But I wouldn’t expect you to be consistent….

I think your misunderstanding the level I want to aim at:

“I don’t feel comfortable with the (possibly patronising) aspects: e.g. “While we can tell that the BNP are a bunch of racist simpletons, the merest scrutiny of whom reveals them to be idiots, ifa niche political paper interviews them then the gullible public might think they are legitimate”. I trust the British public on this one.”

It’s not that people will suddenly go “oh, that Mr Griffin seems like a nice chap”. It’s about long-run processes of normalisation. Legitimacy is an incredibly important thing in democratic politics; as Hume said, “all government is founded on opinion”, and as I bang on all the time at this site, in politics it matters far more what people will LET you do than what you can FORCE them to endure.

So the question about ordinary people suddenly being “duped” into supporting Griffin, or “failing to see through his lies” – the patronising attitude you’re worried about – isn’t relevant to what I’m getting at. It’s not about “ordinaries” being too stupid to see Griffin for what he is in the here and now. QT showed that the ordinaries were pretty good at calling Griffin on his shit. It’s about the risk of a long-run legitimisation of the BNP as a mainstream political force.

“Otherwise, we have a bigger problem which will not go away from quasi-quasi-censorship.”

Again, the level at which I’m running my argument avoids this point…but makes a similar enough one when I say that we’ll be in serious trouble if the BNP are able to legitimise themselves as a political force. That certainly will not go away by quasi-quasi-censorship…but we’re not there yet. One Total Politics interview won’t take us there, either. Yet there’s the risk of finding ourselves – 100 TV, newspaper and radio interviews down the line – thinking “shit, why didn’t we stand up to the normalisation process right at the beginning?” Ergo, we ought to take the stand at every available opportunity. So that means now.

“Forgive me, but this seems to be taking an empirical/case-by-case approach to the issue, depending on how effective *we* think the BNP will be in the particular media. So if they hire someone more telegenic as their leader, we should take TV appearances more seriously, presumably? Not sure I like where that leads.”

Surely that idea leads to thinking like an economist? I.e. if the empirical data changes, our response changes. Given that Griffin is a TV disaster, I’m quite up for him having occasional appearances to remind people that he’s a berk. Not too many mind – that would help to normalise him, and seeing him endlessly kicked by other panelists and audiences would run the risk of fostering a weird sort of sympathy for him (cf what seems to be happening with Brown in some quarters of the electorate; when you see a dog you hate get kicked so many times, even though you hate the dog you start to feel a bit sorry for it).

If Griffin had the acumen of a Blair or a Clinton, I wouldn’t want him anywhere near a TV studio. Now, that wouldn’t mean I’d dive in and demand the state banning him – which I think is what’s motivating your worry – but I would change my response to the situation.

As I said in the OP, I’m not a uniform No Platformer. These questions are difficult – and we should respond to them with appropriate nuance on a situational basis.

You know what I think. I don’t feel comfortable with the (possibly patronising) aspects: e.g. “While we can tell that the BNP are a bunch of racist simpletons, the merest scrutiny of whom reveals them to be idiots, ifa niche political paper interviews them then the gullible public might think they are legitimate”. I trust the British public on this one. Otherwise, we have a bigger problem which will not go away from quasi-quasi-censorship.

Also:

“Yet a printed interview aimed at nerdy political anoraks is different. Griffin’s weakest asset is his face and his personality. He’s not TV-genic, and he doesn’t know how to behave under public scrutiny. In a magazine interview, those things don’t matter. No matter how “tough” Iain Dale’s questions, Griffin can lie and squirm around them.”

Forgive me, but this seems to be taking an empirical/case-by-case approach to the issue, depending on how effective *we* think the BNP will be in the particular media. So if they hire someone more telegenic as their leader, we should take TV appearances more seriously, presumably? Not sure I like where that leads.

But it’s Friday afternoon and I am not sure I can fill the echo-chamber with even more of my racket at prsent.