Let him on, I say. It's but one of the strands that will 'hang' him and them in the end. So yap away Nicky.

banning him would be massively contradictory. Everyone should be able to see how unpleasant he is, unfortunately I am not sure there are many BNP 'types' who would watch Question Time. You know, open discussion is not really their thing. If he does appear I hope the little oik who was stood next to him on the news yestrday goes too. Did anyone else laugh at him making a complete hash of spraying champagne? he couldn't get the cork out for ages and when he funally did it just sort of ...fell out. very reminiscient of his sex life I shouldn't wonder

It will be the first time I've looked forward to watching QT in ages. Should be a good debate that shows Griffin is out of his depth.

I can't think of any logical reason not to allow Griffin on QT. He's bound to make an idiot of himself and in the process put off a fair few people who might previously have considered voting for him. Also, if you ban the BNP from appearing on the show because there are a lot of people who find the party's views abhorrent, where do you draw the line?

One of Peter Hain's main points is that allowing the BNP on Question Time gives them a tacit respectability, in that they'll be appearing alongside mainstream political parties with open memberships.

I fully agree that we need to highlight their ill-conceived opinions / intellectual failings, but agree with Peter Hain that Question Time is not the right vehicle. Wouldn't you love to see Paxman or Humphrys take Griffin apart?

Expose them by all means, but not via QT. That only helps legitimise them.

Of course I'd like to see Paxo or Humphreys tear into them, but why should that preclude letting the public have a go on QT? I don't really buy the argument that appearing on QT legitimises the BNP at all - are they not already legitimised by being an officially recognised political party in the first place?

Do you really think they're a legitimate party? I suspect not, but there will be some, perhaps some of those in manufacturing communities who are most acutely feeling the effects of the recession, who'll start to think of the BNP as acceptable as a result of this...."If the BBC puts them up alongside the others, then they can't be that bad..."

Two further questions...

1). Who's the most pleased about this - the other parties or Nick Griffin? (let's exclude the BBC execs going for higher ratings for the time being)

2). Who's views are most likely to change as a result of the debate? a). Existing BNP supporters saying, "oh, you know what, Griffin is an idiot, I'm going to tear up my membership card" or b).  the disaffected white saying "you know what, he makes a bit of sense".

I hope I'm wrong but this might just increase support for them.

Unfortunately, the BNP is a legitimate political party in the strictest sense of the word. I don't know what the reaction to Griffin's appearance will be - no one does. I hope that he will be exposed for the unpleasant and ignorant individual that he is. However, you can't exclude the BNP from a QT debate simply on the basis that you're worried it may end up convincing some people to agree with a set of views that you find offensive. It's a very dangerous precedent to set.

If the BNP wasn't a legitimate party surely it would not be able to field candidates in an election. Given his appalling views and twisted view of history, it shouldn't be too difficult for the other panellists to expose his party as the loathsome body it is. This is why it's good that he's going on there, rather than playing the persecuted 'the truth they don't want you to hear' card.

You're both of course technically correct, but I do believe there is (thankfully) a distinction in the eyes of most people between a technically legitimate party and an absolutely legitimate one.

My fear is that QT as a vehicle may assist in narrowing the divide in the eyes of some.  

Jeremy, absolutely agree with your points re. 'the truth they don't want you to hear' and of course that the BNP should be exposed as the vile organisation it is.

But I'm not convinced 'debating' on QT with mainstream MPs (themselves not exactly popular at the moment) is the best way of going about it.

BNP views should be heard in the right environment, but to use QT shows a lack of judgement in my opinion.

As Sue says, give the buggers the rope to hang themselves and they'll be sure to do it.