Had the programme makers allowed a proper debate on a range of issues - ie: the usual Question Time format - we just may have learned something about the BNP's policies (if they have any indeed). Instead, they played right into Nick Griffin's hands and allowed him to talk about issues close to his heart in front of a baying mob that would have angered many a skinhead among the millions of TV viewers eager for a hint of what this part is all about. Result: his poll ratings have soared and immigration is back on the agenda in a way no-one would have wished. Well done, BBC.

To deny this legitimate political party an opportunity to be scrutinised and to voice their mandates would, in the minds of their active and dormant supporters, turn the BNP into martys. Such an action would reinforce people's beliefs that the current government no longer listens to the views of the people, and that the media only broadcast what is palatable for the mainstream public, whilst denying the existence of, what BNP supporters believe to be, genuine grievances. This action in itself could have drastically increased the BNP's support.

It is true that the situation could have been handled in a manner that would have been less beneficial to the BNP (if the other participants had not toed the party line so eagerly and delicately side-stepped the more substantial issues), however, one must not ignore the fact that preventing their appearance would have provided Nick Griffin with viable ammunition in his next diatribe against the current state of our society and our government. Moreover, unfortunate though it is, the BNP is a legitimate party that has been democratically elected in various areas, it therefore it should be allowed a political platform, but in response to this reality we must become more adept at undermining it and highlighting its distasteful politics.

Griffin has gained a considerable amount of support. But whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the BBC for having him on, rather, it is the BBC's fault for ganging up on him and allowing the audience to abuse him.

By making him and his party and supporters out to be victims he has succeeded in allowing more support. When viewed as hated by "the Establishment", it becomes taboo. The last thing we should do is make the BNP taboo.

Griffin would have been made to look far more the idiot if the panel had talked to him calmly (as Bonnie Greer demonstrated) and allowed him to respond fully. The only reason they didn't do this was a. to show the world that the BBC is not fascist (when in fact it is supposed to be impartial and not "anti-fascist") and b. because they were scared Griffin would start convincing people.

The fact that they didn't give Griffin a chance to convince people served only for people to complain that he wasn't given that chance - that the BBC and audience wasn't fair to him. Anyone complaining about this is right to do so. It wasn't fair. It should have been fair.

It was demonstrated that he couldn't answer sensible questions intelligently either - he constantly got his facts wrong, misused words, evaded straightforward questions (such as whether or not he denied the Holocaust) and when asked one question that wasn't about race, he attacked homosexuality in a nonsensical manner. He had plenty of opportunities to make himself look an idiot and he took all of them.

Of-course the BBC is to blame, none of the other Panelists addressed any of Mr.Griffin's concerns and rather dismissed him as racist at everything he said. They didn't bother to argue that even though British Natives were white(A black female Panelist talked about how everyone comes from Africa and is borne of cavemen and yet did not disprove Britain's Anglo-Saxon heritage) unlike the Aborigines, the whites of Britain were conquered by immigrants, rather that Countries that Immigrants prevail from were mostly colonised by the Brits. British whites have not been oppressed/conquered by immigrants , it is the other way around. White Brits were underrepresented. The views of mostly Brown and black Brits were highlighted further stressing on Griffin's concerns. Though a conservative female dismissed Griffin's views on Islam and women 's rights , she did not offer factual evidence in a counter-argument. She simply claimed he was lying even though the issues with Islam that he voiced are common beliefs. This was a perfect opportunity for her to dispel the anti-feminist ideas around instead she simply dismissed them as untrue without any formal fact-based debate.

The only ONE white Brit from the audience to speak , feared that non-whites were taking away jobs entitled to white people.

Jack straw did have a pivotal role in the Iraq War and Griffin does have Arab friends.

Question-time proved that dismissing people by calling them names and appealing to liberal common sense(without providing evidence to support well-grounded concepts) doesn't win the left any support. Issues must be addressed and debated with the cordial civilised essence of mutual respect however absurd you feel the others' views are.

Griffin did not call the other panelists names and his claim seemed quite right that the BBC 'is' leftist.

If the BNP have gained more support in the short time since he appeared on Question Time itis no way the fault of the BBC for allowing him to appear on the programme. The features of the debate which this point alludes to, such as the audience members attitudes and the nature of the replies that fellow panelists gave, can rightly be analysed as crucial to a perception of how unsuccessful the programme was in dispelling and discrediting BNP theory and policy. But these are not issues that the BBC or its management are responsible for.

It is up to David Dimbleby to pick questions from a cross-section of society and direct and manage the discourse from there on. He, along with his production team, are answerable for managing content not the corporation. It was largely the nature and magnitude of Mr Griffin's landmark appearance (as hyped by the media) and the interest from the crowd plus a lack of the usual clear direction which allowed the programme to drift into a trading of insults at regular intervals. Moreover the unconvincing nature of the answers and the slanted language of remarks made by the other panellists cannot be seen as the BBC's fault either.

In fact when it comes down to it, though many of its core principles and policies are deplorable, the BNP 's accusation that the current political climate does not cater for the people has been thoroughly exemplified. And the poor management of the debate also plays into the BNP theorem that key media elements are instrinsically 'leftist' and pander to the current political agenda and its main parties.

The programme, as a proving ground that the BNP were unpopular and amatuer, failed. This has undoubtedly added weight to some BNP views and perhaps prompted interest in the party. But this is in no way the fault of the television corporation were merely for allowing it to go ahead.

Griffin was given more than a chance to talk about his party's policies and he did so very aggressively and eloquently. The problem was that the non-white female panelists and Jack Straw(who people don't like very much because of the Iraq war)were the main speakers aside from Griffin and most of the audience wasn't white either(the audience would/did obviously not support white supremacy thus).

The simple fact is conservative/racist whites or those leaning towards conservative-racism don't like being told what is right and wrong by non-whites. And that too cocky ones , who call Nick a dick and are dramatically upset about being called Afro-Caribbean and not African-Caribbean.

The point being people who ae already disgusted by racism would be cheering the audience and panelists on.

However, the people who are racist against non-whites(alternatively, are leaning towards it) were given all the more reason to be; the message was clear: "non-whites don't like you, S&^ off", and that is no reason for people to rethink/alter racist viewpoints/tendencies, rather people offended by indirectly/directly being called uneducated/uncivilised/uncivilized/farmers/ignorant/red-necked-white-trash will and do; add support to the B.N.P.

The intelligence, or lack thereof, of the audience is not being called into question-just as their ethnic makeup should not be either. I accept your point that those people with sympathy for the BNP position would become agitated by non-whites voicing opposing opinions. However, the arguments and strength of disgust directed towards Mr Griffin were convincing enough to discredit any sympathetic views on the BNP-eg. the point made about the multinational nature of British defence forces by Jack Straw and members of the audience.

By attacking him blatantly in ways that were often personal rather than useful arguments, only asking biased, loaded questions and only allowing questions from the audience by people who didn't support him, they are reinforcing Nick Griffin's image as the underdog and hero of the oppressed. People are sympathetic with the losing party, just look at Fire Emblem.

The point of the matter is that Mr.Griffin had no responses that would hold up within a political debate.He was asked questions on his party. His party though as everyone knows is heavily based on race and I believe he wasn't asked biased questions at all but in fact decided to bring up statements for example about the oppositions family,which was underhanded and biased on his part.

I dont believe Mr.Griffin was given a hard time at all but in fact invited onto himself the bombardment of 'home truths about himself and his party.I personally believe that Nick Griffin evaded questions and made himself look like he couldn't support his views accurately and evidence.

time will tell, but familiarity does not always breed contempt. Publicity like this makes him a public figure and that carries and implication of authority. Drip, drip,,,

In reality/practice that worked for him , because his toned down performance, relieved him of coming off as a barbaric mad harbinger of ignorance but someone who could share his (party's)views and policies: politely and assertively.

None of his arguments were effectively tackled, everything he said was shouted out as 'racist'but never addressed.

Therefore no effort, whatsoever was made to change the minds of people who hold these views(or could potentially be inveigled to the BNPs cause)

The BNP's members have themselves attacked Nick Griffin's performance as poor due to their perception that he did not 'hammer home' the party's policies and the leading parties' ''hypocrisy and failures.'' There is therefore no guarantee that Griffin's performance would have attracted any significant increase in support due to his weak performance as a politician and lack of effective attacks on the three main parties. Furthermore, his clearly visible shaking and awkward moments did not demonstrate any charm nor charisma that many in the UK look for in a politician. Moreover, the likelihood of the typical uneducated masses watching Question Time is probably low, reducing the possible exposure to the BNP's views.