cruel to be Kind?

All right so I’m sitting on the fence for this topic of conversation today on my blog though I do tend to be a confused person , contradictory and end up being one-sided. Apologies for that as I’m probably still finding my morals and I’m technically not an adult so I’m still a child growing and developing, so bare with me on this one.



Question Time last night was basically about
Nick Griffin and his party, the BNP. Yes, I bet you’re all sitting here booing me for talking about this because some people are just bored with the whole BNP thing. Generally I’m very interested in it because this a huge thing in terms of political history. It’s like sitting back and watching history in progress. We never know what the outcome of it will be; it might all die down and be forgotten about or on the other hand it may escalate into something, well, historical. Our kids may ask us when they’re doing history for school, or just in general, “What happened to politics in the last half of the 2 thousand and naughties?”. History is happening constantly and it’s our duty to take notice of it, whether its political, cultural or just in our own personal lives, and tell our future children or grandchildren what really happened. We are history, so let’s take notice.


Sorry about that, I’m not telling you guys off, it’s just my opinion remember.


So back to Question Time (QT). I watched it last night and I found I still was sitting on the wall. I do agree with SOME things Nick Griffin was talking about and I understood what he was trying to get at, but just doing it in a unjustifiable way by being a bit of a racist. The action he takes, is what I disagree with. As said on QT, they explained that instead of Nick Griffin using sentences such as deporting all the Muslims and blacks, he should instead use sentences which everyone can identify with instead of singling out minorities and using words which cushion the blow a bit . QT panel later discussed about Democracy. They were saying that we are a democratic society yet when the BNP gets a chance to make their views on topics on a show like QT, the BBC purposely chose an audience when they would obviously disagree with Nick Griffin. I have watched other QT’s and strangely enough there were less of a mixed audience. One point to make is, at the end of each QT, David thing, the ‘referee’, makes a small announcement of when, where, and who is going to be on the show in the forthcoming weeks and if you’d want to be on the show, then phone the number at the bottom of the screen. Could people who are against the BNP automatically just want to be in the audience to have their say that “Nick you’re disgusting!” etc etc. That could be a factor. His policies have gotten himself into the bullying position. Unlucky.


Today, Nick Griffin made a claim that he was bullied and I agree with that statement, however when I do think about it, it does seem to be kind of a publicity stunt or that it unfortunately looks like it. Is it one or not? We aren’t quite sure. It could be the whole plan of action of the BNP, for publicity. We don’t really know what goes on inside those little heads of theirs. They did increase their membership by an addition of 3,000 members during the course of QT and afterwards. Is it their plan? Who knows.


I believe that everyone should have a say in different topics, however I felt that the BBC set it up on QT. It wasn’t a fair panel. He was being bombarded by questions about his manifesto and views. There was an audience which was different than previous QT. But I may agree that he does sugar coat his answers to win over people and lure them into a false sense of security by joining his party. He also had a boost in the votes for BNP because the rest of the parties have been dilly-dallying about expenses and whether or not she said that or he said this, blah blah blah. The people have no other parties to vote for. YES I do believe in people having a say and a vote, i.e Democracy. NO I disagree with government not being able to decide over tiny weeny topic when there are much bigger topics to talk about that are urgent. The world is falling apart, there’s a recession and the polar bears are dying, and some political parties decide to pay their house in London with the people’s money. That is a disgrace. That is the downside of democracy, it takes ages to come to a decision. The downside of autocracy is that the people do not get as much of a say. We need to compromise between the two or take a risk. I want the world to be free and that it can say whatever it likes without offending Tom, Dick and Harry. People need to stop being so uptight and just accept that people are not going to agree with their opinions. I say that people should learn to compromise and respect different opinions and not get in a tizzy about it.


I do not totally agree with the BNP and I do not agree with the way other parties are condoning it for their views. BNP need refined and to soften the harshness before people eventually accept other people’s views and respect them. Who said right-wing is the RIGHT party anyway and it’s the best with its morals, conduct, and actions? We’re in a recession because of them. They’re spending tax payers money. They got GB into a war and it hasn’t made much of a difference. What can we do? BNP might do the same after all. We could try another style of government to see if it works such as autocracy? It’s not easy to do, to reform an established government which has been in place for a very long time, but I just don’t see where it has gotten us. I’m not saying trust the BNP and vote for them. I’m saying we need a party we CAN trust and so far I say, don’t trust any parties.


I’m still gonna sit on the fence until things lighten up. Am I wrong for doing that? I’m not a glory hunter. I’m just.....gonna.....run away now..... *sprints off*