Read the forum code of contact
By: - 13th May 2014 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In brief no of course they shouldn't be censored. Which TV channel censored the broadcast? I would be interested in Ofcom's view, not that I give that quango much credence.
By: - 13th May 2014 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think there is things that cannot be broadcast, as controversial items, which are understood by all parties.
Maybe they overstepped this agreement?
By: - 13th May 2014 at 21:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Political censorship? That rings a bell!
By: - 13th May 2014 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know - not watched it, not likely to.
But if their message, for the sake of argument, was that we should build large internment camps and starve all foreigners to death in them as an incentive not to immigrate here then I'd imagine there might be sections censored in their broadcast.
By: - 13th May 2014 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it wasn't badly produced, it was a cartoon based imagery basically against people coming to the uk, just google it. Not what I agree with, but then I don't agree with much they say. It was basically just running a UK for UK citizens theme.
What I am trying to get across is that by not being allowed to show their policies, they may or may not pick up votes from those that do not get to see their agenda, also some may also judge the broadcasts by labour, the conservatives and by the liberals as being offensive... Who deems which are offensive... Do you see where I am going? A party could I affect adjust the laws to prohibit another parties political broadcast, thus ensuring that party does not or never gets a voice. And that is why a party political broadcast should be exempt censorship where they show their policies... I'm not saying allow Beheadings etc to be shown, but where it's simply agendas against open borders or not... That should be allowed.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 01:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think I shall need copious amounts of wine if I am to view their broadcast.
This tweet from Matt Lucas made me chuckle:
"If the kids in the BNP broadcast are the result of a traditional family unit then I'm definitely going to keep on only having sex with men."
By: - 14th May 2014 at 05:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The principle stands. The BNP had as much right to express its views as any other party. If that principle is not upheld then we set a precedent for more censorship.
As many on here are fond of saying thousands died in order that we remained free to express our opinions however unpleasant to many they might be. Judge the BNP by its success or failure at the polls.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 08:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Who decides where the line is drawn? if you just go by this GD forum it's rare that more than 2 people can agree on anything here.People have to be allowed to make up their own minds.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 12:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you had actually searched you would have found that the BNP censored their video themselves...
BNP Election Broadcast Featuring Muslim 'Gangs' Fails To Go Ahead On BBCThe BBC did not show a vile BNP cartoon featuring leering Muslim gangs as its party political broadcast, after the party deciding to submit a somewhat hurried substitute of a bloke talking in a room for four minutes.
The corporation said on Wednesday that contrary to the BNP's claims of "censorship", it did not actually stop the broadcast, but merely advised the party on its guidelines.
The Huffington Post UK was leaked a copy of the original animation submitted to the broadcaster over the weekend. It featured caricatured Muslim grooming gangs, swigging WKDs and leering at a schoolgirl, a woman in a burqa begging, and a bloodied silhouette of Michael Adebolajo, the killer of soldier Lee Rigby.
On Saturday, the BNP's PR man Simon Darby said he was angry the animation had been leaked ahead of time, but insisted the BBC had not told him of any plans to stop the broadcast of the full animation. The party called the leak "a black ops campaign" against them.
On Tuesday night, just a few seconds of the animation was shown, with the segment cutting away to Darby, who said the "powers that be say we break Ofcom's rules". Ofcom do not set the guidelines that govern party political broadcasts on the BBC, only for ITV and Channels 4 and 5.
A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC did not “censor” the broadcast. The BNP asked us for advice on the content on the broadcast and we advised them on the relevant guidelines and the law, when they subsequently submitted the broadcast it was editorially compliant.”
The corporation's guidelines state that party broadcasts have an "obligation to observe the law, for example on libel, copyright and incitement to racial hatred and violence."
In the clip shown on Tuesday night, Darby went on to allege other stories about the BNP had been hidden by the media, including a the somewhat bold statement that BNP leader Nick Griffin had stopped "the bombing of Damascus" and had "held peace talks with the Syrian government, and wrote the letter that helped sway Westminster to vote against war."
The BNP leader himself appeared at the end of the clip, with a little rhyming couplet. "The other politicians are all the same. They're all to blame," he said, solemnly.
The BNP are not on the list of major parties and therefore do not automatically qualify for a Party Political Broadcast ahead of May's European elections.
But Ofcom rules state that broadcasters should set a criteria so that other registered parties can qualify for a broadcast, and in 2014 that includes all parties that are running full lists of candidates in all English electoral regions, a spokesman for the watchdog said. The BBC has its own in-house guidelines.
"It is great news that common sense has prevailed," Fiyaz Mughal, founder of the anti-Islamphobia group Tell MAMA told HuffPost UK.
"It seems the BNP simply is trying to promote more inflammatory messages just to catch some political limelight. Shameful is how I would describe it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/30/bnp-party-broadcast-bbc_n_5238092.html
Yes, I am aware that this was published on 30/4/14, but I've found nothing else that comes remotely close - save this story (same source) about a BNP Youth Promotional video...
BNP Youth Promotional Video Decries Gays, Zionists, Bankers, Media, Islam, Immigration And Stephen Lawrence's MumThe BNP has released a horror show of a promotional video, featuring a raft of humourless youths offering disturbing rhetoric about the demise of Britain… and Stephen Lawrence’s mum.
The three-minute clip uploaded to YouTube asks "who is responsible for the ongoing attempt to irradiate the British culture and British identity?” an irradiation that has seemingly brought our once great nation crashing to its grazed and battered knees. The film also demands to know who is responsible for the "ever growing debt" and who is responsible for portraying "racist attacks as only being against non-whites"?
According to the eight culturally uniform cast members, Blighty’s downfall is attributable to the cultural Marxists that have infected schools and academia; the Zionists that have profited from British soldiers dying abroad; the militant homosexuals, who are trying to destroy the traditional family unit… and Stephen Lawrence’s mum (it is not made clear why she’s on the list).
Islam, immigration and the EU also take a kicking from an assortment of size 5 shoes, as do the bankers, capitalism and, of course, a complicit media.
"We want our land to be a home for our people and our culture," says a wiry-haired boy before one of his colleagues chips in with a demand return to "core Christian values".
In recent weeks, the BBC became embroiled in a row over a vile BNP cartoon featuring leering Muslim gangs as a party political broadcast, forcing the BNP to submit a somewhat hurried substitute of a bloke talking in a room for four minutes.
The corporation insisted that contrary to the BNP's claims of "censorship", it did not actually stop the broadcast, but merely advised the party on its guidelines.
The Huffington Post UK was leaked a copy of the original animation submitted to the broadcaster. It featured caricatured Muslim grooming gangs, swigging WKDs and leering at a schoolgirl, a woman in a burqa begging, and a bloodied silhouette of Michael Adebolajo, the killer of soldier Lee Rigby.
In response, the BNP's PR man Simon Darby said he was angry the animation had been leaked ahead of time, but insisted the BBC had not told him of any plans to stop the broadcast of the full animation. The party called the leak "a black ops campaign" against them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/13/bnp-youth-promotional-video_n_5317969.html
If there was anything about a recent ban then it surely would have been a little bit easier to find?
By: - 14th May 2014 at 19:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 6
Tony, we do not have 'free speech' in this country. We have conditional free speech. If you say something which a vociferous minority finds offensive, a tide of hate will surge your way. Ironic really, when one considers that a perceived 'hate crime' was the trigger !
Charlie @ 8 hits the bullseye.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'Free speech' does not mean 'consequence-free speech'
By: - 14th May 2014 at 19:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I haven't watched any of the broadcasts, I won't be voting in the EU elections as there are no political parties that I agree with. The BNP broadcasts that I have seen before have always been crap.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 6Tony, we do not have 'free speech' in this country. We have conditional free speech. If you say something which a vociferous minority finds offensive, a tide of hate will surge your way. Ironic really, when one considers that a perceived 'hate crime' was the trigger !
Charlie @ 8 hits the bullseye.
Just because a majority believe something to be right does not make it, necessarily, right.
If over half the population said that Danny Dyer (bad British 'action' actor) should be strung up in Parliament Square for crimes against acting, no matter how deserved it was, should that be permitted?
And if somebody finds something offensive should you be permitted to rubbish their reasons just because you don't take offense? Who's 'offensive' do you take notice of, and whose do you rubbish? If your mother found something offended her but you don't, do you tell her to suck it in and grow a pair, or do you take note even though your own mother is in the minority?
Do enlighten us with your wisdom, please...
By: - 14th May 2014 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE 14
"enlighten - you ? In your case, waste of time !
By: - 14th May 2014 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 12
It certainly doesn't mean 'consequence free'. That is the problem. Now, there is always someone, somewhere, who will manufacture offence. You can absolutely rely on it.
By: - 14th May 2014 at 22:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE 14"enlighten - you ? In your case, waste of time !
Thank you. I trust that other observers might notice that you ignored the argument and attacked the postee.
What does that say about you and your argument if you'd rather not defend it?
By: - 15th May 2014 at 05:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Huffington Post UK
Ah yes that even handed and ultra credible publication LOL ; )
By: - 15th May 2014 at 06:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All good free publicity for the BNP, this thread. Wonder how much longer it wil run........
By: - 15th May 2014 at 07:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I've said often enough, free speech has never meant that that you can say what you like. The laws of libel and incitment to racial or religious hatred make sure of that.
Should the BNP broadcast have been censored? Probably not but I didn't watch it and nor am I likely to either. Their leaflet with some rather dubious imagery was enough proof to me of their intentions. Let's face it if the BNP ever got anywhere near the handles of power, censoring party political broadcasts would be the least of our problems.
Of course UKIP aren't too keen on this freedom of speech thing either as events in Cambridge showed last week.
By: - 15th May 2014 at 23:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OUT THERE THAT SAYS THEY HAVE BEEN CENSORED!
DON'T YOU THINK THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN CENSORED THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED HELL ABOUT IT - UNLESS THAT IS BEING CENSORED TOO, IN WHICH CASE EXPECT THIS THREAD TO BE MYSTERIOUSLY REMOVED WITHOUT EXPLANATION!
WHY DON'T YOU LOT LISTEN?
Ah yes that even handed and ultra credible publication LOL ; )
Like I said, nothing except from the Huffington Post (which isn't a patch on how it used to be, and that's what I told their survey - now sponsored by a bloody tea company for pity's sake!).
Nothing!
Posts: 8,983
By: TonyT - 13th May 2014 at 21:26
I watched the thing as it came on tonight between programmes as I have all the others..
The thing that hit me was it was censored, I then went online to watch the whole thing on youtube to see why......
Their agenda and their views apart, what struck me was that it was censored, surely any party political broadcast shouldn't be, because that is the one thing that gets to show their political agenda to the voting public, no matter how loathsome it is.
Am I alone in this? I realise and know what they stand for, but is it wrong to censor any parties political broadcast? Because at the end of the day you need all the parties to be allowed to get their views across thus allowing you to make an informed choice of party... And before you ask, no I won't be voting for them.
Comments?