By Andrew Brons. When I was asked to take part in the programme, I explained that our Party was only a fledgling organisation that was only going to dip its toe in the water of the county council elections. They tried the MEP flattery tactic, implying that my election (from the top of a list) had turned me into some sort of senior statesman. I explained that probably fewer than one in a hundred of our voters had even heard my name prior to the European Elections. It was then that I heard that the surviving Chairman of the Rump BNP had refused to take part. I realised that somebody had to speak up for the Nationalist cause and that I had to be that somebody.
As expected, I did not only have to refute the assertions of Mrs. Hodge, Labour MP for Barking, horny-handed proletarian and scion of that well known diamond mining family (headed by Harry Hodge?). I also had to deal with the claims of Mr. Paxperson and those contained in the opening film.
The central argument of all three was that support for Nationalism in general and of the BNP in particular had evaporated autonomously in 2010 and that UKIP had gallantly agreed to fill the vacuum. The BNP’s electoral demise had, it was claimed, caused the Party to fragment.
I pointed out that that the causal connection was the other way around. The fragmentation had caused a depletion of activists, which had led to electoral setbacks. That fragmentation had been caused by the BNP leadership’s paranoid and repressive actions against those who in 2010 had sought to have the BNP leader replaced. One of the grounds for that leadership challenge was that the 2010 results were ‘disappointing’. I did not agree with their assessment of the 2010 General Election but I respected their right to hold it.
I pointed out that the 2010 results – both in the General Election and in the local elections – were not particularly disappointing. The support for all small parties was smaller than for those same parties in the European elections. The BNP’s average vote per constituency was 1673 votes compared with 1665 for UKIP and only 918 for the Green Party.
Mrs. Diamond-Mine tried to claim that the BNP’s loss of its twelve councillors in Barking was the result of a collapse in electoral support. I had to explain to Mrs.D-M as slowly as I could (so that even she could understand), that the loss was attributable to the fact that the local elections in 2010 (unlike those held in 2006) coincided with the General Election, so that instead of 30% or so people voting, that percentage rose to 65 or 70% in 2010. It was not that the BNP’s votes fell but that those votes were swamped by the votes of people who did not usually vote in local elections. In fact in Morley, Leeds, support for the BNP’s sitting councillor rose by two hundred but he still lost his seat.
They tried to claim that UKIP’s support had eclipsed support for the BNP (and other Nationalists) because UKIP was ‘respectable’(a euphemism for lacking any kind of principle or even belief) and not ‘racist’ (undefined) but only ‘xenophobic’. Well that’s all right then!
I had to point out that UKIP’s rise in electoral support was attributable to the BNP’s fragmentation and to the shameless media promotion of UKIP in general and Farage in particular. I reminded viewers that Farage had appeared on the BBC’s Question Time more than any other politician.
The Holocaust had its usual cameo role. Mrs. D-M clearly thought that the county council elections were not about education, highways and structure plans but about the history of the second world war. I disabused her of that belief and said that political parties do not usually make historical pronouncements. I am happy to leave history to the historians. I could have added, “provided that they are not historians in totalitarian countries in which they are instructed as to what their conclusions must be”.
She brought in the usual accusations of fascism but I was pleased to point out that it was the Labour Party’s treatment of Nationalists that was fascistic.
Mrs. D-M ended the programme by asking me if I still believed in eating black babies for breakfast or something like that. I told her that I was not going to allow her to put words (or black babies for that matter) into my mouth. I told her that our policies were there to be seen in our policy statement. Before I could answer her question fully, Mr. Paxperson brought the exchange (and the programme) to an end.
What did my appearance on the programme achieve? It presented me as the spokesman for British Nationalism and it provided some national publicity for our party. It allowed me to refute the claim that there had been an autonomous fall in support for Nationalism and rise in support for UKIP. However, above all, it allowed me the opportunity to have another public spat with that defender of the poor, Mrs. Diamond-Mine. The last had been in 2009.
The programme can be view at the link below. Andrew is on at 35 mins and 46 seconds in.
2
I did not know that Mr Brons was appearing on the programme, it was a pleasant surprise. What struck me as ironic was that although the piece was about the collapse of the BNP the cowardly Nick Griffin would not show his face and it was left to Mr Brons to defend the BNP. Well done Mr B for your guts and integrity both qualities that spineless Griffin is lacking in. Perhaps the title of this article should be “Brons Defends BNP Whilst Griffin Goes into Hiding”? A further point was that the BNP can’t stop lying to its own members. According to the liars at the BNP its lack of candidates isn’t down to its collapse across much of Britain but on a deliberate strategy to put up fewer candidates. Final point – my lasting impression of the discussion is that of two arrogant Jews baiting an English gentleman and – oh yes – yellow belly Griffin scuttling for cover.
I thought much the same thing, an immigrant and a second generation East European immigrant abusing their position in my country.
Nice one Andrew.
Considering any coverage by the BBC of nationalism is stage managed – wheeled in opponent mouthing cliches – derisive laughter from the obnoxious careerist Paxman – it went fine.
People will never vote nationalist if they are taken in by BBC programmes. Fortunately their influence is waning.
There is often too much concern in nationalist circles about what opponents say. Some people are even still obsessed by Searchlight’s nonsense picking over the words.
The wind has changed. It’s what we ourselves say elsewhere than the controlled media and what we do that counts.
The usual stitch-up, is there any point appearing on the lamestream media?
Andrew, I watched the programme on iplayer when I got home from work today. I have not seen such a biased interview arrangement for quite some time.
.
Mr Paxman was an absolute disgrace and did not even give the thinnest fig leaf of impartiality. In fact, he is happily chortling away against you (along with your opponent), letting Margret Oppenhiemer have completely uninterrupted free rein to spread lies and misinformation.
.
When you quite rightly seek to defend yourself and the so-called “far right” from her lies, you get rounded on by Paxman for defending yourself and calling her up on her distortions. Again, he laughs and smirks.
.
He can even be seen sat back in his swivel chair, blatantly allowing Margaret to have the walk of the floor. It really is a shocking piece of television from the so-called “impartial” and “un biased” BBC.
.
The closing chapter as the lights dim shows them both cackling with joyous fervor over their ‘job well done’. It is quite unashamed.
.
From the moment I started the iplayer feature and saw that you were “linked” to the studio, I knew which way it was going to blow.
.
This seems to be a trick they use all the time for anybody or any group they do not like the opinions of.
.
Margaret Hodge is in close proximity and is nice and clear in the studio, whereas they give you an awkwardly framed and awkwardly positioned camera shot in unflattering circumstances, when compared to the sheen and shine of the studio. It will also tend subliminally reinforce that we are the “outsiders” to perceived normality. It also makes it colder and distant.
.
It also gives them free rein to decide when they fade you up or down, or when to allow you to chip in. If you were there in the studio, I think Paxman would have had to do his job properly as you would be in a greater position to interject and talk over the opponent if necessary. The whole thing looked choreographed to me as far as all that was concerned.
.
She seemed quite smug about the defeat in Barking, but tell me, how hard is it to win a Labour seat in Barking and Dagenham when the White populace lost about 33% or more of the demographic there in a single decade! Is it any real surprise that the BNP were defeated – nevermind high the turn outs and election differences and all the rest of it?!
.
She is fond of slipping in all the lies and misrepresentations. Like when she was filmed saying the BNP would drop immigrants out of planes into the sea (in that documentary about the BNP electioneering in Barking), she would not be able to verify much of what she was claiming.
.
As you tried to point out, the whole article there at the BBC was turned on its head. The issues you said relating to voter increase, Farrage, the Question Time not being ‘Question Time’ and so on, were correct, but I only hope that the general public could appreciate what you were trying to say.
.
It hopefully came across to the average viewer that you were a well spoken and intelligent person (and not the stereotype they paint us all to be) who was being given the mucky end of a stick.
.
That is why they probably did not allow you to correct their falsifications and explain, uninterrupted, why they had things inside out. They know that you are of the calibre can do it, so they simply don’t give you the ability to do so.
.
Her insinuations did not even stop at BDP or “the far right” – she was even using air time by labelling UKIP as “xenophobic”. I am not a fan of UKIP, I know exactly what they are, but even so, it is the same old leftist wheeze where they suggest anybody who is against the European Union are “xenophobes” who just “don’t like the Germans” or “don’t want to be told what to do by the French”.
.
It also gave the BBC a double-edged attack which simultaneously suggested that UKIP were a milder “BNP” or “far right” party (which may damage UKIP and upset the cosy monopoly of two/three parties through their associating of them with the whole discussion), and on the other hand, it reinforces the view that fractured nationalists and former voters might be better off joining UKIP seeing as we have “imploded”.
.
(This may have the role of us losing more potential nationalists to UKIP, whilst simultaneously buffing up the UKIP media narrative to be more associated with ‘former far right’ memberships and allegiances).
.
It was a grossly unfair interview condition and yet you managed to keep calm and unflustered in the face of it. No doubt some people will say that was a flaw and a weakness, maybe suggesting that you should have barked with force over the top or to have just upped and left, but I am still of the opinion that at this stage we still need to present ourselves in a positive and considered manner. On that, I think you did well, and provided a more intelligent face for nationalism.
.
I wish it had gone better (unfortunately, I think the BBC had the upper hand despite your points, as in typical ‘lefty’ fashion they were more snappy and emotional based rather than factual), but thanks for speaking up for the cause anyway. Under the clearly biased circumstances I think you did okay. I do not think I could have bared to see the face of “he who should not be mentioned” on the screen instead.
.
If anything, it shows that despite everything bad going on in the movement, they still feel the need to have these kinds of slanted discussions and that they still have to play subtle and not so subtle little tricks.
.
If you want to be seen as a spokesperson for the BDP or a wider nationalist cause, then getting on Newsnight is maybe a good use of time and if nothing else, provides further practice for what may come later.
.
As for Margret Hodge/Oppenheimer, I really cannot bear her at the best of times. I heard her on Radio 4 this morning on the way to work, being all uppity about the costs of budget reports that had been shown to be useless (which Labour had brought in) and condemning the costs of all these PFI schemes (which Labour racked up!). To say she has a brass neck would be an understatement.
I am amazed at the way Andrew Brons kept cool during this grotesquely biased interview. Each time he attempted to challenge Margaret Hodge’s predictable smears against him & the Party (‘far right’, ‘ fascist’, ‘holocaust denial’ etc.) a smirking Paxman butted in, on the pretext he had evaded one of his obviously loaded questions. Was Mr Brons simply expected to sit by & let these offensive lies pass without comment? Can’t think any mainstream politicians would have been panned in the same way for trying to correct them.
Throughout the ‘interview’, time & again Paxman shamelessly let Mrs Hodge interrupt Mr Brons, giving him virtually no opportunity to make an answer. Mr Brons remained courteous & unflummoxed throughout, even as he was shouted down. Right at the end, seemingly deliberately, Paxman allowed Mrs Hodge to pose a highly inflammatory question about the BDP’s attitude to ethnic minorities, which clearly called for a detailed explanation. As the seconds ticked away, Mr Brons took the only course possible by referring her to the Party’s manifesto for a definitive answer – (if our detractors ever bothered to look they would see that the smears are unfounded – but of course they know this already!) His response was again derided by Paxman who rudely shut him up as the programme came to a close.
Hopefully many viewers will have seen through this hopelessly biased interview and drawn their own conclusions. I do think Mr Brons & the BDP have grounds to complain to an independent ombudsman – what good that will do is anyone’s guess but maybe it should be tried.
This pathetic excuse of an ‘interview’ is a further blatant example of the way the media in general and the BBC in particular stifle political parties with whose views they do not agree. So much for free speech & fair play.
I agree with British Activism that, under extremely trying circumstances, your calm and intelligent performance showed British Nationalism and the BDP in a very good light. I think you were right to appear on the programme and it is evident you emerged with far more credit than either your obnoxious interviewer or opponent.
I disagree with Kentish Man’s analysis. Say what you like about Enver Hodge she certainly knows how to spew propaganda. She knows that certain emotive words, like ‘holocaust’, repeated often enough, in a similar context, will stick in the mind of your average tv punter by association. She knows, in other words, that an emotive word is worth a thousand words. That’s why, as Mr Brons noted, the holocaust made its usual cameo appearance: to distract from any issue but that of derailing the issue.
You are right that emotive words tend to stick in the minds of the average punter – it’s probably just wishful thinking on my part that by now, some at least have realised that such words are really just outrageous lies & smears.
It is easy to rubbish nationalist policies with emotive nonsense – as when Paxman interviewed Griffin about the BNP definition of Britishness. Peppering the ‘interview’ (again terribly one-sided) with facile comments, he simply wasn’t interested in Griffin’s attempt to provide the detailed explanation the issue required. Perhaps people in general are disinterested in the wider picture – although now that the lid has been lifted off many issues previously excluded from public debate maybe there is hope that people will look into them more deeply and rationally.
It’s not always easy to counter emotive nonsense spewed out against nationalism in a calm and measured way. My standard response to anyone peddling lies about the supposed policies of nationalist parties is to tell them to read the relevant manifestos & point out the policies on which their allegations are based. This covers the usual fascist & racist nonsense and much else besides.
Andrew Brons did a great job.
I will try and get a complaint in to the BBC(its very straightforward to do one online via their website),although they are usually even more blatantly biased,and usually have the LibLabCon creatures on unopposed.
I tried watching this today but it does’nt currently seem to be available on BBC Iplayer. Perhaps you’ve stirred up too much positive interest Andrew and the BBC have realised that it’s had an adverse effect on their intentions.
We and all normal minded people realise that UKIP is a gang of failed persons of different political persuasions with no common bond. We can beat them and we will. Our fight is to be slow but steady to ensure our party does not allow itself to fall into the Griffin trap.
All of us have an obligation to fight for what we believe in, great item Andrew, and if anybody in Kent reads this please contact me via Email.