There have been so many column inches - blog, print etc - on Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC's question time last night, that I don't really feel like there's much I can add. However, having been trapped in Broadcasting House in Bristol last night while a bunch of protesters yelled slogans at the front of the building, I think the BBC were totally right to have him on. He's an elected representative of the British people, x amount of Brits have voted for him, and he raises an ugly mirror to the current government; if their policies are so good, why is the number of BNP members expanding?

It was a shame that Jack Straw obviously didn't want to answer that one. The issue of Labour's immigration policies was pretty much the only decent question of the whole night. While I can't deny that seeing someone like Mr. Griffin taking a pasting on national television does give some level of satisfaction, it was also slightly uncomfortable watching the mainstream parties get such an easy ride. I'd have liked to have seen a few more questions and a few less comments.

Now this I really struggle with.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/texas-bible-jury-death-sentence

Well actually, that's not true. I cannot agree with any Biblical basis for the taking of another human life, whether that's through murder by an individual, or the killing of someone sanctioned by the state. Justice, yes, but surely also grace?

But equally, just because someone uses the Bible to influence their opinion, is that inherently wrong? Can anyone claim that strongly held beliefs of theirs would not affect their judgement in a case like this? Today I heard someone I'm worked with say that all paedophiles should be chemically castrated, or that government should re-introduce the death penalty. I don't think this guy's a big Bible-reader, but his views on it are certainly stronger than mine.