I think Nick took it on points. It was rigged so he couldn't score a knockout. I agree that Nick was too defensive earlier in the show - when they were hurling quotes he really needed to fire a few back, so he made a tactical error early on in the debate but it's easy to say that when you are not sitting a few yards from a baying mob. He deserves kudos for seeing it through because I think would have just walked out. He came strong in the second half though where it came through very clear that the main parties weren't going to take concerns over immigration seriously. That's the debate the public want, not a witch-hunt.

My main fear was that one of the main parties would show a spine and come out and say "we are going to cap immigration at a regressive level i.e. one that stops the population increasing, and we will also pledge to find homes for immigrants in towns that do not have ethnic minority populations above the national average. When you think about it this was an opportunity for the main parties to really hurt the BNP by announcing a tough stance on immigration and they wasted it. They will regret it at the next election.

What Nick said or didn't say about the holocaust in the 80's and early 90's is pretty irrelevant to most people who vote for the BNP. We know that Jews were gassed, but there is still debate over the actual numbers and much of the evidence backing up the holocaust claims has only become available over the last 15 or so years mainly due to the work of the Shoah Foundation. The real holocaust denialists were the three politicians who wouldn't accept that mass immigration will ultimately destroy the Anglo-saxon and Celtic ethnic groups.

God bless you Nick x

If Trevor Phillips wants to join the BNP that much maybe we could waive the membership fee and throw him a welcome party? The man has gone to such extraordinary lengths to be able to join. Shows just how good the party is if he wants to join that much.

Fact is it would probably would have been better for him in the long run if he had a thrashing instead. He's going to get a criminal record now (which Nick was generously going to spare him from) which could have consequences for the future - let's face it, it doesn't look good at job interviews if you've tried to glass someone! A silly action taht could plague him for years to come. Maybe the BNP could find an alternative for this misguided young man such as a BNP TV recording of this young hooligan apologising to Nick in person and setting the record straight?

It's not the numbers themselves that matter - you've got to start somewhere - it's the direction they go in that counts! Let's face it someone who has voted Labour for the last 30/40 years is unlikely to change their voting habits, but there is a new generation of voters coming into circulation every year with open minds, not being able to get jobs, not being able to get onto the property ladder, unlikely to have a pension of any real value when they retire - this is who the BNP is ultimately for.

Most of us aren't going to need a pension anyway. The government will keep pushing up the retirement age in the hope we die on the job.

We probably couldn't guarantee the safety of Christian missionaries in some areas of our own country these days!!

Can't you take out civil action against Trevor Philips for inciting racial hatred against BNP members? If Nick Griffin MEP suggested the same about Muslims, effectively advocating racist behaviour against them, how can it be considered anything other than inciting racial hatred?

I get the The Sunday Times and while I'm pretty hardened to anti-BNP slurs now I was a bit taken aback by the level of spite here. It is simply the most grotesque article ever written about the BNP. There are untruths contained within the article that can easily be refuted such as the claim that BNP support has dimininished since the last euro elections - actually the BNP increased its support by nearly 20%. As a smear piece it does a pretty poor job because too many claims are easily refutable.

The most ironic thing though is that there is a little article below the piece about journalists who stand by their work when threatened with libel - a stance The Sunday Times hails as noble and ethical. Indeed it is, but obviously not a standard The Sunday Times aspires to since the author was too spineless to put his name to the piece, a glaring sign of trash journalism...

Wasn't it Harriet Harman who wanted to change the law so men accused of rape had to prove their innocence? A bit tough if you had a quiet night in on your own and have no alibi. She's a bit thick even by New Labour standards.

It is previous governments that created a precedent for exclusive membership groups. There are loads of groups that have membership based on discriminatory criteria such as ethnicity, sex and religion so there is nothing unique about the BNP in that respect. It is just another group trying to best represent its membership and believes the best way to do that is to contest elections - there is nothing to stop other groups doing the same, albeit Labour would probably stop funding them if they did. The government could stop it tomorrow by banning all groups of all kinds having exclusive membership criteria although that would seriously undermine their social engineering 'groups' and would have serious implications for their own membership criteria too...