Forum Topic

The programme was a farce and by earlier today apparently there had been 20,000 complaints re the B B C's patently obvious bias. As was expected, the audience were very well chosen by the B B C so as to be anti Griffin, who did not give a good account of himself, mainly because he wsn't allowed to. Dimbleby was a disgrace, clearly attacking one panelist in particular  which no Chairperson should be allowed to do. Griffin I think was overwhelmed by the fixup and the antis purposelyy lined up against him. He missed the opportunity when on the question of asylum seekers that no less than our Jack ( Straw ) said several years ago that 70-80% were bogus. Also no less an august body than the previous Deputy PM said there are no persons as the English, following the Union with Scotland, so what chance have we English got when the 2nd highest politician in the land denies our existence. And Griffin also missed the opportunity of reminding our Jack that he  reputedly had declared a few years back the white race is not worth saving. The BBC say the audience were representative of London population, true and therein lies the problem, as Griffin has stated today in interviews. No-one has yet said why immigrants are better than the indigenous peoples. London will in my opinion go downhill, and as we are seeing . But good luck to those advocates of immigration, they have sown the seeds and will reap the whirlwind. And so many immigrants themselves are moving out of London as they came to London years ago so as to be among the English but who are in much reduced numbers. So those in favour of multi-culturalism ( which does not and cannot exist ) keep on working and paying taxes so persons such as the woman in Acton with 7 kids from a country where are dear Forces are currently trying to build freedom can sit on her backside, have her rent of a mini-mansion at £12484 per month paid for her plus raking in total benefits of £ 185,000 a year, net that is, gross over £300,000 for anyone working. The reporting on News programmes today have also been purposely distorting the programme, CH 4 for example when showing the extract of Griffin saying he had changed his mind on certain aspects and then cut off the extract and not showing Griffin saying why he could not. Free speech and true reporting in this country have become things of the past, and sadly by the erstwhile Auntie who was once regarded as carrying the banner thererof.         The advocates of multi-culturalism have unfortunately been stabbed in the back by no other than the head of the tax-payer funded organisation, Trev. Phillips of Equalities Commission who blurted out  several months ago there is no such thing as multi-culturalism, and he should know. Multi fragmented society is what we have been given by the liberal elite who not only organised it and despite their current protestations, are allowing it to continue, indeed intend allowing another 10 million increase in population, 2/3rds by immigration. Weasel words indeed.

Tony Price ● 6185d

The only thing any viewer needs to be wise to about Nick Griffin is that he and the core leadership of the BNP are stone cold neo-nazis. Anything they say or do that suggests otherwise is cover, exploiting genuine concerns of reasonable members of the public in order to advance their sick fascist ideals into the mainstream by stealth.In that context, it's a huge shame that the panel and audience were full of hysterics and hypocrites (Jack Straw, war criminal, hardly has the moral high ground over a common nazi thug) and that the BBC or Dimbleby failed to maintain the program's standard format in a way that might bring this fact to light for those who are either ignorant of or unwilling to believe the existing evidence.It's also a shame that the most vocal opponents to the fascist BNP are the organisation called Unite Against Fascism. Their tactics are barely distinguishable from those that the fascists themselves would seek to use. Them, and Peter Hain, another of many dodgy scandal-ridden politicians.I believe it was a mistake for the BBC to have Griffin on the show. If the rumours that the BBC invited Griffin on in order to get ratings is true, then the decision was truly lamentable. For the record, this was not about free speech. I am an advocate of true free speech - something we do not have in the UK, and contrary to Tony's suggestion something that we've never had, although I agree that things have got even worse in the past 15 or so years.Not inviting the BNP onto QT would not constitute either censorship or a restriction on free speech. The BNP have as much free speech as anyone else and can exercise it as they wish within the limits of existing laws, but free speech does not entitle anyone or any party to appear on QT. Neither does their electoral success mean that it's appropriate or compulsory to give their neo-nazi leader airtime. It's a conclusion I struggled over for a few days because my instinct is that free speech must prevail, but was finally convinced that it's not a free speech issue when I read this piece (note, do not read this if you are offended by very coarse language): http://sarahditum.com/2009/10/22/guest-post-having-my-say-griffin-on-qt/These are people who, when amongst themselves and away from outsiders, do not deny the holocaust. They celebrate it, and fantasise about repeating it. There's really very little else that you need to know about them. We should not confuse important issues about the standard of living of so-called "indigenous" peoples, immigration, EU membership etc. with the true character of those who run the BNP.

Max Duley ● 6184d

Perhaps the august body who seems to delight in harassing and attacking me would like to get her mind round this :-        " The BNP backlash - MPs accuse BBC of playing into Nick Griffin's hands by stage-managing Question Time onslaught | Mail Online           newsThe BNP backlash - MPs accuse BBC of playing into Nick Griffin's hands by stage-managing Question Time onslaughtBy James ChapmanLast updated at 10:12 AM on 24th October 2009Comments (505) Add to My Stories The BBC has been accused of letting BNP bigot Nick Griffin 'play the martyr' amid bitter recriminations over his appearance on Question Time. Senior MPs accused the corporation of whipping up controversy to maximise viewing figures - then crudely stage-managing the programme so he was under attack throughout from the audience and fellow panellists. They said the attempt to expose his racist views risked backfiring because some voters would feel he had been unfairly treated. Milking the moment: Nick Griffin with an Essex market trader yesterday. Senior MPs have accused the BBC of playing into the BNP's hands by stage-managing Question Time and making Griffin 'a martyr'Last night it emerged that: Complaints that the show was biased against Mr Griffin outnumbered by more than two to one those about him being allowed to appear; Some of the audience appear to have been rushed through the vetting process in a bid to emphasise the multi-cultural nature of London; Audience members were briefed to ask 'provocative' questions and host David Dimbleby told them it was acceptable to boo; More than eight million people tuned in - four times the usual audience and more than watched Strictly Come Dancing last week; The BNP boasted that since Mr Griffin's appearance, 3,000 people had registered to sign up as members; Joel Weiner, 17, who dramatically confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to attend a Question Time programme more than a year ago, but was approached just 24 hours before filming. Mr Griffin himself said he planned to make a formal complaint to the BBC, over 'twisting' the programme format. He said the episode 'was not a genuine Question Time, it was a lynch mob'. 'People wanted to see me and hear me talking about things like the postal strike. Let's do it again and do it properly this time,' he added. Grilling: Mr Griffin (centre left) conducted interviews in Essex yesterday when he claimed London had been 'ethnically cleansed'Business Secretary Lord Mandelson admitted the exposure would lead to a short-term bounce for the far-Right party, but predicted that in the long term it will have done them 'no good at all'. More...Nick Griffin: The ogre at the panto Labour let in migrants 'to engineer multicultural UK' Nick Griffin, Jack Straw and the tale of two dads ANALYSIS: The reality behind Nick Griffin's empty rhetoric MAIL COMMENT: BBC show trial that taught us nothing 'When the content sinks in I think people will recoil,' he said. But other senior Labour and Conservative figures said the BBC risked long-term damage by allowing Question Time to be transformed into the 'Nick Griffin Show'. One in five would vote BNPMore than a fifth of voters would consider backing the British National Party in a future election, according to an opinion poll taken in the hours after leader Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC1's Question Time.Some 22% of those questioned said they would "seriously consider" voting BNP in a local, European or general election -  including 4% who said they would "definitely" consider backing the party.3% said they would "probably" consider it, and 15% who said they were "possible" BNP voters While Question Time normally ranges across issues of the day, which this week included the postal strike and the economy, all but one of the questions selected focused on the BNP and its policies. Mr Griffin, one of two BNP candidates elected to the European Parliament earlier this year, faced fierce attacks on race, immigration and the Holocaust. Viewers heard him brand Islam 'wicked' and smear homosexuals as 'creepy'. He went on to make inflammatory remarks about the composition of the audience, suggesting London was 'ethnically cleansed' and 'no longer British'. Labour former Home Secretary David Blunkett said last night: 'The BBC played into Griffin's hands by managing to create a victim out of a perpetrator. Their totally unwarranted blanket coverage on news broadcasts before and after Question Time was blatant self-promotion. 'They made the format so obviously skewed that they have allowed him to play the martyr. It was all about him and the BNP, not about the issues of the day. 'They have achieved his victimhood and that may make people much more open to hearing what he has to say in the future.' The panel (l to r): Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, Conservative shadow cabinet member Sayeeda Warsi, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Dimbleby, Griffin and Bonnie GreerFormer shadow home secretary David Davis said: 'The point of democratic discussion is to dissect the weaknesses and stupidities of extremists, not to make them the gift of martyrdom. 'David Dimbleby is old enough and wise enough to have been able to present a properly impartial exposé of Mr Griffin's many inadequacies without having to resort to such crude stage management.' Labour MP Diane Abbott said Mr Griffin's appearance had given the BNP unnecessary credibility and exposure by 'putting him in the mainstream'. She warned that many people across the country would have thought he was picked on by the other panellists.   TODAY'S POLL  Was Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time a PR victory or disaster for the BNP?  Victory   Disaster VOTE    POLL RESULTS  Close All polls Click to view yesterday's poll results But Labour minister Margaret Hodge, in whose Barking and Dagenham constituency the BNP won 11 council seats in 2006, insisted: 'The BBC gave Nick Griffin the opportunity to show himself up for what he is - flaky, dishonest and bigoted. 'I have been in Barking all day asking people about it, and one or two did say they felt he had been bullied. But overwhelmingly people thought it had exposed him as a bigot.' Activists on far-Right websites condemned the BNP leader for being 'overawed' and 'flustered'. One said: 'The public despise indecisiveness as they see it as weakness, and all these quotes from Nick's past make the party look bad.' The BBC defended the programme, saying viewers would make up their own minds. A spokesman said: 'It is normal for the programme to reflect topics that are in the news - people would accept that the BNP and Question Time have been prominent topics.' Anatomy of an ambush: How the BBC hand picked its audienceQuestion Time is supposed to be a random cross-section of the British public who put the questions of the day to leading politicians. But extraordinary details emerged yesterday of the lengths to which the BBC went to make sure Nick Griffin got his 'comeuppance' on Thursday night's incendiary edition of the programme, which drew a record 8.1million audience. Observers claimed that the make-up of the audience appeared to have been deliberately slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan. Enlarge    A fair cross section of the community? Members of Thursday night's audience were predominantly young and multi-culturalThe BBC flatly denies cherry-picking activists or potential troublemakers. It says that those selected were plucked from a database only containing those who had applied to go on the show before Mr Griffin's appearance had been confirmed. However a British Asian who clashed with the BNP leader revealed last night that he had been approached to take part only a couple of days before the show. Khush Klare, 38, asked Mr Griffin what country a British-born Asian was supposed to return to. He then suggested that Mr Griffin himself should go to the South Pole, provoking a wave of laughter. Mr Klare, a Hindu director of a financial services company, said he had been approached to go on the show by a friend from university. 'When he told me that Nick Griffin would be there on behalf of the BNP, I said, "Absolutely".' Up to ten BNP supporters are thought to have been in the 200-strong audience. The BBC points out that it always attempts to ensure that the audience is representative of the show's town or city - which on Thursday was London. Enlarge    Be provocative: The instructions handed to audience members along with profiles of the panel, starting with Nick GriffinHowever, members of the audience have told the Mail they were handed a detailed crib-sheet which encouraged them to ask questions which were 'short, sharp and provocative'. The word 'provocative' was underlined in the document handed to them before they went into the studio. In addition, this sheet contained profiles of the five guests - Mr Griffin, LibDem Chris Huhne, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Tory peer Baroness Warsi and writer Bonnie Greer. In every single profile, the panellist's views on race was highlighted. During the warm-up for Thursday's recording of the show, audience members were told they should feel free to jeer when they considered it appropriate. Joel Weiner, 17, who confronted Mr Griffin about Holocaust denial, said he applied to appear on the programme more than a year ago but was approached 'out of the blue' on Wednesday - just 24 hours before filming. The schoolboy's grandfather escaped from Germany to Palestine the day before war broke out but many of his family were lost - some, he believes, in Auschwitz. Confrontation: Joel Weiner grilled Mr Griffin about Holocaust denialJoel said he felt it was important to ask Mr Griffin about his views on the Holocaust. 'I wanted to show him for what he was. I think he struggled to answer the question. The atmosphere in the studio was very tense but there was a real sense of camaraderie. Everyone was together against Nick Griffin apart from a small group of supporters.' Those who apply to any Question Time programme have to go through a vetting process via its website. They are asked for their name, age, occupation and contact details, but also if they are members of any political parties or campaign groups. They also answer questions about their views on the situation in Iraq, whether they are pro-Europe or sceptical and what issues they would like to discuss on the show. Audience member Ellen Mellington, a 29-year-old project manager from South London, said members of the production team told her they wanted provocative questions. 'It seemed like they were trying to whip up a bit of a frenzy in the studio. What surprised me most was when David Dimbleby came in before the taping and started to speak to the audience. He told us it was OK to boo, which I didn't quite agree with. I don't think you should boo at people.' Beth Pritchard, from Elephant and Castle, South London, was seen attacking Mr Griffin's views after he claimed teaching homosexuality to school children was 'perverse'. Miss Pritchard told the Mail she was so shocked by his remarks she wanted to make her views heard. 'I was just particularly shocked at the venom coming from Mr Griffin and his supporters in the audience. It was just anger that spurred me on to say something. 'I've never actually experienced anyone making homophobic comments before and I found it quite bizarre.' The 28-year-old bank clerk, who wed her girlfriend two years ago in a civil partnership, said her comment to Mr Griffin had not been one of the two questions she prepared before the taping began. 'Nick Griffin's remarks just riled me,' she said. 'I just put my hand up and they came to me for my comment. There's no way they could have been aware of my sexuality or known who I was. It was all completely random.' Miss Pritchard said audience members were not allocated particular seats and claimed that the 'handful' of BNP members who attended deliberately spread themselves out. 'I think they wanted to make it look like Mr Griffin had a huge range of support across the whole audience.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222586/The-BNP-backlash--MPs-accuse-BBC-playing-Nick-Griffins-hands-stage-managing-Question-Time-onslaught.html#ixzz0UtlDEpIz

Tony Price ● 6183d

Re  The failure of the others will always encourage the extremes.           xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    it is now out in the open that this Govt. have been lying all along re immigration which some of us have suspected for a long time. Not only have they turned a blind eye to it they have been actively encouraged it, totally without permission of the voters of this country. To set out to upset the composition of the UK, it's people culture and customs on the sly is nothing short of treason by traitors. That is why persons are turning to the BNP and probably nothing the other parties can do to stop it. NL can't, that's for sure as they have sown the seeds and will now reap the whirlwind. Chameron holds out no comfort on the matter, and the Glib Dems certainly don't. The whole of London has been changed without a so much as by your leave. I resent my environment being purposely taken away from me. That the SK's of this world welcome it  makes one wonder why. As I always have said, a certain amount of diversity is a good thing but only a certain amount, but not to the extent the tail wags the dog and the indigs have to be changed to comply with the immigrants.Years of trouble lay ahead as the indigs reassert themselves and will turn to any party that proposes such. A sad state of affairs, engineered by thie Govt, for which they will go down in history. And don't forget, they have plans for 6.6 million more. And just for the harasser, I cannot remember the last time I looked at the BNP w/site, it was so long ago, multi-years for sure. I know full well they could never form a government but they do serve a useful purpose, as is now becoming apparent.

Tony Price ● 6182d

Re  One wonders what Jack Straw thinks of his ancestry when deliberately introducing spiteful policies to damage and dilute English culture and heritage instead of naturally safeguarding it.              zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz          very good question Robert, trouble is no political party /  politician will challenge him for fear of being branded racist. That is the absurd  situation and constriction this Govt. and its funded organisations such as Runnymede, Refugee Council, Equalities Commission and Rowntree Trust have engineered so that the whole question of immigration and the effects therof cannot be discussed. And these organisations are either wholly if not mostly run and organised by  persons of either foreign origin or ethnicity. And look at the politicians who have lost their jobs having had the guts to speak out and I don't just mean Enoch, who was not racist but a realist. And that I say applies to most of us.           The Commission for Racial Equality got the 3 main parties in the 97 and next  General Election to sign/ agree that immigration would not be allowed to be raised or discussed, and if that ain't interference in our democracy, I don't what is. And the black organisation BLINK( blown apart by the shenanigans of financer / supporter /  member Lee Jasper) also tried to get the main parties to have their parliamentary candidate lists for London's MPs to consist solely of black persons. Compare that with the BNP's membership requirements.

Tony Price ● 6182d

You say look at BLINK whatever that is, and by implication that their motives are/were extremist. In the same breath you say compare that with the BNP’s membership requirements. Until the recent ruling they only accepted whites in their membership – overtly or covertly.Another extremist stance.Without trawling I think you have said BNP have a cause which is worthy of support - regardless of whether you will vote for them or pay party dues or not.To me you are at the same level of extremism as the BLINKers, because you want to meet them on their own ground – face to face. (not literally).Both the organisations are about appealing to emotions, rather like the Mail or the Mirror.  That is why the language which you and some of your supporters and some of those who oppose you use, are sucked into fairly vile language rather than the cool engagement of reason and measured campaign activism. You are part of a whirlpool – some would call of bile. Perhaps I have missed it, but you barely seem to take the side of coloured ethnic immigrants. Try to remember that the country is changing – inexorably, and has been doing so for long before your first squawk.  Do you really think that the upholders of our heritage in the nineteenth century would have recognised it at all in the 1950/60’s? Did your great grand parents have the vote and pay hearth tax. Judging by the style you have picked up and evacuate over the rest of us, I doubt it.If you know any history, part of the heritage of this country is not to engage in extremism. We learnt our history from that extremist protector,  who wanted to be crowned, Oliver Cromwell - and said never again.OK, there is a serious problem in the UK and it is predicted to get worse.  Try for once in all your threads to address the whole problem, and at least from your side work towards rebuilding some self respect and regard for other people’s views. You don't have to be a Liberal to do that.Because everyone else knows what happens to angry,or did you recently say bloody angry people. They get AMJA'd or similar.

George Knox ● 6181d

Re  I suppose you may have neither.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    and here is bit more for the red breasted one to mull over :-      http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/11/slow-motion-new-labour-putsch- that_01.html#links The slow-motion New Labour putsch that swept our nation away This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column Once again, one of the biggest stories of the week has been widely ignored by the official political reporters, who are not interested in politics. This is the disclosure, by a New Labour apparatchik, Andrew Neather, of the real purpose of his party's immigration policy. The Blairites' aim was to undermine and get rid of traditional conservative British culture. They really did want to turn Britain into a foreign land. Mr Neather wrote an article praising immigration because it provided lots of cheap nannies and gardeners for funky Londoners like him. Apparently thinking nobody would notice, he then revealed that there had been 'a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the UK Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. He recalled coming away from high-level discussions 'with a clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. I have to say I am not surprised. Nor am I so sure about the 'main purpose'. In late 1996, an old friend of mine abandoned his long career as a distinguished journalist and went to work for New Labour. We held a sort of wake, since from now on we would be opponents. I asked him why he had done this awful thing. He replied: 'You have no idea at all just how enormous the New Labour Project is.' This was one of those moments when a shiver really does run down the spine. Knowing the Labour leader to be a Blair of Very Little Brain, I had assumed he was no more than window-dressing for a standard-issue high-tax anti-British socialist government. From then on, I began to suspect that something much bigger was afoot - a gigantic, irreversible cultural, social and sexual revolution, accompanied by huge constitutional change - a slow-motion putsch. I think that suspicion was borne out. Mass immigration, so vast that Britain would have to adapt to the migrants rather than the other way round, would be very useful in attaining this. You could smear your opposition as 'racist' if they dared to resist. And they would run away. Anthony Blair's hysterical speech 'attacking the 'forces of conservatism' in September 1999 was a barely coded warning of what was to come. He all but blamed the Tories for murdering Martin Luther King and locking up Nelson Mandela. He specifically praised the curse of multiculturalism. As my colleague Simon Walters points out, William Hague grasped what was happening, and in March 2001 he sought to oppose it with a bold speech. He warned that after two terms of Labour, Britain would be a 'foreign land'. He was dead right. I have searched out that speech and read it carefully. There isn't a bigoted word in it. But Mr Hague was knifed in the back by liberal Tories and the power-worshipping Murdoch Press, and knifed in the front by Labour, all of whom accused him of somehow playing dirty, 'playing the race card' or 'playing the nationalist card'. A plot to replace him was openly leaked, months before a General Election. Rather than fight to the last, Mr Hague regrettably crumpled in the face of this onslaught. And so perished the last attempt by any mainstream party to address this huge and dangerous issue honestly, or indeed to confront the revolutionary intentions of New Labour. A few weeks later, Mr Blair told the Tories to accept his revolution. They did. And the British people are left without a legitimate voice at Westminster.

Tony Price ● 6175d

"This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column. Once again, one of the biggest stories of the week has been widely ignored by the official political reporters, who are not interested in politics."People ignore Peter Hitchens because he's like you - a nutter."You could smear your opposition as 'racist' if they dared to resist."You've smeared yourself as a racist. You cannot blame anyone else for your vile outpourings. And how interesting that ex-Tory councillor Graham Weeks feels unable to disagree with anything you say."Anthony Blair's hysterical speech 'attacking the 'forces of conservatism' in September 1999 was a barely coded warning of what was to come. He all but blamed the Tories for murdering Martin Luther King and locking up Nelson Mandela. He specifically praised the curse of multiculturalism."That was Blair's best ever speech. And he was right - the Tories did encourage the continued incarceration of Nelson Mandela. They did so by attacking the opponents of apartheid as "terrorists" and by their revolting leader - Margaret Thatcher - speaking out on the world stage against the imposition of sanctions against South Africa."William Hague grasped what was happening, and in March 2001 he sought to oppose it with a bold speech. He warned that after two terms of Labour, Britain would be a 'foreign land'."Hague was a bad joke who ran a thoroughly nasty, bigoted campaign in the 2001 general election. He was roundly thrashed at the polls, and deservedly so.

Robin Taylor ● 6174d

Re  Steven Pound is reduced/elevated to the level of immigrant occupation as we have immigrants who have become MPs.                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx        exactly, and sadly maybe Labour MP's have shot themselves in the feet by chasing all this immigration, which has without any doubt changed the nature and composition of many populations. Southall and good part of Ealing is proof of that. Steven may also suffer the same fate, sadly for whether one is a Labour voter or not, fact remains he is a good MP. And as I have said before, the black organisation BLINK tried to get the 3 main parties to have all black candidate lists for  London MP's at Westminster. No question of integration, take over more likely. The fact they did not succeed doesn't mean they did not try and in so doing showed their hand. They did however succeed in getting immigration a verbotten subject in the first 2 of the last 3 General Elections.We are hostages in our own country. We read the other day re complaints to Diwali ? celebrations being allowed to go on well beyond an acceptable time till 3am, whereas we are not allowed to publicly celebrate our national religion ( Christmas ) as we used to expect, Bibles banned from hospital bedside cabinets, hotels likewise. Holocaust teaching stopped in schools. As Hague said  few years ago, strangers in our own country, thanks to NL traitors. Should be their death knell. Any Party who set out to destroy the population they got to elect them but without telling us what they were going to do should be prosecuted?.

Tony Price ● 6174d

"I had my schooling in the 60s and 70s and we were never taught about the holocaust."-  Blimey, I hadn't realised things had got that bad in the hedification system that era. But didn't you ever see any TV documentaries on the topic, which did continue to be shown frequently throughout?"And anyway, didn't that event come about because people believed the Christian myth about the Jews killing Christ?"-  sorry, no -  that may have been one of the prime motives for some of the mediaeval pogroms (though economic motivation was also prominent on the quiet); but the 1930s/40s German-led but enthusiastically East European-supported holocaust was (to my understanding) primarily economically motivated, however wrongheadedly  -  generations of deep-seated resentment among central and east European peasants who couldn't do sums and didn't understand finance, against local Jewish financiers and tradesmen who they felt always got the better of them, with the explosive addition of middle class Germans and Austrians blaming the same elements for the financial catstrophe post-WW1 which wiped out their savings; all taken advantage of and egged on and marshalled by utterly cynical unscupulous politicians.Not that west Europeans of the last century or more have  all been innocent of such sentiments and attitudes  -  eg the Dreyfus affair in France; and to see what some British upper-class elements thought (?) on the subject, have a read (for example) of certain passages in Osbert Sitwell's post WW1 novel 'Before the Bombardment' set primarily in early 20thC Scarborough but chronicling his perception of the prime causes of key national socio-economic changes of the era.

Chris Veasey ● 6169d